Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: informed choices? Message-ID: <412@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 21:47:51 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.412 Posted: Sun Aug 4 21:47:51 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 02:21:04 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 17 > . . . I don't think Planned Parenthood's philosophies would harmonize > with the sexist "copulate-and-suffer" attitude of many "pro-lifers." I suppose comments could be made about many "pro-choicers" whose attitude is "copulate and make the baby suffer". But if 'suffering' results from an activity, who should bear its costs: the people who decided to engage in that activity, or another person who didn't exist before the start of the activity and therefore had no control over it? Would you oppose laws against drunk driving because there may be some people who have a "drink and suffer" attitude? And would the existence of such people invalidate the other, good arguments against drunk driving? Or would bringing the issue up often just tend to smear the other people against drunk driving by association? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA