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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!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: "rights" to life, and a question Message-ID: <433@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 20:33:40 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.433 Posted: Wed Aug 21 20:33:40 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 23:59:24 EDT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 18 > Ah yea, the "responsibility" argument But why should not women have the > right to reproductive freedom *and* guilt-free pleasurable sex. Sex and pregnancy are interrelated. This is not a result of some great plot by society, but of simple biology. Except in cases of rape/incest, you *can* control whether or not you will get pregnant, and thus have no grounds for the statement 'the pregnancy was forced on me'. The right to life is much more important than the 'right' not to need to make any choices. I assume the 'guilt-free pleasurable' part was thrown in just to implicitly smear pro-lifers. There is no reason why responsibility to unborn children should at all be related to guilt/lack-of-guilt concerning sex. By the way, why is it that the people using words like "slut", "prevert", etc. in their arguments all seem to be pro-choicers? -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA