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