Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Miscellaneous Ironies
Message-ID: <930@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 18:20:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.930
Posted: Tue Aug 13 18:20:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 05:22:07 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 102

Trying to catch up on the news after my vacation (did anyone
miss me?), I read several articles containing statements which
struck me as ironic.  These are excerpted below.

Sophie:
> > > Come on Rich, admit that you made a mistake.  Fetuses are alive.
Rich:
> > The fact the the fetus requires the environment of a human being's body
> > to provide it with support tells me quite clearly that it is not alive.
> > If you disagree with that notion, fine.  That goes against definitions of
> > life as we know it, but that's OK, the net is full of people who make
> > up their own definitions at whim.  [FLAME OFF]

How ironic for Rich Rosen to complain about "people who make up their
own definitions at whim."  Did Laura Creighton ever convince him that
Buddhism is a religion?  Not that I want to re-start that argument --
just an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Marie:
> This argument is a lot like the argument behind euthanasia (which,
> by the way, I am for).  Someone who is totally dependent on another
> person/machine (i.e. mother or life support machine) for life is
> on the borderline of what we would call a living person.  (At least
> this is true for me.)  They're certainly not the same question,
> but I think they have something in common.  I wonder if there is
> any correlation between those in favor of abortion on demand and
> those in favor of euthanasia.  
> (this just occurred to me and I thought I'd let you all share in
> the excitement...)

More irony.  When pro-lifers say that widespread acceptance of
abortion will lead to a general cheapening of human life, and so
allow acceptance of other killings, such as euthanasia and infanticide,
pro-choicers protest about straw man arguments and assert that
of course they support the right of those already born to live.
I don't mean to pick personally on Marie; Charles Forsythe has
already stated that he sees nothing wrong with doing away with
unwanted children up to the age of three *years*.  And, another
example:

Brian Peterson writes:
> [explanation of two meanings of the word life omitted -- type
> one being "similar to 'metabolism'" and type two being a
> "continuum of experiences"]

> I feel that the second kind of life is not present until the first
> weeks or so (not exactly sure) after birth in homo-sapiens.  (I also
> feel that other species, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee, have
> this second kind of life.)  Thus, abortion is not very bad, since
> there doesn't even exist a life of the second type in the creature
> being aborted.  Prohibiting abortion is bad, becuase it interferes
> with someone's life (second kind).

Note that according to Brian, this second type of life, the one which
is truly important, does not begin "the first weeks *or so* (?) AFTER
birth.  Which means that he also supports infanticide.  It also means
that he is not aware of just how much the unborn can experience.

Then there is Sophie Quigley:
> ... People who would be better off having abortions
> are still deciding to keep the child anyway.  Do you think that there
> should be laws enforcing abortion for people who obviously can't take
> care of their children.  I certainly don't believe so.

Sophie thinks she can tell who would be better off having an abortion,
and who obviously can't take care of their children.  Sounds pretty
presumptuous.  Aren't pro-lifers accused of presumption when they
say that a woman should not abort?

And it must have been unintentional that Sophie referred to the
fetus as a "child."

While I'm on the subject of people knowing what would or
would not ruin someone else's life:

According to the recent People magazine article on abortion
in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade, Ms. Roe (a pseudonym) was, a
classic hard luck case -- pregnant as a result of rape, unmarried,
poor, etc. etc.  Having a child would certainly irrevocably ruin
her life.  Yet she had the child -- it was two years old, and had
been adopted by the time the case was decided -- and her life
apparently kept right on going.  I certainly don't know what her
life would have been like if she had had an abortion.  But the
pro-choice people , somehow "knew" that her life would be ruined
if she weren't allowed to have an abortion, and therefore they
took the case to court, and, ironically, told her not to have
an abortion (since it might hurt the legal case).

(Once the Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Roe's favor, wouldn't it
have been consistent to kill the child?)

Back to Sophie:
> PS: laws against public place smoking are not there to protect smokers
> against themselves.  They are there to protect non-smokers against
> smokers.  (OK, shoot ahead about laws against abortions being there to
> protect fetuses !!!)

OK: "Laws against abortion are there to protect fetuses."  What did
*you* think was the purpose of laws against abortion?

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys