.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 154
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 87
Date:         Wed, 19 Apr 89 18:00:46 EDT
From:         "Homer W. Smith" 
Subject:      Re: Abortions, and lettuce.
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sun, 2 Apr 89 23:55:00 CST from 

>
>
>
>
>        MR. REESE ISBELL HAS PUT ME ON THE SPOT BY ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN TO
>ADORE-L WHY I FAVOR A 70% REVERSAL OF ROE -VS- WADE. I REALLY DO NOT WANT
>TO TURN THIS LIST INTO SOME KIND OF ABORTION/ANTI-ABORTION DEBATE.
>NEVERTHELESS, I DO FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND THE
>STATEMENT I MADE TO HIM.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        Common sense tells us that life begins at some point earlier than
>birth. The question is, when? It seems like premature babies are surviving
>more and more often with amazingly short gestation periods. I know of cases
>of pregnancies lasting less that half the normal length and the child
>surviving and developing normally. Will an absolute limit ever be found as
>to how soon a baby can be removed from the womb and survive? I don't know.
>Perhaps there is some limit somewhere, or perhaps, as techology develops
>further, even embryos will someday be capable of surviving outside the
>womb. As long as there is this possibility, it is not worth the risk of
>ending a human life.
>        Then there are those who cry "It's the woman's right to choose."
>This has got to be the most idiotic and illogical arguement i have ever
>heard in favor of abortions. First of all, the woman started out with the
>right to choose to thwarple. Then she has the right to choose whether or
>not either partner uses any form of contraceptive. There is no reasonable
>excuse not to use any. These are the choices she has to make. If she
>chooses incorrectly, then she must bear the responsibility for her
>mistakes. Using the claim of "woman's right" is like stating that the
>rights of the mother supoersede the rights of her child, even at the stake
>of her child's life.
>        True, there a a few cases in which abortion is a legitimate
>procedure. this is why I do not favor a complete overturning. Rape is one
>example. So is endangerment of the mother's life. I might even also support
>it if contraceptives failed to work, but this would be so ambiguous that it
>might act as a loophole for some self-centered pro-lifer to sneak through.
>
>        There, that's it. you got it, Reese. i know some of you out there
>won't like what I just said. but if you don't, it's your own loss.
>
>-Scott
>

     If the parents have the right to CREATE life, they should
also have the right to DESTROY the life they created.

     This 'God made it and humans killed it' crap is a cloud
over good judgement.

     A human body is an animal.  The spirit is not the body.
We kill all sorts of animals with out compunction.  So why
not the human body?

     Yes we tread on dangerous territory here, but nothing
is so dangerous as a planet full of assholes who all think
they are bodies forever more.

     If people can chose to create life, why can they not
chose to take life?  Escpecially if it is the life they
created it?

     If I mate two dogs, and then kill the puppies, do I then
deserve to be killed for this.  Maybe it is distasteful what I have
done considering how cute the puppies are, but saying that I mated
them so I should suffer the consequences is your asshole talking out
of turn.  WHY should I suffer the consequences?  Why not just do
away with them?

     Telling people they can not destroy what they have created, and
that they should suffer the consequences of their actions, when the
situation is easily reversed is ridiculous.

     Just as women should not be allowed to vote on whether men
should go to war or not, men should not be allowed to vote on
abortion.

 Homer W. Smith      Adore-l list         4/19/89*Abortions, and lettuce.