Reilly Jones wrote:
> You are correct about it being an improper decision and why it was
> improper.
Here's one more who agrees.
> You are incorrect that there is any 'right to choose to murder
> an unborn child'. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was unthinkable. Roe v. Wade
> stepped in and redefined human [...]
If by that you mean Roe v. Wade was the first ruling ever that abortion
is not necessarily murder, you're out of your tree.
Arjen Kamphuis wrote
> > When you think about it rationally (whatever that still means in this
> > context...) it seems to me clearly immoral to allow all kinds of suffering
> > when we have the means to end it (or most of it).>
RJ:
> Does this include the suffering of the many individuals who are in terrible
> pain helplessly watching the legal slaughter of the innocents? Why isn't
> it immoral to allow this suffering to go on?
For the same reason it's not immoral to allow people to suffer the
presence
of unSaved neighbors.
den Otter wrote 3/6/98:
> > For the record, here's part of my ideology:
> > Pro: Abortion (pro choice, not squeamish about number of months of
> > pregnancy).
> [...]
> > Con: Murder...
RJ:
> Hmmm... Something's fishy here.
Or not, depending on one's beliefs about murder.
Berrie Staring wrote
> > don't do to anyone/anything what you don't
> > want to be done to you. I think it's almost a natural law.>
RJ:
> Then mothers most likely shouldn't murder their unborn children since they
> probably don't want to be murdered themselves.
And don't eat anything, if you prefer not to be eaten.
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 !! visiting New Mexico, end of March !!