From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Chris Lyman -- Get a real argument! (was Re: Greetings
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:21:20 GMT

Oh nuts, here goes my New Year's resolution right out the window...

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>> chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>> Imo, the evolution/creation debate is yet another facet of what seems to
>>>> be a cultural war between the radical and/or religious right and the
>>>> progressive and/or humanist left.  I am particularly struck by the
>>>> similarity of mindsets between creationists and anti-abortionists.

>>> Here it is once again assumed that all anti-abortionists are religious
>>> zealots.  I am an atheist, anti-creationist, and anti-abortionist.

>> My mistake.  I hadn't posted in two weeks (got rusty, you know), and so
>> neglected to insert the appropriate qualifiers.  

> In other words, you accidently let your true colors shine through.

Yes, I admit my mistakes. Can you say the same?

> Chris Lyman, like so many other pro-choicers, can't seem to stop
> portraying pro-lifers as religious zealots, despite evidence from
> this newsgroup that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular 
> reasons.  If the religious stereotype were to crumble, Chris Lyman
> would actually have to start presenting solid arguments, instead of
> the shoddy arguments based upon stereotypes which we are often accustomed 
> to seeing from him, such as the following statement:

Doug, you're right.  I can't seem to stop portraying pro-lifers as religious
zealots, but that's because I don't.  The religious zealots who post here do
that for me.

>> However, I invite you to
>> attend an anti-abortion demonstration so you can see for yourself
>> the religious content of the signs and the slogans.

> I challenge Chris Lyman to present a rational argument in support
> of abortion rights, if he is able to, instead of rationalizing 
> his position using a stereotype that no thinking person could
> mistake as a serious argument.

Non-responsive to my invitation.  I cross-challenge you, Doug.  Disprove
the following statement which I have made many times:

	"The most important reason for a woman to be pregnant is that
	 she wants to be pregnant and bear a child."

>>> I understand your outrage.  Indeed, I feel much of it myself.  I
>>> think we must refrain from dismissing a certain viewpoint merely
>>> because idiots espouse it, however.  You will find that there are
>>> idiots in every cause.

>> Agreed, with reservations.  Wrt anti-abortionists, I see all too often
>> an unwillingness to incorporate facts presented in this forum into their
>> thinking.  Very much like creationists.  This kind of anti-intellectualism
>> does not serve the future of our Republic very well, imo.

> It is Chris Lyman who is unwilling to incorporate facts into his
> thinking.  He, and others like him, refuse to consider the fact
> that many pro-lifers are opposed to abortion for secular reasons.

Such as?

> He must resort to stereotypes and appeals to anti-religious bigotry
> in order to support his position.

Well, I'm sure you have plenty of facts to back up this charge of anti-
religious bigotry.  Since you are so on fire about the importance of facts
you'll share some with us, won't you, Doug?

In other words, put up or shut up.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion