From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:41:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215222.29399@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr11.165913.2501@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>
>>>As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
>>>be Pro-Family.
>
>>Why?
>
>>Sounds the same as "Pro-life cannot be Pro-family".
>
>Because the term "family" would inherently include all members the group
>it describes.  If you're killing your children that is "anti-family".
>But wait!  I'm assuming a "fetus" is a "child"!  Because that is the ONLY
>real issue and all arguments/debates will (if progressing logically) lead
>back to this as I stated "weeks ago".  The Socratic method is quite
>enlightening.

Please point me to the article where you supported your assertion that an 8
week fetus is a child. I must have missed it.

I don't consider fetal tissue a member of my family. You may, and that is your
prerogative.

>>>  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
>>>ultimatly, murder of children.
>
>>Ok, list the areas of misinformation and deceit and then, support you assertion
>>that 1) abortion is murder, 2) an 8 week fetus is a child.
>
>1)  If the fetus is a child, abortion is murder.

Right, support the assertion that an 8 week fetus is a child.


>2)  Since it is the child that is dying (not the mother) we should default
>    to assuming the fetus is a child until proven otherwise.


Why *should* we default to this. Because *you* think we should? Do you have 
other reasons? I am not going to default to anything just because someone
says I should. I would like to hear some reasons.



>  BTW  when do
>    you think a fetus "becomes" a child.


At birth. It is part of the definition of the word as used in our language.
If you want another term for it, make one and define it. It doesn't matter.


>  Do the new sugical procedures
>    which involve bringing the child partially from the womb grant him/
>    her temporary personhood, only to be taken away when stuffed back in?

I hadn't heard of an medical procedure that can bring a child only 'partly' 
from a womb. Please describe this procedure. It sounds relevant.

>>I've been asking you to do this for weeks now, still no support.
>
>You've only been listening to the parts you can argure with.

You have not addressed support at all that I have seen. I can argue with
*anything*. I will only argue with the things you say that you are not
supporting. If you have supported your statements well enough, I *cannot*
refute them. They will be true. Go for it.


>>So far, this has only been attempted with saying things like "a person who
>>does one thing that Catholics are against cannot be Catholic." and the like.
>
>You are a liar.


I have lied, just not on this group. If something I said was wrong, it was an
error, not a lie.


>  The only statements I made regarding Catholics are that I
>was not one (to divert that stupid arguement from the start).
>


I did not say that you personally said anything about Catholics. I spoke in the
infinitive.


>>>  When a man loves a woman, he would do his
>>>best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.
>
>>"Insure" (ensure) or force?  
>
>I would ENSURE (oh tragedy, a mithspelling), Pro-Choice forces death.

I was uncertain which you meant, hence the  parens. 

Another reassertion of something unsupported.

>>"I love you so much, honey, your going to have that child no matter what you
>>want." 
>>Doesn't really have the flavor of love in it does it?
>
>"I love you lots, honey, but I'm still going to kill your child".

Do you know of any man that has *forced* an abortion on a woman?

Pro-choicers like me are against that behavior because it violates her freedom
of choice.

Where did that come from?

>Obviously I win that one.

On what grounds?

>BTW your point seems to say that you will doing anything (including 
>murder) in the name of love.
>

Does anyone else read my message that way?

>profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
>animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
>prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
>schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty


All your ideas about who "god" is, what 'family' means to you etc.

Why do the women on this group see you as not being "pro-women"?

Please use your love of the socratic method here. I have missed some of 
your arguments in the past, obviously.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************