From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Annoying rhetorical habits
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:24:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.035625.18032@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>	The following paragraphs rather jumped out at me from a recent post
>by Mr. Martin Guerrero:
>
>>Once people realize that that which is killed during abortion is a human
>>life, then there is a much better chance that that person may change his/her
>>mind on abortion.  Of course, not everyone knows that.  Some people still
>>think that the unborn is just a bunch of human tissue.
>> 
>[...]
>>Educating people about the existence of human life at conception could
>>be seen as a first step.  For once people know that, I am hoping that
>>our fellow brothers and sisters general sense of social responsibility
>>when it comes to the dignity of human life everywhere will realize that
>>more is at stake here than just the mother having a "mere medical procedure."
> 
>        I abstracted these to illustrate one of the rhetorical habits of the
>anti-abortion crowd (well, *some* of them, anyway) that particularly gets on
>my nerves:  the assumption that if you don't buy the idea that a zygote is
>*exactly the same* as a born child, you're simply ignorant or misguided.  If
>you only knew the Truth(tm), like Martin here, you'd naturally agree with him.
>You simply need to be "educated"!

One pregnant mother once commented that she had a sonogram done and after
seeing the sonogram "no one would ever have an abortion."  You may throw
me off for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean certain things don't
exist.  The pregnant mother was defintely moved by the sonogram experience.
Whatever "education" was done in the process of the sonogram, it produced
a positive change in her.  Any thought of abortion was quickly removed
from her head.

There are also instances where the mother has a miscarriage and loses
some "human tissue" in the house.  Her doctor requested for her (and her
husband) to look for the "human tissue."  When they did find, the "human
tissue" they broke into tears.  That "human tissue" to them was as human
as anybody else.  They mourned for their loss.

Changes in attitude occured because certain things which weren't evident
to the people involved suddenly became apparent.  The unborn, to them,
became much more "human" than they originally envisioned. 

There are tons of people who say they are "against abortion."  If you
are against abortion, wouldn't you at least give people a chance to know
exactly what they are dealing with?

>	I don't know this person at all, so I don't know whether he's as smug
>and self-congratulatory in real life as he seems on the net or not.  I hope
>not.  I just wish he'd take a look at how his posts come across to the rest of
>us.  It's hardly the sort of attitude conducive to civilized dialog.

BTW, there are pro-choice people who do support some means of "educating" 
whether it be a sonagram, better education in HS, etc.  So why don't you 
get on their case too.

>	Yeah, I know: a lot of the regulars here aren't the least bit
>interested in dialog of any kind.  The Forgach/Nykios/Chaneyhall types are
>mostly interested in reasserting their own notions of righteousness by
>scorning the UnGodly; ditto for some of their analogs on the pro-choice side.
>But some of us would still prefer some intelligent discussion, and would
>prefer not to be treated as idiots in need of "education", thank you very much.

The people in the two situations above were probably very intelligent
people.  But yet, they were very moved by their experiences.  How can this
be?  

>	We now return you to your regularly-scheduled food fight.

No food was thrown, btw.