From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 02:00:45 GMT

In <1a7726INNcp4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.215333.2878@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>>>indeed, justified.  
>>>
>>>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>>>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>>>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.
>>>
>>I was merely putting forward the general impression I got from your last
>>post.  In a way, it was like saying "You said ________, right?"  Based on
>>your response, I do get at least a partial yes on it.

>Then you'd be wrong.  I said that abortion may well be justified.  That
>had zip to do with 'dehumanizing' a fetus.

>An zip to do with your speculative analysis of my state of mind, thanks.

There's that word *zip*.  I'll see you over at "Adrienne's appalling
attitude towards the unborn," and raise you a "nada nothing."  There
you'll see Adrienne's state of mind, all right. 

>Besides, you would be wrong more often than right, and your own credibility
>takes a nose dive.  Wouldn't want *that* to happen.

Oh, really?

Martin, have a look at the "SAT worship thread" where I followed up today
to a post by Adrienne.  Her credibility ought to take a nosedive
from that, judging from how harshly she judges you for *guessing*, 
albeit correctly in the instance I haven't deleted above.  As to 
whether you were correct about the other, she'd probably be the last to tell
you if you *were*, judging how imperiously she judged you on your
demonstrably *correct* guess.

>>What I mean by chosen is that first you have Sarah in the womb.  Do you
>>keep or let her live?  Then later, you have Mark.  Do you let him live
>>or abort his life?  It goes to a point where those who are living become
>>the chosen few, while those who are aborted become the "rejected."  I find
>>it terrible to have to reject our children violently via abortion.

>Why?  If one can reasonably afford two children, and one wishes to have two
>children, and one can provide for two children without having to become
>wards of the state, you find it tragic that a couple would actually stick
>to their resolve to have two and only two children?

If they kill the third in the womb, yes.

By the way, Adrienne, if you took my "What do you mean `We', white woman?"
as a rhetorical question, don't.  I really want to know what you meant
when you said, "We currently kill it and remove it..."

>You think it is less tragic for people to have to bear, in some 'violence'
>may I add, additional children that they KNOW they cannot afford?  That
>they KNOW they cannot provide for?  There's some compassion, yep.

How does that `violence' compare to being torn apart?  

If they cannot provide for it, what's wrong with putting it up
for adoption, when there are WOMEN desperately looking for
someone to adopt?  Where's your compassion for these women--
living, breathing women, Adrienne? 

>>I DID NOT say this.  You misinterpreted it.  I said:

>Funny how that happens.  "gee, I was only summarizing....."

I haven't been keeping score, but I think Martin is well ahead in this
game.

>Somehow I don't think that rejecting it 'nonviolently' would meet with your
>approval.  Tell me if I'm wrong.  Are you a big supporter of RU-486?

I wonder whether any kind of killing can be classed as nonviolent. 
If Mahatma Ghandi had killed someone with a painless poison, would
*anyone* think of him as nonviolent?

>BTW "we" aren't sure of anything, because "we" aren't involved in the
>situations of other people.  They aren't sure of anything either, but 
>THEY have to live with THEIR decisions, and therefore make the decisions
>that look best to them.  And along with you argument that people all over
>the place have nice stories to tell about their siblings, likewise would
>people all over the place have nasty stories to tell about their siblings.
>Thus I don't think the stories that people have to tell about their 
>siblings is a good basis for legislation.

>>And even those who have had
>>abortions, way back in their mind (it may be buried very deeply though),
>>may feel that something unnatural and fatal was performed.

>Maybe.  Maybe not.  Since *I* don't know, and since *YOU* don't know, I
>figure I should keep my nose out of their business.  I also figure you 
>should keep your nose out of their business.

>And there are likewise people out there who HAD children who may feel in 
>the back of their mind (it may be buried very deeply though) that 
>having the baby was a MISTAKE!!!!!  

So, why don't they kill it?  Seems to follow logically from everything
you write above.  

Oh, I get it, it's illegal.  

But wait.  If abortion would be illegal, would you support the law 
that makes it so?  No? Then why do you support the law that makes
killing this MISTAKE (!!!!!) illegal? 

>You would question one, but not the other.  Why is that?  Intellectual
>honesty demands,  if we question one side of the equation, that we likewiswe
>question the other.

You said it, not I.  If you question legislation on one side of the
dividing line called birth, why do you not question it on the other?

>Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40794 talk.religion.misc:17729 alt.atheism:18432