From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:34:38 GMT

>WITH RESPECT TO:
>From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu
>Subject: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
>
>In turn
>I will attempt to be civil, and ask that those who support your views
>extend to me the same courtesy.

'Tis done -- unlike those who have flamed me for that posting, to which I
returned exactly that.

>Let me address your rebuttal as best I can.  You question or state....
>
>1. A woman should have a choice.
>
>  To give birth or have her child killed?
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
First off, what do you mean by "your premise that potential = actual".  Sorry
if I'm being ignorant, but I haven't figured out how you relate this objection
to whatever it is I'm talking about.
>  When a woman conceives, she becomes a mother.
>   - Your opinion
Definition.  Look it up.
>  She will eventually regret that choice (abortion).
>   - Your opinion
Majority vote.
>  Quote from Susan Carpenter McMillan
>   - Her opinion
Your point?
>  Quote from Deuteronomy
>   - I question the relevance
I'm a Christian -- it has relevance to me, as it does (or should) to any other
Christian out there.  And it's Old Testament, so it should have relevance for
Jews, too.  Or were you questioning the relevance of the verse itself?  If
that is the case, I'd ask you to explain more -- for I fail to see how it
CANNOT be relevant.

>2.  In the case of rape.
>  Conception from criminal rape is rare.
>   - still it does happen, as does conception from incest.
Granted.
>  Should conception occur, abortion is not advisable.
>   - Your opinion
An assertion supported by the rest of this section.
>  A child does not deserve to die for its father's crime.
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
Again, your confusing response.  I still don't see why you disagree with this.
Does a child deserve to die for his father's crime?  Surely not!
>  Abortion is likely to be a second traumatic experience for the victim.
>   - I agree, but I argue the trauma comes from confrontations with
>     representatives of organizations like Operation Rescue.
Such organizations don't reach everybody that have abortions.  Nor can I
POSSIBLY believe that an organization can cause trauma that overshadows the
trauma caused by destroying an unborn child that YOU carry.
>  Abortion instills the memory of infanticide.
>   - Your opinion
Your point?
>  Abortion is like rape, both are violent acts against innocent victims.
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
No comment.

>3.  To reduce illegal back-alley abortions.
>
>  "CHILD AND FAMILY" Vs "Planned Parenthood"
>   - I question the relevance and bias of statistics from the early 60's
Did I say early?  Well, anyway, in order to obtain statistics from before
Roe vs. Wade, you need to go back a ways.  Granted, it isn't 1972, but hey, I
was lucky I could find what I put.
>  More women are injured by abortion today than ever before.
>   - Your opinion?
>   - What about the percentage of injuries?  Down I would hazard.
Not my opinion.

>4.  To prevent child abuse.
>
>  Abortion is itself the ultimate form of child abuse.
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
Granted, it is a premise.  Your point?
>  Following Roe vs. Wade, the cases of child abuse in America rose 500%
>   - correlation Vs. causation
This is the first case where you give this argument.  I find it hard to
believe that two such related items occurred independent of each other.  But
suppose the two aren't related?  You are still riding on the wing of chance
by assuming the next THREE instances where you use this argument were with
regard to unrelated items.
>  Planned Parenthood kills 100,000 children in their own U.S. clinics annually
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
It's a statistic.  It ain't a premise regardless of what's potential and what's
actual.  If you have a problem with my wording ("kills") then that's one
thing.  But I used "kills" for a reason.  That's what it is.  My opinion?  Yes,
as supported by the REST of this post.
>  Most child abusers wanted their children.
>   - Your point???
That most child abuse cases were not the result of denial of abortion.
>  A correlation does exist between abuse and abortion.
>   - correlation does not imply causation!
>   - The doctor's statements are speculative at best.
Doctor's statements are better than your own, in most cases.  Second, THE
PURPOSE of this section was to refute the argument that denying abortion
causes abuse -- that means I'm refuting an argument which already assumes there
IS a cause/effect relationship between abortion and abuse.  If you do not
believe there is such a cause/effect relationship, then you wouldn't use this
pro-choice argument, and therefore this section is irrelevant to addressing
your views.

>5.  To save relationships.
>
>  70% of relationships end within one month of an abortion.
>   - perhaps this is the whole point.  I could just as easily argue
>     this for my case!
You could?  The argument being refuted is:  "Abortion saves relationships."
My statistic shows that abortion has a tendency to destroy relationships.
How the heck can you use that?
>  75% of male respondents had persistent nightmares.
>   - Your point???
>   - It is her body!  How many woman have nightmares about an unwanted
>     pregnancy!
I dunno.  Your point?  I might also add that this point that you paraphrased
from my post was taken out of context, but since you've been very good about
it so far, I won't press it.

>6.  A woman has a "right" to control her own body.
>
>  Yes, but not another individual's body, which the unborn child surely is.
>   - Your premise that potential = actual
This premise was supported in detail.
>  Genetically, mother and baby are separate from conception.
>   - I would hope so!
:-)
>   - I intentionally removed "individuals" from the statement.  If you
>     reinsert it then it becomes the doctor's premise like yours
And is your implication that a baby is not an individual.  That is YOUR premise.
Your point?
>  A woman best controls her body by protecting her baby's sanctuary
>   - Your opinion
Yup.

>7,8 ,9.  To prevent possible suicide. Relive stress.  For mental health.
>
>  Abortion causes suicide.
>   - correlation Vs. causation
Statistics were given that make it hard to believe the two aren't related in
many cases.
>   - I argue that pregnancy introduces the threat of suicide.
But my argument was that abortion increases the threat.
>   - How many women did not kill themselves because abortion was an option?
See the last line I wrote.
>  Those whom abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds
>  have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders.
>   - does that surprise you?
:-)  Actually, no.  I applaud your response to this.  I can't deny the
validity of that point at all.

>10. To relieve women of unwanted pregnancies
>
>  Clinic counselors withhold information about the impact of abortion.
>   - Your opinion
Fact.  Either they do (in general) or they don't (in general).  In a case like
that, what does my opinion matter at all?  If they do, it is fact.  If they
don't, it was a lie.  Check it out for yourself.  It's not just my opinion, and
nor is it a lie.
>  An "unwanted child" does not exist.
>   - Your opinion
>   - Say what????
Taken out of context.  The mother may not want it, but there are others that
would.  Also -- not my opinion.  There are people out there who *want* to
adopt children, and often there are more of those than there are children.
>  Several American families desire each child available for adoption
>   - Your opinion
Fact.
>   - I can tell you that this is simply NOT true.  People are not
>     lining up to adopt AIDS infected crack babies.  I wish it were
>     true, but it is not.
Point taken.

>11. The fetus is mere tissue or only uterine in content.
>
>  A preborn child is very human.
>   - genetically yes.
>  His sole needs are nutrition and time to grow.
>   - Your opinion
Please.  This really *is* getting a little silly, isn't it?
>  All bodily systems are working.
>   - Though not sustaining
Your point?
>  Time of birth can not be controlled by mother.
>   - Your point???
That the baby is more than just a blob of tissue.  It makes the *decision*
when it is going to be born.  My point is only this.  If you don't see the
relevance, I have to question how thoroughly you are thinking this particular
point through.

>12, 13.  Abortion is safer than childbirth.
>
>  Medical research considers abortion to be serious surgery
>   - So is heart bypass.
Your point?  Mine was merely a precedent for what was to follow.
>  Risk increase with time into pregnancy.
>   - Your point???
>  The younger the patient and the further along, the greater the risk
>   - Your point???
This is somewhat misquoted or misparaphrased, too.  My point was that in ALL
stages of pregnancy, abortion is more dangerous than letting than childbirth.
Abortion in early stages of pregnancy is twice as dangerous.  In middle and
later stages, it is even more than twice as dangerous.  This is the direct
opposite of the pro-choice argument I was refuting ("abortion is safer than
childbirth"), and therefore my point should be obvious.
>  Pregnancy at 12 does not appear to be inherently high risk.
>   - I am skeptical.
>   - How about emotional risk.
Abortion would only increase the emotional risk.  My opinion?  Yes.  Your point?

>14.  Abortion is permitted only in early months of pregnancy.
>
>  America is the only developed nation to allow end of term abortions.
>   - Your point?
>  Abortion can never outgrow its pagan heritage.
>   - Your opinion
>   - Other forms of medicine have.
1:  We aren't discussing other forms of medicine.
2:  My point was that the "pagan heritage" is the killing of children.
    That's it.  No comments made on the methods used, here.

>15.  A human fetus cannot feel pain.
>
>  But indeed it can.
>   - So can ameba.
Don't equate an unborn baby with an amoeba.  Oh, you aren't?  Then don't use
an amoeba as an example.

>16.  The child may be handicapped or deformed.
>
>  Does abortion correct God's mistakes?
>   - Your point?
Answer the question.

>17, 18.  To control population and food supply and save taxpayer's money.
>
>  Please do not insult me!
How so?  By including such a ridiculous pro-choice argument?  But many
pro-choicers use that one.  If you don't, I'm very glad.
Or did you mean I was insulting you with my argument?  Sounds like a cop out
response to me, especially since you didn't even paraphrase the arguments.

>19.  An unborn child has no rights.
>
>  Rights can be transferred to an unborn.
>   - I can do the same for my pet fish.
Clever.  But I have to question to what extreme.
-- 
//================================================================\\
||  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:  ||
||      no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  John 14:6      ||
\\================================================================//
           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.
//================================================================\\
||         ss1@kepler.unh.edu       ss_cs611@unhh.unh.edu         ||