From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:58:44 GMT

In <Bx47Iw.FBz@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <1992Oct26.131243.8107@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>In article <BwqKLv.F6p@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct25.231647.8094@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>>>I find it interesting that when the pro-child killers speak they can only twist
>>>>others words instead of using straight logical answers.
>>> 
>>> Like calling pro-choice people "pro-child killers"?  Yep, talk about your
>>> basic straight, logical answer there...

"We kill it and remove it..."--Adrienne Regard

Of course, she did not call it an unborn child, but the Colorado State
supreme court called it that in an 1872 decision concerning a state
law designed to protect the unborn child as well as its mother.

>>> --PLH (only six months until summer, when a little peace and quiet will
>>> reign in this newsgroup...)

Maybe now that the election is over, the same thing will happen.

>>That is no  twist of words.  It is the truth.  

>So you think all people who have abortions are "child killers"?

Yes, killers by proxy of unborn children.  See above.  Note, clifton
did not use the words "murderers" or even "homicidal."

I wonder whether Roby or Humphreay ever heard of "weed killer" or "spermicidal
[compare "homicidal"] foam.

>Do you want to hang them all for murder?  We could try them in court 
>and easily execute millions of women for the crime of child-killer.
>Is that what you want?  If not, then your "truth" has no important 
>consequences.  I would never use the term "child-killer" myself, 
>unless I was referring to someone so despicable that I knew they 
>should be tried and punished.

I could have a field day with the words "weed killer", but I'll
restrain myself.

>>For someone to call it
>>pro-choice is a twist of words.  

>>The baby had no choice, did it?  

>Never had.  Never will.  Simply not capable of decision-making yet.  The 
>choice is the woman's (unless the government decides to choose for her).

The unborn child's choice is held in abeyance by the government.

>>When was it asked about not living?  

>How would it answer?  How could it think intelligently about 
>the meaning of the question having never been outside of the womb?
>Now who is playing with words????

As usual, a prelude to some flaming playing with words.

>Many people pray to God before an abortion, asking which is the right way 
>for them.  If you prefer, you can think of the fetus being asked 
>(through God) at this time.  And apparently the fetus replies "Don't 
>wanna get born", if the prayer session ends with person deciding to abort.

>See -- I can play with words, too.  Doesn't mean anything, does it?

I'm familiar with this talk.abortion.choice.pro ploy.  Adrienne flames
Martin Guerrero for a correct guess and a not-obviously-unwarranted guess,
then has a field day with her flamethrower, hurling all kinds of wild
guesses as to his state of mind.

Reminds me of Genesis 4:23-24:

	I killed a man for wounding me,
	A boy for striking me.
	Sevenfold vengeance is taken for Cain,
	But seventy-sevenfold for Lamech.

BTW that is not a bad description of a lot of abortions, although the 
unborn girl is slightly more likely to be avenged for her unauthorized
 use of tissues, fluids, organs etc. than the unborn boy.

>[...] I am not yet ready to argue that the rights of "would be" human life 
>supercede the rights of actual human life.  I personally see some
>evidence for the idea that early fetal development follows previous 
>evolutionary development. 

Have you talked to taxonomists and embryologists?  I think this old
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory has been pretty much discarded.

> The early fetus strikes me as not human

Try talking to the networkers who call sperm, tumors, etc. "human life",
and let me know what the final outcome is.

>with criteria along the lines... does the fetus have gills?  yes. 

No. The *embryo* has brachial arches that bear a very superficial
resemblance to gills, but they are not gills.

>Yes.  Many people drink alcohol.  Alcohol is a drug.  They have freedom 
>of choice.  Women have freedom of choice in this land when it comes 
>to reproductive rights.  It's the law of the land.  If it makes you 
>uncomfortable, there are other lands with laws you might find more 
>comfortable.  (Sorry about that -- I just can't resist using the same 
>logic the conservatives used during the Vietnam War -- "America - love it 
>or leave it!").

Why didn't you leave America before 1967, when abortion was prohibited
by the law of the land?

And if abortion ever did become prohibited again, would you leave
America?

Peter Nyikos