From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr12.234431.19098@liebe.uucp> <1992Apr13.222928.18469@s1.gov>
	<1992Apr16.001852.10637@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<JBATES.92Apr16105047@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>
	<1992Apr16.211726.3049@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 92 12:23:09


(Mikeey Jean Lin) writes:
> (John Bates) writes:
>> dan@Ingres.COM (1 Min. Mgr 1aB) writes:

>>>Scientists have developed strong enough equipment to know that brain wave
>>>activity begins around or before the time an abortion can be performed.  

>>	So what? What is the significance of brain wave activity?

> It means perhaps the fetus can think and feel pain. Maybe the fetus
>is indeed a living being. Maybe, just maybe we could be wrong about abortions. 
>Daniel was implying that abortions might be the termination of life. If you
>would just listen to his suggestions maybe you might learn something. 

	1) The fetus is alive.

	2) Abortion is the termination of a life.

	3) Brain wave activity begins at ~8 weeks.

	I asked what the significance of brain wave activity is. That was
an honest question. I'll admit, I didn't expect to learn anything, and you
know what? I didn't. I can take a thin sliver of brain, apply the proper
stimulation, and get brain wave activity. Does that sliver then "think and
feel pain"? Much, much more than mere "brain wave activity" is needed 
before *any* form of thought processes occur. 

>>>Folks, it's time to start being honest.  Sin is sin for a reason and the 
>>>longer we make a mockery of what is good and  right--the longer we remain 
>>>proud stupid liars and remain in our sin, the more work we will do in 
>>>proving that a loving God may have little choice other than to send some 
>>>to the endless fire of hell.

>>	The following message is rot-13'd since it is probably quite
>>offensive to the various and sundry assorted Christians out there, and I
>>don't mean it personally to anyone except Dan:

>>	Shpx lbh naq lbhe fnqvfgvp, ohyyfuvg eryvtvba. 

> Real mature here John. It's sad knowing some people can only 
>respond with obscene messages. Learn some manners, you might be a better
>person for it. By the way, why did you make the comment to Dan? Was it
>because you felt like being nasty or is it because his comment came close 
>to the truth for you? Either way, your message will insult many Christians.

	EXCUSE ME? I posted a rude response because I found the original post
quite offensive. And sometimes, just sometimes, I get sick and tired of
turning the other cheek. When someone tells me that I "make a mockery of
what is good and right", that I am a "proud stupid liar", and that a "loving
God" will send me to "the endless fire of hell" I get offended and maybe
just a little pissed off.

	Why did I make the comment to Dan? Tell me, Mikeey, are you a 
Christian? I'm going to assume you are. Suppose that I were to come into this
forum and say "You religious fanatics are all just deluding yourselves. You
just believe in God because you can't deal with reality. We're all going
to die, and cease to exist." You'd be offended, right? I might even get some
nasty email, and maybe some Christians would come right back and tell
me I'm going to rot in hell. And I'd deserve it. First, this isn't a
religious newsgroup, and second, whatever beliefs I hold are *mine*, and
I don't want to jam them down other people's throats.

	Do you know how many times in the past six months or so I've seen
Christians come on the net and start preaching, telling me that I'm a sinner
and that I really do believe in God, but that I deny him just because I
want to live in sin? Even you say "Was it ... because his comment came close
to the truth for you?" Do you know how offensive it is to me to be told that
I don't really believe what I say?

	Why did I rot-13 the message, and address it personally to Dan? 
Because there are Christians out there who I respect. There are people who 
hold strong beliefs, but recognize them as their own. These are people who 
I have no desire to offend. The message did not apply to them. 

	People have a right to their beliefs. They even have a right to
post their beliefs to Usenet. And they have the right to get pissed off when
someone insults those beliefs. But, to bring this back to abortion, THEY
DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE BELIEFS INTO LAWS. If the only reason
you want to outlaw abortion is because your religion tells you to, well,
you're a self-righteous ass. 

> Hmmm... I have a idea. Why don't YOU post your message in those
>newsgroup. Oh I forgot, you only wanted to insult Dan, right? He's got
>the courage to state his beliefs firmly. Do you? I have more respect for
>someone who isn't afraid to speak his mind than someone who post obscene
>messages as a response denoucing a person's religion.

	But Dan was denouncing *my* religion, or lack thereof. Why didn't
you pipe up at that point? Oh, I'm sorry. He didn't use any obscene language.
He just called me a "proud stupid liar" and said that I "make a mockery of
what is good and right".

>>>Come on and flame and mock if you wish.  I just don't care.  I hope the point
>>>has been made.

>>	What point was that? That Christians can get carried away with their
>>own self-righteousness? Yes, that point has been made.

> Like I said before. Try taking this comment to the newsgroup
>you suggested. I curious to how some Christians would respond to your
>(lack of) reasoning. You never know what responses you might get...

	There was little reason in my response because there was little
reason in the original. How do you respond to an assertion that AIDS is
a punishment by God? How do you respond to an assertion that you are a
"proud stupid liar"? Those are not examples of profound reasoning.

self-righ.teous \'sel-'fri--ch*s\ aj : convinced of one's own righteousness
   esp. in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others -

	I think that that applies quite well to someone who preaches that
all who do not follow his religion are going to burn in the "fire of
hell".

>>>     Dan

>>John

[monstrous .sig deleted]

John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame