From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:47:51 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
>>> scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
>>> pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
>>> on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
>>> for the library and do some reading.

>> "...far exceeding anything any of us could imagine."  Abortion has taken the
>> lives of 30,000,000+ children.  So abortionists actually have to their
>> credit more deaths toll than the holocaust.  Appears your first statement
>> was wrong.

>When you talk about children, Kevin, you are talking about born persons.  I
>don't think 30,000,000 born persons have died because of abortionists.  The
>Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 born Jews plus the deaths
>of millions of Gypsy, Slavic and other 'undesirable' born persons.

Funny, but the Nazis would claim that since the Jews aren't people, they
weren't responsible for millions of deaths, they were just cleaning up
Europe in order to make room for the biologically destined master race.


>> You second statement is opinion and nothing more.  I think murdering humans 
>> is a tragedy regardless of race, creed, color and age.

>But using the Nazi analogy in a pro-choice argument to illustrate the 
>coerciveness of the pro-life argument isn't appropriate because the Nazis
>did coerciveness on a scale no _rational_ pro-lifer would ever dream of.

>And using the Nazi analogy in a pro-life argument doesn't hold water logically
>because fetuses do not and never had the value that born people do.
Hey Chris, glad to see you're logical.  Logic me this (it's a question I ask
all pro-legal-abortion people I talk to):

Now, the fetus isn't human, right?  (You've already said that above).
And the man has no right to legal representation in the woman's decision.
The choice of whether or not to carry to term is strictly HERS.
She is a logical, rational adult capable of weighing her options and
deciding what is best in her life (Actually, I agree with this last
statement myself, but it's important to make sure YOU do).
Since abortion is legal, it's obvious that the woman has no duty to
a child which does not yet exist.

So.

Who's responsible for child support?  The man can't be, since he didn't 
create a child, and since he is equal in rationality, logic, and
adulthood to the woman, he can have no more duty to a non-existent child
than does the woman.  Since a child only exists at birth, and not before,
shouldn't he be legally and morally free from responsibility?  After all,
he merely supplied some raw materials.  it was her decision alone which
created the human being - he was excluded from it.  Child support, 
according to pro-choice logic, is taxation without representation, and 
therefore abominable.  Equality for all.  Let the man abort his payments
if he wants, just like she can avoid HER child, if she wants.

missing a lot of conversations lately).  either that, or labell the post
with my last name, so I have a chance at seeing it.  Thanks.


>So the Nazi analogy is OUT, ok?

No.  Actually, I find it quite fitting.  At least in reference to the 
supporters of legal abortion.


>Chris Lymann


SK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion