From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Feeding frenzy! CHOWabunga! (was Sonograms and the mother of all prejudicial pieces of crap
Keywords: Bean Dip.
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:53:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.222222.2335@brandonu.ca> Brian McBean writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.003306.17088@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.014203.4327@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>>>
>>>What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>>>change the way pro-choicers think?  Isn't this the same warped
>>>line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
>>>science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
>>>on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
>>>abortions in the world?
>>
>>Whoops. BIG mistake on your part. 
>
>I see no mistake.

Then you probably don't see.


>>Arguments over sonogram readings revolve around proving or disproving
>>your "blob of cells" claim. 
>
>I made no such claim.  I believe the fetus to have a great enough
>potentiality to become a person to regard abortion as a morally
>incorrect procedure IN MY OPINION due to my own PERSONAL CONVICTIONS
>which I do not plan to force upon THE REST OF THE WORLD.
>(caps are annoying, aren't they?)
>But this is not my point...

You yourself may not make the "blob of cells" claim, but virtually every
pro-choicer on this newsgroup has been raised partially on those three
words. It comes out quite often on talk.abortion, enough to prove that it
is still a widely accepted form of pro-abortion argument. And if you say
you've never made this argument on USENET, much less anywhere else, well,
this ain't a flamewar article so I won't push it.

If it is proven invalid, the dehumanization factor in the legal abortion
argument is compromised, and hence its entire foundation goes crumbling
down.

Mainly because legalizing abortion is the result of discrimination.
Humanity and life mean personhood, and when that is contradicted, we have
discrimination.


>>That and if you take a look at all the instances in which women saw
>>the fetuses, you'll see that more than 50% turn abortion down. How do
>>you think Shari Richards caused such a disaster in the clinic she
>>worked in? 
>
>I haven't a clue, I told you I didn't know about this case at all.

Shari Richards was barred from showing ultrasound testimony at the FOCA
hearings. The only thing they wanted to hear was what Planned Parenthood &
Co. had to say. The fact is, when she showed it to pregnant women in
clinics, the women saw a human life and, knowing they were killing a human
life, they split. Costing the clinic $200 a shot.


>     There is a particularily apalling pro-life argument which has been
>cropping up on this newsgroup far too often for me to remain calm.
>It actually *angers* me.  I rarely ever get angry.

WooOOOooo! I'm scared now. Boy I had better run for the hills now that
you're angry.
I know many pro-lifers use this argument. So did I. (Admission here.) BUT,
many of us outgrow it. Read on.


>     WHY do so many people point at the fetus saying "look it looks
>so much like a baby, it's so goddamn cute, how could you kill it?"
>Granted, feti in later stages of pregnancy bear a fairly damn good
>resemblance to babies.  WHY does this have ANYTHING to do with their
>MORAL STANDING????  Why do you think it is worse to kill something
>simply because it LOOKS like something you like?

Pro-lifers largely start out seeing the human fetus with their own two eyes
and wondering how in the heck can someone kill them when they seem
extremely human and alive.
This "eyeballing" method of justification is wrong because it does not work
when eyeballing a zygote.
Pro-choicers are of major benefit because they remind us of the error of
the eyeballing style of fact-finding.
So we take our licking as a result, and then many of us go scurrying to the
library to obtain justification from the science textbooks.

And what do you know? We abandon our eyeball method and find out that the
fetus is human and alive and scientific evidence, not one's eyeballs,
provides proof. We learn that even though a zygote looks highly unbecoming
and seemingly UNIMPORTANT, there is scientific data on that zygote that we
cannot eyeball, that shows his/her humanity. For one, the zygote is already
male or female... while the sperm & egg are potentially so. The zygote's
race, gender and a lot of other genetic traits that stay with you for the
rest of your life (barring sex surgery or whatever other artificial
medicine), are decided not before conception, but at conception. The growth
and development process begins then, not at birth. At birth, growth and
development continues, and in fact, birth is not the start of anything
except for breathing air and receiving a larger domain of stimuli. Indeed
you can affect one's psyche profile with stimuli way before birth.

After the dizzying array of scientific facts that we find after that trip
you scared us into taking to the library, we find that our eyeballing
technique is outdated and that the scientific technique proves the pro-life
case in complete, factual and solid fashion:
Legalizing abortion is discrimination.

Judging human rights by one's looks, is also discrimination. Judging human
rights by scientific facts is the only way to go.


>     Does an ugly person have any less moral standing than Luke Perry?

No. Which is why I don't base my reasoning on the eyeball technique.


HOWEVER, many human brains cannot be swayed merely by science books. The
common person likes to see something that looks good, to be able to then
relate to the scientific stuff. Those women that Shari Richards scared off,
were not looking at a lie when they were looking at those sonograms. Indeed
if Shari Richards was wrong, she was wrong for showing FACTS. BUT, those
women would not have as easily listened to a discourse on science - they
had to SEE with their own two eyes.

Unfortunately, because this is largely a not-so-intellectual culture, we
have to START with the eyeballing technique and then solidify our case with
the scientific stuff. I have had a lot of trouble turning minds by using
scientific references alone, but WOW, how I get their interest when I show
pictures of living fetuses at 8 weeks, or as far earlier as their eyes will
accept. (Usually 3-8 weeks, as low as I can get it.) I try to establish
humanity as early in fetal development as possible so when it comes time
for the CONCEPTION argument, they're open to the scientific stuff. It's
strategically better and it's more intellectually honest than starting out
with 16 weeks and making an entire case on that.

It is a fact of life: People don't BUY it if they can't SEE it first.

In this case, that is a very bad trait and I would like to see it changed.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion