From: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Subject: Re: > Re: Pro Choice... We all are...
Reply-To: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:24:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.021517.20755@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David  
Knapp) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.225845.29778@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck" writes:
> >In article <1992Apr2.215734.6604@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU  
> >(David Knapp) writes:
> >> In article <1992Apr2.003349.1294@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
> >sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Brian C. Siener) writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >the term pro-abortion means, "for abortion", not "forcing abortion". how
> >> >> >ever i have always and will continue to address pro-choice as pro-choice.
> >> >> >so it's the labeling that is a moot point.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You missed the point.
> >
> [stuff i said deleted]
> 
> >David, I don't want to excite you, and I think what you just said makes
> >a lot of sense.  I agree.  I just thought saying, "You missed the point."
> >was a little blunt.  I was wondering if there were an explanation to why
> >he missed the point or whatever???
> >
> I can be blunt. I admire it in others as long as it isn't rude. I hope 
> I wasn't being rude.
> 
> The point missed was that the label "pro-abortion" used by some "pro-life"
> inaccurately implies that us "pro-choice" people *want* abortion. I, 
> for one, done *want* abortion. I want to guarantee the freedom of *choice*
> that will *allow* a woman to have an abortion if *she* decides she wants one.
> To say "pro-abortion" is to imply that somehow all us "pro-choice" people
> are just crazy about abortion and think its God's gift to something (or
> something like that). Personally, abortion does not seem like a very nice
> thing at all. It seems pretty awful, actually. Not that it is "killing 
> a human being" because there is really nothing human being-ish to me
> about a piece of tissue that *cannot* think or reason or do *anything* 
> because the stuff between its future ears is not a functioning brain
> but pure mush (or embryotic fluid). It seems awful because of the procedure.
> I have seen the procedure, have helped several women through abortions (not
> impregnated by me) and it is a rough time. *Especially* when there are people
> standing outside calling you a murderer. That makes it much worse.
> 
> So the point was: Calling a pro-choice person "pro-abortion" is a type of
> cheap shot that is not only rotten, but incorrect.

Thanks Dave, I now better understand a few of your points.  I myself don't know
exactly what the fetal tissue is.  I heard a good analogy I think may apply
though.  If one doesn't know for sure whether or not it is human or just tissue,
then why take the chance.  It's almost (not quite) like hunting in the woods.
You see a shape, but you don't know if it's a human or a bear (like just tissue).
Do you take the chance and kill it anyway?  I am sorry if this seems far fetched
and stupid.  Just a thought I heard and wanted to pass on...

--

thebians

The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination and  
should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:861 talk.abortion:15477