Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:15:50 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
	<1992Aug25.171206.12387@advtech.uswest.com>

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes

>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>> = (Michael Loomis) writes:
> 
>>>> I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
>>>> and abortion or infanticide. 
>[...]
>>>> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
>>>> not yet in the social order
> 
>>> I wonder...how many pro-choicers share Mr. Loomis's view of infanticide?
>>> How many agree that newborn babies are not yet appropriate objects for
>>> ethics?
> 
>>I don't think you're going to get any answers from the pro-choicers  
>>on this newsgroup.  Michael Loomis has occasionally expressed the
>>view that infanticide is not wrong, and I've never seen a pro-choicer
>>disagree with that view. 
> 
>Pro-choicers, attennnnnnnn-SHUN!
> 
>Sound off:  Which pro-choicers believe that "newborn babies are not
>yet appropriate objects for ethics"?  I am diametrically opposed to
>that statement.
> 
>   Answer loud and clear...
>   Answer fast.
>   Make Doogie cry and look like an ass.  Again.

Perhaps this post by Mr. Novak is partially my fault in that I have been
very slow in writing a thoughtful defence of infanticide.  It takes time
to to write good arguments rather to post 15 or 20 long, insane rantings
in a row in the manner Mr. Steve Chaney and some of his frequent
interlocuters.  I probably will not post anything until next week.

I would also suggest to Mr. Novak that talk.abortion is neither the
place where the 1992 election will be decided nor will petty victories
over Mr. Holtsinger (and childish name-calling against him) promote the
pro-choice position in our society.  A well-thought set of suggestions
about human life and other forms of life will help promote such views. 
Thinking seriously about infanticide will help us clarify such
suggestions.  Talk.abortion may be a useful place for such discussion.  
There are some thoughtful people who post this bboard.

In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
greater pain.

Excerpt from   25-Aug-92  Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS  Ron
Bense@oasys.dt.navy. (1510)   

>>> I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
>>> here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
>>> is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
>>> the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
>>> as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
>>> internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
>>> of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
>>> I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.
> 
>>Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
>>to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
>>to death!
> 
>Thank you for finally showing your true compassionate side. You would
>will suffering, pain, and torment on others rather than relieving them,
>especially when it doesn't buy them anything. You must be the coldest,
>creulest person on the net, in seeking to force a woman to concieve
>a child, carry it to term, the whole while knowing it will die shortly
>after birth, while living in incredible amounts of pain, and pretty
>much forcing additional suffering of extending this condition by an
>unnecessary amount. You, Frau F, have just earned a spot next to Himmler. 








>Hey, *I'm* an extremist.  I'll bet others would "acknowledge" it.
> 
>Because remember this, you asexual liar:  You will take away a woman's
>right to choose over my dead body, or I'll keep that right over yours.
> 
>There's no middle ground in my book.  Though it sounds overly dramatic,
>the fight over abortion is but the tip of the iceberg: does America go
>FASCIST, as it's headed, or do we restore our land of the free?  Do you
>want religious fanatics in our bedrooms, schools and workplaces, or do we
>restore tolerance, compassion and freedom?  Better make up your minds
>soon.  That was a virtual parade of far-right extremists you just saw
>at the Republican convention.  'Course, if you're white, well-off,
>loudly Christian, and bigotted as hell, you *may* be under the illusion
>that you're OK.  Heh heh.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion