From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:02:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.221044.12159@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) said:
|> ><1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> >|> ><1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
|> >|> >|> From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
|> >|> >|> > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
|> ...
|> >|> >First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
|> >|> >pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
|> >|> >are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
|> >|> 
|> >|> Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
|> >|> Christian.  I'd like to know where you get your stats.
|> >
|> >I admit that I don't have any statistics to
|> >flash around, but I know many pro-abortionists that are Christian.  Do you
|> >really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?  If we
|> ...
|> ...
|> ...
|> >Understand, that I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice synonymously.
|> 
|> Therein lies your error.

This has been pointed out to me.

|> >Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
|> >for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?
|> 
|> No more than you should be considered pro-racist for believing that ALL 
|> people have a right to voice their opinions (see KKK).

This was also pointed out to me with the referenced organization being
the Nazis.  But I don't understand what your driving at here.  Obviously
both you and I feel that "people for abortion" and "people for racism"
should be able to talk about their wishes.  We're all for free speech,
right? But the issue changes when we speak about these organizations
carrying out their wishes.

Pro-choicers aren't fighting for the right to give speeches about abortion.
They are fighting for the right for people to perform abortions.
The KKK and the Nazis aren't fighting for the right to give speeches.
They are fighting for the right to implement their racist policies.

If I told you that I don't personally approve of racism, but that I think
the Nazis and the KKK have a right to implement their policies, would
you call me a pro-choicer, or a pro-racist?

|> >Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
|> >pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.
|> 
|> Not in the political sense.
|> 
|> >It seems to me that the terms pro-life and pro-choice are merely table
|> >dressings, IMHO.
|> 
|> And you are welcome to your opinion.  However, in order to converse
|> properly and be understoodt in this forum the correct terms should be used.

Your point is well taken.

|> >This is definitely one discussion in which I do not wish to get entangled.
|> 
|> Too late. ;-)

<Groan> I know, I know.

|> >I thought my first point was self-evident, and was not prepared to
|> >defend it with stats.  My second point, I thought, was definitely not
|> >apparent to Suzanne Forgach, but true since I know of at least one (i.e. me).
|> >Her implication that atheists and atheists alone support abortion is false,
|> >so I felt obligated to post.
|> 
|> You have to understand Suzanne:  Any one who doesn't share her exact brand
|> and flavor of Catholicism is an Atheist, Satanist, or just hates people.
|> In her mind you couldn't possibly be a Christian.
|> 
|> BTW, "pro-abortion" (a label I've taken myself), is a subset of
|> pro-choice.  While many pro-choicers would apologize for abortion, or
|> attempt (or allow) some sort of restriction a pro-abortioner makes no 
|> apology for abortion, and would go so far as to recommend abortion to
|> anyone who asks.  Pro-abortioners tend to feel that there are enough
|> people on the earth, thank you, and far too many bad parents who tend to
|> think that just because they can biologically create children that it
|> makes them parents (in anything more than the biological sense).

I've heard, however, that the people who make use of abortions are more
commonly the rich.  Families of 13 are, more often than not, found in the
ghetto.  But I see your point.  I'm kind of on the edge on this issue
right now.  In fact, I'm probably the only on who doesn't have a well
entrenched opinion on the issue.  I am constantly reappraising my ethical
beliefs, and I am in the process of reevaluating this issue.  I do admit,
however, to be leaning towards the opposite of your view, as you may have
guessed.

BTW, when I first responded to Suzanne, I was on alt.atheism.  I didn't
notice that all this cross-posting was going on.  I just recently 
subscribed to talk.abortion just to see what was happening there, and
I don't think I am ready to enter the fray yet.

|> Pro-abortioners tend to believe in completely unrestricted abortion.  
|> Pro-abortioners *are* pro-choice, but pro-choicers are not necessarily
|> pro-abortion.  There are only 3 pro-abortioners on this net and I know
|> that two of them are not Christian.

I will be more careful in my word choice.

|> Gordon
|> Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
|> Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
|> "CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
|> -- 
|> The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
|> of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
|> Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.

Mike Noonan