From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:24:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.182451.26157
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr8.122354.12540@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.230053.15012@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>I doubt seriously that this is the reason.
>>I suspect it has more to do with the "marriage good, virginity better"
>>ethic that the Church has been breeding ever since Paul.
>   No, you're WRONG. No discussion about it.
Argument by blatant assertion?
Do you know anything about the history of the Church at all?

>>It is my suspicion that if the RCC gave up the celibacy requirement,
>>they would find it a lot easier to find priests, which would make
>>the job somewhat less taxing.
>   You'd have more priests maybe, but you still need a father to a church.
Are you aware that Popes used to be married? That Peter was married?

>He would never be able to multi-task as you suggest.
Prove to me that this is the case.

> If you understood
>what a gargantuan task it was to run the church properly, then you
>would not be debating this point.
Well, it's certainly not being run properly now.
Look, let's start with some basic facts:
1) The Church has historically embraced a marriage good/virginity better
ethic.
2) The Church has not always prohibited marriage for it's priests.
3) Married converts are permitted to stay married.

Now, if what you were saying were really true, then 2 and 3 would not be
true, but they are. Moreover, I've read enough early Church documents
to know that what you are proposing as a reason smells exceedingly
post hoc. Hell, I've heard different things from priests.

>>How?
>   As I said, less abortions, miore happy mothers, less unwanted 
>children. It's a concept battle now. We have to get rid of the notion
>of the unwanted child.
Fine, you do that. I have no problem with you trying to convey your
ideas. I just don't want you imposing them legally.

>>We have. Don't have an abortion if you don't want one.
>   Don't you get it? We CANNOT stand by and watch others killing our
>future.
YOUR future? There is plenty of future to go around, my friend.
Running out of population is not a problem.

And let me point out that we are not about to stand by and let you
cause the deaths of our wives, girlfriends, sisters, and friends
because of your misguided sense of morality.

>>What problem?
>   My, you're just a charm.
Politeness is not one of my primary concerns.

> You see no problem huh?
Yes, the problem I see is you trying to tell peoplle what to do with
their bodies.

> YOu don't see the
>anger on this newsgroup and in the media?
Sure I do. So what?

> My, you ARE an ignorant
>one aren't you?
Perhaps.

> Why don't you stop programming long enough to see
>the REAL world for once, rather than through newsnet?
I have seen the real world.

Yes, I think the pro-choice/pro-life conflict is a problem. What I
was trying to point out is that while I think the conflict
is bad, I don't think that abortion per se is a problem. Sorry you
didn't get the point.

>>Well, it's not at all clear to me that pro-choice won't win. I think
>>that the fight is going to be bloody as all hell, though, but
>>I think that ultimately pro-life will lose.
>>And I'll tell you why:
>>Technology.
>   You're so wrong. You know why? People like me can't be beaten as 
>easily as you think.
Hmmm.....
How are you going to win?
The way that people like you are winning the drug war.

> And our charisma and knowledge spreads.
Your WHAT? You certainly seem to be winning converts here.

>>RU-486 is the beginning of an era where abortion can be
>>done by pill. When that becomes normative, the ability to
>>prevent abortion will be even poorer than our ability
>>to stop the flow of drugs into this country.
>   Silly you. We know that having abortions will become an easier process.
>But, we want to lessen the NEED for abortions first and foremost.
Good. You can start by supporting better contraception.
Don't you get it? I'm not trying to keep the number of abortions
high. I don't care about that. What I care about is women being
able to get them when they want them.

> That 
>is what is important. Look how easy it is to kill someone now... Just
>buy a gun at your local sports store... But, not many people use this
>power, because society has told them it is WRONG.
Yeah, that explains our high murder rate real well.

> Give us a bit
>of time. Right now we're fighting a pretty superficial group of
>individuals.
Is the ad hominem necessary?

> Given a little time for people to realize "hey, our
>population is sinking" and we'll win...
You're kidding, right? You're making a population argument AGAINST
abortion? Have you noticed that people are starving out there?
You can't seriously mean to defend the proposition that abortion
is going to let our population get dangerously low.

> Don't get your hopes up,
>and don't put too much faith in the ru-486 pill. It's not as magic
>as you think...
I'm not, but you think that more research isn't going on?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion