From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:58:15 GMT

In article <nyikos.721421924@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Bx47Iw.FBz@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct26.131243.8107@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>>In article <BwqKLv.F6p@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Oct25.231647.8094@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>>>>I find it interesting that when the pro-child killers speak they can only twist
>>>>>others words instead of using straight logical answers.
>>>> 
>>>> Like calling pro-choice people "pro-child killers"?  Yep, talk about your
>>>> basic straight, logical answer there...

Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion.  Fetus is not the same as child, 
in my world view.

>"We kill it and remove it..."--Adrienne Regard

>Of course, she did not call it an unborn child, but the Colorado State
>supreme court called it that in an 1872 decision concerning a state
>law designed to protect the unborn child as well as its mother.

unborn child...  is that like pre-child?  (More word-play!)  :-)

>>>That is no  twist of words.  It is the truth.  
>
>>So you think all people who have abortions are "child killers"?

>Yes, killers by proxy of unborn children.  See above.  Note, clifton
>did not use the words "murderers" or even "homicidal."

You mean child-killer and child-murderer are supposed to have vastly 
different connotations?  I don't think that is the case for the 
average reader.

>I wonder whether Roby or Humphreay ever heard of "weed killer" or "spermicidal
>[compare "homicidal"] foam.

I wonder if you have ever heard the term serial killer.

>>Do you want to hang them all for murder?  We could try them in court 
>>and easily execute millions of women for the crime of child-killer.
>>Is that what you want?  If not, then your "truth" has no important 
>>consequences.  I would never use the term "child-killer" myself, 
>>unless I was referring to someone so despicable that I knew they 
>>should be tried and punished.

>I could have a field day with the words "weed killer", but I'll
>restrain myself.

Rats.  I'm sure that would have been amusing to me, too.

You seem to be avoiding the question.  If you think these millions of 
women should not be punished, then abortion is no big deal.  If you think they 
need to be punished for the "crime" of abortion, then you have a 
political position which will never gain acceptance.

>>>For someone to call it
>>>pro-choice is a twist of words.  

>>>The baby had no choice, did it?  

>>Never had.  Never will.  Simply not capable of decision-making yet.  The 
>>choice is the woman's (unless the government decides to choose for her).

>The unborn child's choice is held in abeyance by the government.

So, you are against family values (let the family decide) and for 
government regulation.  Realize, that once you give the government 
permission to deny abortion, you have set the precedent for further 
reproductive regulation (such as mandating abortion in an overcrowded future).

>>>When was it asked about not living?  

>>How would it answer?  How could it think intelligently about 
>>the meaning of the question having never been outside of the womb?
>>Now who is playing with words????

>As usual, a prelude to some flaming playing with words.

No.  A silly answer to a silly question.
You don't think talking about asking the fetus questions is "playing 
with words"?

>>Many people pray to God before an abortion, asking which is the right way 
>>for them.  If you prefer, you can think of the fetus being asked 
>>(through God) at this time.  And apparently the fetus replies "Don't 
>>wanna get born", if the prayer session ends with person deciding to abort.

>>See -- I can play with words, too.  Doesn't mean anything, does it?

>I'm familiar with this talk.abortion.choice.pro ploy.  Adrienne flames
>Martin Guerrero for a correct guess and a not-obviously-unwarranted guess,
>then has a field day with her flamethrower, hurling all kinds of wild
>guesses as to his state of mind.

Huh?  Once again, I gave a silly counterexample to Clifton's silly 
example.  I even pointed out that I was playing with words, as I felt 
he was doing when talking about the fetus's non-existant opinion.

>Reminds me of Genesis 4:23-24:
>
>	I killed a man for wounding me,
>	A boy for striking me.
>	Sevenfold vengeance is taken for Cain,
>	But seventy-sevenfold for Lamech.

Lamech composed this for his two wives.  Jehovah (this was back when God had 
a name) stated the sevenfold vengeance for the slaughter of Cain after 
condemning him to be a fugitive forever.  Lamech was the great-great-great 
grandson of Cain and apparently decided that this made any infractions 
against himself worth 77 times the vengeance.  Sounds like he was bragging 
about his long lineage, rationalizing beating up anyone who looked the wrong 
way at him, and making sure his wives knew better than to cause him trouble.
Gaaack!  Sounds like a bully to me.

Question 1:  If a person kills Cain, how do you seek sevenfold vengeance? 
Kill this person 7 times??  No , that won't work, as the last 6 times 
will be an empty exercise.  The 77-fold vengeance for killing Lamech 
sounds even harder to perform.

Question 2:  I am a strong believer in monogamy.  Lamech was a bigamist.  
Isn't bigamy a sin in modern Christian marriages?  Aren't these sins 
decided by God, rather than the church?  Was Lamech a sinner?  Or has 
God changed the rules?  That doesn't sound right to me.

>BTW that is not a bad description of a lot of abortions, 

Abortion is undoing something you didn't mean to do in the first place.  
It is NOT a form of vengeance, any more than not having sex is a 
form of vengeance against your expectant sperm/eggs.

>although the 
>unborn girl is slightly more likely to be avenged for her unauthorized
> use of tissues, fluids, organs etc. than the unborn boy.

Huh?  

>>[...] I am not yet ready to argue that the rights of "would be" human life 
>>supercede the rights of actual human life.  I personally see some
>>evidence for the idea that early fetal development follows previous 
>>evolutionary development. 

>Have you talked to taxonomists and embryologists?  I think this old
>"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory has been pretty much discarded.

No.  And I was careful NOT to call this an established theory.  I stated it 
as a personal observation.  Even if the fetus is not retracing our 
evolutionary path, it is quite clear that the fetus goes through some forms 
that I do not consider human.  The early fetus has a tail, a two-chambered 
heart, etc.

>> The early fetus strikes me as not human

>Try talking to the networkers who call sperm, tumors, etc. "human life",
>and let me know what the final outcome is.

Sperm and fetus are both "potential life" that are dependent on the actions 
of the owner as to whether that potential has a *chance* of being realized.  

I don't consider tumors as humans. (What a sublimely ridiculous statement 
to have to make.)  :-)   I'll leave others to worry about this silly idea.

>>with criteria along the lines... does the fetus have gills?  yes. 

>No. The *embryo* has brachial arches that bear a very superficial
>resemblance to gills, but they are not gills.

I should have said "gills" or gill-like.  I am not a medical expert, 
so I looked up brachial in my standard dictionary and come away with 
the notion that it means "related to the arm".  The features I am 
referring to occur in the neck area of the early fetus, so I don't 
know if "brachial" is the right term.  I do not think these features 
are supposed to be "fins" (a fish's "arm"), but in any case 
these features support my hypothesis of not being human in form.  

The "gills" I mentioned was just one example.  I could have said...
Does the fetus have a tail?  If so, then it's not human.
Does the fetus have a two-chambered heart?  If so, it's not human.

>>Yes.  Many people drink alcohol.  Alcohol is a drug.  They have freedom 
>>of choice.  Women have freedom of choice in this land when it comes 
>>to reproductive rights.  It's the law of the land.  If it makes you 
>>uncomfortable, there are other lands with laws you might find more 
>>comfortable.  (Sorry about that -- I just can't resist using the same 
>>logic the conservatives used during the Vietnam War -- "America - love it 
>>or leave it!").

>Why didn't you leave America before 1967, when abortion was prohibited
>by the law of the land?

I was 14 and unwilling to run away from home??     :-)

>And if abortion ever did become prohibited again, would you leave
>America?

I thought the "sorry about that" disclaimer made clear I was LAMPOONING
the stupid conservative argument used during the Vietnam War.  I thought 
it was stupid, then, and still do.  You can consider this a one-fold 
vengeance for having to listen to such crap back then, when it was 
directed at members of my generation.

Seriously, I think you have a right to stay here and stand up for 
what you believe. And I will fight to keep our government out of 
the bedroom and for the right of families to plan their own destinies.

>Peter Nyikos



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity