From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:29:37 GMT

<1992Dec18.001750.13308@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>Abortion kills children.
>> 
>> Suzanne, you keep saying this, even though I know you've heard the
>> many protests that this is an intentionally misleading statement.
>
>But it isn't.  It points at the only, real, obvious, problem there is
>with abortion.  I continually find it absurd that even when pointed at,
>people don't see it.  The fact is, they do see it, but won't admit it.

You are pointing at apples and saying "look at the oranges".  That's why
no one accepts your sophmoric "logic".

>> Abortion kills fetuses, not children; 
>
>Since fetuses are children, abortion kills children. q.e.d.

But fetuses are NOT children.  q.e.d.

>> most people think of "children"
>> as cute little tykes running around a playground or something like
>> that, 
>
>You are wrong.  "Most people" are not as exclusive as you would portray
>them to be.

I don't follow your reasoning.  What does "exclusivity" have to do with
logic and truth?

>> and that's certainly not what abortion kills.  I could just as
>> easily say "Abortion preserves freedom" if I felt like getting into a
>> pointless argument with you, but that's not what I'm after.
>
>"Freedom" at the expense of oppressing others is not freedom at all.
>It is "freedom" built on the heaps of dead bodies.

Hate to break it to you, Suzanne:  Historically speaking, freedom has
almost always been built on "heaps of dead bodies".

>> You continue to seem just a hair out of touch with reality.  I'd
>> really like to believe that you've intelligently thought about both
>> sides and arrived at your extreme pro-life position as a result of
>> some soul-searching, 
>
>Indeed I have.

OK, now try reasoning and logic.

>> but your posts here seem to indicate that you're
>> just blindly following what your religion is telling you (even though
>> the Bible is not anti-abortion), 
>
>This is an extremely foolish mistake on your part.  Never once, in this
>newsgroup or anywhere, have I offered religion as my reason for being
>anti-abortion.  

You've supported your "reasoning" with your somewhat errant knowledge of
the bible.  Quick now:  Who causes miscarriages?

>                That does not exclude my right to hope in a future where
>God grants these children their lives again, but the fact is, I would be
>anti-abortion even if I were atheist.    Simply because I have seen the
>bloody pictures and know a pile of dead children when I see them.

I'm confused here.  Do you mean that you've seen a pile of dead children in
real life and so you would recognize a picture of a pile of dead
children?

>> and not even bothering to respond
>> considerately to any viewpoints that oppose yours.
>
>Excuse me.  I am very considerate of others.  I am not, however, ever going
>to be apologetic for being pro-life.   It is the correct position to hold.

Correct by whose standards?

>> I said in an article here a few weeks ago that I'd like to find out
>> more about your opinions through email.  You sent me a short response,
>> and I sent a long reply, explaining how I honestly feel about the
>> issue of abortion, and doing my best to avoid re-hashing things I know
>> you've heard before and disagree with, and asking you how you would
>> respond to my conclusions.  I never heard from you again.
>
>Brian, you sent me a 300 line missive that I've been working on a response
>to now for over a month.   It's just too long.   You may or may not see
>the end of it.   I do have a life outside the net too.

Does that life include adopting unwanted children, or sending "free"
breast milk to starving children?

>> I have no problem with you being pro-life.  I do, however, have a
>> problem with the arrogance you display in your pro-life articles here.
>
>Too bad you consider a non-apologetic pro-life position "arrogant". 

Oh your arrogant alright.  Do I really need to break out all the archives
again, Suzanne?  You got real quiet after the last time I did so.  Peter
tried to defend you but even he gave up covering for your gaffs.

>I consider baby killing the heighth of arrogance.

I just consider it murder.

...
>> I know you think it shouldn't be, but you would earn a great deal of
>> respect in my eyes if you could convincingly present the pro-choice
>> argument as you see it, and explain how, with the same facts at hand,
>> you decided that abortion should not be legal.  Try to give the
>> argument as I might give it, knowing that I am pro-choice and atheist.
>
>People who argue for abortion on demand have no hope in the betterment of
>the human condition.  Despite millenia of history, they have absolutely
>no concept that people can and do rise above circumstances, that every
>adversity which is overcome produces new and wonderful opportunities and
>accomplishments, not to mention, producing better, more caring, human beings.
>Because in their hopeless state they cannot think of any other way, they
>mistakenly fall into the trap of killing others to solve their problems.

You've obviously never listened to anything ever said on this newsgroup.

>The practice and acceptance of abortion betrays nothing but a world view
>based entirely, and falsely, on despair, and frankly, pro-lifers don't buy
>despair.   

I know you find it difficult to accept what real people tell you, but I
can tell you flat out that the abortion my ex-wife and I obtained had
nothing to do with despair.  I find it bizarre (and therefore entirely
within your character) to disregard what real people tell you while
believing whole-heartedly in what some invisible mythical "god" tells you.

>           And perhaps that's why many pro-lifers also happen to be
>religious.  Despair is banished by hope in the future, and a faith in God
>tends to focus that hope.    There is a saying that goes, "Every new baby
>is proof that God thinks the world should go on."

So now we see your religious basis for being pro-life.

>Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
>        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair
>
>It's that simple.

"simple"...  that describes a lot of things you put forth.

>> Right now I don't think you can do this.  I expect you'll either
>> ignore this article or say that my request is pointless.  Prove me
>> wrong, and at least you'll make me interested enough to listen to your
>> opinions, and at best you might win some people over to your side.
>
>There are people, Brian, who prefer to drown in despair rather than
>live in hope.   Allowing hope into their lives would mean they'd actually
>have to do some work to make the world a better place, and they just can't
>be bothered.

Who would these people be, Suzanne?  Do you have any proof other than your
biblical beliefs that pro-choicers are "despairing"?  Why are there so
many "hopeful" pro-lifers who would resort to violence?

Give it up, Suzanne.  You just don't make sense.


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.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion