From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:11:58 GMT

Thank you for your reply, Suzanne; that did help clear up some things.

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.

I figure I just don't see it, then.  Abortion kills fetuses, not
children, unless you define 'children' to include fetuses, in which
case why not just say 'fetuses' to be more accurate?

Like I said before: using the word 'children' is sensationalism, no
matter how you sugar-coat it.  You know that people associate more
with the word 'child', because it's more general.  You ignore the fact
that abortion has never killed a 'child' who has been born.  Why not
just say "Abortion kills human beings," then, if you want to be even
more general?

Could you please tell me what you say your statement is pointing out
that I'm missing?

>> 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.
>
>> 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.  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 sorry if I incorrectly assumed your Christian views on the
sanctity of life were the source of your pro-life stance, but I've
ready your posts on talk.religion.misc, and you do appear to be very
strongly Christian.

As for 'bloody pictures': again, sensationalist.  Heart surgery is
bloody, as is birth.  Would you be less opposed to it if it were not
bloody?  No?  Then stop using that to play on people's sentiments.

>> 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.

This is an example of 'arrogance'.  Do not state that "it is the
correct position to hold."  Instead, demonstrate an understanding of
the pro-choice side, and respond intelligently to it.  This I would
call 'considerate'; this you have not yet done.

>> 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.

I had no indication that you were working on it; some short
acknowledgement that you were thinking seriously about it would have
been nice.  Never before has anyone ever worked on a single reply to
me for over a month without sending anything else in the meantime.

>> I'm curious about something:
>> 
>> Can you explain to me why abortion should be legal?
>
>Sure.    For the same reason homicide of adults should be legal - because
>people are doing it "anyway", and therefore should be "free" to do so. 

Sorry, no.  I didn't think you could do it...

I have never before heard abortion defended by arguing that "people
are doing it anyway."  The fact that you say this indicates that you
really haven't bothered to learn what pro-choice is all about, after all.
Is everything we say just falling on deaf ears?

>Oh, you mean that doesn't make it right?   That was my point.

This is what's known as a "straw man": you provide your own argument
for abortion, one that suits your purposes and that I have never seen
before, then you proceed to knock it down and think this means you've
defeated the pro-choice movement.

>Whether it's emotional, or purely physical, I will not dismiss the mother/
>child bond as lightly as you would have me do.

You also have never acknowledged the obvious possibility that this
bond does not exist in some cases.  In your world, every woman really
does want to have her baby, and every woman will find some way to give
birth to it, provide for it, and nurture it in a loving environment.
If this were the way the world worked, then nobody would even *want*
abortions.  It might be nice to live in your world, but I don't, and
unfortunately, neither do you.

>> 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.

That was a nice speech.  Now could you please explain what it has to
do with my question?

I believe that the human race can persevere and improve itself (this
is a large part of why I'm an atheist, but I digress).  I don't see
why my pro-choice opinions would imply that I have a darker opinion of
mankind.  Would you please explain your reasoning?  I'll admit I don't
follow it at *all*.

Again, you seem to be asserting your hopelessly idealistic opinion
that every woman is able to bear, love, and support a baby.  Even a
little bit of thought should show that this opinion is flawed.  Can
you think of some hypothetical cases which I might point to in order
to counter your opinion, and defend yourself?

>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.   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."

I do not despair!  And I'm shocked that you would imply that I do.
Now you're turning pro-life versus pro-choice into Good versus Bad,
look and see:

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

Until you can back this opinion up with some logic, Suzanne, it's
laughable.  I believe that humanity will persevere and thrive, and I
don't even think we need the help of a deity to do so!

>> 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.

You've now managed to pervert this discussion into "if you have faith
in the future of humankind then you'll be pro-life," an assertion that
I didn't even see coming, and I still can't quite figure out where you
got it from.


Let me sum up:

You ignore that some women are medically unable to undergo pregnancy
without physical or emotional damage to themselves or their fetuses or
both.

You ignore that a lot of people don't feel that the fetus is a
significant entity (has a 'soul') until it reaches a certain point in
its development.

You ignore that many women are completely unprepared for childbirth,
whether financially, or even just in that they didn't know that having
sex would get them pregnant.

Instead, you say that I just support pro-choice because people are
having abortions 'anyway', and that the pro-choice view is part of
some larger 'despair'.

Pardon me if I'm not convinced.

I'll give you one more chance to sway me, Suzanne.  Feel free to
ignore all other arguments for a moment -- please try to convince me,
by appealing to whatever parts of my intellect or emotions you think
you could most successfully appeal to, that abortion is wrong.  No
personal attacks, please, nor any analysis of my opinions of humankind
-- just a convincing argument for why abortion should be illegal.
I'm listening.  Convince me.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion