From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:20:05 GMT

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>>-What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?

>>                                                  It denies human beings
>>basic rights.  

>And why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?  What
>about conflicting human rights?  You know, like *womans's* rights.

Sorry.  You win the major logic flaw award.  Yes, ALL human beings deserve
the basic rights (ie. the right to life).  This conflicts with no other 
rights.  Woman's Rights are secondary because they deny other humans the
aforementioned right to life.
 
>>               It allows society to disrespect the value of life.  

>Society already disrespects human life.  Perhaps you didn't see the
>newscasts of people cheering our side in the Gulf War?  I don't see where
>abortion (something done behind the closed doors of a doctors office)
>effects society more than, say, a Rambo movie, or the reading of the
>bible (one of the bloodiest books).

"Society already disrespects human life."  So two wrongs make a right?
I cheered our side in the Gulf War.  Not because we killed Iraqis but
because we were liberating an oppressed people (kinda like a unborn 
children).  The Bible is history.  Mankind is inherently violent.  Hence
the Bible is "bloody".  Doesn't make it wrong, bad, etc.

>>                                                                   To
>>use Kate Michelman's (prez of NARAL) logic, who said that the removal of
>>abortion rights will lead to the removal of contraceptives, to censorship,
>>to a point where the government becomes Nazi Germany, the continuance
>>of abortion will lead to the acceptance of active euthanasia to the
>>accpetance of murder to total anarchy in the world.

>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>outlawed.  We have it on good authority that abortion is just the foot in
>the door.  However, your claim about abortion is less convincing -
>abortion has been around in some form for countless centuries and it
>hasn't caused the acceptance of murder yet.  Do you accept murder just
>because abortion is legal?  I know I don't?  Does anyone on this net
>accept murder because abortion is legal?  Please speak up now.

Outlaw contraception?   Duuuuhhhh and hear I thunked dat you kuld by
kondums even beefour 1973.  Is this possibly a ploy to provoke emotional
responses to a non-existent issue?  You bet it is.

>Given that the abortion turnout always favors the pro-choice crowd in a
>huge way I would think that you would see that abortion _is_ moral - using
>your own logic.

Lie.  Always claim numerical superiority no matter what.  Good Tactic.

>>>-What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
>>> it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
>>
>>Well, it's genetic tie to the human race affords it human rights.

>Like a liver cell?

You want the right to abort liver cells?

>>                                                                   Because
>>I believe it to be a Constitutional person, not a phil. person, any
>>violation of its rights in the Const., especially life, makes abortion
>>murder.  

>But abortion is legal, therefore not murder.  I'm glad to see you finally
>labelling your own opinions as such too.

You need some classes in logic.  Labeling something legal does not make it
other than what it is.  If the Supreme Court labeled you a Rainbow Trout
would it make it so?  Didn't think so.

>>>-What are the poperties of the fetus that justify its being termed one of the
>>> above? Fingers, rational thought, language, myelination, potential etc.
>>
>>Human likeness in form and movement.  

>Do you realize that at 8 weeks (the normal or average time of an abortion)
>the fetus still has a tail, it's head is half the size of it's entire
>body, it's eyes are sealed shut (like a kitten's), and it has no
>functioning lungs.  "Human likeness"?  How many humans do you know who
>come anywhere near matching this description?  And just about everyone I
>know has far more movement and range of motion than a fetus.

I know some people with physical deformities matching your descriptions.
Guess you would label them "undesirable non-humans" and rip them limb
from limb too, eh?

>>                                      DNA structure.

>Like a liver cell.

You were made to eat things you didn't like as a child, right?

>While your post appears rational on the surface, your statements appear to
>fail close examination.  You also fail to mention once the "other" human
>involved in abortion.  You know, the woman.  What about her resemblence to
>the human species?  And her DNA, and her potential?  Why the blind worship
>of the fetus at the cost of a realized person?

Glad his post at least appeared rational.  If you walked out your front
door and saw someone tormenting a woman  and  saw someone else murdering
a child, you would ignore the woman to save the child, right?  Come to think
of it, you probably wouldn't.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity