From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:26:58 GMT

In <seaQLiG00WBKM7rFZY@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote
>>	Steve Chaney has been pursuing the subject of how the right to
>>privacy, explicitly written into the Florida State Constitution, gives
>>rise to both abortion and adult/child sex.  I have not had the time to
>>look over his contributions in detail, so I'm posting this in the hope
>>that he can see where it fits into the big picture.  
>>	It's from Mississippi rather than Florida, but note the "shipping
>>the movies across state lines" clause.  Query: how much of the case 
>>would be thrown out of a Florida court as being unconstitutional?
>> 
>>	This item, for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong, appeared
>>in the _Jackson Herald_, September 30, 1989.  It appears between the 
>>two rows of asterisks.

>There followed an article about a gynocologist who was interested in
>kiddie porn followed by these statements

Gross understatement of the day. At the very least it should have been
pointed out by Loomis that the abortionist [no mention about him 
being a gynecologist
in the article] was charged by the police
 with coercing minors to do sex for him, along with other charges.

 I hereby request Mr. Loomis to
post the entire article in alt.atheism [I hope I got the name of
the newsgroup right.] so readers can judge for themselves how bent
out of shape his comments about me are.  [Sorry to put
you to this trouble, but I still haven't learned how to commit
files to posts.]

>>QUOTE OF THE DAY:
> 
>>   	Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this?
>>				--Stephen A Chaney


>did not.  A proponent of sexual "responsibility" like Mr. Nyikos does
>well to mention every sexual crime by an abortionist.  Proponents of
>"responsbile" sex already see fit to mention the sexual orientation of
>mass murderers.  It helps them avoid responisbility for how their
>"sexual morality" actually works:

I don't know where Mr. Loomis gets these ideas on my views about 
sexuality.  The point of the QUOTE OF THE DAY is that not every pro-choicer
approves of such goings-on.

>From the Economist (July 18th 1992, p. 28, "Sins of the fathers"):
> 
>    "... In the past decade, Roman Catholic archdioces in nearly every
>    state have been plagued with lawsuits and ugly rumours concerning
>    priests and minors.  In the mid-1980s, seven priests in Lousiana
>    were charged with sexually abusing young boys.  Scandal broke out
>    again in 1990, when Father Bruce Ritter, the founder of a New York
>    shelter for runaways called Covenant House, was reported to have
>    had a history of improper sexual conduct.  Mr Porter's case made
>    headlines in May, after he acknowledged molesting at least 50
>    children in the 1960s when he was a priest in Attleboro,
>    Massachusetts.

I'm glad charges were finally brought.  I'm not sure Mr. Loomis is. 
Mr. Loomis claimed on another talk.abortion post
 that newborn babies were not proper objects of
ethical concern.  I'm very curious to know how far up from birth
this ethical nihilism of Loomis extends.

[Other examples omitted.]

>The "responsible" perspective on sex is advocated by a group of men
>unable to live by their own standards.   The tortured feelings of guilt
>of these men are the sole reason we have a anti-abortion movement.

Chaney could tell you of some pro-life gay groups.  Will you ask him
about them before you automatically assume they are tortured by guilt?

Broader perspective: Mr. Loomis does not seem to think that pro-lifers
are sincere in their desire to stop the butchery of fetuses, at least
some time before the point of birth.  Otherwise why would he make 
such sweeping statements?

>I have no statitics.  I doubt such have been collected, but my belief is
>that people who commit sex crimes would tend to have views about sex
>similar to those of the Vatican and Mr. Nyikos with the attendent guilt.

I can't even guess, this time, what kinds of views Mr. Loomis is 
imputing to me here.  Does he simply lump all pro-lifers, even those
like myself who make lots of carefully delineated exceptions, into
the same guilty bag?

BTW I wonder how Mr. Loomis feels about the sex crimes committed by the
"gynecologist" he misleadingly described above? Which of them fit the
categories below:

> We, of course, have to ignore those sex crimes which are unnatural to
>have as crimes--that is, homosexuality, sodomy laws, and too high of age
>of consent laws.

Like the ones the priests were arrested for?  Whose side are you on, 
anyway, Mr. Loomis?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion