From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:17:50 GMT

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.


> Abortion kills fetuses, not children; 

Since fetuses are children, abortion kills 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.


> 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.

 
> 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.


> 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.


> 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 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". 
I consider baby killing the heighth of arrogance.


> 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. 

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

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


> 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.

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."


Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair

It's that simple.


> 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.


> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism