From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:11:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<nyikos.717627005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
...
>And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have
>"castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?

Oh geez.  Here we go again: "*_THEY_* aren't *REAL* Christians, not like
Billy Joe Bob and me."

>If you insist on perpetuating this charade, go ahead, but tell the "other
>Christians" to be prepared
>to "defend Christianity" against atheists as well as actual Christians
>like Suzanne.  Otherwise everyone will see how hollow their "Christianity"
>really is.

Huh?  Which "other Christians" should I be telling, and why should I tell
them to "defend Christianity" against me?

>>>Get real.
>
>>Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
>>"unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
>>pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
>>that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.
>
>If Suzanne chooses to regard a fetus as an unborn baby, her choice should
>not be trivialized in this manner.

I have no problem with how Suzanne personally chooses to regard a fetus.
I have a problem with Suzanne's position that everyone should be forced by
law to abide by her views at the loss of personal freedoms.

>I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
>suffering.  

Don't get your PhD in a twist, Peter.  I wasn't interested in addressing
that portion of the issue.  I've addressed that aspect far more times in
these groups then I care to remember, always with the same stammering
apologetic answers from people perhaps like yourself - you know, pompous
and arrogant.

>            Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist,
> I suggest you get the
>"Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
>how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."

Why would I want to get the "Christians" to address it?  I've addressed it
myself before.

>I have a feeling a lot of talk.abortion regulars have only a dim idea
>of what the words "dead giveaway" have to do with.  They have heard the
>words all right, and may be able to regurgitate a definition on a quiz,
>but they are so fixated on the concept of "baseless speculation" that
>they cannot recognize real-life examples of dead giveaways.

I have to admit that I have no idea what the hell you are talking about
here.  It appears that you just like to read your own writing (I would
have said "Like the sound of your own voice" but the metaphor might have
been lost on you).

>>  Please deal with the real
>>suffering, of those women who accidently get pregnant when they do not
>>want to be pregnant.  Those women who are in danger of losing their job,
>>career, education, or possibly their family's love.
>
>None of this takes a candle to the suffering of Nancyjo Mann related in
>my post, THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS, Case 1.  Or do
>you take the view that she faked that suffering?

Who?

>[BTW the post has expired on my screen but if I see a need, I can re-post 
>it.  Follow-ups contain other examples of real-life suffering at the
>hands of abortionists.]

Gee, the post "expired on my screen" too.  Could you repost it?  And you
might want to leave out alt.atheism from the repost.  I doubt many folks
are interested there and those that are now know where to find it.

>At any rate, I have dealt with this real-world suffering and will
>continue to do so.  If Suzanne has not, it is due to lack of time
>rather than the kind of callousness to women that you and other
>pro-choicers continually display towards the unborn.

I suppose I display a certain callousness to the vegetables that I eat
too.  Terrible of me, isn't it?


Gordon
-- 
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.