From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> (fumbled this attribution:  Ron Bense, perhaps?)

>> Steve, from now on, I'm not even going to waste my time with such a
>> hopelessly brainwashed person. I don't believe you'd realize what a
>> fact was if it smashed you in the face. Until you show some sign of
>> reason in any arguement, besides the mindless, brainwashed counterpoints,
>> adios

> Well, as Catholic as I am I have my weaknesses. If you smashed me in
> the face, I would royally kick your butt. But, that's beside the point.

Reading comprehension problems, there, Steve.  He talked about a _fact_
smashing you in the face, not his fist.  It's good to know you're such
a macho dude, though. ;-)

> I can assure you that I am not brainwashed, but a sentient logical
> being. I am presently in my honors studies of Physics, so I have been 
> well exposed to a rational and analytical mentality.

It's too bad you never applied it to the subject at hand.

> However, even after seeing both sides of the story, as I do from this
> newsgroup, I continue to choose LIFE. You will find no reason in my
> argument until I agree with you, which will never happen.

Spoken like a true scientist. <Bronx cheer>  I read somewhere that science
is the only self-correcting human pursuit.  Shouldn't the principle of
self-correction be applied to other forms of thinking as well?

> Please don't try and phrase your ignorance as a threat. If I dont' agree
> with you, prove my falicy. You know what? You can't. Plain and simple,
> you will find no error in my reasoning...

Like your exposition wrt our current recession?  I haven't seen any 
follow-up from you to my last article in this thread, so I guess you're
hoping we'll let it slide, eh?

> ... because it all comes down to compreshension of morals and beliefs.
> I see the fetus as valuable and human, you don't.

You don't see the _more_ valuable female human carrying the fetus.  Who
better than she can factor her health and circumstances into a decision
that should be hers and hers alone?

> I see abortion as a waste which could be avoided, you don't.

I see _forced_ pregnancy and _forced_ motherhood as a waste of living,
breathing human potential.  The most important reason for a woman to be
pregnant is that she _wants_ to be pregnant, IMHO.

> Please don't assume that because I don't agree with you that I"m not
> a straight A's student who is well versed in his science.

I've met many straight A students that were hopelessly inept outside their
field of expertise.  Judging from what you've posted wrt sex and economics,
you seem to be one of them.

> You can have faith in the supernatual even though you are taught to
> explain everything through your scholastic studies. 

I have no argument with you about the dialogue between religion and science.
I _do_ have a major problem with you asserting that _your_ religious beliefs
and _your_ preferences are the ones everybody should follow.

> I rarely err in logic. Period. 

Indeed.  I'm very sorry to have to break this to you, but you've been bumping
into walls logically since you began posting here.

> Perhaps I state things that are incomprehensible to you. Perhaps I say things
> that are unsubstantiated and my "religious logic" appears fuzzy to you.
> Well, that's the difference between a Christian...

Here comes the clue fairy to bop you on the head with another clue!

			*doink!*

A good number of pro-choicers in this group (including me) are Christian.

> ...and other religious (or lack thereof) groups.

Are you implying that Christians have cornered the market in "fuzzy,
unsubstantiated, incomprehensible religious logic???"  That will be news
to the Eckankar crowd! :-)

> We have a faith in somethign unexplainable, knowing we have more to answer 
> to than our 80 years on earth.

In all fairness, do you believe it is right to base legislative proposals
on something that is "inexplainable?"

> In any case, rather than argue the philosophical and intangible, I will
> continue to plea (spiced with reason I dare say) to you to spare the life
> of the unborn. 

By all means, that is your right, if it makes you feel better.  I will
continue to remind you of women's rights to bodily autonomy.

> For his/her sake, and for society's sake.

You haven't shown how legal abortion harms society.  Lots of people here
could show you how _illegal_ abortion (like in the pre-Roe days) harms society.
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe