From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Purdon's compliant survey response. NOT!
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:30:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In opposition to my request to change the subject line for
any flames or what not, James Purdon gracious replied and
commented therein to my survey.  I have a few comments on
the non-survey comments and no comments on the survey response.


In article <1992Jul28.221622.20384@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <64456@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>After reading t.o off and on for a while, I thought I'd try
>>to better understand how people (especially non-pro-lifers) 
>
>Why do I find myself doubting your sincerity?
>

As I emailed Mr. Purdon, one can be sincerely right or sincerely wrong,
but they can still be sincere - I ask how can one tell or better yet
why does one insist on casting doubt upon another's sincerity????

>>look at the issues.  I'd like to conduct a poll - one can
>>post to t.o or mail to myself - I haven't planned to summarize
>>the results.  I just want to get a feel for things. 
>
>I think you should summarize the results.  Otherwise, I fear we will
>find ourselves observing the construction of numerous strawmen and
>inflammatory statements based on the response of one aberrant
>individual.

You have the complete right and opportunity to summarize all of the
responses that are posted and you also have the opportunity to post
your own survey and compile the results yourself.

>>If you will allow me, I'll pose my thoughts on why I'm perplexed.
>
>How can we stop you?  If we stoically bear the likes of Stephen "pro-lie"
>Chaney, how can we be offended by your little quiz?

There was no intent of offending you, Mr. Purdon, nor anyone else.

Much less it seems here that you have won an award for being humble :-)
and have decided to proudly display your award, for it seems you
put yourself above myself and perhaps other pro-lifers by using the
phrase 'your little quiz'.

>>I have heard some infer that the unborn is life and they don't
>>care, some say that the joy of being pregant and the desire to
>>abort is dependent on whether the mother wanted a baby, etc.
>
>So?  Have you ever watched the face of a teenage girl upon being told
>that she is pregnant?  Often times the expression one sees is one of
>fear, not joy.  

Precisely my point.  That's why I am perplexed - why is the decision
based on feelings (joy or fear) a justified position?

>Why are you unwilling to accept the testimony of individuals who
>ahve been pregnant and obtained abortions as evidence of their
>feelings?  After all, you accept the existance of your god on
>much less.

HOW AM I UNWILLING TO ACCEPT SAID TESTIMONY?  I don't think I disallowed it.

If you care, explain you statement about my acceptance of the existance
of God and how your statement applies to the conversation.  Or do you 
just want to ridicule those who believe in God?

>>I guess where I'm puzzled it that if one believes that the unborn
>>is a life, then it should be beyond them to say abortion is OK.
>
>A chicken is a life, and yet some of us happily kill them and eat them.

Don't strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.  If it is so hard to understand
my meaning/intent, then you should have asked.  I suppose if I had
said 'human life' or 'valued human life' you would have jumped on that, too.

What could I have said that would satisfied you?

>Men, women, and children are lives, yet some of us happily kill them as
>well.  Many of us pay good money to watch fictional dramatizations of
>such killing. One of us, in fact, is so enamored of the idea that for a
>while he pretended to be a jet plane that had performed such killings
>and issues regular death threats (though he is quick to back peddle when
>confronted).  Why are you puzzled?

There is a difference between fiction and fact, although one may try
and blur these two.

>>Please leave the header alone for responses to the poll and change 
>>it to something else if you want to discuss or dispute anything.
>>If there are other questions you'd like asked or think I should
>>have used, email me at rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu - thanks.
>
>I think not.

It is obvious you cannot comply nor even have the desire.

>>Note: part 'a' of the question deals with the unborn and part 'b' 
>>is related, but applies regardless of the answer to part 'a'.
>>OK, so here are my questions:
>>
>>FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
>>THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
>>LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
>
>Absolutely not.  Apparently you live in some fairy world where rape,
>incest, and life threatening pregnancies do not exist, but I live in
>the real world, and decide such issues on the basis of reality.  I
>don't see how you can hope to understand your opponents' thoughts if
>you insist on creating an artifical scenerio.

Again, if it is so hard to understand my point, you could have asked.
I posed the questions and I set the guidelines - again, you have the
opportunity to do the same.  The point of this guideline was to
eliminate the questions of pregancies caused by these events.

[survey and responses deleted - Thanks for the response here.]

>I notice that you didn't once mention the rights of the mother.  Was
>this oversight intentional or are you truely blind to the existance
>of the woman that surrounds that fetus you claim to care so much about?

I, as stated in the survey, will entertain any alternate and new 
questions.  

If you want, will you present any new appropriately phrased question(s)?

>-- 
>Jim
>
>Once I was single.  Now I am married.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |