From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:14:57 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[re: Suzanne's religion makes her pro-life...]
>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.  

You're such a blatant liar.

Did you forget your 10-day harangue of how the bible opposes abortion because
John the Baptist "jumped in the womb" at "recognizing" the fetal Jesus in
Mary's womb?

Did you forget saying that anyone who believes in pro-choice or who uses
abortiofacient birth control is NOT EVEN RELIGIOUS, much less christian?

Did you forget your hilarious contention that a deacon, you, and several
other religious crazies performed an exorcism on an "abortion clinic" that
sent the clinic workers "running into the streets in fear"?  (BTW, how come
you won't tell us the story?  'Cause it would make you look so silly?)

Strain yourself, and acknowledge your own statements.  You're extremely
dishonest.

>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.

You mean, in your estimation "God" is screwing up right now by NOT granting
these "children" (i.e., "fetuses") their lives again?  Please clarify.
Sounds like your "god" is pro-choice.

Sanctifying a just-fertilized egg, and ignoring individual sperm cells and
ovum, is so utterly brainless that it just HAS to be religion.  You sure have
given no other SECULAR reason.

>Simply because I have seen the
>bloody pictures and know a pile of dead children when I see them.

More bullshit.  Early term abortions would NOT be recognizable as "children".
First of all, they're fetuses!  (TAH_DAH!! Why not just call actual children
"adults" since that's what they MIGHT grow into?)  Second, those "bloody
pictures" wouldn't even contain recognizable human parts.  If you mean just
later-term abortions, then say so, and cut the fake emotionalism.

>Excuse me.  I am very considerate of others.  

Ha ha!  Tell us about your position on abortion WRT incest and rape victims.
Tell us again how women who have sex outside of marriage are "lower than
prostitutes".  Tell us how impregnated rape victims shouldn't "punish the
rapist" by getting an abortion.

Then choke on your bullshit consideration.

>I am not, however, ever going   
>to be apologetic for being pro-life.   It is the correct position to hold.

Maybe if you're repressed due to slavishly following some pathetic medieval
weirdness, it is.  Normal people have open minds, and empathy for situations
they'll never have to face; your mind is slammed shut.

>Too bad you consider a non-apologetic pro-life position "arrogant". 

No, a snotty hag retching her bile all over everyone - *that's* arrogant.
And that's you, Suzanne.       

You might ask Steve Adams how he manages to be (1) religious, (2)
anti-abortion, yet (3) compassionate and (4) pro-choice.  You may learn
something, if you're capable anymore.

>I consider baby killing the heighth of arrogance.

More snotty arrogance.  There is no baby involved.

>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. 

Gads, what an...ARROGANT rag.  Homicide is not legal; abortion IS legal.
Abortion will not be made illegal.  

And that just ties your cervical thermometer in a knot, doesn't it? :-)  I
suuurrre hope you enjoy President Clinton, the NEW Supreme Court, and the
Freedom of Choice Act. 

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

You made no point.  Since that is NOT why abortion is legal, and since you
refuse to acknowledge the innumberable reasons it IS legal, I suggest you
get counselling to find out why you ignore reality so.

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

Many mothers HAVE no bond with their child.  I think overlooking this point
is one of your many problems.  This ain't utopia, remember?  Your "god" 
supposedly made sure of that.

>People who argue for abortion on demand have no hope in the betterment of
>the human condition.

Uh...that's EXACTLY what the abortion option gives: betterment of that
woman's "human condition".  We pro-choicers are smart enough to know that
keeping women out of slave status is about as noble a goal as there is.

>Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
>        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair
>
>It's that simple.

Oh, Suzanne, you are so pitiable.  Nothing is that simple.

How about, abortion opposition = a world view based on delusion and prudery
		   abortion defense    = a world view based on reality and compassion

I'm honest enough to state that MY version is also simplistic.  This ain't a
black-and-white world.           

>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.

There's the arrogant snob again.  I've seen more unhappy and nasty pro-lifers
just at abortion blockades then any similar knot of pro-choicers.  Abortion
has helped more women then you'll ever admit.  Why do you think so many women
have had one?  To make themselves unhappy?  That makes no sense, and
typically, neither do you.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion