From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:28:29 GMT

ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>>From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu
>>Subject: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
>>Let me address your rebuttal as best I can.  You question or state....
>>
>>1. A woman should have a choice.
>>  To give birth or have her child killed?
>>   - Your premise that potential = actual
>First off, what do you mean by "your premise that potential = actual".  Sorry
>if I'm being ignorant, but I haven't figured out how you relate this objection
>to whatever it is I'm talking about.

You're being accused of confusing a potential person (i.e.,
zygote/embryo) with an actual person (i.e., you).

>>  When a woman conceives, she becomes a mother.
>>   - Your opinion
>Definition.  Look it up.

Look it up yourself.

From the American Heritage Dictionary
mother: 1. A female that has born offspring.  2. A female who has
adopted a child or otherwise establish a maternal relationship with
another person.  [other irrelevent definitions omitted]

A women who has never born a child and who got an abortion does not
meet these criteria for motherhood.  Did you show similar care with
the rest of you post?

>>  She will eventually regret that choice (abortion).
>>   - Your opinion
>Majority vote.

Evidence indicates overwhemingly to the contrary.  You are mistaken.
Did you show similar care with the rest of you post?

>>  Quote from Susan Carpenter McMillan
>>   - Her opinion
>Your point?

You are a liar.  That's my opinion.  That's the point.

>>  Quote from Deuteronomy
>>   - I question the relevance
>I'm a Christian -- it has relevance to me, as it does (or should) to any other
>Christian out there.  And it's Old Testament, so it should have relevance for
>Jews, too.  Or were you questioning the relevance of the verse itself?  If
>that is the case, I'd ask you to explain more -- for I fail to see how it
>CANNOT be relevant.

The old testament also advocates murder.  Are you picking and
choosing?

>>2.  In the case of rape.
>>  Should conception occur, abortion is not advisable.
>>   - Your opinion
>An assertion supported by the rest of this section.

And we've seen just how rigorous the arguments have been so far.

>>3.  To reduce illegal back-alley abortions.
>>
>>  "CHILD AND FAMILY" Vs "Planned Parenthood"
>>   - I question the relevance and bias of statistics from the early 60's
>Did I say early?  Well, anyway, in order to obtain statistics from before
>Roe vs. Wade, you need to go back a ways.  Granted, it isn't 1972, but hey, I
>was lucky I could find what I put.

Don't need to be _too_ careful with the truth.  After all, since you
know you're right, facts are just irrelevent details, right?

>>  Following Roe vs. Wade, the cases of child abuse in America rose 500%
>>   - correlation Vs. causation
>This is the first case where you give this argument.  I find it hard to
>believe that two such related items occurred independent of each other.  But
>suppose the two aren't related?  You are still riding on the wing of chance
>by assuming the next THREE instances where you use this argument were with
>regard to unrelated items.

You presented no evidence whatever that the two are in any way
related.  To assert (as you apparently do, here) that the society in
the US went through no other changes during this period is utterly
absurd.  Blame it on the Viet Nam war.

>>7,8 ,9.  To prevent possible suicide. Relive stress.  For mental health.
>>  Abortion causes suicide.
>>   - correlation Vs. causation
>Statistics were given that make it hard to believe the two aren't related in
>many cases.

Some people believe that Elvis is still alive and that NASA is robbing
the American people by showing them faking pictures of a round planet
when the earth is really flat.  Their evidence is just as good as
yours.  Maybe better.

>>   - I argue that pregnancy introduces the threat of suicide.
>But my argument was that abortion increases the threat.
>>   - How many women did not kill themselves because abortion was an option?
>See the last line I wrote.
>>  Those whom abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds
>>  have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders.
>>   - does that surprise you?
>:-)  Actually, no.  I applaud your response to this.  I can't deny the
>validity of that point at all.

Well gee.  You start with a sample of people already disposed to
mental illness, then infer that because these people have a high risk
of post-abortion psychiatric disorders abortion is the cause?  Sorry,
I'm not stupid enough to buy that one.

>>10. To relieve women of unwanted pregnancies
>>
>>  Clinic counselors withhold information about the impact of abortion.
>>   - Your opinion
>Fact.  Either they do (in general) or they don't (in general).  In a case like
>that, what does my opinion matter at all?  If they do, it is fact.  If they
>don't, it was a lie.  Check it out for yourself.  It's not just my opinion, and
>nor is it a lie.

And we've seen just how accurate your opinion has been so far.  If you
mean to say that counselors withhold information that only you
consider to be correct, then that statement is correct.  But your
information is, at best, extremely suspect and probably nothing more
than biased propaganda.

>>11. The fetus is mere tissue or only uterine in content.
>>  A preborn child is very human.
>>   - genetically yes.
>>  His sole needs are nutrition and time to grow.
>>   - Your opinion
>Please.  This really *is* getting a little silly, isn't it?

Yes, it is.  You don't seem to understand that few people are willing
to accept your opinion as fact.  Just as you are probably unwilling to
accept my opinion of your posts as fact.

>>12, 13.  Abortion is safer than childbirth.
>This is somewhat misquoted or misparaphrased, too.  My point was that in ALL
>stages of pregnancy, abortion is more dangerous than letting than childbirth.
>Abortion in early stages of pregnancy is twice as dangerous.  In middle and
>later stages, it is even more than twice as dangerous.  This is the direct
>opposite of the pro-choice argument I was refuting ("abortion is safer than
>childbirth"), and therefore my point should be obvious.

This is a stupid lie.  There is ample evidence to indicate abortion is
ten times safer in general than is pregnancy and giving birth.

>>17, 18.  To control population and food supply and save taxpayer's money.
>>
>>  Please do not insult me!
>How so?  By including such a ridiculous pro-choice argument?  But many
>pro-choicers use that one.  If you don't, I'm very glad.
>Or did you mean I was insulting you with my argument?  Sounds like a cop out
>response to me, especially since you didn't even paraphrase the arguments.

The money issue usually comes up when some pro-lifer complains about
spending their tax money on abortions.  The reply to this is the fact
that an abortion will actually _save_ taxpayer dollars.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: talk.abortion