From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:02:19 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Suzanne, your comments belie an unwillingness to even think for just a
moment about any viewpoint that differs from yours.  Your posts have
been lined with kneejerk flames and hackeneyed retorts; you repeat
your idealism over and over again in the same words.  If you want to
take this as a flame, then I can't prevent that, but I hope you might
realize that I wouldn't be expressing frustration if I didn't honestly
_feel_ frustration.  Maybe you ought to step back, take a deep breath,
and try to read your own posts objectively for a few minutes, and see
if you might be able to lessen the flames just a bit.  You just don't
look *sincere*, and this makes you difficult to take seriously.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
>>>        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair
>>>
>>>It's that simple.

Suzanne, I honestly am amazed you're defending this.  If you'd like to
back up your simplification of the whole abortion issue, would you
please tell me how my 'world view' is based on despair while yours is
based on hope?  You're polarizing this debate into 'good versus evil'.
You forget that there are people on both sides who are gentle and
honest and optimistic, as well as people on both sides who are
spiteful and belligerent and pessimistic.

But this isn't the most outrageous thing you've said, either.  Look:

>Hey, I would admire the pro-"choice" position if the penalty of their
>convictions was carried by the people holding those convictions, instead
>of by somebody else they've never even met - namely the unborn children.
>For that reason only, being pro-"choice" stands for nothing but cowardice.

Have you heard even a SINGLE WORD I've said in defense of my opinions,
Suzanne?  Or have you been blinded by your own narrow views?

PLEASE EXPLAIN this: one human life is using another human's body.
The donor, however, does not wish to be a donor.  The only way to
break this relationship is to kill the dependent life.  I feel that
the right of a person to decide what is to be done with his or her
body far outweighs anyone else's right to lay claim on it.  This is my
conviction.  How do you propose I take the 'penalty' of this
conviction upon myself?  How can you say my opinion stems from
cowardice?  How can I prove my sincerity to you.

Then you go on to ask,

>do we as a
>society stand for freedom at the expense of torturing little babies to death?

... overlooking the fact that anybody guilty of torturing little
babies to death would quickly be tossed into jail in this country.
You still don't acknowledge that (1) it's impossible to torture that
which does not have a working nervous system, much less a brain
capable of thought, (2) there is a difference between killing and
torturing, and (3) there is a difference between a baby and a
zygote/embryo/fetus.

Do you honestly thing your sensationalism will sway people over to
your cause?  It seems to have exactly the _opposite_ effect on this
newsgroup.  Think about this.

When Galen expresses annoyance at your droning idealism, you say:

>_Your_ problem is knee-jerking, Galen, since you obviously have not looked
>closely at anything I've said in years.

... which is a great case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Until
you show any signs of having understood anything I've said, I won't
believe you've even tried to understand.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion