From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:12:45 GMT

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Lots of pro-lifers have spouted "Abortion is Murrderr!!!" but I've never
>> seen any of them come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.

> Well then why don't you tell us what the implications are?

Murder is a legal term for the deliberate, unlawful taking of a human being's
life.  The crime is considered a felony and is punishable by life imprisonment
or the death penalty.  That's the implication of the "Abortion is Murrderr!!!"
catch-phrase.  Yet I read articles by pro-lifers over and over again stating
that they do not want to punish the woman, just the abortionist.  This
inconsistency shows me that the pro-lifers who spout "Abortion is Murrderr!!!"
have not come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.

[--Bruce, from an earlier post--]
>>> I prefer his moral stand to your sniping, empty attacks.

>> So you prefer to be judgemental and condemning with no other facts before
>> you than "a woman has had an abortion?"  That's your idea of a moral stand?

>        Let's try, "a woman has had an abortion for reasons other than
> physical danger to her life". What other facts do you need? I think that
> if I was given "person X murdered person Y for reasons other than danger
> to his/her life", it would be pretty clear cut. 

>> Perhaps you'd like to take a seat with the Pharisees[1] over there?

>> [1] one the meanings of 'pharisee' in my dictionary is: "a person marked by
>> hypocritical, censorious self-righteousness.

>        Please show me the hypocrisy in my position.

In article <BvCw9C.2JB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, we had the following exchange:

CL> Well, I'll tell you what I think of your charge: you are being extremely
CL> judgemental and condemning about situations that you are in no position to
CL> evaluate.

BV> "Why am I in no position to evaluate it? Because I have not been in
BV> the situation myself? I have spoken on the invalidity of that reasoning
BV> before. Hmm. Have you ever been pregnant? Your opinion is worthless I
BV> guess then. Shut up.

Btw, you were responding to my criticism of your statement that having an
abortion was a "cowardly and irresponsible" thing to do.  

But above, you said:

> Let's try, "a woman has had an abortion for reasons other than
> physical danger to her life". What other facts do you need?

It seems to me that you need lots and lots of other facts to support a charge
that having an abortion is a "cowardly and irresponsible" thing to do, doesn't
it seem that way to you?

You state that since I never have been pregnant, my opinion has no validity.
Yet you simultaneously hold the position that having an abortion is a "cowardly
and irresponsible" thing to do, with no more facts other than "a woman has had
an abortion for reasons other than physical danger to her life."  And you,
Bruce, never have been pregnant either.

To hold both positions is to be a hypocrite, Bruce.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6319 alt.politics.elections:15239 talk.abortion:40689 alt.sex:31981 alt.politics.clinton:8570 alt.politics.bush:7795 talk.politics.misc:49655