From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:30:07 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec21.212858.28762@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.041610.42537@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>|> In <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> >|> <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>|> >|> >
>|> >|> >First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>|> >|> >pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>|> >|> >are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>|> >|>
>|> >|> Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>|> >|> Christian.  I'd like to know where you get your stats.
>|> >
>|> >I admit that I don't have any statistics to
>|> >flash around, but I know many pro-abortionists that are Christian.
>|>
>|> I'd tend to doubt it.
>
>I always look forward to debating with someone who refuses to believe me.

Had you read a little further before responding, you would have seen that
I doubt you know any "pro-abortionists", much less Christian ones; I have no
doubt that you know many Christian pro-choicers.

>|> No, he was talking about the three people on the net who claim to be
>|> pro-abortion; he was saying *nothing* about the millions of us who are
>|> pro-choice.
>
>Then the fault is with my lumping of the pro-abortionists in with the pro-
>choicers.  I will try to understand the difference; please bear with me.
>
>|> >Understand, that I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice synonymously.
>|>
>|> If you want to be understood, you probably shouldn't.
>
>Point taken.
>
>|> >Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
>|> >for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?
>|>
>|> No, because you're not fighting for people to *have* abortions, but for them
>|> to have the *right* to *choose* abortion, if that's what they feel is best
>|> in their particular situation.
>|>
>|> >Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
>|> >pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.
>|>
>|> Not only are you wrong, but by referring to them as pro-abortion, you're
>|> insulting many pro-choicers who are against abortion, but nevertheless
>|> feel that forcing their moral beliefs on others through laws would be
>|> a greater evil.
>|>
>|> To pick an extreme example, think of people defending the rights of Nazis
>|> to speak.  They might be pro-free-speech for Nazis, but that's a far cry
>|> from being pro-Nazi.
>
>If people defending the right of abortionists to exercise their beliefs
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>want to be called pro-choice, fine.  If people defending the existence
>of a right of a fetus to be born want to be called pro-life, fine.

The above seems to be your problem.  An abortionist is a person who performs
abortions.  In this country, only doctors are legally allowed to perform
abortions (I believe).  I assumed that you were writing (pro-abortion)ists -
i.e., people that are in favor of abortions in all cases of pregnancy.  Are
you talking about pro-(abortionists) - i.e., people who support doctors who
perform abortions?

Pro-choice means someone is in favor of keeping abortion available as a legal
(if undesirable) choice.  It does *not* mean being in favor of that choice.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show