From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:15:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

>>>>I find it interesting that when the pro-child killers speak they can only twist
>>>>others words instead of using straight logical answers.
>>> 
>>> Like calling pro-choice people "pro-child killers"?  Yep, talk about your
>>> basic straight, logical answer there...
>>> 
>>> --PLH (only six months until summer, when a little peace and quiet will
>>> reign in this newsgroup...)
>>> 
>>
>>That is no  twist of words.  It is the truth.  
> 
> So you think all people who have abortions are "child killers"?
> Do you want to hang them all for murder?  We could try them in court 
> and easily execute millions of women for the crime of child-killer.
> Is that what you want?  If not, then your "truth" has no important 
> consequences.  I would never use the term "child-killer" myself, 
> unless I was referring to someone so despicable that I knew they 
> should be tried and punished.

I wasn't going to even give this article the time of day because of blind bias,
but it is too delicious for that.

Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
only be a baby.  By stoping its development, you are taking away the potential
for life. Correct (I did say potential)?  If it is not going to be able to live
then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?  What do you think killing
is besides the ending of life?  

> 
>>For someone to call it
>>pro-choice is a twist of words.  
> 
>>The baby had no choice, did it?  
> 
> Never had.  Never will.  Simply not capable of decision-making yet.  The 
> choice is the woman's (unless the government decides to choose for her).

How did the choice of living or not for a unborn person get to be that of
another person?

> 
>>When was it asked about not living?  
> 
> How would it answer?  How could it think intelligently about 
> the meaning of the question having never been outside of the womb?
> Now who is playing with words????

Ok.  That was just a stab just like you with the choice issue.

> 
> Many people pray to God before an abortion, asking which is the right way 
> for them.  If you prefer, you can think of the fetus being asked 
> (through God) at this time.  And apparently the fetus replies "Don't 
> wanna get born", if the prayer session ends with person deciding to abort.

This was the question that made me decide to write.  As you know if you have
read my latest postings, I have changed somewhat and now approach the issue
from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.  How long have you been a
christian?  I was just wondering since you seem to be speaking for God here. 
The truth is that God only answers us if we TRUELY are looking for an answer. 
Somehow, I think that if someone is considering abortion that they are not
looking for answers but instead solutions.  As you know if you are a christian,
God has us wait in faith at times to test our willingness to wait on him. 
Also, if God has told us to do what is 'natural' with our bodies, I wouldn't
myself ask him if he was sure about that.  God gave us the ability to have
babies for a reason.  I am not going to be the one to question him.  It would
be like me saying, "Lord, are you sure I can't have sex before marriage?" 
Again, as I said I am coming from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.  How
many less people would have abortions if they did not have sex before marriage? 
We cannot change the truth to fit us.

Before you flame me, think about it.  Your arguement is to keep abortion legal
and for the religious to just tell their views personally, rather than through
legal means.  I think we need to do both with the personal comming first. 
Therefore, if you flame me, are you saying that the religious should stay out
of it all togather.

> 
> See -- I can play with words, too.  Doesn't mean anything, does it?
> 
>>One of the problems with this issue is the
>>misclassifying of terms.  It is the ending of what would be life, plain and
>>simple.  Can you argue with that.  
> 
> No, but I am not yet ready to argue that the rights of "would be" human life 
> supercede the rights of actual human life.  I personally see some
> evidence for the idea that early fetal development follows previous 
> evolutionary development.  The early fetus strikes me as not human but instead 
> as riding on the evolutionary path *to* humanity.  I would be comfortable 
> with criteria along the lines... does the fetus have gills?  yes. 
> Then it's OK to abort now, because it's not really human yet.
> I do not think of humans as single-celled animals or as animals with 
> gills or as animals with two-chambered hearts.  And yet all these 
> different types of animals are found in the womb as the germ of life 
> retraces its steps through the evolutionary past of homo sapien.
> 
>>I mean drug users have the 'choice' to do
>>what they do also. Right?
> 
> Yes.  Many people drink alcohol.  Alcohol is a drug.  They have freedom 
> of choice.  Women have freedom of choice in this land when it comes 
> to reproductive rights.  It's the law of the land.  If it makes you 
> uncomfortable, there are other lands with laws you might find more 
> comfortable.  (Sorry about that -- I just can't resist using the same 
> logic the conservatives used during the Vietnam War -- "America - love it 
> or leave it!").
> 
>>...Ken!
> 

...Ken(again)!
> 
> -- 
> Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
> Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
> Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
> roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion