From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:53:14 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software


Geez, _another_ pro-life "kevin"!  Gonna be hard to keep 'em straight.

<1992Apr12.232005.18627@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>-What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?
>>>                                                  It denies human beings
>>>basic rights.  
>
>>And why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?  What
>>about conflicting human rights?  You know, like *womans's* rights.
>
>Sorry.  You win the major logic flaw award.  Yes, ALL human beings deserve
>the basic rights (ie. the right to life).  This conflicts with no other 
>rights.  Woman's Rights are secondary because they deny other humans the
>aforementioned right to life.

I asked a question.  How can my "logic be flawed" when all I did was ask
a question?  And you might want to get a little more specific when you
claim "Women's Rights are secondary" because it sounds like you are
claiming *ALL* of their rights are secondary.  You also didn't answer my 
question: Why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?

>>>               It allows society to disrespect the value of life.  
>
>>Society already disrespects human life.  Perhaps you didn't see the
>>newscasts of people cheering our side in the Gulf War?  I don't see where
>>abortion (something done behind the closed doors of a doctors office)
>>effects society more than, say, a Rambo movie, or the reading of the
>>bible (one of the bloodiest books).
>
>"Society already disrespects human life."  So two wrongs make a right?

Not always.  But we are not trying to outlaw Rambo movies, the Gulf War,
or the bible, are we?

>I cheered our side in the Gulf War.  Not because we killed Iraqis but
>because we were liberating an oppressed people (kinda like a unborn 
>children).  

Have those "oppressed people" elected a democracy yet?  Have they allowed
their women the right to vote, or to drive a car, or to walk around
without a veil?  We returned a dictatorship to power, and we didn't even
get rid of the opposing dictator in doing it.  But we did kill a lot of
Iraqi.  You obviously think it is alright to kill to return a people to
their previous life style.  You just won't allow women the same right.

>            The Bible is history.  Mankind is inherently violent.  Hence
>the Bible is "bloody".  Doesn't make it wrong, bad, etc.

Sorry, I was refering to the blood letting at the hands of the biblical
god.

...

>>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>>outlawed.  We have it on good authority that abortion is just the foot in
>>the door.  However, your claim about abortion is less convincing -
>>abortion has been around in some form for countless centuries and it
>>hasn't caused the acceptance of murder yet.  Do you accept murder just
>>because abortion is legal?  I know I don't?  Does anyone on this net
>>accept murder because abortion is legal?  Please speak up now.
>
>Outlaw contraception?   Duuuuhhhh and hear I thunked dat you kuld by
>kondums even beefour 1973.  Is this possibly a ploy to provoke emotional
>responses to a non-existent issue?  You bet it is.

I meant that the attempt to make contraception illegal will follow if
abortion is made illegal.  It is the next "logical" step for pro-life
because contraception allows that icky irresponsbile sex to happen.

>>Given that the abortion turnout always favors the pro-choice crowd in a
>>huge way I would think that you would see that abortion _is_ moral - using
>>your own logic.
>
>Lie.  Always claim numerical superiority no matter what.  Good Tactic.

From the numbers posted here and in various news magazines the numerical
turnout at these rallies tends to favor pro-choice by a large margin.  I
don't expect you to believe it, after all you think that a fetus is more
valuable than your mother or wife or daughter.

>>>>-What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
>>>> it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
>>>
>>>Well, it's genetic tie to the human race affords it human rights.
>
>>Like a liver cell?
>
>You want the right to abort liver cells?

No, ignoramus, a liver cell ha generic ties to the human race.  Does that
afford it human rights too?

>>>                                                                   Because
>>>I believe it to be a Constitutional person, not a phil. person, any
>>>violation of its rights in the Const., especially life, makes abortion
>>>murder.  
>
>>But abortion is legal, therefore not murder.  I'm glad to see you finally
>>labelling your own opinions as such too.
>
>You need some classes in logic.  Labeling something legal does not make it
>other than what it is.  If the Supreme Court labeled you a Rainbow Trout
>would it make it so?  Didn't think so.

Look, idiot, "murder" is a legal term, we are discussing the legality of
abortion.  The legal term "murder" is assigned to the illegal killing of a
human.  Any killing of a human that is legal is not murder, *by definition*.

...

>>Do you realize that at 8 weeks (the normal or average time of an abortion)
>>the fetus still has a tail, it's head is half the size of it's entire
>>body, it's eyes are sealed shut (like a kitten's), and it has no
>>functioning lungs.  "Human likeness"?  How many humans do you know who
>>come anywhere near matching this description?  And just about everyone I
>>know has far more movement and range of motion than a fetus.
>
>I know some people with physical deformities matching your descriptions.

*ALL* the deformities I mentioned?

>Guess you would label them "undesirable non-humans" and rip them limb
>from limb too, eh?

Only if they were inside the body of another unwilling person and refused 
to leave.  This really is the crux of the issue.

>>>                                      DNA structure.
>
>>Like a liver cell.
>
>You were made to eat things you didn't like as a child, right?

I love liver.  But you're right, I was made to eat things I didn't like
sometimes.  What does this have to do with abortion?

>>While your post appears rational on the surface, your statements appear to
>>fail close examination.  You also fail to mention once the "other" human
>>involved in abortion.  You know, the woman.  What about her resemblence to
>>the human species?  And her DNA, and her potential?  Why the blind worship
>>of the fetus at the cost of a realized person?
>
>Glad his post at least appeared rational.  If you walked out your front
>door and saw someone tormenting a woman  and  saw someone else murdering
>a child, you would ignore the woman to save the child, right?  Come to think
>of it, you probably wouldn't.

What does this have to do with abortion?  If I walked out my door and saw
someone stepping on a thumbnail sized fetus, and another tormenting a
woman, there is no doubt that I would attempt to help the woman.  What
would you do?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:532 soc.women:8636