From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion debates (was: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Keywords: Hate, dogma
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:25:40 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

I have directed follow-ups to talk.abortion, a group this site does not
get.  If you want to argue with me on this topic, please take it to email.
Thank you.

In article <1992Sep25.183340.22089@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are propaganda terms that are both accurate
>>and inaccurate in the same way and for the same reasons, i.e. both were
>>picked to put a more positive spin on each sides position than is in fact
>>justified: "Pro-Choice" because it sounds better and is shorter than,
>>"Pro-legally-allowing-a-woman-to-kill-her-unborn-baby" and "Pro-Life"
>>because it sounds better and is shorter than, "Pro-having-the-government-
>>force-a-woman-to-carry-her-fetus-to-term".  
>
>Freudian slip there?  Why the "unborn baby" lie in the first, yet
>"fetus" in the second?

No, that was quite intentional.  I was trying to be reciprocal: the
alternate "Pro-Choice" lable is supposed to be from a Pro-Life perspective,
just as the alternate "Pro-Life" lable is supposed to be from a Pro-Choice
perspective.

>>for-crying-out-loud people,
>>please take a moment to try to understand the other side's position and
>>look at it from their perspective before you clog USENET with this
>>senseless debris.
>
>Why?  *You* haven't tried.

How would you know?  Obviously, you don't.  Lighten up!

>"Unborn baby" is more dishonest pro-life tripe.

See above.

....
>>>And "most people against abortion" favor capital punishment,
>
>>Oh really?  I suppose you have data to back that up?
>
>Yes.  I saw parts of the Republican convention, I heard about the rest,
>I see all the rip-off evangelists and their consituencies, and I've
>experienced Reagan, Bush, Buchanan and Quayle for 12 years.

Irrelevant.  There are Pro-Choice Republicans, just as there are Pro-Life
Democrats.  The same is true of capital punishment.  You'll have to do
better than saying you saw the Republican convention and lived in the
U.S.A. to prove to me that most people who are against abortion are for the
death penalty.  BTW, I don't pretend to know the answer to this question
and I will need more than your prejudice as a guide.

>>Can you think of an argument someone who is against abortion out of respect
>>for human life might use to justify capital punishment?  I'm against
>>capital punishment, but I can.  It isn't hard; use your head; think!
>
>No. I cannot, and I've heard all your silly arguments.

You've heard all the arguments, yet you can't think of any?  In fact, I
don't think you've heard *my* arguments at all, not that it would matter to
someone with so closed minded.

For everyone else: Some people argue that it precisely because life is so
precious that there must be capital punishment, that some crimes are so
terrible, that it is uncivilized to respond with anything less.  Now I
don't agree, but there is nothing illogical or hypocritical about such a
position.  It depends on your values, and what you think the purpose of the
criminal justice system is.

>Please don't
>patronize me; your thinking processes have been stultified by religious
>fanaticism (whether you know it or not), so you have no room to judge.

I'm agnostic, i.e. not religious.  My opposition to abortion has nothing to
do with the notion of sin, a soul, an after-life, or God.  I don't view
pregnancy as punishment.  I have nothing against sex; I don't think it is a
sin outside of marriage.

As for my being patronizing, you just admitted you couldn't think of an
argument for the other side.  I think you should take a good long look at
your attitude.

>You would force women to give birth in order to satisfy your Fetal Lust.

You obviously don't know what I would do, nor my motivations for it.  I
don't know of anyone who could be described as having "Fetal Lust".

>Capital punishment is a depraved practice that turns our government into
>killers, yet that practice is disproportionately applied, and sure as
>hell not foolproof, though the result is final.

Fine.  Argue with someone who supports the death penalty.

>>>slavishly support every U.S. war in patriotic frenzies (no matter how
>>>illegal, contrived or criminal the war is...),
>
>>Again, I suppose you have data to back this up?
>
>Yes.  See above on Republican convention, et al.

In other words, you have no convincing evidence whatever.

>>You seem filled with hate.  Why?
>
>Nice try :).  Anyone who would force women onto some Fundie Forced Birth
>Prison Camp has sure gotten good at hiding his own hatred and cruelty.
>Are you projecting here, Steve?

I don't hate anyone, including you and certainly not pregnant women or even
women who have had abortions or the people who do them.  Your statement
above doesn't seem to be part of any effort to convince . . . no, scorn and
ridicule seem the order of the day.  If the motivation is not hate, it
doesn't seem to be love or caring either.  Where do phrases like "Fetal
Lust" or "Fundie Forced Birth Prison Camp" come from?  Surely not from any
honest effort to convince the other side or even those in the middle, nor
from love or understanding.  It sounds like hate to me, or at least great
anger.

>>>totally ignore all the children abused and starving in the world,
>
>>Again?
>
>See above.

I.e. no evidence.

>>A fetus might be born just to be abused and go hungry, so let's kill it.
>>How caring!  How clever!  How convincing.
>
>A woman should be forced to give birth, whether that is in essence
>slavery or not, whether the woman wants a child or not.
>How cruel!  How braindead!  How pro-"life".

Non sequitur.  Please stick with the subject, which is in this case, abused
and starving children and their relation to abortion.

>>>and generally consider themselves God's little enforcers on earth.
>
>>I'm sure this is also based on careful scientific study.
>
>I guess so; empirical studies count, don't they?  What I see, hear and
>read about the pro-life position is what I argue against.

You can call your jaundiced view a "study" if you like.  I will need more.

>>Can you think of any other reasons someone might be against abortion?
>
>Sure.  But many such people are additionally pro-choice.  I was speaking
>of you pro-forced-birth fanatics.

You don't know me.  I am not a fanatic.

>Does that clear things up a little?

And you call me patronizing . . . I don't think I was confused about your
position.

>>>And don't make me laugh - those "pro-life" arguments that aren't a
>>>pathetic mish-mash of confused religious belief are *usually* (not always)
>>>blatant assertion ("Life begins at conception!") or misogynic ("The man 
>>>should have a voice in the woman's decision!").  Amongst most of you,
>>>there IS no "best argument".  Only varying degrees of fanaticism and/or
>>>control freak-ism, usually blended with plenty of ignorance and hatred.
>
>>Sadly, as near as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of
>>ignorance or hatred on either side of this debate.
>
>No hatred; conviction and determination.  Pretty much, mind your own
>business, and I'll mind mine.  
>
>You, of course, would force your beliefs on everyone.  I would not.

Again, you don't know me.  I would not force my beliefs on anyone, even if
I could.

>Don't try and drag me into the pro-"life" mindset of idiot assertions
>and (usually dishonest) religious dogma.

I wouldn't dream of it.

Speaking of dogma, and "idiot assertions", what do you call saying that the
fetus is not a child, not a human life we need respect?  Those who favor
legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life starts or science
can't tell when human life begins.  This statement can only be made based
on (at least) a quasi-religious belief in some extra-biological aspect in
what constitutes human life.  The biological facts are not in question (at
least, not this century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound
basis for deciding what is and isn't human life.

>>I'm not just trying to be "smart" here.  I have a strong opinion on this
>>subject; I think abortion is wrong.
>
>No shit.  You were too afraid to mention any of Nolte's ravings.

I blasted his side of the "Pro-A is a lie, but Pro-B is true"
argument.  What more do you want?

>>But can't this be discussed more intelligently, and perhaps in groups
>>where it belongs?
>
>We have enough net.cops.

Obviously not.

>Take your own advice, first of all.

I have.

>Mind your own business, secondly.

I am.

>Third, start considering the woman involved,

I never left her out.

>rather than some mindless clump of cells you constantly snivel about.

You don't know me.  I've never sniveled about "some mindless clump of
cells".  I'm concerned with the actions of supposedly responsible adults.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d