NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/55413

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55413 talk.religion.misc:25985 alt.atheism:25802
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!chrisl
From: [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: krang
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:01:39 GMT
Lines: 90

[e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>>> Is showing the footage of dead Jews from the concetration camps
>>> not a valid debating technique.  Maybe those who think the holocoast
>>> was wrong would show these films because they lack strong arguments?

>> You're kidding, right?  Let's get one thing straight, Paul.  The Holocaust
>> doesn't work very well as an analogy to the abortion issue.  I would suggest
>> backpedalling at flank speed to avoid being flamed to a crisp.  The
>> Holocaust, the systematic and deliberately cruel extermination of Jews,
>> Slavs, gypsies, assorted other "undesirable" ethnic minorities and disabled
>> people by a totalitarian government, is not an analogy to anything.

> So, you still haven't given me a reason why the holocoust is not a most
> excellent analogy.

All right, Paul, here's your explanation.  The Holocaust was the result of
a totalitartian government policy which, I repeat, was systematic and
deliberately cruel to born, breathing persons.   The numbers of abortions
which you call a holocaust is the _aggregrate_ of millions of decisions by
_individual_ women, which is by no means systematic or deliberately cruel.
The _only_ attribute  shared here is that in both instances, the numbers
are real big.  I suppose that would be compelling for someone who doesn't
give the issue a lot of thought.

> Nazi's killed Jews and took their money.  Here in the U.S, unborn children
> are killed in order to free up some extra cash.

!!!  That's news to me!  Care to document this claim?

> Its not much different.  Its not much different from sacrificing children
> to Molech, a sex-god, in order to get a better grain harvest (to bring in
> a religious aspect.)

Did they edit the story of Abraham and Isaac out of your Bible, Paul? :-)

> Did you hear of that guy who was buying full page adds in college newpapers
> saying that the holocoust didn't happen?  One guy I knew was ready to
> believe that garbage.  If I showed this guy graphic footage of a concentration
> camp, would I be merely using shock tactics.  A picture is worth a thousand
> words.

Better yet (that is, if you want to present a _rational_ argument), show your
friend the mountains of documentation available, including transcripts of the
Nuremburg trials, personal interviews, etc.

> If pro-choicers insist that a fetus is just a lump of tissue, then they
> should be no more shocked to see a fetus in a jar than they would be if
> they saw a lump of tissue in a jar.  Why argue when you can examine the
> contents of the jar.

Because of the laws of this land should have a basis in rationality and
shared self-interest (I know that sounds like an oxymoron; perhaps you
could suggest a better term), not one what we find to be ikky-gross.

And another thing: if a pro-lifer believes that the fetus in a jar is, or
was, a person, isn't is a violation of that "person's" dignity to parade
him/her around like a sideshow attraction?

[--deletions--]

>> Not too long ago, there was an attempted firebombing of a women's clinic
>> in my area.  The perpetrator(s) drilled a hole in the roof, poured ten
>> gallons of gasoline into the clinic, lit a candle and high-tailed it out
>> of there.  The candle went out, fortunately.  If it had ignited the gasoline,
>> the force of the explosion would have been equivalent to seven sticks of
>> dynamite.  There is a nursing home adjoining the clinic, so many, many
>> innocent people would have died.  As it was, the nursing home had to be
>> evacuated because of the gasoline fumes.  Do you really think that God is
>> so desperate for results that He would sanction the killing of innocent
>> people to save a few fetuses?

> Again, this is horrible.  and I take your word for it that this is true.
> But I did not pour the gas in the building, and I told you how I felt
> about such things.  I don't lump you together with specific groups of
> people who behave immorally at pro-choice rallies.

I never associated you with the more distemperate elements of the pro-life
movement, except to note that you seemed to be sticking up for them
(something about "hearing from God," as I recall).  I have been more of an
observer than a participant at pro-[this'r'that] demonstrations; when I
become more active (as a clinic escort, for example), I certainly hope that
I can muster the patience to deal with being cursed, punched and spat upon
by pro-lifers.

--
Chris Lyman    /   email: [e-mail]   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"