NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52590

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52590 talk.religion.misc:24360 alt.atheism:24125
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mksol!noonan
From: [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: noonan@mksol (Michael P Noonan)
Nntp-Posting-Host: localhost
Organization: Texas Instruments
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:28:58 GMT
Lines: 101

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.

|> >Do you really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?
|>
|> 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.

I think we all agree that both pro-abortionists and Nazis have the right
to free speech.  The anology would seem to be more appropriate if you
said:

  "To pick an extreme example, think of people defending the rights
  of Nazis to exercise their beliefs.  They might be pro-right-of-Nazis-
  to-exercise-their-beliefs, but that's a far cry from being pro-Nazi."

Talking and doing are two separate things.  Please remember, it would
never have occurred to me to compare the abortionsist to Nazis.  I am
merely using your analogy.  Obviously your analogy doesn't do much to
convince me that pro-choicers aren't actually pro-abortionists.
Please, I'm not some abortion fanatic.  I merely wanted to point out
a fallacy of Suzanne's and I got drawn in to this argument of semantics.

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.
I give up.

For the benefit of all, I will rephrase my statement.  Please see below.

|> >This is definitely one discussion in which I do not wish to get entangled.
|> >I thought my first point was self-evident, and was not prepared to
|> >defend it with stats.  My second point, I thought, was definitely not
|> >apparent to Suzanne Forgach, but true since I know of at least one (i.e. me).
|> >Her implication that atheists and atheists alone support abortion is false,
|> >so I felt obligated to post.
|>
|> And your implication that pro-choice = pro-abortion is false, as (apparently)
|> is your claim that most pro-abortionists (as opposed to pro-choicers) are
|> Christian.  Gordon felt obliged to correct you on the latter point, and I
|> feel obliged to correct you on the former.
|> --
|> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)

Here it is folks!  The politically correct jab at Suzanne Forgach's
implication that atheists and atheists alone support abortion rights
(I can barely remember what she said.):

     First of all, I'd like to point out that most of the people who
     fight for the right to have an abortion are Christian.
     Secondly, there do exist atheists who think abortions are wrong
     for everyone.  So just what exactly are you implying here?

Well Suzanne?  Suzanne?  Yooo hooo, Suzanne?  Where'd she go?

-Mike Noonan