NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52682

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52682 talk.religion.misc:24424 alt.atheism:24184
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!coopsol!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stay Awake Software
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 22:10:44 GMT
Lines: 78

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) said:
><[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>|> ><[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) :
>|> >|> From article by [e-mail] (Maddi Hausmann):
>|> >|> > [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) 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.  Do you
>really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?  If we
...
...
...
>Understand, that I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice synonymously.

Therein lies your error.

>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 more than you should be considered pro-racist for believing that ALL
people have a right to voice their opinions (see KKK).

>Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
>pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.

Not in the political sense.

>It seems to me that the terms pro-life and pro-choice are merely table
>dressings, IMHO.

And you are welcome to your opinion.  However, in order to converse
properly and be understoodt in this forum the correct terms should be used.

>This is definitely one discussion in which I do not wish to get entangled.

Too late. ;-)

>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.

You have to understand Suzanne:  Any one who doesn't share her exact brand
and flavor of Catholicism is an Atheist, Satanist, or just hates people.
In her mind you couldn't possibly be a Christian.

BTW, "pro-abortion" (a label I've taken myself), is a subset of
pro-choice.  While many pro-choicers would apologize for abortion, or
attempt (or allow) some sort of restriction a pro-abortioner makes no
apology for abortion, and would go so far as to recommend abortion to
anyone who asks.  Pro-abortioners tend to feel that there are enough
people on the earth, thank you, and far too many bad parents who tend to
think that just because they can biologically create children that it
makes them parents (in anything more than the biological sense).

Pro-abortioners tend to believe in completely unrestricted abortion.
Pro-abortioners *are* pro-choice, but pro-choicers are not necessarily
pro-abortion.  There are only 3 pro-abortioners on this net and I know
that two of them are not Christian.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth,
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
--
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.