NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52862

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 8.6 KB | 201 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!ncar!noao!forgach
From: [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:19:10 GMT
Lines: 187

From article by [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> In article [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>People who argue for abortion on demand have no hope in the betterment of
>>the human condition.  Despite millenia of history, they have absolutely
>>no concept that people can and do rise above circumstances, that every
>>adversity which is overcome produces new and wonderful opportunities and
>>accomplishments, not to mention, producing better, more caring, human beings.
>>Because in their hopeless state they cannot think of any other way, they
>>mistakenly fall into the trap of killing others to solve their problems.
>>
>>The practice and acceptance of abortion betrays nothing but a world view
>>based entirely, and falsely, on despair, and frankly, pro-lifers don't buy
>>despair.   And perhaps that's why many pro-lifers also happen to be
>>religious.  Despair is banished by hope in the future, and a faith in God
>>tends to focus that hope.    There is a saying that goes, "Every new baby
>>is proof that God thinks the world should go on."
>>
>>Anyway, abortion opposition = a world view based on hope
>>        abortion defense    = a world view based on despair
>>
>>It's that simple.
>
>
> This pisses me off just a bit.

Oo, sorry, that was not my intention.


> I have seen and carried bleeding
> bodies.  Some of my friends are dead now.  Some were killed by
> an "act of nature" and some were killed by the hand of another.
> Not just pictures, Suzanne.

Hey, more than half my relatives are in lines of work that could get
them killed at any time.  I'm glad the funerals they/we attend aren't
very close together, but they do happen.


> I know quite well the difference
> between life and death, I refuse to see nothing.  I have no
> need of Suzanne pointing out something to me.  As a matter of
> fact, I doubt there is much that she could point out that I
> haven't already seen.

What I was referring to was acknowledging that despite difficult circumstances,
beautiful outcomes can and do happen all the time.  I was not pointing out
the difficult circumstances.  I was pointing out the beautiful outcomes.


> Unlike some others, I have demonstrated that I have the
> courage to stand behind my convictions, and the penalty
> was hardly a few weekends or weeks or even years in jail.

Hey, I would admire the pro-"choice" position if the penalty of their
convictions was carried by the people holding those convictions, instead
of by somebody else they've never even met - namely the unborn children.
For that reason only, being pro-"choice" stands for nothing but cowardice.


> Reliance on the law to enforce your particular beliefs or
> to shield you from something you feel is distasteful
> bespeaks a despairing attitude towards mankind that is
> quite remarkable.

Depends on your view of law!  This view of law that you express - that it is
nothing but the way one group of people forces its beliefs on another group
of people, that the law enslaves, is one I've only heard from pro-"choicers".
To the rest of us, what we write in the law is really a statement of what
we stand for as a society.   Whether people break the law or not, do we as a
society stand for freedom at the expense of torturing little babies to death?
Or do we stand for helping mothers and their children overcome every and all
difficulties without killing anybody?   Which vision of society would you
prefer?   (Despair or hope?)


> People ultimately choose to obey laws
> or to act according to their own beliefs.  No law can ever
> prevail against personal, moral belief.  There will always
> be people (always have been, anyway, despite attempts to
> kill them) who will act according to what they determine
> to be right or wrong, regardless of what authority tells them.

That's why there are rapists, child abusers, terrorists, murderers of all types.
Should we as a society condone these practices by legal decree?   Or should
we have a better vision for society than that?


> It is reliance on law, faith in authority, which led to
> excesses in almost every scornful act in history.  Either
> the law demanded it, or otherwise good people had faith
> that the government or authority or whatever would act
> in concert with they thought was right.

On the other hand, "The law teaches."    If we as a society make a legal
statement accepting the crushing of one group of people under the boot of
another group of people, in this case adults against unborn children, (in
other cases it's been whites against blacks, Germans against Jews), then
the prevelence of such abuse is far more likely to occur than it would
have otherwise been, precisely BECAUSE so many people do place their faith
in a government authority doing, or at least saying, what is right.


> I would much rather put my trust in mankind rather than in
> a set of laws.  I have much more faith that my fellow man
> will help me than some statute.

Listen, if I didn't have faith that mankind as a society could set higher
standards for itself, and _reach_ them, we would not be having this discussion.
As it is, all we have set right now is the lowest common demoninator, rather
than any higher aspiration, and so the sheep types of society are sinking
down to it, rather than rising up to a better level.


> In case it comes as a surprise to some people, it takes
> absolutely no legislation, no law, no statute, no regulation,
> no action by any authority to make abortion legal.

Then what the hell was Roe V. Wade?   46 out of 50 states had in fact
outlawed it, and that one court edict did indeed "make abortion legal".


> It may be a bit harder in some cases to talk someone into
> the belief that it is wrong to kill than it is to point
> a gun at them and tell them not to do it.

Galen, "The law teaches."   Think about it.


> You aren't
> guaranteed success either way, but in one case you can
> be pretty sure of the outcome when you are gone, in the
> other case you can't at all.

In the long run, whether you've actually convinced the would be killer
not to kill, or forcefully prevented him from doing it, it doesn't matter
a hill of beans to the would be _victim_ of the killing, if he has managed
to walk away.


> Excuse me for ranting a bit, but I tend to get carried away
> when some nipple-headed jerk tries to tell me that
> faith in law is somehow more hopeful than faith in mankind.

_Your_ problem is knee-jerking, Galen, since you obviously have not looked
closely at anything I've said in years.


> There is a simple exercise that one can think about when one is
> contemplating faith in law versus faith in mankind.  One of the
> best ways discovered yet is government by the people.  If you
> don't have faith in people, perhaps another kind of government
> is preferable.  From whence comes its authority?  Divine
> right?

I say, Let the PEOPLE VOTE on it!!   And dump Supreme Court judicial
fiats out the window!   Which group is forcing their view on the other,
when they keep relying on court edicts to over-rule what people have VOTED ON!


> Suzanne Forgash protests quite a bit that she
> does not bring religion into this issue.  That is quite
> untrue.  If you do not have faith in mankind, you must
> have faith in something else.  Perhaps you call it God.
> Perhaps your particular flavor is Roman Catholic.  If that
> isn't enough, and you really think there is no question that
> "God knows best," perhaps you should reflect a minute on who
> was given the ability (according to some stories) to make
> the decision between right and wrong.


Galen, I will not discuss religion with you, even if you do try to forcably
bring it up, since it has nothing to do with this issue.   We as a society can
either reach for a higher standard than killing unborn babies to solve our
problems, or we can reach as low as worms as we have been doing for the last
2 decades, and continue to prey on those weaker than ourselves.


> And God said "Be fruitful and multiply, and be sure to make
> plenty of laws to try to coerce people into acting according
> to your interpretation of what is My Will."
>                               SF 3:16

Galen, you are far more hateful and disgusting than I ever gave you credit for.


S. Forgach