NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57395

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57395 talk.religion.misc:27281 alt.atheism:26835
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!netcomsv!netcom.com!gordons
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:09:31 GMT
Lines: 55

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) :
><[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gordon Storga) :
>|> <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) :
>|> >                                                 There are plenty of
>|> >non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
>|> >lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
>|> >I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>|> >sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>|> >they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>|> >the human race, something of of great value.
>|>
>|> What those videos and sonograms show is a fetus which barely resembles a
>|> human being, let alone a child.  A fetus is an ugly thing, with veins
>|> and organs visible through the skin, a head much too large for it's body,
>|> webbed digits, eyes on the side of it's head (sealed shut), with a pulsing
>|> conduit of flesh sticking out of it's stomach.  Let's put it this way, if
>|> an adult walking down the street had even half these characteristics I
>|> doubt you'd be referring to them as "beautiful and graceful".
>
>    And because the unborn child, in your VERY humble opinion, is "ugly," it
>does not and should not have a right to life.

Bzzt!  Wrong!  I was not attempting to assign life and death values based
on looks alone.  I was merely pointing out to Suzanne that a fetus is ugly
by almost any standard of physical beauty you care to name.

>                                               Gordon, in all this time, you
>haven't changed.  You still have that singular ability to unfailingly miss the
>point, to throw mud, to bring up red herring non-issues.  You're really a master,
>and your talent is wasted on t.a -- you ought to be making real money on
>Crossfire or something.

Thanks, I'm looking for a job right now.

>    Gordon, very old people are ugly in some people's MOST uninformed
>opinions.  That doesn't make them non-persons.  Some people think Jews are
>ugly; some people think Scots are ugly; some people think blacks are ugly;
>heck, some people even think Native Americans are ugly.
>    Don't use such a pitiful argument again.

Yo Steve, check the top of this post again and you'll notice that Suzanne
was using appearances as a basis for her being pro-life.  She cites the
"great beauty and grace" of a fetus as a reason for being pro-life.  She
is the one you should be reprimanding, not me.

But I doubt you'll respond to this post.  Many pro-lifers have been
ignoring my responses lately (Suzanne, Nyikos, Chaney).  I can only
assume they have no argument.


Gordon
--
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.