NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58441

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 5.3 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!usenet
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NRL
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:15:28 GMT
Lines: 116

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris A
Lyman) writes:
>[e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> [e-mail] (Mike Cobb) asks why analogies to the H********
>>> are not useful:
>
>>>> Anything emotionally painful or visually repulsive (pictures) are
>>>> impossible to use when discussing the issue.  It hurts to much to
>>>> see that these "things" look so much like a little child.  It makes
>>>> us feel better to keep those emotionally troubling issues out of the
>>>> discussion.  We're happy, and the child, is dead.  It is emotionally
>>>> troubling.  Just asked the group Women Exploited by Abortion.

[deletions]

>
>>> [...] we could build a case that the availability of safe, legal abortion
>>> has certain affects on society and public health, positive and negative,
>>> and whether these affects, if negative, are compelling reasons to place
>>> restrictions on abortion.
>
>>        Come on.  Even if, say, killing Jews were somehow beneficial to
>> society, we wouldn't have a right to do it.
>
>Read what I wrote, will you?  The availability of safe, legal abortion has
>certain affects on society and public health, do they not?  Are these affects
>positive or negative, or a little of each?  If there are negative affects,
>what are they?  Are they compelling enough that we should place restrictions
>on abortions?

This is a fruitless line of reasoning.  Since you don't place much value on the
unborn you, of course, would not consider the killing of 1.5 million of them
detrimental to society.  You win, by definition.  I win, by definition.

>
>>>> So, please explain why it is such a stupid and  senseless argument,
without
>>>> just saying it is so.  It's convenient to not have to, but we don't get
>>>> anywhere.  It is an emotional issue, for everyone.
>
>>> Since I don't remember you participating when I last wrote this, I'll be
>>> happy to explain.  The Holocaust was the result of a totalitarian
government
>>> policy.
>
>>        So is abortion.
>
>Abortion is the result of a totalitarian government policy?  Please elaborate
>on this fascinating claim.
>
>>>  It was systematic and deliberately cruel.
>
>>       The deliberate cruelty aggravates the crime, but the fundamental crime
>> was the killing of innocent people.  It would have been wrong even if there
>> was no cruelty involved.
>
>>> The total number of abortions in the U.S. is the result of an _aggregate_
>>> of decisions of individual women.
>
>>        The number of rapes in the United States, also, is the result of an
>> _aggregate_ of decisions of individual men.
>
>The number of non sequitors by Steve Arnold is the result of an _aggregate_
>of decisions of individual brain cells.  In other words, will you please
>try to concentrate?
>

Seems to me to be exactly to the point you were trying to make, that somehow
distributed guilt is more acceptable than concentrated.  Did I misinterpret?

>>> It is in no way systematic or deliberately cruel.
>
>>        So abortion is the soulless and cold killing of millions, while the
>> Holocaust was the hateful and viscious killing of millions.  Somehow, I'm
>> not comforted.
>
>As I am not comforted to know that it seems perfectly in character for you to
>equate the lives of born persons with those of z/e/f's.

This is a "non sequitor" if I've ever seen one.

>
>>> The only attribute that the Holocaust and abortion share is that the
>>> numbers are real big.
>
>>        Another similarity is the refusal of people to recognize the
>> personhood and humanity of "inferior" races and unborn children.  In both
>> cases, the reasons for the refusal were arbitrary.
>
>In your humble opinion.  We've already discussed personhood above; hit 'b'
>if you want to see it again.
>
>>> Imo, the Holocaust is not an analogy to anything.  It simply is what it is,
>>> an expression of hatred and bigotry.  It is a monument to what happens when
>>> an entire society surrenders to the Big Lie that all problems are caused by
>>> that different sort of person over there.
>
>>        The Holocaust was the killing of millions of people because someone
>> deemed them inconvenient.  So is the abortion holocaust.
>
>If you were wondering why I made certain cutting remarks above, this is why.
>I'm sorry, Steve, the Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others weren't massacred
>because the Third Reich deemed them 'inconvenient'.  They were killed in
>the name of 'racial purity' and also because they were deemed 'scapegoats'.
>Learn the difference.
>

No!  This abortion debate aside, I will not let you place all the blame of the
Holocaust on one regime, Chris.  If you do that you put a lie to "Never
again!".  The lesson of the Holocaust is that each of us has the potential to
commit unspeakable cruelty and we must be FOREVER vigilant over that side of
human nature.

- Paul