NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58519

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-29 | 4.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!ra!usenet
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:13:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NRL
Lines: 90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson)
writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>You forgot Muriel's immortal words descibing the unborn's use of a woman's
>>"body as its sewage system"  I know it would be interesting to hear a
response
>>to you question regarding pro-life women ( those poor misguided souls) -
don't
>>hold your breath, Doug.
>>
>>- Paul
>>
>I believe this is the _second_ time I've corrected you
>on this misquote.  Those are not my words.  Document
>this quotation or retract it.
>
>muriel
>standard disclaimer
>

You are correct!  I am sorry for misattributing this quote to you.  Since the
words were so disgusting, I am doubly sorry for my mistake.   Despite the fact
that the true (I think) author, Mr.Blackshaw was answering a question that I
put to you, I should have been more careful.  Here is the post I extracted it
from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <bob1.726426577@cos> [e-mail] (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel
Nelson)
>>writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
>>Townsend) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>[e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
>>Townsend) writes:
>>>>|> >
>>>>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives
one's
>>>>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>>>>
>>>Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
>>>And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
>>>point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
>>>_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
>>>H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
>>>your credentials by posting your SAT scores.
>>>
>>>
>>>muriel
>
>
>>Muriel -
>
>>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>>mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent
>
>Fine words, and agreed that the z/e/f would have some value to someone. The
>one simple problem that seems to escape most people is that, in order to
>have any value at all the z/e/f must occupy some woman's uterus and get
>all of its nutients from her body and use her body as its sewage system.
>Now, you could remove the z/e/f, and then debate the intrinsic value of
>it and the woman to see who's is greater. Just make it a very quick
>debate.
>
Well, maybe we are speaking of a different "value".  The value I am referring
to  is associated with the gene structure which differentiates one human from
another.  That exists independently of the uteris. I don't argue that to allow
that valued individual to develop requires the nurturing of the mother's womb.
The only thing the pregnant woman can willfully do it to destroy a pre-existing
value.

Referring to the woman's body as a "sewage system" may point out, in a crude
way, certain aspects of the child's growing process.  It seems to be at crossed
puposes with the objection to the notion that the womb is 'just a place'.

- Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, Sorry for the mistake.

-Paul