garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/14/85)
I have recently returned from vacation, and am replying to an article (which was a reply....) written by Charles Forsythe. If no one responds because it's old news, I won't be offended. I wrote in reply to one of his articles: > >You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling > >it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus. Charles Forsythe replies: > Ok, here: The article is bogus. What?! You mean a reliable news source > is wrong? Not possibly but I am not the only one that has pointed out > that quoting *one* article no one else heard about is somewhat flimsy. > Perhaps when the story makes it to the cover of Time... This reminds of the grade school joke: "Want to see my fast draw?" (pause, while standing perfectly still) "want to see it again?" I reiterate: You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus. The story was originally (I think) published by the Gazette du Palais. Subsequently, it appeared in a column by Nick Thimmesch, which column is syndicated by the Los Angeles Times. This particular incident was mentioned in Mr. Thimmesch's column which appeared in the Victoria Advocate, 18 Dec 1981, and the Seattle Times, 27 Jun 1982 (and presumably, since the column is syndicated, other papers). It was also covered by Ray DiBlasio in _Update_ (I don't know who publishes that), April 1982. A followup by Mr. DiBlasio appeared in the October issue of the same publication. I have quoted from, and cited, all of the above. Now do you understand my frustration at your request for more articles? So why hasn't it made the cover of Time? I don't know; I don't set editorial policy for Time Magazine. So this story wasn't on the cover of *your* favorite periodical(s); that fact does not make it bogus. Perhaps Time is biased in favor of abortion? Nahhh... > >> You were trying to make us > >> believe that abortion clinics were raking in the dough selling fetal > >> remains to cosmetic manufacturers. > > > >When did I say that? Abortion clinics do rake in a lot of money, > >mostly by performing abortions. Selling fetal remains (to anyone) > >is a way of making additional money. > > You said that when you opened this whole can of worms. You were, if you > remember, trying to show us all of the financial opportunities that > abortion clinics have. Yes, and cosmetics is only one of the uses for aborted fetuses. Did you miss, or are you simply ignoring, the other uses I mentioned? > >> What proof? Well, it is known that > >> they use fetal remains. How do we know they're human? Well, because ONCE > >> a shipment was intercepted at a custom stop. > > > >How many should be intercepted before you think that there is proof? > > How about two? > > >> Customs officers stop lots and lots of trucks, Gary. > > > >Do they stop all of them? > > Trucks have to declare what they're carrying across borders. If people > are not declaring at least "fetal remains", they are lying and breaking > the law. [Sarcasm follows] Oh my. It never occurred to me that they would have to *lie* and break the *law* [end sarcasm]. And you accuse me of insulting your intelligence. So, let me rephrase my [rhetorical] question: are all trucks stopped at the border, and searched to ensure that they are carrying what they say they are? For the perpetually dense, I am quite confident the answer is no. > >So we should wait until everybody is doing it before trying to stop it? > >How do you know what people will or will not do or consider doing? > > No, we should stop those who are guilty. So far these discussions have > been about things in general. If you want to stop someone, go to France, > find the clinic, and have it closed, but leave honest American clinics > alone. > >> It's still horrible. It should be stopped... > >I'm glad you agree. What are you going to do to help? > I live in America. If the FDA doesn't forbid human fetal remains being > used in consumer product, I will happily cast my vote to change that. Nice theory; neither FDA personnel nor policy is subject to vote. > That way, the guilty will be punished (when they are caught with their > truckloads going into France.) The FDA has no authority in France; besides, it's awfully hard to drive a truck from here to there. > >> but it DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION! > > > >I.e., you don't want to hear about it. Go ahead, close your eyes. > > Rather than insulting my intelligence, why don't you apply yours and > explain to me the connection? I'm not insulting your intelligence; I'm questioning your sincerity. (At least get the charge right). The connection is that abortion is the only *reliable* source of fetuses. After an abortion, it is possible to sell the fetus for a number of different purposes. Without the abortion, there is no fetus to sell. Is that simple enough? > First, abortion is a source of human fetuses, but so is miscarriage. Miscarriages are not a *reliable* source of human fetuses; since, for one reason, they do not occur under controlled circumstances. > Second, such use of the fetuses is illegal (or could be quickly). According to all the information I have, it is currently legal. If anyone has information to the contrary, I would be glad to know about it. > Third, you haven't demonstrated that this is particularly widespread. And I have already said that I don't want it to become particularly widespread. I take it that you refer only to cosmetics; what do you think of the other uses for aborted fetuses (experimentation, manu- facture of drugs) ? > Please explain why stopping abortion will solve this problem? Because there is no other reliable source of fetal tissue. > Why not solve it by illegalizing this practice internationally? There is no such thing as an enforceable international law. > Why not solve it by finding the sources and stopping THEM? Why not solve it by publicizing it? and getting lots of help stopping it? That you don't want to hear about it still looks like the best explanation for your questions. > I have very good evidence that people who are NOT aborted often end up > unhappy and kill themselves. Should I use this as a pro-abortion stance > (ie why bother putting them and their loved ones through all that > misery.)? Vacuous. Obviously, no one who was aborted has "ended up unhappy and killed themselves." Actually, that basic argument has been used, with some variation. To wit: an unwanted pregnancy should be aborted because the child would grow up to be abused, a criminal, a welfare recipient, and generally unhappy. It's the "quality of life" argument, and is highly presumptuous. No human is qualified to determine whether another's life is worth living. > >maybe the problem will get so big that no one can do anything about > >it at all. I would like the practice stopped altogether; in the > >meantime, I would like to help prevent it from spreading. It seems > >like one way to do that is to let others know about it. > Okay, now we know. When "Oil of Baby" starts appearing in the > supermarket, we'll write our senators. When "Oil of Baby" starts appearing in the supermarket, it will be too late; write them now. > Charles Forsythe Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/22/85)
In article <928@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > >The story was originally (I think) published by the Gazette du Palais. >Subsequently, it appeared in a column by Nick Thimmesch, which column >is syndicated by the Los Angeles Times. This particular incident >was mentioned in Mr. Thimmesch's column which appeared in the >Victoria Advocate, 18 Dec 1981, and the Seattle Times, 27 Jun 1982 >(and presumably, since the column is syndicated, other papers). Excuse my ignorance, but what is this "Gazette du Palais" you keep on refering to? I have been to France quite a bit and I don't remember ever having seen such a newspaper on the newstand. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/05/85)
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is this "Gazette du Palais" you keep on > refering to? I have been to France quite a bit and I don't remember > ever having seen such a newspaper on the newstand. > Sophie Quigley It's a French legal journal; I wouldn't expect to find it at the newsstand. (If you need more information, I'll see what I can dig up.) Gary Samuelson ittatc!bunker!garys