arndt@lymph.DEC (03/18/85)
"Isn't that better than raising everyone's blood pressure?" Yes it is, . . . if what's inside the woman is not a baby! ------------------------------ Please tell us Mikki, when is the magic moment when 'It' becomes a baby? You're not impressed with 12 weeks (others are) - at what tick of the clock, at what added cell or at what location (inside, half inside, all the way out) does an 'it' become a person? Ahhh, we can't tell. So (like the Supreme Court - soon to overrule itself again) the fiat is given . . . HERE! I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to HELP women, and I am involved in doing this through a local Birthright, but doesn't it ever strike you as a little bit odd that we DO have cases every day in which in one room doctors are trying to kill the same thing that other doctors are trying to save in the next room?????? WHY are the doctors working on the premie??? WHY are the doctors leaving the other (in the case of 'live birth') to die??? WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE TWO LITTLE BODDIES THAT WARRANTS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?(of course that's bodies) but, if you're still reading, don't let that divert you from my question please. ----------------------------------- Is the difference one is wanted and the other an embarrassment? One is at the 'right time in my life' and the other not??? Please tell me the difference, because I really want to believe that we have NOT been killing babies to make our lives more convenient!!!!!! Talk about the pain and struggle of the mother, however real, does NOT take away the fact that there is 'something' there that if not KILLED will be a baby shortly. It is alive, and cover it with as much sugar as you wish, abortion stops that life! And no one can tell me WHEN that 'something' becomes a baby! Can you? Regards, Ken Arndt
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (03/19/85)
Observations about and replies to Ken Arndt's reply to Mikki Barry: > > "Isn't that better than raising everyone's blood pressure?" > > Yes it is, . . . if what's inside the woman is not a baby! > > ------------------------------ > > Please tell us Mikki, when is the magic moment when 'It' becomes a baby? > You're not impressed with 12 weeks (others are) - at what tick of the clock, > at what added cell or at what location (inside, half inside, all the way out) > does an 'it' become a person? > All the way out. > Ahhh, we can't tell. So (like the Supreme Court - soon to overrule itself > again) the fiat is given . . . HERE! > As I said, all the way out. >I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to HELP women, and I am involved > in doing this through a local Birthright, but doesn't it ever strike you as a >little bit odd that we DO have cases every day in which in one room doctors are >trying to kill the same thing that other doctors are trying to save in the next > room?????? > Ironic, yes; odd, no. By the way, it's not the same thing -- it's the same TYPE of thing. If one set of doctors were trying to save the SAME fetus that others were trying to kill, now, THAT would be ODD. > WHY are the doctors working on the premie??? > Because the preemie is wanted. > WHY are the doctors leaving the other (in the case of 'live birth') to die??? > Are we talking about abortions or live births? Please make up your mind. >WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE TWO LITTLE BODDIES THAT WARRANTS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?(of course that's bodies) but, if you're still reading, don't let that divert > you from my question please. > > ----------------------------------- > > Is the difference one is wanted and the other an embarrassment? > More precisely, one is wanted and one is not. > One is at the 'right time in my life' and the other not??? > Now you're getting the picture! > Please tell me the difference, because I really want to believe that we have > NOT been killing babies to make our lives more convenient!!!!!! > That's what we're doing. No one in their right mind would kill a fetus unless it enhanced their life. If you choose to call this "more convenient", that's a nice ad hominem turn of phrase, but it's essentially correct. What's wrong with wanting one's life to go better? A woman who has an abortion is choosing herself above someone else. I have no problem with that. She's not killing a stranger, she's killing someone who is threatening her happiness who she does not choose to support. That is her right. If you find her to be a heartless, immoral murderer, that is YOUR right. Go ahead and believe it. I don't. > Talk about the pain and struggle of the mother, however real, does NOT take > away the fact that there is 'something' there that if not KILLED will be a > baby shortly. It is alive, and cover it with as much sugar as you wish, > abortion stops that life! RIGHT!! That's what abortion is FOR!!! To stop that life. > And no one can tell me WHEN that 'something' becomes > a baby! Can you? > I thought we already covered this point, but I'll try again: ALL THE WAY OUT. > Regards, > > Ken Arndt Regards, Mike Gray, BTL, WH
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (03/23/85)
In article <714@whuxlm.UUCP> mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) writes: >Observations about and replies to Ken Arndt's reply to Mikki Barry: > >> WHY are the doctors working on the premie??? >> >Because the preemie is wanted. > >>WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE TWO LITTLE BODDIES THAT WARRANTS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?(of course that's bodies) but, if you're still reading, don't let that divert >> you from my question please. >> >> Is the difference one is wanted and the other an embarrassment? >> >More precisely, one is wanted and one is not. > >> One is at the 'right time in my life' and the other not??? >> >Now you're getting the picture! > >> Regards, >> >> Ken Arndt > >Regards, Mike Gray, BTL, WH So this is what the pro-choice movement is all about. "If you don't want it, get rid of it." Are you sure there are people who want you, Mike? You better hope so! With this mentality, we will soon be killing off the elderly that have no one to care for them, after all it costs money to keep those convolescent homes running, and oh yes, we are already letting babies die who are born with some kind of abnormality. But, Reagon didn't like that! I tell you, what piousity! Can you imagine a President who has morals. What a lousy country to live in! I guess we can get rid of the handicapped next. You know, it all makes sense now! Evolution, survival of the fittest, (What the heck do we have hospitals for; how can natural selection work properly when we are letting all those sick people hang around and poison our genes). Maybe the fetuses will develop fangs or some other mutation may occur so that they can fight back. Hey, is David Horowitz pro-life! This is a very dangerous mentality! "If it is not wanted, kill it!" I for one would be frightened to live in a country with this mentality! PLEASE think about what we are doing in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Is this what constitutional freedom is all about. Freedom to chose who lives and who doesn't? If you think this is emotional, you are right! I get emotional over the thought of killing unborn babies just because you don't want one. My God, who told you to get one started in the first place! How about abstinence for those of you who don't want a baby right now! Good Heavens, I must be crazy, right. RIGHT! I must be crazy to think that the life of an unborn would ever be important enough to make a sacrifice like that for! God Bless America Land that I love Stand beside Her and guide Her Through the night with a light from above! Its getting dark down here God! Can you shine that light a little brighter! God, Hello, are you still there!!
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (03/28/85)
In reply to an article of mine replying to Ken Arndt, Dan Boskovich quoted some of my article (a representative selection) and then added his own comments. My apologies to those with slow terminals for the length of this, but his quotes follow this paragraph, and then his comments, with my further observations, are after that. His selection from my article: > In article <714@whuxlm.UUCP> mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) writes: > >Observations about and replies to Ken Arndt's reply to Mikki Barry: > > > >> WHY are the doctors working on the premie??? > >> > >Because the preemie is wanted. > > > >>WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THE TWO LITTLE BODDIES THAT WARRANTS DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?(of course that's bodies) but, if you're still reading, don't let that divert > >> you from my question please. > >> > >> Is the difference one is wanted and the other an embarrassment? > >> > >More precisely, one is wanted and one is not. > > > >> One is at the 'right time in my life' and the other not??? > >> > >Now you're getting the picture! > > > >> Regards, > >> > >> Ken Arndt > > > >Regards, Mike Gray, BTL, WH His comments (in full) and my replies: > So this is what the pro-choice movement is all about. I do not speak for the pro-choice movement. I am a pro-choice individual expressing my own views. I know that some pro-choicers agree with me, and that many do not. Don't use your dislike of my views as an excuse to castigate everyone who calls themselves pro-choice. > "If you don't want it, get rid of it." A distortion of what I said. A more honest statement: "If you are a pregnant woman who does not want to allow the pregnancy to go full term, then I will not try to use legal force to prevent you from having an abortion. If you ask my opinion and you are a friend, I might or might not encourage one. Sometimes it's a very harmful thing to do, sometimes it's the only way out of a bad situation. > Are you sure there are people who want you, Mike? I know of one or two. > You better hope so! Why? I'm not a fetus anymore. > With this mentality, we will soon be killing off > the elderly that have no one to care for them, after all it costs money > to keep those convolescent homes running, I don't advocate killing them off. While we're on the subject though, I do not choose to care for them either. I want to use my money to care for my own parents, and I expect no help from others. > and oh yes, we are already > letting babies die who are born with some kind of abnormality. I'm not doing that, but if I have a child whose potential quality of life I consider to be zero (such as an anencephlic baby[no brain]), then I would certainly let it die, if the mother agreed. > But, Reagon > didn't like that! I tell you, what piousity! Can you imagine a President > who has morals. I can imagine one, but have yet to hear of one. > What a lousy country to live in! I guess we can get rid > of the handicapped next. If you "guess" that it is OK for you to kill handicapped individuals, and do it, you should be prosecuted for murder. > You know, it all makes sense now! Evolution, > survival of the fittest, (What the heck do we have hospitals for; how > can natural selection work properly when we are letting all those sick > people hang around and poison our genes). Maybe the fetuses will develop > fangs or some other mutation may occur so that they can fight back. Hey, > is David Horowitz pro-life! > > This is a very dangerous mentality! "If it is not wanted, kill it!" > I for one would be frightened to live in a country with this mentality! > > PLEASE think about what we are doing in the Land of the Free and the > Home of the Brave. Is this what constitutional freedom is all about. > > Freedom to chose who lives and who doesn't? > > If you think this is emotional, you are right! I get emotional over > the thought of killing unborn babies just because you don't want one. > My God, who told you to get one started in the first place! > How about abstinence for those of you who don't want a baby right now! > Good Heavens, I must be crazy, right. RIGHT! I must be crazy to think > that the life of an unborn would ever be important enough to make a > sacrifice like that for! > > God Bless America Land that I love > Stand beside Her and guide Her > Through the night with a light from above! > > Its getting dark down here God! Can you shine that light a little > brighter! God, Hello, are you still there!! > > If you really feel this strongly, then we will have trouble debating. For the record, I do not advocate killing people just because they are "not wanted" or "a burden". I do advocate the right of a woman to make that decision about the fetus she is carrying. I do not equate "letting someone die (a passive act)" with "killing someone." For example, there are probably Ethiopians who have died whose lives could have been saved by me. I did not choose to do so. If you are that concerned about human life, sell your house and car, buy beans and rice, go to Africa, and save some of those people. I will not stop you. My original reply addressed abortion, not euthanasia, not genocide. Ken Arndt announced publically that it qualified me to run a concentration camp. He didn't say why. You have equated my views with those who advocate the elimination of large groups of people. Neither of these accusations has any merit. Why do you make them? I can respond to facts and reason, not to ad-hominem attacks. Mike Gray