umina@darts.DEC (01/15/85)
I'm not sure this is going out correctly, but here goes. I do not see how you can determine that he has made up his mind and therefore he is unconvincable and therefore he should not be permitted discourse with the group. The fact that his committment is apparently as strong as yours may in fact make him as unconvincable as you are. The fact that you will never convince him of your point of view is not a valid disqualification from the discussion. Discussions do not always occur between people who have not made up their minds. One gets the impression that you are afraid that his committment to his beliefs is an impediment to your progress in the 'selling' of your point of view to the audience. So be it. That is what dialog is all about. I would say that he is doing a fairly good job to get you so frustrated. And now that I have said my two cents on that, here's how I feel on the issue: 1. You would never convince me of your position that abortion is anything less than murder. 2. Bombing abortion clinics (provided no one get hurt) is merely property destruction. I wonder if Hitler had put his camps in the city if they would not have been bombed also. That's why they were remote. If on a jury, I would never convict an abortion clinic bomber as I feel he is going to the aid of the defensless. 3. I am sure the loss we, as a society, would have been at a loss had you been an aborted fetus. You are obviously intelligent, and a contributor, and may someday be responsible for improving the human condition. One wonders just how many others, the Bachs, Eiensteins, etc... have not been allowed the chance to contribute, and how things would be today if they had 4. This issue is somewhat like gun control. Either you believe that freedom is best served by people having guns or you dont. Abortion is similar. Either you believe its murder and those who do it, or condone it, or allow it to happen without resisting it will answer for their actions or you don't. (Wonder if you believe in God ?) Len
ssp@sun.uucp (Stephen Page) (01/15/85)
> 3. I am sure the loss we, as a society, would have been at a loss had > you been an aborted fetus. You are obviously intelligent, and a > contributor, and may someday be responsible for improving the human > condition. One wonders just how many others, the Bachs, Eiensteins, > etc... have not been allowed the chance to contribute, and how things > would be today if they had I haven't been reading this newsgroup for long, and I can't believe that the point raised hasn't been discussed before. But, here goes:- You can't talk about "What would have happened if..." because it obviously didn't happen. You might equally well say "If the fetus had not been aborted the moon would be made of cheese". Logically, IF p THEN q is always true when p is false. In this case p is "the fetuses weren't aborted" (false) and q can be anything you want. OK, I had trouble with that one in my philosophy course too. If you can ask the question, "What would be the results if (some/many/most) of the abortions performed each year weren't?" you should be able to answer it. How can we answer that question with some certainty, if we're talking about a state of affairs that doesn't exist? Well, you could say that state of affairs does exist, in countries or times when many abortions were prevented. You could formulate sociological principles based on scientific study. The results of such research would be as controversial as the rest of this debate. Another 'way' to answer the question is religion. An omnipotent, omniscient God can be very specific as to what happens in cases that didn't happen. To sum up, I don't feel you can point the charge of preventing an Einstein at a couple who decide to terminate pregnancy. They killed a fetus, that's all (a bad choice of phrase). If you believe otherwise then I hope you're making babies morning noon and night, in case one of them is the next Einstein. But then if you spent less time procreating you could be writing the next 'Hamlet', ... Stephen Page The opinions expressed are not those of my employer, nor are they my own.
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (01/15/85)
> 2. Bombing abortion clinics (provided no one get hurt) is merely property > destruction. I wonder if Hitler had put his camps in the city if they > would not have been bombed also. That's why they were remote. If on > a jury, I would never convict an abortion clinic bomber as I feel he > is going to the aid of the defensless. Maybe somebody should bomb your house while nobody is home, would you feel that it is "only property destruction"? > Len Richard Brower Fortune Systems -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/15/85)
Len ( ..!unima) writes: > 2. Bombing abortion clinics (provided no one get hurt) is merely property > destruction. [ ] If on > a jury, I would never convict an abortion clinic bomber as I feel he > is going to the aid of the defensless. Well first of all, Lenny, you couldn't be on a jury in a case like that, thank Ubizmo, cause they don't let people who say "I would never convict him" before the trial on juries. (Unless you're planning on lying under oath during the selection. After all, it's for a good cause.) Secondly, the "(provided no one get hurt)" is a nice, ungrammatical dis- claimer, but it seems that whether or not someone gets hurt when you bomb a building is entirely a matter of luck. But if they take the chance and get lucky and don't kill anyone, you think we should let these bomb-throwing champions of the right to life back on the street. Personally, I find such an attitude disgusting in the extreme. "Terrorism" is a word about methods, not motives. A terrorist uses violent methods to attempt to change a society. Civilized people abhor the initiation of violence, even if the they share the goals of the terrorists. Listen, Lenny: it's not too late; psychological counseling CAN help. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!"
bermes@ihu1m.UUCP (Terry Bermes) (01/16/85)
>3. I am sure the loss we, as a society, would have been at a loss had >you been an aborted fetus. You are obviously intelligent, and a >contributor, and may someday be responsible for improving the human >condition. One wonders just how many others, the Bachs, Eiensteins, >etc.... have not been allowed the chance to contribute, and how things >would be today if they had As a pro-lifer, I feel this argument does much harm and no good to the pro-life movement. Meaningless speculation about what type of person might have been born is just that, meaningless. There are many other points that a pro-lifer can use to support his/her position (I won't go into the specifics because that's not the point of this posting). The pro-choice movement, if any of them would choose to argue this point, could point out the possibility of abortions preventing untold numbers of Hitlers and various other abominable people from perpetrating untold horrors upon the people of this world. Terry Bermes
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (01/17/85)
In article <217@decwrl.UUCP> umina@darts.DEC writes: > > ... > >3. I am sure the loss we, as a society, would have been at a loss had > you been an aborted fetus. You are obviously intelligent, and a > contributor, and may someday be responsible for improving the human > condition. One wonders just how many others, the Bachs, Eiensteins, > etc... have not been allowed the chance to contribute, and how things > would be today if they had This argument is not very good. One can just as well ask how many Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots and so forth we have lost through abortions, and how things would have been today if they had lived to make *their* "contributions".
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/17/85)
> > 2. Bombing abortion clinics (provided no one get hurt) is merely property > > destruction. I wonder if Hitler had put his camps in the city if they > > would not have been bombed also. That's why they were remote. If on > > a jury, I would never convict an abortion clinic bomber as I feel he > > is going to the aid of the defensless. > > Maybe somebody should bomb your house while nobody is home, would you feel > that it is "only property destruction"? > Your analogy is incorrect. The abortion clinic is the property of rational thinking people. -- The Last Surviving Bronto
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (01/18/85)
In article <mhuxt.523> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > Personally, I find such an attitude disgusting in the extreme. "Terrorism" >is a word about methods, not motives. A terrorist uses violent methods to >attempt to change a society. Civilized people abhor the initiation of >violence, even if the they share the goals of the terrorists. Listen, Lenny: >it's not too late; psychological counseling CAN help. >-- >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!" Are you implying "civilized people" run abortion clinics. Any society that systemmatically destroys part of its population under the guise of "reproductive freedom" can hardly be called civilized. Civilized people don't kill unborn children. All the psychological counseling in the world can't help "terrorists" who kill children in their mother's womb. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/20/85)
> 2. Bombing abortion clinics (provided no one get hurt) is merely property > destruction. I wonder if Hitler had put his camps in the city if they > would not have been bombed also. That's why they were remote. If on > a jury, I would never convict an abortion clinic bomber as I feel he > is going to the aid of the defensless. Well. I think if Hitler had placed bombs inside of Jewish babies he wouldn't have had to worry about his camps being bombed. If however, he was brought to trial, he would probably have to be found guilty for siring people like you. -- DoomLord
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/22/85)
> Are you implying "civilized people" run abortion clinics. Any > society that systemmatically destroys part of its population under the > guise of "reproductive freedom" can hardly be called civilized. Civilized > people don't kill unborn children. All the psychological counseling in the > world can't help "terrorists" who kill children in their mother's womb. > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl "Civilized" people DO use manipulative rhetoric and appeals to emotionalism in an effort to get their point across, rather than resorting to the UNcivilized tactic of stating facts and making reasoned valid argumentative points. Here's to civilization! -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
cjk@ccice6.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/25/85)
> In article <mhuxt.523> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > > Personally, I find such an attitude disgusting in the extreme. "Terrorism" > >is a word about methods, not motives. A terrorist uses violent methods to > >attempt to change a society. Civilized people abhor the initiation of > >violence, even if the they share the goals of the terrorists. Listen, Lenny: > >it's not too late; psychological counseling CAN help. > >-- > >Jeff Sonntag > >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > "Aye, Captain, and at warp 11 we're going nowhere mighty fast!" > > Are you implying "civilized people" run abortion clinics. Any > society that systemmatically destroys part of its population under the > guise of "reproductive freedom" can hardly be called civilized. Civilized > people don't kill unborn children. All the psychological counseling in the > world can't help "terrorists" who kill children in their mother's womb. > > -- > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl Right on, Tom! I used to be pro-abortion myself, but after I saw some of those doctors who run the clinics on TV I changed my mind. A couple of those guys were so hairy they couldn't have been much above the Cro-Magnon level. P.S. I think if you use whatever it is that you have in your head and reread the original article, you'll find that the counseling was recommended for a different party than the savages. You know as well as I do that Pavlovian conditioning is about all that would work with beasts like that.