rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/09/85)
> This country is really screwed up. I love this country. Its the best > on earth, but in some cases we are really NUTS! > It takes about 10 years to execute a 'convicted' killer and only 10 > minutes to execute a baby human through abortion. At the rate we're > going we are going to pass up the Nazis. These abortion clinics are > about the same as Hitler's execution camps. Hitler atleast put his > execution camps in the remote country. We put ours in the city. > Trivia question: How many babies we executed through abortion in > the good 'ol US in 1984. > Answer:. Estimated about 1 million. The Nazi's don't have > anything over us. We don't pollute the air when we > do it. Actual answer: None, if you use the definition of baby to mean a fetus brought to term and born; i.e., brought out of the mother's womb and beginning its life as a human being---of course, the whole abortion issue requires the answer to the question "Is it life if it's inside the womb and not an independent organism?" and/or "When IS IT life?" Does this person have the answer or just an opinion? > You know I've always wondered. What do they do with the baby's body > when they take it from the mother. I guess throw it in the trash can. > But what if it is alive!. Then I guess they make it un-alive before they > throw it in the trash can (or do they)? What about the poor guy that > has to empty that trash can! > If all this is making you sick it was intended to do so. Precisely. Because what has been stated here does not constitute objective fact, but rather nothing but the old INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC---wording specifically intended to engender a desired emotional response by a manipulative speaker. (For prime examples, see the work of Ken Arndt on this network.) The inability of many people to distinguish between fact and rhetoric is one of the prime reasons for poor government and poor society. > The whole thought > of abortion is SICK!. The people that bombed those abortion clinics should > be brought to trial. They broke the law. We as a people ought to put > pressure on our congress to change the law. Its a sick law. You're entitled to your opinion. That's what freedom is all about. Like freedom of speech that allows you to publicly state your opinion. And like the same freedom of speech that allows other people to point out that what you've said amounts to little more than pedagogic manipulative rhetoric. (Are you in politics? Sorry, I shouldn't lower this to the level of insult.) (By the way, are you saying that it shouldn't be against the law to bomb abortion clinics? That's what the gist of your paragraph was.) What's "funny" about this is that when people agreeing with the author of this article (loral!rfs - NAME WITHHELD) stand outside abortion clinics and harrass those who enter by calling them whores, baby-killers, pigs, etc. (often leaving emotional scars on their victims), use of the same tactic on THEM would not work. You see, for some reason, people who get erroneously and maliciously called whores/baby-killers feel the emotional pain of the verbal attacks. But calling the harrassers and name-callers (and building bombers) fascists (not at all erroneously) wouldn't have any effect. Perhaps they don't even realize that it's intended as an insult. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
johnston@spp1.UUCP (01/11/85)
> > You know I've always wondered. What do they do with the baby's body > > when they take it from the mother. I guess throw it in the trash can. > > But what if it is alive!. Then I guess they make it un-alive before they > > throw it in the trash can (or do they)? What about the poor guy that > > has to empty that trash can! > > If all this is making you sick it was intended to do so. > > Precisely. Because what has been stated here does not constitute objective > fact, but rather nothing but the old INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC---wording > specifically intended to engender a desired emotional response by a > manipulative speaker. (For prime examples, see the work of Ken Arndt on this > network.) The inability of many people to distinguish between fact and > rhetoric is one of the prime reasons for poor government and poor society. > A fact is not being stated at all. Questions are being asked. Very valid questions in fact. What do you think is done with aborted fetuses (I'll stick to that term since the term babies sidetracked you from the point being made earlier)? They are, in objective fact, trashed. Here, in Los Angeles, a huge trash bin was found stuffed with bodies. If you want objective facts there are plenty provided, not by pro-life groups, but by hospitals on late term abortions where the fetus is alive; in effect, a premature birth. They are, in objective fact, left to die. Some are placed in out of way closets where they die from exposure. Others are in fact helped along by the attending physician. Here again, in Los Angeles, in a well-publicized case, a doctor strangled to death the abortion that insisted on living. This is a disturbing thought to me. It's disturbing obviously to people who consider the fetus a human life. It's also, evidently, disturbing to pro-choice people who object to hearing about these facts. That the facts are sometimes stated in an emotional manner, I'll agree, but it makes sense. The abortion issue is very much an emotional one. Consider what the pro-life people believe. They believe an innocent human life is being snuffed out against his will. This should elicit no less an emotional response than the one you'd expect from a person who believes children are humans upon viewing a child being battered to death. I hope that if I'm ever attacked by a gang that someone out there would get emotionally upset. > > The whole thought > > of abortion is SICK!. The people that bombed those abortion clinics should > > be brought to trial. They broke the law. We as a people ought to put > > pressure on our congress to change the law. Its a sick law. > > You're entitled to your opinion. That's what freedom is all about. Like > freedom of speech that allows you to publicly state your opinion. And like > the same freedom of speech that allows other people to point out that what > you've said amounts to little more than pedagogic manipulative rhetoric. > (Are you in politics? Sorry, I shouldn't lower this to the level of insult.) > (By the way, are you saying that it shouldn't be against the law to bomb > abortion clinics? That's what the gist of your paragraph was.) > There seems to a problem with tying done his references to the word 'law', (seems to be out of character for someone using manipulative rhetoric) but the gist is understandable from the context of the posting taken as a whole. > What's "funny" about this is that when people agreeing with the author of this > article (loral!rfs - NAME WITHHELD) stand outside abortion clinics and harrass > those who enter by calling them whores, baby-killers, pigs, etc. (often leaving > emotional scars on their victims), use of the same tactic on THEM would not > work. You see, for some reason, people who get erroneously and maliciously > called whores/baby-killers feel the emotional pain of the verbal attacks. > But calling the harrassers and name-callers (and building bombers) fascists > (not at all erroneously) wouldn't have any effect. Perhaps they don't even > realize that it's intended as an insult. > -- > "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." > Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr That name-calling and harrassment takes place, I won't deny. Do you know how often this takes place? Don't assume that the media reports objective facts in proportion to what is actually happenning. There's not much news in an article about a group of concerned pro-life people who peacefully meet wth prospective abortion patients to provide them with objective facts about the abortion procedure so that they are in a position to decide for themselves what to do. This actually is supposedly the essence of pro-choice. The news media has found that people are much more interested in hearing about bombings however. I can understand objections to facts that are erroneous. But what I perceive is a deliberate attempt to keep true facts( albeit emotional ones) from prospective abortion patients. We are in an age where people are more then ever aware of every facet of our world. There is no reason why a person that is to have a particular medical procedure performed couldn't find out in detail what is to take place. Do you think that the average women having an abortion knows what the result of that procedure is or what it looks like. I don't believe abortion clinics have such pictures (bad for business no doubt). Do you think that the average abortion patient knows how many vital organs are functioning in the fetus (at the average abortion all are)? The ACLU has been heralded as the champion of the common people. They have effected many good changes toward keeping people aware of what's happenning to them and to stop oppression by big government. Where you aware that they are presently fighting a hospital's decision to explain the abortion procedure to patients? You can't make a true choice unless you know the facts. False data should get us all upset. But if true data is presented, does it matter what kind of rhetoic is used. If a person believes the fetus is not a human life, what difference would pictures of abortions and statements of fetal development make. They would just be pictures and descriptions of some cellular mass. I think people are disturbed because a chink in their armor is caused, when facts don't correlate with what they have been told the fetus is. Mike Johnston