Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Aborted fetuses in Cosmetics Message-ID: <309@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 15:43:48 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.309 Posted: Wed Jul 3 15:43:48 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 15:10:52 EDT References: <855@bunker.UUCP> <863@bunker.UUCP> <878@bunker.UUCP> Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Distribution: net.abortion Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 137 Summary: In article <890@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >You're welcome. It didn't look like sensationalism until you >replaced the evidence and reasoning with the phrase beginning >with "bogacity." >You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling >it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus. 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... >> 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. >> 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 boders. If people are not declaring at least "fetal remains", they are lying and breaking the law. >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 poroduct, I will happily cast my vote to change that. That way, the guilty will be punished (when they are caught with their truckloads going into France.) >> 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 myt intelligence, why don't you apply yours and explain to me the connection? First, abortion is a source of human fetuses, but so is miscarriage. Second, such use of the fetuses is illegal (or could be quickly). Third, you haven't demonsstrated that this is particularly widespread. Please explain why stopping abortion will solve this problem? Why not solve it by illegalizing this practice internationally? Why not solve it by finding the sources and stopping THEM? 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.)? >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 senetors. >> Too many stupid stereotypes are generated by people >> who make decisions on skimpy data! > >What stereotype? What decision do you think I made on skimpy >data? How about this steroetype: Abortion Clinics are murder factories that ENJOY selling fetal remains for profit. If you are going post horror stories, you owe it to the innocent to leave them alone. Why is it so difficult to say "this doesn't happen in America, in fact I've only heard one report but..."? Perhaps it would undermine your scare tactics. >Your point is not valid; I have not made the generalization >that you think I have made. You are attacking a position I >do not hold. Its implicit. >> Show me some more articles and conclusive proof. > >How many would you like to see? What would you do if I did show >you the number you require? Probably just re-iterate the claim >that it has nothing to do with abortion. Again, you insult my intellegence. Send me the media blitz. Show me the abortion clinic jackpot and I'll write my senetor. Until then, I think this is an isolated incident on the other side of the Atlantic. It is you who has failed to make the connection to abortion clinics per se. If you are trying to say that "any clinic could be a supplier" you are making the unfair generalization that you claim not to. >> Tell me about how doctors are getting rich and show me evidence. > >I suppose if I mentioned the fact that over 1.5 million abortions >are performed in this country each year, you would want a list. No, I believe you. I believe they get rich. I don't believe any fraction of their income comes from selling fetuses to cosmetic companies. >> Don't believe everything you read, Gary. I don't. > >What did you read in my articles you didn't believe? "Abortion is murder for profit." (it's between the lines, if it isn't make that clear!) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep