Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Aborted fetuses in Cosmetics
Message-ID: <890@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 12:15:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.890
Posted: Tue Jul  2 12:15:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:21:50 EDT
References: <855@bunker.UUCP> <863@bunker.UUCP> <878@bunker.UUCP> <1060@mnetor.UUCP> <883@bunker.UUCP> <291@mit-vax.UUCP>
Distribution: net.abortion
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 109

> In article <883@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> >> I do not see any indication in there that the fetal parts used are human.
> >> Sophie Quigley
> 
> >You are correct; the brochure itself does not specify what type
> >of fetal parts are used in the product; I had not noticed that.
> 
> 		[Bogacity about French cosmetics deleted]
> 
> >I do not think it farfetched to conclude that the human fetuses
> >being shipped to the cosmetics lab were the ones used in the
> >product.
> >
> >Hope this clarifies things.
> >
> >Gary Samuelson
> 
> Thank you for this bit of sensationalism.

You're welcome.  It didn't look like sensationalism until you
replaced the evidence and reasoning with the phrase beginning
with "bogacity."  The paragraph beginning, "I do not think it
farfetched," is a deliberate understatement, which is not clear,
now that you have deleted everything up to it.

I do not object to summarizing; but you have not summarized.
You have dismissed what I said with a little handwaving, calling
it "bogacity" without explaining what is bogus.

> 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.

> 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?

> Customs officers stop lots and lots of trucks, Gary.

Do they stop all of them?

> I think if there
> were lots and lots of shipments of human fetuses, we'd hear more about
> it. You are hiding behind ONE report. This kind of volume does not
> consitute a financial opportunity for most doctors. The truck could have
> been carrying the products from only ONE clinic. There are a lot of
> OTHER clinics that wouldn't think of doing that.

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?

> It's still horrible. It should be stopped...

I'm glad you agree.  What are you going to do to help?

> 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.
Maybe if enough people ignore the problem, it will go away.  Or
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.

Why do you say it doesn't have anything to do with abortion?
(Other than the fact that you don't want to hear about an unpleasant
subject)?  Do you think I should post these articles in some other
group?  How many flaming replies do you think I would get saying,
"Take it to net.abortion!" ?

> 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?

> One black steals, therefore all blacks steal, right?
> One woman is a bad driver, so the term "woman
> driver" is invented. I think you get my point.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> Don't believe everything you read, Gary. I don't.

What did you read in my articles you didn't believe?

> Charles Forsythe

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys