Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Proof of Rights)
Message-ID: <2052@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:26:03 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2052
Posted: Wed Nov  6 11:26:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:31:14 EST
References: <1847@pyuxd.UUCP> <2017@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1912@pyuxd.UUCP> <2415@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1982@pyuxd.UUCP> <2783@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 87

>>> 			  Captain Video fought for "Justice, Truth and
>>> Freedom throughout the Universe."  Superman fought for "Truth, Justice,
>>> and the American Way."  Disgusting behavior, such as running naked down
>>> Bloomfield Avenue, is banned because it is un-Ivy.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]
 
>> Un-Ivy?  "Disgusting"?  Thank you for showing whose beliefs and moral codes
>> are based in reason and whose are based on "likes", "dislikes", prejudices,
>> and baseless opinions.  [RICH ROSEN]

> This is a part of Mr. Rosen's article to which I did not respond earlier,
> so I will respond now:  Why does anyone think the pro-lifers go around
> carrying photographs of bloody, dismembered fetuses?  Because they're
> DISGUSTING, that's why!  Blood and guts are bad enough when you look
> at surgery done to SAVE lives, but when the doctor, sworn to preserve
> life, becomes a killer, then the blood and guts are as disgusting as
> when the local "slasher" produces them.  The intent of the pro-lifers
> is to get the prospective abortion patient to realize how disgusting
> abortion is, and change her mind.  The intent of the pro-lifers is to
> get the legislature to realize how disgusting abortion is, and stop
> funding it.  And the intent of the pro-lifers is to get the Supreme
> Court to realize how disgusting abortion is, and overturn Roe v. Wade.
> Lots of things are banned because they are disgusting, it is not
> _ultra vires_ for Americans to ban these things, and abortion ought to
> be one of them. [ROSENBLATT]

Care to list any of those things that are banned because they are disgusting?
And to demonstrate why your standards of disgust are to be adhered to by
others?  Do they include eating sushi?  (Uggh, gross, gag me with a tuna,
ban it, it's disgusting!)  Noisy raging horrible rock and roll music?
Homosexuality?  Househusbands with wives who work?  Anything else I've left
out?  Your illusion that what disgusts you is "wrong" and worth banning is one
you share with other "enlightened" religious fanatics.  But most of all,
you've finally shown how completely without rational grounds your opinions
really are.  You cannot argue for your position rationally, so you MUST
resort to disgusting people, vacuous manipulative emotional rhetoric.
You need look no further than Gary Samuelson to find another fine example of
this right in this newsgroup.  Why not, by your same logic, ban birth as well!
After all, if I carried around pictures of a child being born, some people
might find the process "disgusting", right?  (Tell me, honestly, that last
paragraph of yours actually made my point so well I'm in shock:  are you
actually another Ray Frank, going overboard to satirize pro-life positions?)

> As to un-Ivy:  Yale football players will do anything within the rules
> of the game to beat Princeton, but they will not bring a knife to the
> Yale Bowl with which to cut up Princeton blockers who interfere with
> their precious "right" to score touchdowns.  "Ivy" isn't just wearing
> a tweed jacket, sipping sherry, and smoking a pipe.  "Ivy" is FAIR PLAY.
> You play football, you're assuming the risk of a broken leg and having
> to sit out the rest of the season.  You make love, you're assuming the
> risk of a pregnancy and having to give the fetus a chance to live.  It's
> not SPORTING, it's not FAIR PLAY, to kill an unborn baby in it's mother's
> womb, the one place in the world where it ought to be safest.  Killing it
> before it's had a chance to be born is like elbowing a basketball player
> on the sidelines, before he's had a chance to put the ball into play.
> Most women are Ivy in this respect.  Most women don't have abortions,
> even though they are legal.  Most women aren't about to call in a
> BUTCHER to slice and dice a future student at Harvard, or Vassar, or
> Pembroke, or Cornell.  But the referee has to enforce the rules
> of fair play for everyone, not just those who choose to play by them.

And thank you again for showing that you simply HAVE no rational argumentative
abilities, that you MUST resort to big lie techniques and vacuous manipulative
rhetoric!  The Yale front four is analogous to a woman who engages in "fair
play" by not having an abortion?  Is this an attempt at humor?  Actually,
it serves no better in that function than it does in the function of a rational
argument.  Not "sporting"?  By what standards?  By standards in which your
particular conclusions have already been assumed to be "unsportsmanlike
conduct", of course.

> "A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION BECAUSE I WANT
>  THE RIGHT TO GET RID OF THIS PROBLEM!!  All the rest
>  is smoke.  If this value system prevails
>  don't complain when they come for YOU."    
> 						-- Ken Arndt

Your hero?  (I guess I was right about my speculation about you above. :-? )
Compare this to "A WOMAN HAS *NO* RIGHT TO AN ABORTION BECAUSE *I* DON'T
WANT HER TO, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH I CANNOT SHOW THE FETUS SO ABORTED TO HAVE
BEEN A VIABLE LIFE-FORM, I FIND IT 'DISGUSTING', BY MY ARBITRARY STANDARDS,
AND THUS IT IS WRONG!"  Indeed, all the rest beyond this statement is
smoke.  If THIS value system prevails, don't complain when they decide
that other personal rights of yours should just GO...
-- 
And now, a hidden satanic message:    _
				9L|^6| _
			       W6Vn|na| 622
						Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr