Re: Pro-Lifers Ignore Embryo Deaths! (January 14, 1998, by Mike Doughney)

Subject:      Re: Pro-Lifers Ignore Embryo Deaths!
From:         mike@mtd.com (Mike Doughney)
Date:         1998/01/14
Message-ID:   <69j8h5$6cj$1@news2.digex.net>
Newsgroups:   talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,
              alt.christnet,alt.religion.christian,
              alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,talk.philosophy.humanism



In article <69bcpi$p2m@netaxs.com>, sunshine@antispam.pinn.net
(Sunshine) wrote: 
">"Many of us understand the Catholic church's theology. so, for us, the
">"above information is not news. Why don't Catholic front organizaitons
">"like the americn Life League stridently protest infertility clinics?
">"

Because, if you go to an American Life League conference, you might
notice, as we did last October, that in some ways ALL resembles a
fertility cult.   We saw Mercedes Wilson insist that the Western world
was dying out, and that all of the world's population could live
comfortably inside the boundaries of the state of Texas.  We saw
Pavone and Marx boast of their connections back to the Vatican.  We
saw Marx complain that at the end of the century there will be more
Muslims than Catholics, and in a moment that demonstrated his
movement's embrace of positive eugenics, insisted that Catholics must
have more babies as a result.  Their final prayer rally included a
parade of pregnant women, mothers, and their chidren - the only moment
when there were more than one or two token minority participants in the
conference hall.

For ALL to condemn fertility technology would be an obvious
contradiction.  Its goal is for as many people as possible to have as
many babies as possible, in a world devoid of birth control and
abortion.  Why would this be?  Because in such a world, there would be
a steady stream of (usually white and healthy) babies that would be
adopted by families who conform to their particular norms.  It is a
strategy designed to grow their movement through the indoctrination of
their children, since they never admit that their children should have
the option of making their own choices about how they will eventually
live.  This is why you see the growth of so-called "Crisis Pregnancy
Centers" that feed their own, closed adoption system.  These centers,
and so-called 'sidewalk counselors,' also prey upon people who are
under stress and least able to defend themselves against coercive
tactics, in an attempt to gain additional converts to grow their
movement.

We see a constant contradiction between 'good science' and 'bad
science' when we look at compulsory pregancy advocates.  For example,
you can watch Bernard Nathanson claim that technological advances,
such as fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound, brought him to his
conversion to a stand against abortion.  Ultrasound is considered to
be such a good thing to them that, inside the movement, they'd never
believe that a woman about to have an abortion is ever allowed to see
the ultrasound image.  Meanwhile, advances in medical procedure that
have made abortion safer and affordable - products of the same process
of human thought and creativity that brings us all technological
advances - are vilified.  Never are the products of applied science
seen as neutral tools that can then be used for either good or evil.

Cloning and in-vitro fertilzation are another example of sorting of
good and bad science.  We hear people claiming that thousands of
embryos will be slaughtered if cloning is permitted, while today,
thousands of embryos are destroyed, through very similar processes, in
fertility clinics.  Perhaps it's just the influence of too many
decades of watching Frankenstein movies.

In article <69ip9e$pcp@oddball.sje.MENTORG.COM>,
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 <ewill@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com> wrote:
>
>What precisely is the problem here?  Perhaps we can clarify that?

The problem is that a lot of people have a great liking for things
represented by the Pope and certain other religious leaders, like
infallibility, security, and fertility.  All of these are expressions
of primitive survival instincts that are not always compatible with
more modern ideals such as pluralism, diversity and freedom.  Go take
a look at http://www.hli.org/issues/dissappl.html - on the Human Life
International web site for one example of what they really think about
people who don't agree with them.  Then, consider what happens when
organizations like HLI gain real power, which, given the obvious
erosion of our freedoms that is already well underway under the
direction of HLI and others, is a time not too far away.

Mike Doughney 
Biblical America Resistance Front
www.barf.org