From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:33:00 GMT

<1992Apr8.223119.22140@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) said:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.230505.14671@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>People who support both:
>>>            * legalized abortion
>>>	              and
>>>            * weakening current child support law:
>>>
>>>                  Eric Rescorla
>>>                  Gordon Storga
>>>                  Kevin Darcy
>>>                  Larry Margolis
>>>                  Jennifer Brown
>>>                  E.E. Bartley
>>>                  Nora Rivkis
>
>>I've repeated about seven times now that I do not favor "weakening"
>>current child support law, I favor ALTERING it. This will in some
>>weird instances make it weaker, in a lot of instances make it stronger,
>>and be basically dedicated to clearing up some of the inconsistencies
>>present in an outdated law. Get it right.
>
>NO, NORA!!! YOU get it right.  Creating situations  in which the man
>does not have to pay child support, and claiming that this makes
>it stronger because there are "fewer violations" is nonsensical.

No, it isn't.

>It's like permitting people to kill other people as long as they
>use a handgun (nothing else, just a handgun is legal) and then
>claiming that you've really reduced the number of murders in the 
>country.  

No, it isn't.

>The law is only "outdated" because abortion is legal and nobody thought 
>through the really nasty consequences that might have on society.

And what are those consequences?  Come on, list them.  And they better be
actually linked, not just coincidental.  the only consequence I can think
of is nosy people like you are upset that others are doing things that you
find distasteful.

>>I'm also not yet decided about favoring legalized abortion, either;
>>I'm just accepting it until I make up my mind, because I don't want
>>to legislate prohibiting *anything* until I'm absolutely positive
>>it has to be done.
>
>You know that's a crock.  A lot of people "just accepted" a lot of things
>throughout history, because they weren't sure if it was all that wrong.

And sometimes it wasn't wrong.

>Saying you personally oppose abortion, but wouldn't do a thing to stop
>anyone from indulging in it is, in practice, indistinguishable from
>supporting it.  Like the old saying goes, if you ain't a part of the
>solution, you're part of the problem.

Good old Steve "It's black or white - there are no gray areas" Kellmeyer.
In this case, if you aren't part of the solution, you're not minding your
own business.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion