From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:24:21 GMT
Distribution: na

Rick Adams writes
> Thus spake Carl Edman: 
> > "Pro-choice"rs have for years agitated with political
> > slogans like 'a womans   body is her own'. Yet, when the FDA
> > (a non-elected, not publicly responsible   regulatory
> > agency) simply outlaws a surgical procedure which
> > millions of women   have freely chosen because 'it is not
> > good for them' there was not a word of   protest. This issue
> > is even much simpler than abortion as breast implant  
> > operations are both safer and there can be no argument
> > about the fact that no   other persons unwilling body is
> > involved. But if anything feminists and other  
> > "pro-choice"rs _supported_ this regulation. 
> 
> The FDA didn't ban implants because they were "not good
> for women," they banned them because it was discovered
> that they represented a previously unrecognized health
> risk. Pro-choice individuals have no REASON to oppose
> sane health rulings. Note, btw, that the FDA did NOT ban
> breast implants, they banned the use of CURRENT breast
> implants - a PRODUCT, not a procedure!

Yes, the FDA only banned the most inexpensive form of breast implants and so  
increased the basic price of such a procedure by several thousand dollars and  
so put them out of the reach of many poorer women. Let them try that with  
abortion supplies and hear the cries ...

> Were the FDA to discover that a given product or drug used
> for the purpose of inducing abortion posed a serious
> health risk to the patient (one NOT exceeded by the health
> risk of NOT using that product or drug) few if any
> pro-choice individuals would have any objection to its
> ban.
 
Cigarettes or fatty foods - or for that matter birth control pills - have a  
negative impact on the health of people. And you say that most "pro-choice"  
people would not object if they were made illegal and people were denied their  
choice to use them ? I knew they were hypocrits, but that were _such_ terrible  
fascists I didn't.

> The FDA, despite your claims to the contrary, has NO
> authority to ban ANY procedure, or products. FDA, in case
> you have forgotten, stands for Food and Drug
> Administration. To the best of my knowledge, a surgical
> procedure is neither a food product nor a drug.

So what are breast implants ? Foods ? Or drugs ?

And didn't you just say in the same breath that a breast implant was a product  
which was banned by the FDA and that the FDA can't ban products ? 

You sound a little bit confused.

> Incidently, you might consider the fact that it isn't the
> FDA which is seeking a ban on abortion - its the Christian
> church (and its political arm the Republican Party).
> Somehow I have more faith in the medical opinion of the
> FDA's physicians than I do in that of Pat Robertson!

The Republican party is hardly the Christian Church. Many of its leading  
thinkers and supporters are indeed Jewish or even atheists (as I happen to be).

> > From this I conclude that much of the dominant faction of
> > the "pro-choice"   movement is hypocritical about its
> > professed believes. What it is interested in   is the
> > widest possible availability of abortions without the
> > justification of   any high-sounding principle like
> > "choice".
> 
> And from your post, I gather that you perfer absolute
> regulation of any actions which involve the human body in
> any manner not suited to your rather narrow view of
> propriety!  

And there you conclude wrongly. I am for legalized abortion, legalized drugs,  
legalized prostitution and - _yes_ - legalized breast implants. Indeed I'd  
consider myself genuinely pro choice. That does alter the fact that most of the  
large public "pro-choice" organizations are sickeningly hypocritical in their  
beliefs and actions and indeed give the term "pro-choice" a bad name.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d