From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:00:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205628.14654@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.201919.7967@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>>> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>>> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>>> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>>> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>>> hypocrisy?

>> Well, if we want to talk abotu liars and hypocrites, if this
>> is still about that lawsuit brought to halt the abortions
>> being shown on television by some political candidate in
>> the midwest, the suit was brought by a woman because it
>> was upsetting to her children.  The woman who brought the
>> suit is PRO-LIFE, and the suit therefore shows nothing
>> about pro-choice people.

>Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
>more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
>your point is irrelevant.  

You were referring to the woman who filed suit when you called
pro-choicers hypocrites.  But she isn't pro-choice, so you were mistaken
or lying.

>Several pro-aborts on talk.abortion have expressed their 
>opposition to the display of aborted fetuses on television.
>These are the same pro-aborts who label the fetus a mere 
>"clump of cells".  What are they afraid of? 

Nothing.

Ah, of course.  Some mythical "several pro-aborts on talk.abortion."

I wouldn't want to see dead chopped up dogs on TV -- that doesn't mean
dogs are therefore human or anything.  (Not that I *care*; I can change
the channel, something this woman hasn't actually thought of, I suppose.)

>[... lots of irrelevant jabbering deleted ..]

>> In consequence, as you insist on being as insulting to
>> others as possible by using the misleading term (what else?)
>> "pro-aborts," I label you the ultra-religious Doug Holtsinger.

>I call `em like I see `em.  If you don't like it, that's tough shit.
>You can call me whatever you like.  I really don't care.

>A person who believes that there should be no restrictions 
>on abortion IS pro-abortion, just as a person who believes that
>there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
>believe) is pro-contraception.  

And a person who feels that Nazis have the right to march is pro-Nazi,
right, Doug?

You're a fool.  Many pro-choice people oppose abortion.  They'd never
have one themselves, and they'd try to convince a woman making the
decision not to have the abortion.  But they oppose government
regulation of private lives.  That makes them pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion.

>If you don't like being insulted by the term "pro-abortion", 
>then perhaps you should consider changing your views. 

Or perhaps you should stop lying.

>[.. irrelevant material deleted ..]

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion