From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Chaney hears voices and talks to himself (Re: About Parental Consent and Funding too:)
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.230659.1191@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   1) The majority of Americans support parental consent and notification
   abortion laws. 
   [Traditional pro-choice response can be heard charging up, now.] 

Hearing voices again Steve?
...
   [Traditional pc juggernaut now spewing a little steam.] 
...
   [Traditional pro-choice juggernaut now leaving the garage.] 

Oh how cute.  First Airplane-boy transformed into Borgie-boy, now he's
honored pro-choicers by diefying them with the title of the Hindu god
Krishna! 

   4) To give a child a right to tell parents that they can do what they
   want and the parents have no power to stop them, is a classical
                                                  ^
                                              comma error
   example of anti-family, anti-parental rights legislation. 

"To give ... a right ... is ...  example of ... legislation."  Within
our system of government, this is true.  Very good, my big bad
Borgie-boy.  But as for the adjectives and prepositional phrases in
your rhetoric, you have proved none of them.  In fact, I can argue the
opposite, that parental consent and notification laws are anti-family.
You forgot to point this out. Or didn't the voices you are hearing
mention this to you?

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   And now the big, great pro-choice counterargument now looms upon us all.
   We will undoubtedly hear "But parents can also KEEP their daughters
   from giving birth, too." 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Have you pro-lifers been VEXED by this argument? Has it been NAGGING
   you? 
   Never fear, for this argument will cease to nag you from now on.

   Abortion is classified as ELECTIVE surgery.

The word "elective" in this context refers to the person having a
choice.  If I recall correctly, pro-forcers don't believe women should
have a choice in this matter.

   Read your medical
   textbooks on that: when it does not have to do with saving the woman's
   life, her seeking an abortion is called elective surgery. That means
   it is no more necessary than face lifts, liposuction, or nose jobs -
   stuff that is NOT considered vital health care by its
   classification.

Abortion != cosmetic surgery.  I think Chaney wants to learn how to
have a baby without loosing his figure and getting ugly stretch marks.

Has anybody ever heard a women say, "Gee, I can't have a baby.  What
would I wear?  None of my clothes will fit anymore!  Well, Betty had
liposuction, and she looks great!  I might as well have an abortion."

   Arguing that a parent can force an abortion on their daughter, with
   parental consent, is like saying a parent can use parental consent to 
   force tatoos or nose jobs on their daughter. 

Bzzzt.  Sorry, you have once again used a non-sequitor argument and
failed to prove your point.  You have failed to show that forcing a
person to carry a pregnancy to term against her will via legislation
does not also indicate that similar legislation could not be crafted
which would force a person to terminate against her will.

   Sorry, but given the fact that abortion is elective surgery, as is
   tatooing and liposuction, it is not something that parents can use
   parental consent to force on their kids.

I'm sorry you said this too, since your assertion does not imply your
conclusion. 

   This also means that a comprehensive health care plan, if it is to pay
   for abortions, must comprehensively cover all elective surgery.
   Meaning Michael Jackson will get a free taxpaid ride the next time he
   wants to change his nose, in America. Seeing as that this is neither
                           ^
                        comma error
   feasible, popular nor economically sound... 
   Abortion is not a health care right, when judged consistently with the
   American definition of health care.  

Not all elective surgery is cosmetic.  A medical procedure being
elective does not imply that it is not necessary for the person's
health and quality of life.  EKG's are elective before a certain age
or in people with no history of heart conditions.  But that does not
mean that they are not part of health care.

   So why can we then justify paying for childbirth? Because childbirth
   is not elective surgery. Abortion is.

That is right.  If a pregnancy continues to term, the person has no
choice but to give birth.  A woman can't decide that she likes being
pregnant, doesn't want the child yet and that the fetus should stay
inutero for another 18 years.

   Fellow pro-lifers can have fun with this; I'm swamped with midterms
   and will only have time to post an article every now and then. 

If you do as poorly on your midterms as you do arguing on ta, then you
won't be around for much longer.

   ===========================================================================
   Are you ignoring the flamelords? I hope you are. The best way to
   defeat them is to act like they don't exist. 
   ===========================================================================

Does this mean you don't want to play anymore?  Your little 3rd of 5
is upset.

I guess when the net thinks your are one of the stupidest people on
earth, it is a good idea to lay low for a while.

Scott Safier (Sutt/2)                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

PRIDE = POWER, gay pride theme for 1992
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42431 talk.politics.guns:22098 alt.conspiracy:11249 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5331 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6803 talk.bizarre:34012