From: scsd1055@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re SO-CALLED PRO-CHOICERS
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:05:12 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

Kevin writes->
[...]
>I believe that the "pro-choice" label is a lie. I have no PROOF, just
>experience and observation with which to make my point.

>First, experience. My wonderful wife was involved with a pro-life group
>that attempts to counsel young women as they entered abortion clinics.
>This group (not Operation Rescue) would simply approach the women going
>into the clinic and try to share with them that there are other options,
>and then offer their help (as well as, the Gospel). Of course, the
>managers of the clinic (N.O.W.) did not appreciate these women receiving
>any more information. Members of NOW physically blocked off the pro-lifers
>from even speaking to the women in need. It appeared that the only choice
>they were interested in was a choice FOR abortion.

	How do you know that memembers of N.O.W. were managing the clinic, or
is this just an assumption made by yourself (after all, you said you had
no PROOF)?  Most clinics are privately owned and operated (NOW is an 
organization not a franchise).  
	Your telling me that a contingent of N.O.W. memembers was on hand 
also tells me that the "counselors" you mentioned were probably infringing 
upon the rights of those seeking to use the clinic (just one of my crazy 
assumptions).
	

>Second, observation. The recent Supreme Court decision on the Casey case,
>provides an excellent demonstration of the pro-abortion mentality. 

	Um, Ummm, Ummmm, no, no, no... I think "pro-choice" is the correct
label, not "pro-abortion".   All this talk of labeling has made me sick.
I agree with the person whom said we should use "pro" and "con", it's so
much more nicer...don't you think?  Oops, there I go prettying up things...
sorry.

>The pro-abortionists were livid that Pennsylvania would be able to promote
>women making a more informed, rational choice. Waiting periods, parental
>consent, and the like (I would like to see ultra-sounds be required
>viewing for any women contemplating an abortion. My wife just had one
>herself--IT'S A GIRL!) do NOT restrict abortion at all, they just
>make the choice truly more of a choice. Faye Wattleton, Kate Michalman,
>and Molly Yard (the leaders of whom I have been refering) cringe at
>a real choice. Why? Because, they are PRO-ABORTION.

	Congratulations on your baby.  But, the concept of requiring woman
to view an ultra-sound before contemplating abortion is absurd.  If you are
at all familiar with the process it takes months before the fetus' sex
is distinguishable, and for a couple of months before the fetus' human 
features become visible (I know...a family memember is a radiologist). This 
would place the fetus in its second or third period....purely a no-no, and
I doubt that a woman, who has decided to terminate, will be swayed by the
badly blurred image of a four week old fetus on a screen.
	And what is this "real chioce" that N.O.W. leaders are afraid of?
Are you insinuating that women are scared, timid, stupid creatures that 
are afraid to make the "real choice" (for what ever that means) because they
are afraid of upsetting N.O.W. memembers....I fail to follow you on the 
"real choice" bit.   Abortion is not a topic that women treat lightly, and
I am sure that women are capable of making decisions for themselves...


Again...congratulation on the baby girl,
Bill Plunkett
SCSD1055@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU