From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.040315.27375@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Aaaahhh, I love a good flamewar. It makes you feel... vigorous. Know
>what I mean?
>
>In article <1992Aug12.000213.19610@csus.edu>,
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>  [ I wrote: ]
># >All of these things are certainly horrifying, but none of them are
># >illegal. They do seem like arguments for not having children (i.e.
># >that any of these things could come to pass is grounds for religious
># >use of contraceptives).
># 
># But how would you react to having [your hypothetical son] sitting
># across the table from you? 
># 
># Would you let him have any piece of your inheritance, knowing it might
># go, in some part, to the pro-life cause? 
>
>Inheritance? In the unlikely event I ever reproduce, I doubt I shall
>put constraints in my will regarding the purposes for which my
>inheritance shall not under any circumstances be spent.
>
>How would I react with him sitting across the table with me arguing
>abortion with me? Oh, I suppose not very different than I do when I'm
>arguing it with anybody else.

Which means, for some, that their house would be rocking with massive
flamewars. That is, unless, their kids don't argue the point and they
just let their parents talk them down like crap. 

You don't suppose the Kaufman household would be showering that
unfortunate kid with 30 or so variations of the word "pro-force"
daily? I would.

>Feeling like I abuse you yet, Mr. Chaney?

NOT.

># >Oh, this is rich... as if testicles, by their simple existence, pose a
># >threat to women's rights, that a good swift kick could defuse, yet was
># >still large enough to justify violence.
># 
># Well, if you ask the man-hating NOW crowd in general, their opinion
># swings largley towards affirming this belief. 
>
>Have you asked the `NOW crowd' for their opinions regarding testicular
>potency? My fiancee is a member of NOW. I know several other members.
>Believe me. You misunderstand the feminist mindset. Oh, boy, do you
>have it all wrong.

I was right in the middle of it, (name-calling deleted). 

These are the same folks who cry about women jokes made by sexist men
about women (AKA "Blonde jokes, etc."), and then who make up buttons
like "The more I know men, the more I like my cat" and the
Congressional circulation that's going around to women on the Hill,
like "Why do they need female astronauts? In case the rest get
lost..." and other nice stuff. 

Do we hear the NOW talking about _that_ kind of sexism as much as they
do about male sexism? The NOW doesn't, never has, and never will. They,
if not quite as man-hating as I say they are, are grossly hypocritical
if they try to say they're for "equal rights."  

>``I'm supposed to be impressed with... THOSE?  Relax, Tarzan, I'm not
>even squeezing.''

Is that what your fiancee said to you? Man, I feel for you..

># >Well, I suppose if you'd think it was harassment to refuse to help my
># >kid advance his raving psychotic dehumanizing heretical agenda by
># >driving him/her to the rally, then handcuff me and march me down to
># >stand trial for child abuse/endangerment/neglect right now -- before I
># >even reproduce.
># 
># Gee, did you see that anywhere in my paragraph, regarding taking
># someone to a march? Please point out the sentence where I said that. 
>
>You didn't. I never said you did. Calm down tiger. Jeez. Paranoia
>abounds.

Then why did you bring it up? Anyone with common sense knows that it's
not wrong for one's parents to not take their kids to a rally they
don't agree with. 
It's when *certain* pro-choicers, whom I addressed specifically (well,
I did drag you into it, too, by addressing the movement in general),
try to say they wouldn't go beyond mere disagreement with their kids,
and that they wouldn't take cheap shots at their kids over the issue,
that someone over there is engaging in a backbreaking game of
yoga.contortions.  

># I said, how would you treat the kid? Suppose s/he did not listen to
># your opinion that they were wrong? What would you do if your friends
># came in and saw pro-life stuff in his/her room? 
>
>Is this something that absolutely requires direct action?

It would if you got a good enough ribbing from your friends. My folks
hear it back to them quite often that I'm a pro-life activist, and I
just had a chat last night with my father about it. Which did more for
my cause because he once again made the assumption that I hang with
the Randall Terry crowd, but everyone else knows otherwise. 

FYI, he couldn't have come up with that assumption unless he were glued to
the TV all day, IMO; that's all the media shows of us now, is
Operation Rescue. Well, I overexaggerate: I see 5 OR clips and one
non-OR clip, regarding abortion coverage. (And I tape the news when
I'm gone, so I catch it on 2 VCR's recording NBC and ABC, 5-7, and 10 for
NBC/11 for ABC.) Not to mention newspapers; the San Francisco
Chronicle is as biased as anything I've ever seen, and their OR ratio
is 10 Randall Terry's and no non-Randall Terry photo's. 

If you read the Chronicle, you'd honestly believe there was nothing
about pro-lifers _except_ for Operation Rescue. Not that the
Sacramento Bee or the LA Times do very much better. Now, the Sacto
Union is such a nice newspaper....  

>Am I to understand that if you were to produce offspring and visiting
>friends observed that your offspring were not an identical
>reproduction of you, that you would feel the need to take direct
>action explicitly to remedy such a situation?

No, you wouldn't come to that understanding if you were smart, and I
would be disappointed if you proved to be stupid. (It indicates an
overestimation on my part.) You would come to the understanding that
to some pro-aborts, being pro-life is to them what being Neo-Nazi is
to most American families, and if their actions here indicate
anything, it would indicate that their tolerance for pro-life views
ranges from negative to nil. 

># C'mon, kid, answer it directly. Let's not throw in extra's. 
>
>What would I do?
>
>Okay. Imagine the worst possible scenario. Say I'm a single father. I
>bring home a date. My kid is a raving pro-lifer. She finds out my date
>is a bisexual, mutant feminist biker who actively defends women's
>health clinics from the likes of her and her friends. My date looks at
>me like I'm a martian. ``How did you raise such a monster?'' she asks.
>I say, ``It's sometimes difficult.''
>
>What really needs to be done here? I'm at a complete loss to
>understand how you can actually think I'd abandon/abuse/neglect my
>child just because her views aren't identical to mine.

Like I said, it is not a normal disagreement, regarding this issue.
Now, how's about your date leaves you? 

># >Where do you even get the idea that pro-choicers wouldn't tolerate
># >pro-life activism in their sons and daughters and choose to punish
># >them with emotional or, worse yet, PHYSICAL abuse?
># 
># From right here in Sacto. It happens all the time - I have two members
># in our group who don't want their names listed too conspicuously
># because they have active NARAL-member parents and family who'd pull
># their tuition money and send them, 19 and 21, off to live on their
># own.
>
>Is this supposed to convince me?

No. Just come here and see. And ask. 

># And there isn't any pro-abort around here who'd have a beef about
># that.
>
>I would. Send those parents to me. I will chew each of them a wide
>variety of new excretion orifices, to use a colorful expression. I'd
>have a bigger beef, if their children were actually children and not
>just adult dependents.

No, they average in the teens. Like I said, I didn't say there was
abuse or face-slapping going on, but these parents like to "HOW IN THE
HELL CAN YOU STAND SUCH BULLSHIT GET OUTA MY FACE AND DON'T EVER SAY
THAT AGAIN..." 

NOT the kind of thing I'd ever do to my kids, even _if_ they had a
different opinion than I did.  

># >Do you have a quote file filled full of pro-choice people publicly
># >writing that they'd do all these horrible things given the conditions
># >you cite?
># >
># >DO YOU?
># 
># Well, I don't have folks promising family abuse, but I do have 
># this (man, some fools...): 
>
>Translation: I have absolutely nothing but this ludicrous dodge
>clearly aimed at demonstrating that I'm a thin-skinned wanker who
>can't even admit he's making an unwarranted assumption without burying
>it under a page and half of hateful idiocy.

Translation: You're asleep at the wheel again, guy. Wake up and read
on.

>Listen, bub, there are plenty of people in this fucked-up world who
>will emotionally and physically abuse their children on the flimsiest
>of pretexts. There's no excuse for it, and the whole tone of your
>article suggests that you disagree.

No, I do not say I disagree that they're nuts. I, however, did point
out specifically the people that, by their posts to this newsgroup,
would be most likely to fit the abusive description I mentioned.
Additionally, with Kaufman's case, the abuse would more 50% be likely
to go physical.

>If you think anybody is justified in tormenting their children solely
>because of their political views, you're a sick bastard. Please. Don't
>have children. If you do, please, try to get someone else to raise
>them.

I didn't say that. I said, however, that in Kaufman's, Humphrey's,
Garvin's or Regard's case, torment ratios could range from common to
majority and that their kids are better off keeping their mouths shut
in those households if they happen to develop dissenting opinions. 

Who wants to tell a clinic defender for a parent that they disagree,
and risk dealing with the attitude pro-aborts get after throwing dog
shit at peaceful people who are only handing out pamphlets, much less
the real terrorists, who are actually doing property and physical
damage? 

I mean, come on, man, just go to a clinic and LOOK. See the peaceful
people just handing out pamphlets and fliers? See the escorts jeering
at them and throwing stuff and elbowing pro-lifers? See the camcorders
recording this stuff and not being allowed as evidence in court (such
as the case here in Sacramento in a court injunction case at the
Feminist Women's Health Center)? You think these pro-choicers would be
nice on pro-life kids after lying to judges to get protestors put in
jail or barred from their first amendment rights to peaceful protest? 

Do you think those pro-aborts who beat the living crap out of the
Minnesota pro-life Democrats at the DNC in NY, who were going to cast
their vote for Governor Casey, would contort themselves into
"tolerance" at home for dissenting opinions? 

N O T.  


BTW, before you post again, and I've said this about two or three
times now, make sure you reserve one functioning brain cell to recall
that I have said no such harassment would happen with my kids. Maybe
I wouldn't drive them to their rallies, but the cheap shots you folks
take at pro-lifers on this newsgroup, wouldn't happen at home. 

Can't say that for you guys, though, even though you have done a
spectacular job of twisting and contorting to attempt to convince the
rest of us that you wouldn't... well, in YOUR specific case, I could
believe it, but Humphrey or Kaufman? NOT. 

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections