From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:34:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <qVmur*iO0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug08.002014.7863@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:
>
>> 	I didn't mean to. I _do_ admit to looking at issues from all the
>> angles I can think of, and this may lead to my taking an odd approach to
>> your point. I apologize. I am sincere about my posts- I do not care to
>> "win", though, I realize, I sure seem to try to more often than I'd like.
>
>Accepted.  However, I would like to point out the fact that rarely (if ever)
>does anyone "win" net arguments.

	True. I still catch myself thinking that I might...but, I think
this group has helped me understand that everyone (usually) is partially right,
including myself.

>Somewhere in there, you lost me.  However, let me comment on a couple of your
>statements.
>
>> God judges intent, not action.
>
>Incorrect.  Intent is important, but sometimes the action is judged even if the
>intent is good.  For example, Uzzah was struck dead by God because he touched
>the ark of the covenant.  He was judged even though his intention was good (he
>was trying to steady the ark while they were moving it.)  Read 2 Samuel chapter
>6 for the details.

	That's your version of God, not mine.

>> be the case, that person is _not_ convicted of murder. Women that abort
>> are either temporarily, or otherwise permanently, insane, aren't
>> they, if they don't know they're killing a human, and we try to fit
>> them into the "murderer" mold? 
>
>There are two errors here.  First, when a crime has been committed - even if by
>someone "temporarily insane", the case goes to court.  Then the jury decides
>whether or not to rule "not guilty by reason of insanity." No one suggests that
>the crime be made legal for the few cases that fall into this category.  Second
>your last statement sounds very close to the modern liberal idea that everyone
>is good and noone is really responsible for their actions.If they commit a 
>crime then they must be insane (presumably temporarily.)

	If my defense of these women is that they're insane, I agree. It's not
my defense, however. I'm saying that, logically, a person that kills another
person and doesn't understand that the murdered is a human being is insane.
Women abort in relatively high numbers. You're saying they're all killing 
human beings. I'm saying they don't think so. To claim otherwise- that they
know they're killing another human being (as you are doing)- is to call
all abortive mothers murderers, or to disclaim that act because you think
they're insane. Neither of those two possibilities make sense to me, and
you seem to agree on the "insane" possibility. You must then agree that
you are calling all abortive mothers murderers. Agreed?

>> 	Why, then, do anti-abortionists like Bush oppose abortion except in
>> cases of rape? Would a greater "wrong" right the earlier "wrong'?
>
>Well, I can't speak for the President.  Personally, I don't think that there
>should be any exception for rape.  (Yes, I know that sounds very callous.)  I
>believe that even though the father was a rapist, the child should not be killed
>for his father's crime.  This is a very tough issue.

	It is. I know it's hard for you to force your opinion on society,
especially when you also wind up admitting that you'd force a woman to
carry a physical manifestation of her abuse by a male in her stomach for
9 months, and you won't personally be there to help her through it. But,
hey, life is tough, eh? At least that child will still stand a chance.
And, your delicate sensibilities will not be offended. Touching.Did I
mention for the 4th time that, to top this all of, your opinion is of
the minority? That doesn't make that opinion wrong, and that's not why I
keep mentioning it. I keep doing so because you pompously accept that 
you're the one doing the "right" thing, rather than debating the issue
from the standpoint that you may be wrong, and so eliding any "holier-
than-thou" insinuations.

>> >  At least
>> >the raped woman gets to live.  The baby is DEAD!  Actually, I think that you
>> >do understand, you simply refuse to accept the truth.

	Total moral pomp! Any in this group can utilize such a technique.
It's the same-old guilt-tripping mentality that's got us into this mess,
IMHO. It's like watching someone frustrated about trying to "fix" an
appliance, and then smashing the whole thing in the end. Frustration:
"It's not doing what I want it to do!". I'll admit to having a personal
ideal for a moral model- morals that I wish everyone would obey. I'll admit
that it frustrates me that so few seem to follow this model. A quick look
around this group demonstrates why.

  That is why you and the

>Personally, I'm happy with the "Anti-Abortion" label. Unfortunately,labels have
>subtle influences on the unwary.  That is why everyone wants to be "Pro" rather
>than "Anti."  The "Pro-Abortion" folks changed their label to "Pro-Choice" (in
>order to try to make their cause sound better.)  The "Anti-Abortion" folks then
>tried to change their label for the same reason (and to get the "life" issue
>back to the forefront.)  It would be very helpful if there was a "truth in
>labelling" law for politicians (and the media.)

	Yes, both groups have causes, and I'm glad to hear you admit it. I
suspect many in your camp have agendas. (-:

>> 	You need to follow this more closely. In either case, it is 
>> sellable. Wasn't Wichita enough for you? Didn't the press represent
>> that properly? 
>
>I didn't watch the press on Wichita.  I was referring to the Washington DC and
>other rallies where the news media deliberately overstated the numbers on the
>"choice" rallies.

	Didn't watch the press on Wichita? Are you saying you can tell me
the media's agenda, without watching the media? I'd say: You're missing
some evidence, evidence that both conservatives and liberals run the media.

>  Eyewitnesses later reported the real numbers were much lower.

	Where did you read these "reports", in other-than-the-media?


>No, but the point is that the media controls which polls are reported, how they
>are described, and sometimes even how they are conducted.

	Every frickin' poll winds up in the media! Need I say more? Do you
not read such via media? Every stat in the universe is thrown around like
so much "proof". Stats are lies. So what? You take 'em with a grain of 
salt. You read both. You figger the truth lies in there somewhere, and not
solely in one place or the other either at once, or at specific times. 
This is primarily why I have to feel intentions are of utmost importance
to my God. None of us will or can _know_ what is right/wrong, but we can
either obey that within us that says "WRONG", or we can ignore it. Only God
knows who obeys that voice, how often, and why he/she does/doesn't. You
don't. I don't. There's a reason for that internal (gut) feeling of 
right/wrong. The reason is not for you to spread yours. It is for you to
obey it. There are people that are raised in such situations that sins
are not, to them. This is not an excuse- it is a call to action, for we
should be trying to change the factors that can cause such unsocial
behavior.

>look at how the media reports the news.  Pay close attention to the assumptions
>and attitude of the reporter in relation to what he is reporting. You can learn
>quite a lot about what really happened by mentally adjusting for his bias.

	Case-in-point: your synopsis of the Roe/Wade decision. I can imagine
you do a lot of "adjusting".

>  Also,
>using multiple sources can help fill in the blanks.

	Agreed.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Newsgroups: tx.politics