From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:25:15 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...

>Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
>psychological studies).
  Can you quote cases? I guess I'll have dig out the books to prove you
wrong which is annoying, but there have been many studies supporting
the mental and emotional disadvantages of the "latch-key child"...

>I also object to MY money going to support the thousands of churches
>in the country and the disgusting actions of so many militant "Pro-Lifers".
   Okay - so in your mind you support pinheads. We support MURDER. Who
do you think is gettin the worse deal?

>Even the welfare mother who has 7 children (each by a different father)
>so that she can get more welfare money?  Don't most churches rather 
>object to this sort of behavior?
you forget - the church loves all chilren and supports each and everyone
of them. By the way - what a fool you are. You think it is cheap having
7 children to get more money? Having a child (even with welfare) is less
profitable than having none. We in the church respect a woman regardless
of her number of children.

>Ah, I see.  Women are victims who can't decide important issues for 
>themselves.  Thus you take it upon yourself to tell all the women in
>the country to shut up and stay in the kitchen where they belong.
>Having babies is part of the job, eh?  Can't have women getting 
>uppity and making decisions for themselves, eh?  Sounds like the
>game is more about control over women than protecting fetuses.
  I tell no one to stay in the kitchen. We do not wish to gain
control over women. If society made responsiblie decisions we would
not be in a position to have to defend the rights of the unborn...

>As for the abortion clinics - do they get bombed so that they won't 
>be roaming the streets, pouncing on women and giving them abortions 
>against their wills?
   I am not proud of radical actions any more than you. It happens
on both side, and these eccentric actiosn are something we should BOTH
together try and reconcile and avoid.

>>                                The charity and effort we put 
>>into nourishing and supporting the impoverished outnumbers anything
>>you could even dream of...
>Which pales in comparison to the charity and effort put into
>nourishing and supporting the (tax subsidised) church.
   How naive you are. Once again yoru statement begs me to go get
numbers on money coming out of the church, but I have neither the
desire or the motivation to do so... anyone else?
   The billions in charity that the church gives out is significantly
greater than the finances that it takes in from unwilling members like
yourself...
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion