From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug11.200339.26431@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I'm just copying my net.ghod, John Haugh.  Why, soon I'll even start
>distorting what other people say so as to denigrate their positions,
>and when backed into a corner will just resort to personal insults.
>Then I'll be JUST like him!

Fred, you are a lying pig.  You've been asked for WEEKS to back your
claims that poor people pay more and get lower quality.  Your continued
squirming will not relieve you of the obligation to produce the source
of these "facts."

I, on the other hand, will gladly give you my sources.  Then we can
debate the meaning of those factoids.  You just dredge up makebelieve.
Or you blame your channel changer ...

>Does the phrase "pretty much" even REGISTER with you?  Apparently not.
>You know.  "Pretty much", as in "mostly".  Or does that require such a
>distortion of your black and white white view of the world that you
>can't bring yourself to understand it?

Pretty much?  80% opposed to allowing teenagers consent-free access to
abortion doesn't sound like "unrestricted" to me.  As Iacoletti would
point out, "unrestricted" means "no restrictions."  That's a pretty
black and white statement.

>That's interesting, because the Republican Party itself has come up
>with figures close to 70% for the number of Republicans who are
>pro-choice.  Four years ago, one of the networks did a poll of the
>delegates to the Republican convention and found 70% of THEM were
>pro-choice (so apparently the delegate makeup reflected the makeup of
>the party as a whole).

That's really very interesting.  Since those same convention delegates
are the ones that get to decide what the party platform says.  And
since that platform, for three elections that I know of, has contained
a pro-life plank in it.

>>A New York Times poll of 8/25/89 found that 44% should be "legal as it
>>is now."  13% said it should "never be allowed" and 40% believed it
>>"should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the
>>life of the mother."  Again, far from the 70% unrestricted access to
>>an abortion.
>
>Well, that seems to fly in the face of every other poll I've ever
>heard of.  Should I just use your tactic and declare it "bullshit" and
>move on?  Yes, I believe so.  THIS is bullshit!

No, because it AGREES WITH every other poll that I've cited.  There
are some polls with trick questions, like "... and what if the doctor
says it's OK?"

Find a poll that asks, straight up, should a woman be allowed to have
an abortion - not "should a woman be allowed to choose" or "and if
the doctor agrees" or "in the case of rape".  But straight up - should
abortion be legal for any reason, any time, any one.  THAT will answer
your "70% support unrestricted access to abortion" claim.

>Yes, John, one can always phrase the question in such a way as to
>evoke a negative response.  So what does that prove, except that your
>tactics here are also used out in the big wide world?  Please show me
>where I claimed anything you say here?  Unable to?  Not surprising.
>You're known to be a liar from way back.

It proves that 70% of the population DOES NOT support "unrestricted"
abortion.  Sex selection restrictions ARE restrictions.  Duh.

>I would, John, but I doubt you're bright enough to run a VCR.  And you
>certainly couldn't figure it out from the instruction book, if the
>reading comprehension you demonstrate here is any indicator of your
>abilities in that regard.

At least I know that "sex selection" is a member of the set of things
that are "restrictions."  Perhaps you flunked set theory.  We know you
flunked economics.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."