From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:37:34 GMT

In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>
>>Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
>Not being a typical pro-choicer, and generally a conservative, let me answer 
>the 'charges' below...
>
>>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
>Usually, war is opposed because it is senseless killing over some trivial
>piece of territory or some trivial political or economic point.  Occasionally, 
>it is justified, but those occasions are severely limited.  (I believe that
>in most cases, baring such cases as WWII, etc, that war is ususally the
>wrong answer, and even WWII could have been stoped before war was necessary, 
>as could WWI)

Translation: If every woman has a right to control her own body (which
extends to killing, where abortion is concerned), surely, every
dictator has a right to control his own troops. 

Thanks for clarifying that. Peace protestors pointed out that exact,
ridiculous reasoning, as they were burning cars on the Golden Gate,
back in 1991. 

Well, at least this isn't an inconsistency.. 

>>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
>The persons harmed are persons as defined under law, and to those who are
>left-of-center, the necessity of gun ownership isn't understood to be a
>'right'...it all has to do with the interpretation of the militia clause of
>the second ammendment.  (I disagree with bans, but not reasonable waiting
>periods)

And then you disagree with waiting periods on abortions? 

Inconsistencies still abound... 

>>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings? 
>No.  Balances nature against human needs.  It is only the most radical
>environmental types who value animals over humans.  Most rational people
>balance the two.  (I do, and think there is an acceptable compromise in
>there somewhere)

The most radical? Such as Earth First!, which spikes trees and damages
equipment and human beings? 

Earth First! gets less punishment for its acts, than Operation
Rescue.

>>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
>It is clearly state sanctioned murder.  The usual response is that we, as a
>society, have no more right to commit murder than the person we are
>'punishing.'  I don't see how capital punishment is anything more than pure
>retribution.  (I currently support capital punishment, so I don't fit this
>sterotype)

Well, the pro-choicer next to you tends to think that convicted mass
murderers deserve more of their concentration and attention than the
victim & his/her family. They seem to adore mass murderers as much as
they accuse us of "adoring fetuses." 

>>5) Wants to save the dolphins? 
>Maybe because it isn't a good idea to wipe out animal species?

They're not about to wipe out all the dolphins. 

>>6) And the whales? 
>Ditto.
>
>>7) And the eagles' eggs? 
>Ditto.

They adore unborn eagles more than unborn humans. 
They cry for those unborn eagles but they wage war against any consideration
for unborn humans. 

What do you say about that? 

>>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
>But it's not so cut and dried.  This is a moral decision.  I agree that
>it's wrong, but it's not my place to force my values on someone else, 
>especially when those values are derived from my religion.

How's about pro-lifers whose values were derived outside of any
religion, say, from a bible known as an Embryology Book? 

How would you respond to proof that a human life does start at
fertilization, if it could be shown in a scientific textbook? (Don't
dodge this one, please. I got lotsa folks who make it a hobby to dodge
this, and I think much higher of you than that.) 

>>10) Opposes animal testing? 
>Again, this is a balance.  For all of those things that can be tested in
>some other way, it should be done.  In the case where animal testing is
>necssary, it should be done in a limited, humane way.  An example of a
>really dumb idea: putting eye-shadow on rabbits' eyes to test it.  Is
>eye-shadow so necessary that animals suffer?  Jeez, we are vain, aren't we?
>
>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.

Well, here's a little help: the same people who go around trashing
monkey labs, will be found cheering for human fetal experimentation.
That and they'd love to see anencephalic (or other deformed) newborns,
cut up for experiments and organs. We recently had a hard-fought case
concerning that exact thing, a few months ago. 

>>12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
>>pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
>>drugs are dangerous? 
>Well, this is one of those questions that crosses thw whole politcal
>spectrum.  Is drug use really a victimless crime?  The effects on society 
>can be horrendous.  But, please realize, the right is just as nuts on this 
>issue as the left.  (I'm fairly libertarian on this issue, along with seat-belt
>laws, helmet laws, etc).

Well, some Leftists like to claim that legalized pot can be an actual
benefit to society. They just happen to get smashed by their own camp,
when it comes time to air these ideas to the public. 

But surely, if the right to kill an unborn child comes from the "right
to control of one's own body," surely something like drugs, would be a
right, too. 

And, as they ruled in Florida, it also means the right for adult men
to go to bed with little girls. 

Pro-choicers don't like consistency because, like drugs & underage
sex, it leads to things which America would not _ever_ accept. But, it
seems, some judges are willing to be consistent, regardless: they'll
end up forcing pro-choicers to walk the plank without the pro-lifers'
help... 

>>13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
>>despite that some implants may be dangerous?  
>Huh?  I think you have this one backwards.  Breast implants have been shown
>to cause problems in SOME cases.  Thus, the governemnt has stepped in to
>examine the issue.  Should companies be allowed to market any product for
>any reason, and damn the consequences?

You missed the issue. The moment someone came out with the idea that
breast implants might be dangerous, and then showed instances and
facts to prove it, there was a hold put on implants. As a result,
feminist and pro-choice groups went crazy - whether it was dangerous
or not, they did _not_ like breast implants being taken away. In their
twisted minds, companies should've been allowed to market the
implants, damn the consequences. 

I'm sure you heard the propaganda, "Should the government be allowed
to regulate your breasts?" 

>>14) And then shoots the 24 year old man who screws their 14 year old
>>daughter? (Which is why they turn and oppose the death penalty...) 
>I can't parse this one properly.  Are you implying that pro-choicers kill
>adult males who have sex with their daughters?

Well, very few pro-choice people I know or knew, would let some man
come in and touch their underaged daughter. It's happened once or
twice where I knew about it, and the men ended up facing brothers,
fathers and uncles (not all at once) on their front doorstep. One guy
I knew, is fresh out of jail for that stuff. 

These folks contradict their own views of a right to privacy, control
of one's own body, and the right to decide, by telling their daughters
that they can't date or go to bed with whomever they please - even if
their boyfriend is 24 and they're, oh, 14-16.

But if they choose not to contradict those views, they're asking for
all of America to turn against them. In short, this and drugs, are
potentially a large millstone around the neck of the pro-choice
movement, that you may see dragging them underwater, as early as this
election season. Sure enough, I've written George Bush myself, to
advise him of how to use that Florida circuit court ruling which made
adult-child sex a freedom (based on the right to privacy -> abortion).
 
>>I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
>>movement... 
>You've listed a bunch of sterotypes that just don't fit!

So now what do you think every time the media stereotypes pro-lifers
as religious fanatics? Now do you know what it's like to be
stereotyped? 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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,talk.religion.misc