From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.161257.16911@ncsu.edu>
jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>All you Anti-Lifer's ( I use this wording because I have seen pro-lifers called
> anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play)

Please retract this or post proof that "all" pro-choicers have called
pro-lifers "anti-choicers".  I know that some do; for that matter,
Keegan calls me an "anti-choicer" for supporting third term
restrictions.  That doesn't justify insulting those who haven't.

Doing something to person x because person y did it to you first is
neither turnabout nor fair play.

I consistently call pro-lifers "pro-lifers" in this newsgroup because
it is their chosen label even though I personally feel that
"anti-abortion" is a better label because it is more accurate and more
precise, and I find it offensive to be called an "anti-lifer" because
of other people's behavior. 

> a woman's
> right to kill (I could have said choose but since ya'll say we want to take 
> away her choice I'll say you want to take away the baby's life).

This is analogous to saying that you are justified in calling
"pro-death" because someone called you "anti-abortion".  It is
unquestionably literal truth that those who want to make abortion
illegal want to remove a woman's right to choose.  They may consider
it the lesser of two evils, but they still want to see it done.  It is
*not* literal truth that people who want to keep abortion legal want
to see fetuses killed.  Some think that abortion is the best solution
under some circumstances; others think that abortion is wrong for
personal reasons they don't want enacted into law.

>Yes the FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) will probably pass but I don't think it
> will be by a large margin and I know North Carolina will having nothing to
> do with it because both our senators are anti-choice and N.C. went to 
> Bush anyways (Ha! Ha!).

I disagree with you about the large margin....  And what boots it, anyway?

>Yes if a Supreme Court Justice resigns an anti-life justice will probably
> replace him upsetting the delicate balance we now have.

See above wrt "anti-life".  Note that as far as I know, nobody posting
to talk.abortion is in a position to be nominated to the Supreme
Court; the person you are insulting as "anti-life" would not even know
of the offenses that caused you to do it.

Additionally, Bush and Reagan's appointees are unlikely to resign if
they can avoid it; the Justices Clinton would replace are probably
pro-choice and pro-Roe anyway.

>Many feel that the War is over if FOCA is passed because what states feel
>will no longer be important. 

>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
>morals again

Anybody know Jack Kemp's abortion position?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion