From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:40:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=>If one person is coerced into having sex, it is rape (or incest if it's
=>family), and that person should not be held responsible for a decision
=>that he/she did not want. 
=
=Mr. Chuck, there is no moral case to be made for abortion in the case
=of rape and incest if you hold the opinion that abortion is murder
=of an unborn human. Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and
=the fetus conceived as a result of rape or incest is equally "innocent"
=to those conceived by consensual sex. (I am on the pro-choice side)
	I can see you are pro-choice, and I admit I differ with both
pro-choicers and pro-lifers about this. Some people in order to be
consistent with their views that abortion should be completely
eliminated do hold to the opinions you stated re fetuses conceived as a
result of rape or incest as innocent.
	However, I am not trying to argue the moral case for abortion.
I'm arguing abortion as an issue regarding sexual responsibility.

+In these cases, you are simply pandering to a minority of swing votes 
+who would not support the anti-abortion position if abortions for these 
+"special" cases were not available. I think that's disgusting on your part, 
+personally. 
+So easy to sell your morals down the road for a vote, eh?

Fortunately, I am not currently interested in running for political
office, so pandering to swing votes isn't on my agenda. I don't expect
anyone to suddenly switch his or her opinions on abortion because of
this discussion, nor do I expect anyone to agree with me. Like Mary
Fisher, "I want your attention, not your applause."

I don't know what the size of this swing-vote minority you refer to is,
but I assume it's a lot larger than we think. There are polls that say
most people are "pro-choice" but they also favor restrictions on the
availability of abortion, which is the "imposition of moralities" that
the pro-choice leadership talks about so much. But are there some
pro-choicers who believe abortion is murder but maintain they won't
impose their morality on anyone? There might be. Are there parents who
don't want their kids to be sexually active but won't teach their kids
about responsible, loving sex because they "don't want to impose their
morals"? Likely. Did Pilate want to sentence Jesus Christ to death, but
allowed him to be crucified as he washed his hands of the matter? Yes.
Many have sold their convictions for popularity before <<insert
slanderous political remark about Bush here>> and many will. And if you
know my morals so well that you think I've sold them, you know a lot
more about what I believe in than I do at this point in my life.


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40561 alt.activism:15068 misc.headlines:5730 sci.econ:6918