From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:05:50 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
->gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

->And why do you think that ALL human beings deserve basic rights?  What
->about conflicting human rights?  You know, like *womans's* rights.

>Sorry.  You win the major logic flaw award.  Yes, ALL human beings deserve
>the basic rights (ie. the right to life).  This conflicts with no other
>rights.  Woman's Rights are secondary because they deny other humans the
>aforementioned right to life.

Flawed logic award returns to Kevin. Sometimes the carrying to term
of a fetus denies a woman the right to life (read death of woman). Since
this is so, a true fact, in other words, you must support abortion.


->Society already disrespects human life.  Perhaps you didn't see the
->newscasts of people cheering our side in the Gulf War?  I don't see where
->abortion (something done behind the closed doors of a doctors office)
->effects society more than, say, a Rambo movie, or the reading of the
->bible (one of the bloodiest books).

>"Society already disrespects human life."  So two wrongs make a right?
>I cheered our side in the Gulf War.  Not because we killed Iraqis but
>because we were liberating an oppressed people (kinda like a unborn
>children).  The Bible is history.  Mankind is inherently violent.  Hence
>the Bible is "bloody".  Doesn't make it wrong, bad, etc.

First off, there is no such thing as an unborn child, there is a fetus
and a child, one is unborn, the other is born.

If you can liken the liberation of oppressed people to the subjugation
of women to be forced to carry a fetus to term, you are IMO one twisted
asshole.

>Outlaw contraception?   Duuuuhhhh and hear I thunked dat you kuld by
>kondums even beefour 1973.  Is this possibly a ploy to provoke emotional
>responses to a non-existent issue?  You bet it is.

Despite the display of the level of your intelligence, many pro-lifers 
do want to ban contraceptives. Read your infamous partner for the subjugation
of women and fellow fetus worshipper Steve Franklin.


->Given that the abortion turnout always favors the pro-choice crowd in a
->huge way I would think that you would see that abortion _is_ moral - using
->your own logic.

>Lie.  Always claim numerical superiority no matter what.  Good Tactic.

Blatant assertion, care to show any proof for the previous two or three
years? (current numbers required, since going back 500 years to the
reign of the RCC is not valid data.)

Polls taken by various news organizations over the past two years show
support for abortion varies between 70%-80% of the population. This
is one of the reasons Bush wishes to change his stance on abortion yet
again, but due to his many other flip-flops, his advisers have encouraged
him not to. It would show him as having no convictions at all, except
for making war on little tyrants. (which he should be praised for)

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity