From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Simon Booth's *Great* American Novel (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 18:23:43 GMT

In <1992Oct12.211237.18170@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.190642.10921@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>>[...]
>>
>>Your other articles lead me to belive that you're pro-life. Am I
>>right in assuming that your novel describes the steps that you
>>think we should take in order to make the world a better place
>>to live? Just curious.
>>
>Well, I am most definitely pro-life.  In the above scenario, the police
>had standing orders to use whateve force necessary to stop the pro-choice
>demonstrators.  Now, I haven't really written much so far, but the basic
>storyline is: The future.  Liberalism has run amok in our society, the people
>are fed up with this trend and demand a solution to this problem.  The people
>find their solution embodied in the ideas promoted by the New Order Party,
>who is elected by a landslide on their candidate's promise to stamp out
>liberalism once and for all. You're right, to make the world a better place.

Thanks for your quick response. I hope you haven't been discouraged
by all the culturally-elite naysayers who have been slamming your ideas.
I think that you have a very important story; one that very much needs to
be told. When you start writing it, do you think that you could post
it to the net as a serial? 

I can't say that I agree with the policies you recommend, but I think
it's refreshing to see an consistant and coherent portrayal of one
of the many pro-life viewpoints. It's been my experience that most
pro-lifers do a good job of condemning abortion, but a very bad job
of proposing sensible legislation. In the past, pro-life debaters
on talk.abortion have subjected us to arguments like the following:

    * "Abortion is MURDER, but of course people who hire hit men
are victims, so we'll give them counseling instead of sending them
to prison."
    * "Abortion is infinitely more dangerous than childbirth, and
when unbiased information about abortion is made readily 
available, no woman will want to have one ever again."
    * "I am an airplane and/or a spaceship, therefore [some random
conclusion that doesn't follow from this premise.]"
    * "I have opinions about legislation, but I won't post them
to the net, because, um, because, because, because pro-aborts
will misrepresent them...yeah, that's the ticket, they'll
misrepresent them."

Obviously, this kind of muddy thinking has little or nothing to do
with making the world a better place to live, and I think that this
is the big difference between you and them. It's easy to say what
the world is like, and to say what the world should be like. What
you're doing is much harder...you're trying to map out the fastest and
most efficient route between "here" and "there", and I applaud you
for it.

If you have time, do you think that you could give us a clearer
picture of your plan? For example, I'm an incurable liberal, and
my first thought on reading your article was, "Gee, using white
phosphorus on abortion-rights demonstrators violates portions of
the Bill of Rights." (These being the 'freedom of assembly' and
'cruel and unusual punishment' clauses). Is it your opinion
that the Bill of Rights has been too broadly interpreted by
an activist judiciary, or do you believe that portions of the
Bill of Rights are misguided and should be repealed?
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion