From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: fetus vs. baby
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:30:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Jul31.161722.9634@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> darylb@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.150658.27264@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>	Why haven't we heard any anti-abortionist in this group saying
>>that we should get our asses out there to reduce unplanned pregnancies?
>>All we've heard is that these "bad", irresponsible women, are murdering
>>living babies, and, here, here are the photos....(blah, blah, blah)...
>
>You already have heard pro-lifers saying we should get our asses out
>there to reduce unplanned pregnancies.  Pro-choicers refuse to listen
>to us say this because most pro-lifers don't believe in telling people
>to avoid sex while at the same time giving them condoms as if that
>will magically cure the problem.

Dittos.  When I stated that these people should keep their pants on,
Jay Maynard accused me of being anti-sex.  It isn't that pro-life people
aren't saying "cut down on unwanted pregnancies", but rather that when
we do, we are accused of being "anti-sex" or "religious fanatics" or
whatever.

Pro-life people =do= suggest ways of cutting unwanted pregnancies.  You
just aren't listening.  People like Jay think that casual sex is just fine,
and if a child comes along, kill it.  So it is no wonder that us saying
"why don't you stop having casual sex" goes over like a lead balloon.

>Btw, *most* pro-lifers really do care.  Saying that the pro-lifers who
>make it to the evening news are representative of the pro-life movement
>is like saying Germaine Greer is representative of pro-choicers and all
>feminists in general.

The pro-abortion activists support one objective - unrestricted access
to abortion.  Period.  Witness John Iacoletti and Jay Maynard's comments
regarding the child being a "parasite".  Parasites have no rights.  A
"parasite" doesn't become a child until being born.  They don't care
about the health of the child or even that of the mother - abortion is
not and never has been "safe".  Saying "Keep Abortion Safe and Legal"
is NONSENSE.

I'll believe pro-abortion activists aren't all like Germaine Greer when
they start advocating mandatory ultrasound for all women past 3 months
to determine gestational age and mandatory C-section delivery for any
child past 4 1/2 months gestation.  How many more live-birth abortions
do you think would result if doctors tried to implement a program whereby
the child was actually given a chance?  Twenty-one weeks is the current
record for live birth.  The pro-abortion activists will be up in arms
when all these live births start happening.

The good news is that this program would result in an immediate
Constitutional amendment outlawing all forms of abortion, regardless of
cause.  Americans aren't going to stand still for a single second watching
American children murdered by their mothers.  They didn't in the 40's and
they won't in the 90's.  The myth of "inanimate tissue" and "parasitism"
will be dismissed when the first live born survivor of this abortion policy
goes home from the hospital with its irate mother - and does so on national
TV.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."
Newsgroups: tx.politics