From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:01:50 GMT

Well, well, what do we have here? An old firecracker reappears. Guess
I'll have to sharpen my usenet.ginsu a little more for this one... 

In article <1992Jul28.215910.4123@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.004856.13701@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>
>>Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
>
>"Typical"? From which dictionary???
>This pro-choicer:
>
>>
>>1) Opposes war because it is killing? 
>
>Because it is killing born humans

Ah-hah. Just as I thought: Every dictator has a right to control his
own troops, so everyone else leave his choices to him... 

And what's this - born humans? Not much difference from unborn humans
except one's over 9 months old... 

>>2) Seeks a ban or massive waiting periods on guns because they may kill? 
>
>I support a waiting period so that those who have a record don't get guns.
>Just law abiding citizen's like you and I.

Like I said, how about the President of NBC News and his quest to
change (translate: repeal) the 2nd Amendment? 

You who still haven't shown the world where they found Privacy in the
14th Amendment, ought to think about people who want to _repeal_ gun
rights from the 2nd Amendment. 

>>3) Favors spotted owls over the welfare of working-class human beings? 
>
>I don't...do you?

Ask the Earth First! activists in Washington, or the 1000's of
environmental groups around the country. They do. Erase them from
existence and you've just about broken the _backbone_ of the
pro-choice movement.  

>>4) Opposes the death penalty because it is killing? 
>
>Yes. It is the killing of a born human. Don't you oppose the killing of
>born humans? 

Yes, folks, this was a trap. 

You see, this points out the fact that unborn humans, who are very
much living (why else do they need nourishment through the umbilical
cord, but to continue living?), have less rights than convicted mass
murderers. 

Just wanted to clarify things. 

>>5) Wants to save the dolphins? 
>
>Why not? They have an important part in the ecosystem

Not as important as humans. 

Dolphins aren't persons, you know. 

>>6) And the whales? 
>
>Why not? They have an important part in the ecosystem

But they're not persons and should not be weighed higher than human
interests. 

>>7) And the eagles' eggs? 
>
>Bald eagle maybe because they shouldn't go extinct. I'd favor 
>protecting human eggs if we were on the endangered species list...

Yup. Now I know why pro-choicers die and whine and cry over animals of
any sort, but when it comes to _certain_, innocent members of the
human species, they roar, "THEY DON'T EXIST!" and cover their eyes so
they don't see anything. _ESPECIALLY_ when pro-lifers bring embryology
books to scientifically prove that 

1) The human fetus != wart
2) The human fetus != monkey fetus
3) "" != cancer growth 

Yup. Animal lovers if there ever were any.  

>>8) All because it is killing? 
>
>Yes.
>
>>9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
>
>Abortion in the first trimester destroys a human embryo/fetus not a
>child.

And if you say it's not killing, you're blinder than a bat. 

What species is a z/e/f a part of, if not the human species? Just
testing your knowledge of science, here. 

>>10) Opposes animal testing? 
>
>Hmmm. Your facts are a bit off...I don't oppose animal testing in many
>instances.
>
>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>
>I don't see how this could even come about ...

Go outside and look. They can deal with Parkinson's Disease easily
with monkey fetal transplants, but noOOOoo, they want to kill HUMAN
fetuses, to get it. Something about that bra-burning feminist craze of
the 1960's - not only do feminists of the mainstream (excuse me while
I set Feminists for Life _FAR_ aside from ground zero here, because
they don't fit this in the least) wage constant war against unborn
children (well, we know how bullies like to beat up on the weak), but
with fetal experimentation and all, they're just looking for more ways
to kill them. 

How else do you explain their opposition to animal testing and the use
of effective animal transplants?  

>>12) Opposes the choice to control one's own body with whatever
>>pleasure-inducing drugs they want to put into themselves, because
>>drugs are dangerous? 
>
>I don't oppose any pleasure inducing drugs...In fact I enjoy them sometimes.
>Especially beer. :-)

Well, if the right to control one's own body is a legitimate stance,
then it would logically include drugs such as pot, cocaine, heroin,
etc. It would be a sickening concept, but logically consistent with
that ludicrous stance... 

>>13) Then turns around and opposes regulations on breast implants
>>despite that some implants may be dangerous?  
>
>I oppose implants that would harm a womans health. And it's not clear
>to me that any do...

It wasn't clear that the IUD was dangerous until that huge lawsuit
came along. And was won. 

>>14) And then shoots the 24 year old man who screws their 14 year old
>>daughter? (Which is why they turn and oppose the death penalty...) 
>
>I never shot anyone...you're strange.

You missed the point. If the right to privacy and the right to decide
is so absolute, it would naturally mean the right of an underaged girl
to go with a man who's a well-grown adult. 

Many people who claim to be pro-choice, however, deny this and note
that they would (and one person I know, did) lay harm to any man who
tried this. Even if their daughter said it was by her consent.
(Another guy went to jail for it.) They should, by their own
reasoning, step aside and ask the law to ignore the act, but instead,
they do quite the opposite. Some will take it to the point of a gun
(and go to jail for it). 

But for the rest of us, who do not pretend to support privacy or free
choice to the extent of hurting others, are not in the least
hypocritical in busting these guys who mess with underaged women. 

Why did I mention this ridiculous point? Because this ridiculous point
was judged legitimate by a circuit court judge in Florida, just a week
or so ago. He said that statutory rape laws are unconstitutional. 

>>I just wanted to know about these inconsistencies of the pro-choice
>>movement... 
>
>I see no inconsistencies.

Then wake up or get eye surgery. 

>anne


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.