From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:53:05 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


rg>In article <1992Oct5.162127.25163@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
sa>In article <adams.718032997@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

sa>Yes, she did.  But again, the ramifications of carrying the child to term
sa>(this was in '81) were FAR worse than the risks associated with the
sa>abortion.

rg>That's simply not true.  Abortion is the un-natural termination of a natural
rg>body process.  To say that abortion is safer than birth is repeating something
rg>that someone taught us somewhere along the way which is unsubstantiated and
rg>un-true.  Abortion is not, nor has it ever been, safer than giving birth.

Your wrong.  Others have already posted figures from an Almanac that
prove how wrong you are.  Why don't you try investigating on your own
rather than repeating lies that you got from pro-life propaganda.  Why
are you so quick to believe them?
 
As far as natural versus un-natural, you would have to work real hard
to come up with a lamer argument than that.  Are you bt any chance living 
a natural life?
 
sa>No one exploited her.  The decision was made LONG before she even went near
sa>a clinic.  She didn't need counselling to know what options were available,
sa>and she was fairly well informed on the procedure and the ramifications.
 
rg>I have to ask where she got her information.  If it was from PP, then I can
rg>assure you that she got one side of the story ONLY.  If she visited a Crisis
rg>Pregnancy Center, then you are probobly correct in saying she was well 
rg>informed.

And here I thought you couldn't come up with a lamer argument
than the one you did above.  I apologize for underestimating your
ability.  Have you ever been to a PP clinic?  Think before you 
spout your pro-life lies.  In 1990, Planned Parenthood has 2.4
million female customers.  Less than 100,000 of those women attained
an abortion at Planned Parenthood.  The other 2.3 million women 
received some other service from PP.  

rg>No, what you showed is a data point which supports the above, that is assuming
rg>that they DID take her money ... which I am sure they were more than happy to do.  Besides, if you are so sure about this 'data point' being represenative of the majority, I ask you; 
rg>Why is PP willing to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars because
rg>they don't want to follow the recent 'gag order' put into effect?  Could it be
rg>that they stand to lose less money by ignoring it, than by following it? 

How about they don't want to allow the Executive Branch of the 
Government, which is currently run by the religious right, to
dictate the counselling they give women.  I guess that possibility
never occurred to you did it Ron?

Prior to the Title X gag order, Planned Parenthood received 34 million
in Title X funds each year to serve lower income women and teenagers.
This money was forbidden by Title X regulations to go to performing 
abortions.  However, since your Religious Right cronies began attempts
to de-fund PP, it's fund raising has increased from 24.5 million a year
to 96.4 million.  They currently have a donor base for their national
office of over 1 million people.  They believe, now that the Religious
Right has temporarily succeeded in de-funding them, that they will be
able to fairly easily make up the difference and more in private 
donors.  Doesn't that just piss you off?

rg>Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion