From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: RL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 06:13:45 GMT

In article <19768@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.192239.18425@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>>Yes, but you notice how he and Quayle are now sending out double messages
>>on the abortion issue. 
>
>Congratulations, all the folks supporting this view are honors graduates of the
>Ron Brown School Of Revisionist History.  Bush and Quayle both have stated they
>oppose abortion, but if a daughter or granddaughter (of adult age) chose to have
>an abortion, they would support THE DAUGHTER/GRANDDAUGHTER.  If a child commits
>a crime, the support of the child by the parent doesn't mean the parent supports
>the crime, just that they support their children.  Unfortunately, the rabid
>pro-abortion folks can't seem to understand this.
>
>Another thing the PA folks can't seem to understand is the poll results.  As
>a good example, in North Dakota last year a poll was conducted that made the
>news as North Dakotans Support Abortion.  But when you read the results, you
>find that only 25% support abortion on demand.  The other 75% either oppose
>abortion in all cases, or support it in certain cases.  The same holds true
>of the Pennsylvania case.  Most polls show 70-80% support the "restrictions"
>in the Pennsylvania law.  The overwhelming majority of the American people
>oppose abortion for purposes of sex selection, convienence, economic hardship,
>etc.  They find nothing wrong with a 24 hour waiting period, or parental
>NOTIFICATION (notice the wording, not parental CONSENT, but NOTIFICATION).
>Abortion on demand is just that, all gloves off, abortion for ANY reason.
>The idea that a child would be aborted just because it was the wrong sex
>smacks of Nazi Germany and in particuliar, Communist China.  It's sick.
>
>Now, all you right-headed pro-abortion (cut the "pro-choice" crap), can
>start the flaming, like most liberals, you can't handle common sense.
>

If you are male, you should have nothing to say about it.
Childbirth poses no immediate physical risk to the father.
The dangers of pregnancy are not borne by the grandfather.  The
months of prenatal discomfort do little more than inconvenience 
men, be those men doting fathers or assholes of one kind or another.
A man can leave the unborn baby, but the mother cannot?  How fair
is that?   Would you like to take over the breastfeeding?  

But this is scarcely the argument.  The argument is thus: the Nazies
bred humans (forced pregnancy) but found direct execution more
efficaceous than abortion; China forces abortion in efforts to slow
its population. Your position seems something like the Nazi philosophy
except that you are not on any sort of eugenics program. 

The position of pro-abortionists remains that the government has
no say in the matter.  This is America.  Believe what you will,
just don't pass laws that require me to believe the same thing.
Your scientific position is weak.  Your human charity is non-existent.
Even in religious context, your stance is recent, new, unusual,
and untraditional, save only in its cruelty.  It has not been
so long ago that religious organizations took care of this sort
of thing.  The laws against abortion existed, and it was in the
forgiveness of the Church that a doctor could perform an abortion,
and god help him if the authorities found out.  Until 1840, one
could be put to death in Pennsylvania for heresy against Jesus.
Not all the laws caught up with the Constitution at the same time.
In Pittsburg today, one might say, "Jesus is a myth."  You
could be struck dead by a passing Christian, but the policeman
on the corner will let it slide if you don't cause a disturbance.

The government should not even be involved, except to protect 
the citizens from vigilante rule. Were it left to the majority,
we would be forced to Confession at gunpoint. You could well
be right in your numbers.  But ask the question, do you believe
that the government should involve itself in abortion, and
most still say no.  That majority may believe the way you do,
but they have the spirit of freedom.  

You have made a false dichotomy.  The argument is not between 
those who believe in abortion on demand and those who believe
it is murder.  The argument is between those who would have
the government intrude on spiritual and medical decisions
and those who would not.

If your are female, Brad, I'll argue the spirity of liberty, and
try to help you see the injustice you would impose on other women and
men.  If you are a man, you really have no right to force a woman 
to take risks you do not share.


-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3424 talk.politics.misc:42771 alt.politics.clinton:3451 alt.politics.elections:11924