From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:53:58 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <78658@ut-emx.uucp> jamull@ward.che.utexas.edu (Tony Mullins) writes:
>I've finally had enough of your bull**** to respond in public to these
>posts.  I was going to respond to the earlier post in which you called
>Tom Davis a liar for making up stories, but held my tongue.  This is
>only one example of many in which I have seen you defend your
>arguments by slandering those with whom you disagree.  The defenders
>in this case are defending the clinic's right, perfectly legal at this
>time in the U.S., to provide abortions, not defending the so-called
>rights of the unborn to which you refer.  You knew this as well as I
>did in this case.  You have twisted the words to fit your twisted
>definitions.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution provides that a person may assemble
peaceable to protest.  The "defenders" are attacking OR based solely on
the topic of OR's protest.  Since the state is always within its legal
bounds when it enforces the trespassing laws, the mechanism for
"protecting" the clinics has always existed.  Therefore, what the
defenders are doing is NOT protecting a legal right to perform an abortion,
but rather VIOLATING the legal right of the protestors to peaceably
assemble.  Here, read this, because you obviously never have -

	"Amendment I

	 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
	 the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
	 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
	 for a redress of grievances."

As for calling Tony a liar, he deserved it.  Protecting oneself against
an illegal act isn't a crime.  If the OR members are being prevented
from exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and I believe that they are,
any "violence" they dish out is called ``self-defense''.  However, as I
have stated repeatedly, OR derives its support from people who are not
pro-violence.  If there is any violence going on, it is either from the
clinic ``defenders'' who are violating the 1st Amendment rights of the
OR members, or from non-OR persons.  OR would lose support the moment
it began practicing violent protest, it would also lose its 1st Amendment
protection, since the 1st Amendment only covers PEACEFUL assembly.

>Further, your comparisons to born children are invalid.  The vast
>majority of abortions in this country are performed in the 1st
>trimester when none of your comparisons come even close.

As I have pointed out before, by 40 days after conception, the fetus is
as "human" as we get to be.  Another poster pointed out the "Harvard
Test" which requires the presense of a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.  By
40 days after conception (or 9 weeks into the pregnancy), the fetus IS
a child, based on the most widely used test of human life.  The majority
of abortions are not performed this early in the pregnancy simply because
9 weeks is far too early for the woman to even notice she might be
pregnant.  It corresponds roughly to the first day of the second missed
period.  And with many women not being completely "regular", it is not
unheard of for a woman to not be certain until 9 or 10 weeks into the
pregnancy.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: tx.politics