From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>Flawed logic award returns to Kevin. Sometimes the carrying to term
>>of a fetus denies a woman the right to life (read death of woman). Since
>>this is so, a true fact, in other words, you must support abortion.

>Like I said:  You're easy.  "...a fetus denies..."  hahahahaha.  So
>suddenly the fetus makes a conscious effort to do something?  Guess
>what Ron?  You just admitted the fetus is human.  Seems we have a
>convert!

Being drained of blood denies you life. Being in Alaska in December
denies you 12 hours of daylight. Any conscious effort here? Next.

Where did I say it was something other than human(adj.)? Please support this
statement as I never indicated it was a dog or cat or anything but human(adj.).
I have stated that it was not a human (n.) as in person (n.) as in people
walking on the earth with actual brains that are sentient.

You have reinforced the flawed logic award, it is now silver. Shall
we try for gold?

>So the difference is the being "born"?  So "unborn child" is
>synonomous with "fetus".  Thanks Ron.

Actually, I'd like to make a correction here. A child can refer to a
fetus, but then the child becomes an 'it' in this context. This is due
to my being corrected by Doug Holtsinger, whom I thank. Refering to
it as a child does not in the least change my mind about it.

>>If you can liken the liberation of oppressed people to the subjugation
>>of women to be forced to carry a fetus to term, you are IMO one twisted
>>asshole.

>Fortunately you have made it clear that your opinion is one of the
>most misguided, illogical piles of emotional glunk available.

Please elaborate. Show me where I made an illogical statement that was
meant to support a logical argument.(this invalidates sarcasm, BTW)

>>>Outlaw contraception?   Duuuuhhhh and hear I thunked dat you kuld by
>>>kondums even beefour 1973.  Is this possibly a ploy to provoke emotional
>>>responses to a non-existent issue?  You bet it is.

>>Despite the display of the level of your intelligence, many pro-lifers
>>do want to ban contraceptives.

>Oh MAN, thats funny.

Just another display of your incredible intelligence. You try to laugh
off something I can prove beyond a doubt. The thing is, it would take
me too much time to go through 1000 articles to get you all the names
necessary from this forum, plus all the various pro-life groups in all
the states member lists.


>>>Lie.  Always claim numerical superiority no matter what.  Good Tactic.

>>Blatant assertion, care to show any proof for the previous two or three
>>years? (current numbers required, since going back 500 years to the
>>reign of the RCC is not valid data.)

>Hey dumbshit.  Reread the previous paragraph.  Doesn't that also
>qualify as "blatant assertion"?  I guess not because it's on your
>side, right?

I like your numbers. Here are some, since you haven't learned the rules
of logical debate yet, and I have let myself drift.

Just look at the numbers given by the park police for the last two rallies.

500,000 - pro-choice (could be more, minimum agreed on)

100,000 - pro-life (and that's using the high number given by the police)

No blatant assertion there. Care to dispute it with facts?

>>Polls taken by various news organizations over the past two years show
>>support for abortion varies between 70%-80% of the population. This
>>is one of the reasons Bush wishes to change his stance on abortion yet
>>again, but due to his many other flip-flops, his advisers have encouraged
>>him not to. 

>More road apples from Ron.  In 1990 PP commissioned a poll trying to
>prove exactly that.  Even though the poll questioned was created by
>PP and slanted in their favor (of course) they barely won.  PP had
>won (approx. 52% to 48% - unrespondents not included) but with a
>5% margin of error and the fact that the question was slanted from the
>start it seems apparent that they actually lost.

If you read my statement carefully, nowhere does it state if the support
is for unrestricted abortions. Many do not favor unrestricted abortions
ie third tri-mester abortions for any reason. The statement probably
should read that 70%-80% favor not making abortion completely illegal.

Although you give similar info, I'd be willing to bet that it was for
unrestricted abortions. Care to give more info?

Do you also care to show that I'm completely wrong with what I said
about Bush? He did consider changing his stance last year, you know.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity