From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:39:34 CDT

In article <1992Jul27.211358.5944@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.184858.241012@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan "Blow-job for Free... blowing smoke, that is" Garvin) writes:

Just when I thought your credibility couldn't be worse.

>>In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>#In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>####This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>>####abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
>>####And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
>>####big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
>>####illegal abortion. 
>>####Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
>>##
>>###Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
>>###Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
>>##
>>##Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
>>##Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).
>>#
>>#Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>>#gave it to you guys on the chin. 

How much do you know about the circumstances of Susan Anthony's
times, her legal agenda, and the motivations that early women's
leaders may have had for public opposition to abortion?

>>#That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
>>#bold-faced liar. 
>>
>>No, Chaney, I called you a liar.
>>
>>We have no evidence that PP said anything of the sort,
>>other than your claim that they did.  Your credibility, like
>>Holtsinger's, is nonexistent.  (Your anti-Semitic version
>>of a NYT article comes immediately to mind.)
>
>It was in the Sacramento News & Review's Women's Issue last year. 

Did you save it for a pinup?  How is it that you expect
us to trust your memory of a year-old ad when you couldn't
even keep the details of who a speaker, quoted in a NYT 
article, really represented?  Does anyone out there have
access to back issues of this publication?
>
>>Can you prove that PP said this?  They laughingly denied
>>any such advertisement.  I'm sure that if the ads really
>>existed, you would be able to produce verifiable proof.
>
>I just did. 
>
We'll see.

>>#		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>>
>>Projecting again, Chaney?  I realize that your Church seems to
>>be supportive of such acts, but you should remember that it
>>is *your* church.
>
>What does a church have to do with me? 
>
No more than they have to, especially if they see some
examples of your consideration for others. Like the following.

>Go ahead, bitch - try and tack religious motivation on me. Go ahead.
>I'll smoke that article out of your ass for the next month and you'll
>be farting your brains along with it. Which means your bra will
>deflate all the way down to an A cup.  
>
>You're crossing the wrong person's path playing "church" with me -
>back off now or you'll be monstrously embarrassed. Not that you're not
>headed that way already with this news-thread.  
>
>FACT: In Florida, the right to privacy which abortion is founded on,
>has been expanded to the right of adults to screw little girls. FACT,
>Susan. 

"This statement is not correct." [rocker quote]

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity