From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:23:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct13.205628.14654@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.201919.7967@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
> >> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
> >> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
> >> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
> >> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
> >> hypocrisy?
> 
> > Well, if we want to talk abotu liars and hypocrites, if this
> > is still about that lawsuit brought to halt the abortions
> > being shown on television by some political candidate in
> > the midwest, the suit was brought by a woman because it
> > was upsetting to her children.  The woman who brought the
> > suit is PRO-LIFE, and the suit therefore shows nothing
> > about pro-choice people.
> 
> Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
> more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
> your point is irrelevant.  

Uh huh.  So you're saying that when a pro-life supporter
brings suit agaist a politician for showing pictures of
abortions on television, that's the fault of pro-choice supporters?

Talk about irrelevant.  You're railing against pro-choice
supporters for the action of a pro-life supporter.  Maybe
you're not being irrelevant or dishonest, Doug.  Maybe you're
just being dumb.
> 
> Several pro-aborts on talk.abortion have expressed their 
> opposition to the display of aborted fetuses on television.
> These are the same pro-aborts who label the fetus a mere 
> "clump of cells".  What are they afraid of? 

Maybe they don't like looking at clumps of cells.  I tend to
turn the channel when I see those brain surgeries on the
PBS channels.  Not all of us are cut out to be pathologists.
On the other hand, I am a strong supporter of First Amendment
rights, so I don't think the woman's lawsuit, which is a pro-life
attempt to limit freedom of speech, is a good suit.
> 
> [... lots of irrelevant jabbering deleted ..]
> 
> > In consequence, as you insist on being as insulting to
> > others as possible by using the misleading term (what else?)
> > "pro-aborts," I label you the ultra-religious Doug Holtsinger.
> 
> I call `em like I see `em.  If you don't like it, that's tough shit.
> You can call me whatever you like.  I really don't care.

Yeah, me too Reverend Doug.  So why don't you just admit that
you are pro-lie because of your god?
> 
> A person who believes that there should be no restrictions 
> on abortion IS pro-abortion, just as a person who believes that
> there should be no restrictions on contraceptives (which I
> believe) is pro-contraception.  

A person who believes that women should be allowed to make
their own choices, that women own their own bodies and what
they do with them isn't any of your damn business is pro-choice.
> 
> If you don't like being insulted by the term "pro-abortion", 
> then perhaps you should consider changing your views. 

I did.  I started off viewing you as a voice to discuss things
with and now I view you with contempt.
> 
> [.. irrelevant material deleted ..]

Must have been something you said then.  Ah yes, it was the
stuff where you claimed that because a doctor is dishonest,
that field of medicine should be eliminated.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion