From: bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:34:30 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>I wondered what the polls would show if the question "Are you
>pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or for restricted abortion?" were asked
>instead of something simple and misleading like "Are you pro-choice
>or pro-life?"

If you had ever even seen the Gallup Reports on abortion, you would not
have asked this question.  The Gallup Polls asked whether abortion
should be made illegal.  A majority of Americans (nearly two-thirds)
has consistently stated that abortion should remain legal.

>I would also like to ask the following questions:
>	1) Do you think abortion is a surgical procedure?

Yes, I do.

>	2) Do you know that doctors cannot perform any surgical procedure
>		on a minor without guardian consent?

Yes, I do.

>	3) You know what this one should be.

Yes, I do think that parental consent should be granted for young girls
seeking abortions.  However, when RU486 enters this country (and it will;
it might be 1 year, it might be 10), I don't see this being a problem
anymore.

>>Plus, there are many more Pro-Choice Republicans than there are
>>Pro-Life Democrats.  Pete Wilson, Republican governor of California,
>>is Pro-Choice.  John Seymour, Republican senator from California is
>>too.  Some of the most conservative Republicans are even Pro-Choice:
>>Alan Simpson of Wyoming is the best example I can think of right now.
>>Possible independent presidential candidate, Ross Perot, is Pro-Choice.
>>Even George Bush was a Pro-Choice Republican before he flip-flopped to
>>appease the religious right and maintain the Reagan legacy.

>OK, you've indicated all the Dem-o'-rats are wrong and some of
>the Republicans are wrong. What is your point? Just because more
>people are wrong than right, that doesn't make it right. (Think
>about it.)

My point was this:  More politicians are pro-choice than pro-life.  Why
do you suppose that is?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that,
say, a majority of the U.S. public is pro-choice?

By the way, your ex cathedra labeling of pro-choice people as "wrong"
is not going to get you any points in this or any debate.  Let's leave
the labels out and debate the issues rationally, please.

>>The Pro-Life movement is dominated largely by devout Catholics and
>>fundamentalist Christians.  Not exactly a majority of Americans.

>Not a majority, but certainly a large portion.

I don't believe this to be the case.  Most Americans, like yourself, are
pretty secular.

>And certainly more than the number of HIV infected people, and more than
>the number of environmentalist wackos. If the government listens to them
>why not the church?

Well, we do have this thing called the separation of Church and State.
As to your assertion that the government listens to environmentalists
and AIDS activists:  I'm not quite sure what planet you're living on.

--
bvickers@ics.uci.edu | "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there
brett@ucippro.bitnet |  is the danger of oppression." - James Madison
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh