From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:28:12 GMT
Distribution: na

Rick Adams writes
> Thus spake cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman):
> >Yes, the FDA only banned the most inexpensive form of breast implants and so  
> >increased the basic price of such a procedure by several thousand dollars
> >and so put them out of the reach of many poorer women. Let them try that
> >with abortion supplies and hear the cries ...
> >
> 	If the least expensive form of abortion WERE significantly more
> dangerous than other alternatives, it WOULD be appropriate to ban it!
> 
> 	The fact that safer forms of implants are out of reach of poorer
> women has nothing to do with the FDA, it has EVERYTHING to do with
> Republican opposition to National Health care programs which would MAKE them
> available!

You actually do mean that National Health Care would pay for breast implants  
costing thousands of dollars each for any woman which wants them ? What about  
other kinds of cosmetic surgery ? My, you really are lucky that you aren't  
Bush. The media would tear him to pieces even worse than it does now for  
"negative", "distorting" campaigning.

> >Cigarettes or fatty foods - or for that matter birth control pills - have a  
> >negative impact on the health of people. And you say that most "pro-choice"  
> >people would not object if they were made illegal and people were denied 
> >their choice to use them ? I knew they were hypocrits, but that were _such_ 
> >terriblle fascists I didn't.
> 
> 	Cigarettes and fatty foods are NOT marketed as medical devices or
> products, nor do fatty foods contain any known contaminants. Therefore they
> do NOT fall under the control of the FDA.

So if breast implants were marketed as cosmetic devices without any medical use  
(which in most cases they are), you think the FDA should be forced to allow  
them again ?  As for what is a "contaminant" and what is a "constituent" the  
borders are purely arbitrary. If the FDA decides that fat is a contaminant of  
french fries, then you would say that they have the right to outlaw them.

> 	Birth control pills represent a lower degree of risk than do most
> alternatives (including pregnancy) therefore they represent a product which
> is appropriate to remain available.

Birth control pills are considerably more dangerous than abstinence. Cheaper  
too. Now don't misread me - I'm not a moralist preacher. In contrast to you _I_  
believe that adults should be able to make their own choices and take their own  
risks, including the use of birth control pills or promiscuous sex, both of  
which would be banned by your logic.

> 	In addition, if it were not for opposition from the anti-abortion
> groups and the churches, funding would be available to research safer forms
> of birth control.

Don't be silly. Birth control research is done in many countries of the world  
and american birth control is not significantly more dangerous than that in  
other countries.

> >The Republican party is hardly the Christian Church. Many of its leading  
> >thinkers and supporters are indeed Jewish or even atheists (as I happen to
> >be).
> >
> 	Tell that to the representatives at the convention - or for that
> matter to your Presidential candidate, who stated:
> 
> ==>I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, 
> ==>nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation 
> ==>under God."                                           
>
> 	So long as your party presents speakers who are representatives of
> religious groups at its convention, includes religious statements in its
> platform, bases its values on those of a religion, and nominates
> individuals who make statements such as the above, I choose to regard it as
> the political arm of the Christian Church - or at the very least as directly
> supporting the aims of that religion, rather than adhering strictly to a
> political position  divorced from religious influence.
> 
> 	If you personally choose to identify with a group whose candidate
> publically states you should not be considered either a citizen or a
> patriot, that is your privilege.  Personally, I find such views to represent
> unacceptable levels of bigotry and religious involvement with the state.

Well, _I_ am neither a citizen nor a patriot. But in the general case  
politicians say many silly things which mean little and George Bush being more  
silly a man than many has said more silly things than most.

> >And there you conclude wrongly. I am for legalized abortion, legalized
> >drugs,legalized prostitution and - _yes_ - legalized breast implants. Indeed
> >I'd consider myself genuinely pro choice. That does alter the fact that most
> >of the large public "pro-choice" organizations are sickeningly hypocritical
> >in their beliefs and actions and indeed give the term "pro-choice" a bad
> >name.
> 	Then by necessity you oppose nearly the entire platform of your
> chosen political party. Have you considered the concept that voting for Bush
> is selling your integrity for an economic gain that may not even exist?

The _entire_ platform ? The platform is 125 pages long. Less than one page of  
that is devoted to abortion. That you believe otherwise is certainly a telling  
remark on the original subject of this thread. But probably not a single  
republican exists which agrees with every word of it. Neither do I. Nor do very  
many people vote on the basis of platforms. Again, neither would I. Personally  
I'd vote on the basis of the writings of the intellectuals associated with  
either party. And here the Republicans win hands down on almost every single  
issue I mentioned above. 

And even if that were not so, I'd find extremely hard to vote for a man who is  
so far out that when he sees a government which consumes 50 cents on every  
dollars worth of value which any american creates, he can not help but come to  
the conclusion that _THIS_GOVERNMENT_NEEDS_MORE_MONEY_!_ .

> 	And you have the gall to call pro-choicers hypocrites?

Absolutely. Not necessarily all or even most net.pro-choicers, but the large  
feminist and abortion-rights organizations like NOW or Planned Parenthood or  
the Womens Studies professoriate any day. And if you can find any  
contradiction, inconsistency or trace of hypocrisy in anything I've said on  
this net over the past years, I'd be very grateful if you'd let me know.

	Carl Edman