From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Correctus to you, Adrienne - don't forget it)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Adrienne Regard, RIP (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:46:30 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet

In article <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Doofus) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Doofus again) writes:
>>
>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>indeed, justified.  
>
>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.

Dehumanizing is exactly what it takes to justify how a woman can choose to
end the life of her own offspring just because it gets in her mind that she
doesn't want him/her to live any longer. Knocking off that dehumanization
removes the non-personhood label and instantly removes her right to take
his/her life.


>>But why do our children have to suffer?  Yes, I know you would say: "But
>>that child will suffer if he/she is made to live on this earth."
>
>Yours don't have to, unless you provide them cause.  I don't know of anybody
>who is stepping into *your* life and attempting to make decisions for *you*,
>though, please, correct me if I'm off base here.

Any time you decide that it is in your best interests to take another life,
the government steps in on your life right away.

That is good enough basis to remove a woman's right to an abortion,
permanently. We removed a man's right to discriminate, why not a woman's,
and make anti-discrimination a complete job?


>>We assume too much when we think that abortion would save that child
>>from suffering and misery.
>
>Who's "we", white man?

WOOOOOOOAAAAAAHHHH !!!

A little RACISM and a little SEXISM here! YOU make PatricKKK Humphrey look
good!


>(I'm getting awfully tired of that particular phrase......)
>
>Nobody in this exchange so far has made this 'assumption' except you in
>your spurious attempt to set up a straw man, attribute it to me, and then
>knock it back down again.  Spare us all the exercise.

Then try me on for size, Doofus. It seems clear that you are both a sexist
and a racist at the same time. I guess it's time for me to get together a
memorial on you, too.

I knew you'd fuck up, Doofus. Now you've stumbled and you know how bad it
is for pro-aborts when they stumble in front of this pro-life crowd. You've
had it. And for one, you owe him an apology - not the rest of us, but HIM.


>>>To say no to one now is not to forever say no.  To say no to one now may
>>>be to pave the way for a better life for more than one later.
>>Why will the next child be any more special than the one today?  Why do
>>some of our children live while others, well...   
>
>Will it be any less?
>
>The fact of the matter is that MANY people have some idea of how many
>kids they will have.  Some have that many, some have more and some have
>fewer.  That one fetus was aborted, while another fetus spontaneously
>aborted doesn't seem all that terribly tragic to me:  it's the way hte
>human animal works.  Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.

So if someone kills you, are you renewable? I hope the hell not.
When a fetus is murdered, they do not come back. That was their only shot
at life and when women kill them, they lose their life and never come back.
Your argument here sounds like reincarnation, which is a religious
viewpoint. Unless you admit "renewable" was definitely a factually
incorrect term.

Not only are you a racist and a sexist, but also a THEOCRAT? Hey DOOFUS,
you don't fuck up like that with predators like me prowling around here -
it can come back to you in the worst ways.


>>I hate thinking that children are "chosen."  That one child is worth more
>>than any other child.  All humans are special.  The circumstances (not
>>directly pertaining to the immediate "health" of the mother.)  should not
>>change the value of a child.
>
>You're kidding.  "I hate thinking that children are 'chosen'?"  Do you 
>prefer thinking children are accidental?
>
>"That one child is worth more than any other child?" vs. "The circumstances...
>should not change the value of a child."

The point he is making, is that when they come to life in the womb, it is
irrelevant how they got there: they should remain there until they are
viable enough to leave, kind of like older children in the home: put them
out where they can't survive and that's called child neglect. Abortion
should be prosecuted the same way, regardless of whether or not the child
is planned or unplanned.

It would be fun to catch you trying an illegal abortion and my being on the
jury to hand down the sentence. Lessee... child neglect, discrimination,
first degree murder... oh, that's a triple whammy and would it *hurt.* I'll
be dead of old age by the time you and that doctor get out.


>But you just decided it was worth *more* than her other children!!!! How
>insensitive (and just plain foolish!) can you get?!?!?
>
>I don't think this came out saying what it is you mean to say!

Especially when Doofus can't understand what he is saying.


>>>I think it would be harder to have a wanted child and watch it dwindle
>>>because I couldn't provide for it, than to wait for my wanted child and
>>>be able to give it everything.
>>See my above comments.
>
>
>I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive than 
>fail.  If that means I wait for a year or two, then I wait.  If it makes
>me a selfish bitch to want my children to survive, and survive well, then
>so be it.

And if they might not thrive, then kill them - that'll make their lives
better, eh, Doofus? What if you wait a year or two and the kids still end
up failing at around 2 years old because you get hit by the unexpected
recession that Hurricane Clinton will unintentionally cause? Then what?
Retroactive abortion rights? If I make a straw man argument, please give me
something stronger argument to battle and I'll be all the happier.

How about being a selfish bitch for making sure a number of them don't
survive and then excusing yourself by saying they aren't persons because
they're not 9 months old yet, then calling people who oppose what you
advocate, "white men" as if their color meant anything in this issue, and
then advocating a nameless state religion by asserting reincarnation? All
the while forgetting about something called ADOPTION?

How can you make these kind of stupid mistakes when you know you have a
competing flamelord just waiting to cut you down to human size when your
head gets too big?

How's about it, Doofus? Want to show me just how tough a flame-meister you
are, while defending yourself from your own DOOF-ups?


=============================================================================
Imagine if you said THIS to someone:

>Who's "we", white man?
       - Adrienne Regard
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright