From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:05:13 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Sep09.195258.92238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>|> >The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
>|> >that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
>|> >the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
...
>|> Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
>|> ...forced into accepting ... abortion"  The supreme court basically said
>|> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>|> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>|> on any one?
>
>	Ask an ignorant question.....
>	It certainly involves force against the living human being inside the
>mother's womb.
>	I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving of
>the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.

Now Steve, I don't know why you think you know what I'm thinking.  In this
case you are dead wrong.  I absolutely believe that a fetus is a living
human being.  It's just not a person.  And (are you ready for this?) even
if it was a person I would support unrestricted abortion upto the time of
birth.  You see, the being that the fetus resides in is normally called a
'woman'.  If you'll check your biology books you'll see that she is a
human being too.  If you'll check your legal books you'll see that she is
a person.  And if you'll check the constitution you'll find that no
*person* unconvicted of a crime my be forced into bodily servitude against
their will.

>|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
>|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
>
>	As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother's
>womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...

Now you pretend to know the future political views of a seconds old
zygote.  Pretty funny stuff Steve.

>|> BTW, did anyone catch the closeups of Schwarzenegger at the GOP
>|> convention?  Quayle and Bush make such a big deal of "family values" and
>|> the "UnAmerican-ness" of Hollywood (i.e. A single unwed pregnant
>|> successful woman is a prime example of what's wrong in our society) while
>|> Arnie sits there, having committed unspeakable attrocities in his films of
>|> violence and bloodshed.
>
>	Oh, and you've never paid $5 to see one of Schwartzenegger's movies,
>right?  Get outta town!

Did I say that I've never watched his movies?  I happen to own a few tapes
of his better stuff.  Try rereading what I wrote again and engage your
brain this time.

>	At least Schwartzenegger limits his violence to the movie screen.  

I bet that more children went to see Arnie's last movie than watched Murphy
Brown all last year.  Who do you think was more "harmed"?

>The pro-legal-abortionists out there want to make it a living reality, 
>and so far they're prevailing.

Are you saying that we are out there shooting cops, running cars off
roads, killing innocent bystanders, and chopping people up with swords?

Can you substantiate any of this?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.