From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:31:14 GMT
     <1992Aug17.162035.28647@csus.edu>
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>>>[presumably another Steve Chaney post]
>>>># *Suppose your kid switches sides, and becomes pro-life? And:
>>
>>So?
>
>So far, it seems hard to find how Susan Garvin can claim to plug "I'd be
>tolerant and wouldn't occasionally wipe the floor with his ass" when her
>proven attitude is clearly contradictory to that.

I can't comment here; I haven't read enough of Ms. Garvin's posts, apparently.
However, it would bother me a little, but it's the kid's life.

>>>># *Suppose they want to join the Catholic Church?
>>
>>I won't be going with them.  Big deal.
>
>This was largely aimed at Pat Harumphrey and Mark the Irate Cough Man.

Fine.  It was in a general message, however.

>>>># *Suppose they announce that they're voting Republican?
>>
>>So?
>
>[ Plus a dozen similar answers ]

Hey--as long as it works. :)

>>>># *Work on the Jesse Helms campaign?
>>
>>I doubt there would be one by the time I have children that old.  However, I
>>would wonder why; Helms is one of the worst things to happen to the Senate
>>this century.
>
>Second to Ted Kennedy, of course. At least Helms isn't involved in sex
>scandals...

No argument here.  Kennedy is an embarrassment to the Senate.  However, 
Helms isn't that much better.

[pro-choice parents who would cut off their pro-life children if they
 knew]

>>>And there isn't any pro-abort around here who'd have a beef about
>>>that. 
>>
>>Untrue.  That's poor parenting, no matter WHO does it.
>
>And while they might not be like you, you know there are bunches and
>bunches of these folks out there, if they're visible here. The attitude I
>mentioned is no less prevalent than, say, people who sincerely believe
>that pro-life could not survive without the Bible.

That still doesn't make it right.  There are many examples of both good
and bad parenting on all sides of the abortion issue; pointing to them
in one subset doesn't prove anything.

>>Then don't paint all pro-choicers with the same brush.
>
>Tell that to Kaufman and Novak who paint all pro-lifers as bible-thumpers.

Kaufman and Novak: Don't paint all pro-lifers as bible-thumpers.

Happy to oblige.

>>>It still holds in this household that black Republicans are
>>>sick-minded Uncle Tom's (well, at least my mother didn't believe Anita
>>>Hill),
>>
>>Then they're just as racist as they claim not to be.
>
>How's about the show "Roc" on Sunday, August 16, 1992, in which it was
>deemed okay for a TV actor to say, "I play a game when I watch the
>Republican convention. It's called 'Find the Black delegate.'"? 

Didn't see the episode, and in fact have only watched that show one or
two times.  However, there's a difference between saying something in
a comedic setting and saying it as an actual statement.

Also, the statement about "sick-minded Uncle Toms" is a statement about
black Republicans, whereas the Roc joke seems to be a statement about the
Republican party in general.  I haven't watched any of the convention, so
I don't know how accurate that portrayal is, but if there ARE very few
black delegates, it's a perfectly valid statement to make.

>>>And don't start up on that dysfunctional shit, either - at least we_
>>>don't sniff the flower, drop out of school or have the cops dropping
>>>by our house weekly, to check out a family brawl.
>>
>>That's not the only measure of functionality.
>
>But it's a good one.

As a first approximation, maybe.  I'd be more inclined to agree with the
inverse: families that DO have some or all of those properties are likely
to be at least partly dysfunctional. (Though not all: I have several friends
who are recreational drug users and have perfectly loving, stable families.
It's not my cup of weed...err, tea :), but they seem to be happy.)

Also note that I know of some people whose parents have utterly destroyed
their self-esteem.  These parents (in both cases I have in mind at the
moment) are not violent, don't have the cops dropping by, and are in every
way pillars of the community.  The kids don't use drugs and are in school.
Does this make their families functional?  I claim not.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.