From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:00:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman): 

>Rick Adams writes
>
>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!
> 
>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_ terrible  
>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.

	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.

	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.

>> The FDA, despite your claims to the contrary, has NO
>> authority to ban ANY procedure, or products. FDA, in case
>> you have forgotten, stands for Food and Drug
>> Administration. To the best of my knowledge, a surgical
>> procedure is neither a food product nor a drug.
>
>So what are breast implants ? Foods ? Or drugs ?
>
>And didn't you just say in the same breath that a breast implant was a product  
>which was banned by the FDA and that the FDA can't ban products ? 
>
>You sound a little bit confused.
>
	Obviously, the above was a typo and should have read:

authority to ban ANY procedure, only products. FDA, in case

	My apologies for the typo.

>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.

>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?

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

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:984 alt.rush-limbaugh:3955 alt.activism.d:2875