From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Houston Defended Choice!
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:20:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.033247.13135@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>This is a response to a response to my rather long pro-life posting.  Brian
>said he tried to respond to it point by point, and then issue by issue, and
>failed both times.  The posting ended up being this sloppy assortment of
>long words that basically said, "Nuh-uhhhh," with NO support NO arguments
>NO nothing.  I illustrate:

By deleting 90% of it?  Way to go, Mr. Scrupulous Accuracy...and why are you
so dead set against including attributions?  

>>I give up.  The article is full of blatant assertions, inaccurate
>>figures, heavily biased opinions, and emotional ploys.
>
>Blatant assertions:  I think the reason you didn't respond to this point by
>			point was because you couldn't find enough to support
>			this comment.

Maybe Brian has a life, and doesn't have the time to dissect your rant 
one point at a time -- did you ever think of that?  You can think whatever
you want to -- but that doesn't mean reality will conform to your wishes.

>Inaccurate figures:  Yeah, right.  I didn't see any corrected figures from
>			you.  Why?  Perhaps you call them inaccurate because
>			you didn't like them?

See above.

>Heavily biased opinions:  Of course it was biased.  It was a posting that
>			CLAIMED in the SUBJECT LINE to refute pro-choice
>			arguments.  You are just as biased, refuting those.

Oh?  You're admitting he refuted your rather pointless tirade?  :-)

>Emotional ploys:  Abortion is an emotional subject.  And you use the SAME
>			METHODS.  See below.
>
>>It insults
>>women by seeming to assume that if we just keep them from having
>>abortions, they'll thank us someday for it.
>
>Not.  Read the post again.

How about you *think* before you post it?  That'd save us both a lot of time.

>>It cleverly avoids
>>bringing up any good reason to want an abortion, instead trying to
>>reduce the issue to a battle between loving, caring people who want
>>women to have as many babies as possible and love them all versus the
>>evil babykilling murderers.
>
>#1:  EVERY COMMON REASON THERE IS to want an abortion WAS ADDRESSED.
>	Did you read this with your eyes closed?  Or did you just read the
>	subject line and post a flame?

Every common reason YOU CAN THINK OF, maybe -- but there *are* other reasons 
out here in the real world that you can't begin to imagine.

>#2:  THE POSTING DID NOT IMPLY that women should have as many babies as
>	possible.  In fact, I believe people are having TOO MANY.  Why don't
>	we quit messing around with "abortion" and start talking about a
>	BIGGER problem:  premarital sex -- the number one (though granted,
>	not the only), reason abortion has to be such an issue.

It is to laugh -- *premarital sex* is a bigger problem?  Then don't practice
it, nitwit -- and quit trying to claim that MY sex life is any of YOUR
damned business.

>#3:  FINALLY, YES -- THOSE WHO HAVE ABORTIONS *ARE* EVIL BABYKILLING
>	MURDERERS.

According to you -- and the law doesn't see it your way.  So what?

>>If this is the sort of muleheaded opposition the pro-choice movement
>>has faced all along, then I'm surprised we've gotten as far as we have.
>
>Folks like you posting responses to things you haven't read -- just merely
>scanned -- is the reason why half the world is so deluded.

My, aren't we modest today?

>           Samuel Stoddard, Jesus freak and Bible basher.

That's painfully obvious.


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

                   Feed the homeless...to the hungry!  :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion