From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "Anti-Abortion" is a DEAD label. It's PRO-LIFE.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:04:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep8.155048.10814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:


>The National Right to Life Committee has proven to Coat Hanger terrorists
>like Mark Kaufman and all the nuts I've seen dwelling on 
>alt.abortion.inequity, that your "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" labels, 
>no longer work.
>The NRLC takes positions on abortion, euthanasia, as well as coerced
>starvation, the killing of anencephalic infants, and human experimentation.

>Now, how is the NRLC an anti-abortion organization, when they piled onto
>the Christine Busalacchi case to prevent her from being starved to death?

	Simple; NRLC is anti-abortion not because of what they do, but
where they stand. Thus, NRLC is anti-abortion when they're involved in 
Busalacchi, when they're raising funds, when they send out their newsletter...
granted, NRLC isn't *strictly* antiabortion, but it is antiabortion until it
changes its eviw on the matter (which is not too damn likely)

>Anti-choice? Well, anti the father's (Pete's) choice to kill his daughter.
>So to be pro-choice and politically correct, a child's life must lie in the
>hands of a murderous and death-oriented father who can't wait to kill his
>own kid because she doesn't fit his standard of living... 
	
	I don't know the facts of the Busalacchi case, so I won't comment
on it. In fact, I can't even squirm. You could be talking about a kid who 
needed medicine to get rid of a deadly but very treatable condition, or you
could be talking about a brain-dead child who will never experience anything
again. In the latter case I wouldn't so much squirm as realize how fanatic
the position you presented really is.

>
>Proposition 119, the Euthanasia bill of the century, in Washington state:
>wiped out by pro-lifers at the ballot box.
>What does abortion have to do with this pro-life action? Does opposition to
>legalized Euthanasia mean an "anti-abortion movement"?

	No, it means an anti-Euthanasia movement, which I guess does fit 
under this "pro-life" category of yours.
>
>Come on, pro-aborts. Where is all that "anti-abortion" bull now?

	In your article. 

>We have spread as more of your anti-life principles continue to invade our
>society, screaming for the power to take more unwanted human lives, even
>though they're innocent of any crimes.

	A living body with a dead brain or no brain is a dead person. Innocence
is irrelevant at that point, at least as far as the law is concerned.
>
>NOW:
>Where is your "pro-choice" when Marijuana comes to issue? Don't marijuana
>users have a right to control their own bodies?

	Of course they do. The pro-choice fits here too. And by the way, isn't
it the same people who are against abortion who are against using Marajuana for
medicinal purposes? I guess the anti-choice label fits better and better as
we go along.

>
>Obviously, your "pro-choice" stance is a bunch of b.s. Seeing as that no
>pro-choice organization in America, from Planned Parenthood to the NOW,
>takes an active stance on legalizing Marijuana on the same privacy and
>control of body principles they hawk for abortion, the issue obviously is
>NOT "CHOICE" in general. It is "choice" in a very narrow subject.

	Perhaps, although I'd like to point out that NOW is also very
Feminist, which for them would include abortion rights. NOW is hardly
a strictly ab. rights group. 
>
>And considering how badly pro-abortionists want to kill anencephalic babies
>and starve clearly living patients like Christine Busalacchi (who has been
>seen moving, responsive, and alert), to death, to make other people happy,
>this "pro-abortion" quickly becomes "anti-life" or "pro-death."

	I don't see NOW or Planned Parenthood taking any stances on euthanasia
or similar topics. So much for Pro-Death.
>
>Pro-life incurs a general principle of protecting human life. Well, we can
>be faulted on the death penalty and war...

	That's enough to discount the label. Pro-death penalty could work
under the argument that we must protect *innocent* human "life," but that
would mean that you would have to be antiwar. You personally may be antiwar,
but the fact is that I didn't see NRLC out on the streets when the bombing
started over Baghdad. So much for pro-life; the only really pro-life o
organization I can name is the Catholic Church, which is antiabortion, anti-
euthanasia, antiwar and anti-Death-Penalty. There may be other such groups,
but NRLC is *NOT* one of them.

>
>Even a fierce-meister like me, has to shiver at that. 

	Thanks for the compliment :)
>Excuse me while I go
>figure out a way to blow the core out of the NOW - the sooner they go, the
>sooner this "legalize more killing" tide will come to a screeching halt and
>a refreshing reverse. The NOW crowd has helped start a tide of killing and
>discrimination that already dwarfs anything we've seen before, in sheer
>numbers, and which threatens to dwarf it many times over in intensity. If
>the NOW has their way, they will decide who lives and who dies. Literally.
>See Euthanasia, Baby Theresa, and Christine Busalacchi, for outstanding
>examples.

	If NOW has their way, and I mean *really* has their way, then
women will be at equal par with men. But, I guess you're not one to like
that idea, eh BOSS?
	Seriously, NOW is a feminist group at the core. If you're
so otherwise liberal as you claim, then this article you're about to
write about NOW won't attack the feminism core, but the abortion rights
byproduct. This ought to make for good reading.
>
> (Obscene .sig omitted)
>

***********************************************************************
* Has anyone out there heard from Karen Uru out at Loyola University? *
***********************************************************************

-Lost Boy