From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:27:20 GMT
Summary: Let's see if we can raise that level

In article <phil.722110508@seidel>, phil@seidel.ucsb.edu (Philip Papadopoulos) writes:
> Since you have lowered the level of this conversation. I will
> respond in kind:

I'm not the one you were responding to.  I do have something
to say, however.  But first, please leave attributions in.
> 
> "Fuck all you want. Get as many abortions as you want. I don't give flying
> fuck about people who want abortions on demand - at any time - for any 
> reason.  -- Just don't ask me (a person who doesn't screw anything
> that moves, and a taxpayer) to pay for it"

Do your tax dollars go to pay for abortions?  I was under the
impression that this may be the case in California, and I don't
know where you post from.  Federal tax dollars do not pay for
abortions except, I believe, for military personnel.  Could
you clarify why you believe your tax dollars pay for abortions?

Also, if I read your statement correctly, you only screw
things that don't move.  I don't believe this is the correct
forum for that discussion, but I'm willing to go along with
it.  I suggest you try screwing things that move.  If, as I
assume from your name, you are a male and, based strictly on
the odds, heterosexual, I highly recommend you try women who
move.  Very enjoyable, believe me.  I had a woman who hardly
moved at all once (well, twice actually) and I didn't like
it as much as the ones who moved.  Sometimes they can move too
much, which makes it more difficult to complete intromission
("Hello, intromission control?  We have touchdown."), but on
the whole I would say movement is better than no movement in these
matters.

> I can understand completely elective abortions (unhappy with 
> being pregnant, etc.) within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.  After that,
> there better be a damn good reason for an abortion (i.e. amniocentisis reports
> Down's syndrome, anencephaly, rape, incest,  etc.).  Women always claim that 
> "it's my body. I'll do with it what I want." This is absurd.  Do you
> not see drinking (to excess)or  using illegal drugs while pregnant as
> child abuse.  There are no laws that make a crime to drink to excess while
> the baby is in the womb.  But hey, the second the kid is born, he/she
> has "rights".  Crazy isn't it.  At some point, somebody must make a 
> decision as to when a childs life begins.  Conception and birth
> are the extremes. I would say that life begins when the fetus can be sustained
> (even by aritificial means) outside the womb.  Technology will keep
> pushing that day closer and closer to conception.  i

First of all, you are basically agreeing with the rule of Roe v
Wade, a highly pro-choice ruling.  If that is the case, and you
would say that you wouldn't approve legislation that restricts
abortion prior to viability (the point at which the life of a
fetus might be sustained outside the womb), then I have no
quarrel with you.

Now, what is the difference between an abortion at 10 weeks into
gestation and an abortion at 12 weeks?  By this I am seeking
the underlying principle upon which you base your seemingly
arbitrary number.

> The writer of the above may be a reasonable abortion rights activist.
> The ones who get the press are the extremists. I can stand those people
> even less than I can stand the right wing religionist point of view
> that all abortion is wrong. 

I have no quarrel with that either.

Dean Kaflowitz

Shake rattle and roll

Newsgroups: talk.abortion