From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Flamers on both sides of the Potomac (Was: A lot of different subjs.)
Summary: The best way to cross the river?  Roe vs. Wade(?!)
Keywords: abortion life comprehensive readme part1 sex
Organization: You see, Burke Lee.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:10:31 GMT

First off, I'd like to request that Mr. Chaney please refrain from making
insults at anyone, although I hope this would apply to everyone.

In article <mykes.0acg@amiga0.SF-Bany.ORG> (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.034354.27753@wetware.com> (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>In another article (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>> ] Women were never ever made criminals.  Doctors were held responsible.
>> ] This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
>> ] abortion in the 20 years since.
>>
>> don't get out in the big world a whole lot now do you?
>>
>> forget about a place called pennsylvania?
>
>According to a consortium of 8+ pro-abortion interest groups, only
>25 states are likely to outlaw abortion altogether.  Less than
>10 would make it 100% unregulated as per Roe.  The rest of the
>states would allow reasonable limitations on abortion.  This
>is "if Roe is overturned" by the supreme court.  My source is
>Time Magazine, which published the data as a map of the US
>with each state in a specific color.  The data was based upon
>pre-Roe laws, current opinions of state leadership, and other
>laws on the books.
>
>Now, tell me how Pennsylvania passed a law making abortion
>100% illegal?  Or shut the hell up.

He didn't say anything about PA making abortion 100% illegal.  He merely
wanted to call attention to your assertion that there had been ZERO
legislation against (limiting access doesn't make it "for") to abortion.
Only 25 states?  Gee, that's 1/2!  Depending on where they were located,
it could make access difficult to poorer women.  (I also am unclear as to
what you mean by "reasonable limitations".  Reasonable to who?)

>> forget about a place called guam....
>
>Same is true of guam.
>

Yeah, same is true of Guam.  Now how much would it cost to get to the
nearest legal abortion clinic if it was banned there?  Who would suffer
the most?

>> and why is it that now when AntiAboritonistsRhetoriticianists
>> rattle on about abortion laws, they do not talk in terms
>> of returning to the days before R.v.W -
>
>I talk about the days before Roe quite a bit.  Obviously you
>have missed my posts.  Before Roe, abortion was legal in the
>US.  There were 500,000 legal (repeat LEGAL) abortions in
>the US - 1/3 of the number we have with Roe legalized abortions.
>I also say that if Roe is overturned by the supreme court,
>which I don't see happening, abortion will still be legal,
>just as it was before Roe.

Of course the number is going to go up.  Suddenly illegal things are legal.
(There were fewer people too, and less sex.  I don't think that legalizing
it was totally responsible for the gain.)

>Tell me why the people of 25 states vote for government that
>would make abortion illegal?  Or shut the hell up.

Do people only pick one issue to vote for a person on?  (Well, yeah, but
it's usually "He's not <the-other-guy>." [see Ross Perot])

>> but instead speak in terms of "abortion is murder" and
>> seek to criminalize it to a level it never knew before.....
>
>I have, in the past, said that abortion is murder.  But that
>is MY opinion.  Do you deny me the right to MY opinion?  Are
>you that much a facsist?  You would censor me?

No, I do not deny you the right to your opinion.  Do you deny women the
right to choose what they think will be the best course for them?

>What I only want to write about, since I will not convince
>YOU abortion is murder nor do I even care to try at all,
>is that the Supreme Court has NO business deciding the
>question "what is life?"  If you and I had to decide,
>we could come to no conclusion...

Probably.

[..."personal attack"/response deleted...]
>> then figure out which side of the liberty issue
>> you want to be on....
>
>I already know what side of the liberty issue I want to be on.
>I say that the state or feds should not be allowed to preclude
>a woman from traveling anywhere she wants (i.e. to a state
>where it is legal) to have her abortion.  That is totally
>consistent with the 14th ammendment.

Now it is an "affordability" issue...  Why should a person's rights differ
in such a great manner between states, between social classes, or between
sexes?

=============================================================================

In article <1992Jul27.211358.5944@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>FACT: In Florida, the right to privacy which abortion is founded on,
>has been expanded to the right of adults to screw little girls. FACT,
>Susan. 

Yeah, so?  Just what the hell is that supposed to mean?  That particular
part of the Constitution says a lot of stuff.  It's like me saying that "the
same right that prevents states from coming in and searching your property
gives adults the right to screw little girls."  It's not like the adults
did not have their consent.  (Although I probably would not have done it,
but those are my beliefs that I won't go pushing on everyone.  It should
have been up to the parents to teach their children "morals" and about
sex.)  Should the state march in and check all little girls out there to
see if they've had sex?  I don't think so.  In addition, I'm not entirely
sure what that has to do with pro-choice (ie:  Pro-choice means pro-adult/
child sex!).

=============================================================================

In article <1992Jul27.214810.7132@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.203331.8104@menudo.uh.edu> (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>In <1992Jul23.184638.19161@athena.cs.uga.edu> (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>
>>> 	So why don't people from both sides get together and discuss
>>> these issues, and leave the discussion of abortion out so that we
>>> might discuss other ways of helping women, families, and children?  We
>>> might find that we agree more often than not, and we might actually be
>>> able to make a difference that cannot help but affect the number of
>>> women who seek abortions. We might be able to make life better for
>>> those born, and those yet to be born.
>>> Terrance Heath 
>>
>>  Hello, another semi-rational human being.  I think I agreed with every
>>word in your post.  Maybe if we keep yelling enough for real solutions
>>somebody out there will listen.
>
>I second this. 
>
>BUT [...'s deleted for brevity...]
>Where do I find a solution-oriented organization where I can work
>without hearing the abortion issue 20 times a day and where pro-lifers
>aren't talked down like dogs? 

I really hope that we here are trying to find something we can all live with.
Also, insulting other people won't help gain any respect.  Oh, how do you
want to find the solution without bringing up abortion?

[...welfare office...pro-lifers start debate...]
>Perhaps we need to join these organizations in groups so we can shove
>these pro-choicers back and force them to respect us. Either that or
>we'll give them hearing aids, one or the other. 

You can have my respect, if you can respect the wishes of everyone else.
It's just that the non-pro-choice side inherently does not produce dialogue.
"No choice" leaves only one direction, so it's in (our) best interest to
talk about it now while we have options.

["We [pro-choicers]," slam, humiliate, and degrade, so you better team up.]
>>  From one pro-life type who's into realism.
>
>I sure hope you're deeply into it because these pro-choicers, while
>they'll claim I'm not accurately describing them, will take the first
>chance they can get to smash your face into realism. 

I don't get what you're saying...  If you are accurately describing us, then
realism shouldn't come as a shock.  (That's what I get out of it.)  The
other thing that you seem to be saying is that we are more "realistic".

>But I don't think you're the kind of person who'd give them the chance. ]-) 

If you're anti-choice, you don't wanna give anyone a chance.


-Richard
(Continued?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity