From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What do you REALLY mean?
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:58:11 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.220933.11065@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
>In <1992Apr04.201530.39426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>Exactly - and pro-choicers think it *is* a valid option.  We say, if
>>you don't believe it's a valid option, then don't choose that option, but
>>don't take away the choice from those who *do* believe it to be valid.
>   No... That wouldn't do any good. You see, you can NOT expect
>us to turn our backs no what we consider waste and murder, and which
>you consider a convenience and a solution. 

I can understand this, in concept.  But the facts are, it is not a waste,
and it is not murder.

>                                           Now, at the present, I am
>but a starving university student, but there will be a time when I will
>be in a hell of a lot more powerful position to voice my concerns. 

And we who haven't been a starving student in a decade or more anxiously
await you.  <yeah, right>

>                                                                   For now
>I can only post and discuss, but we pro-lifers do NOT give up on the
>matter, nor will we when society tells us abortion is right. 

This doesn't speak well for our education system, or Canada's either.

>>You're pointing out that you *believe* it to not be a valid option.
>>You're trying to remove an option that you believe to be invalid, but
>>which we believe to be valid.
>   Yes Einstein. That is where the argument lies. You apparently want
>no compromise to the solution. That would put an end to you witty posts.

Compromise?  How do you compromise on removing women's rights?

>Rather than decrease the NEED for abortions, you'd rather increase the
>EASE of abortions. That is what capitolism is all about right? Don't
>try and spend less, but get MORE money... Didn't think I'd see it
>stem to abortin...

Can you prove that a) Larry does not want to decrease the need for
abortion, and b) that this is a definition for capitalism?

>>BTW - I assume you're arguing about "valid" in the sense of 2a, below:
>>   valid (aj)
>>   DEFINITIONS:
>>   1   having legal efficacy or force; esp :
>>       executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a ^ contract>
>>   2a  well grounded : SOUND <a ^ argument>
>>   2b1 having a conclusion correctly derived from premises <^ argument>
>>   2b2 correctly derived from premises <^ inference>
>>   3   EFFECTIVE, EFFICACIOUS <^ methods>
>>   (c) G. & C. Merriam
>   I have never seen the above, and don't care to interpret it. Put your
>little "my first dictionary" away, and speak from the HEART for once
>rather than try and stab at mine...

Let's see... when we speak from the heart and state that we feel abortion
should remain legal we get told it is murder - a legal term.  When we
quote dictionaries with commonly understood defnitions we get told to
speak from the heart.

That's a nice soft-shoe you're doing there Steve.  Can you stop dancing
and answer some questions now?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion