From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:05:28 GMT

In article <grendel.719081940@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
|> In <1992Oct14.153406.9383@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <grendel.719013183@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
|> >|> In <1992Oct13.203016.28880@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> >In article <1bcvqjINNc48@network.ucsd.edu>, spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:
|> >|> >|> In article <1992Oct12.164325.11596@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
|> >|> Explain, please, why favoring abortion rights constitutes politics of
|> >|> exclusion, division, and fear.  Likewise the Dem platform.
|> 
|> >You obviously did not notice that those who do not believe that abortion
|> >rights are a constitutionally granted right were excluded from speaking at the
|> >Democrat convention.  You obviously did not notice that those with religious
|> 
|> I don't think there are many people at all, Dem or GOP, who believe that
|> abortion rights are _constitutionally_ granted.  If you mean there were no
|> anti-abortion rights speakers, you're darned right.  Most Democrats, as
|> well as a great deal of Republicans, support abortion rights.

Then what's all the noise about?  Roe v. Wade used the constitutional "right"
to privacy (creative interpretation of the 4th Amendment) and the "precedent"
of Everson v. Board of Education (the 1947 case which broke with ~150 years of
legislative and judicial precedent by linking the 14th and 1st Amendment and,
thus, usurping states rights at the whim of the Supreme Court) to claim that
abortion rights are protected by the Constitution (i.e., "granted" indirectly).
I suggest that you listen to discussions in the media if you don't think that
there are many people that believe that abortion rights are _constitutionaly_
granted.


|> >convictions viewing that abortion is immoral were routinely ridiculed (even
|> >though a majority of Americans believe that it is  - yes, a majority believes
|> >in choice, but a majority also thinks that abortion is wrong).  You obviously
|> 
|> The Democratic platform is of the opinion that abortion should be an option,
|> not a mandate.  Listen carefully: no one is saying that women _should_
|> have abortions.  Just that women should be _able_ to have abortions if
|> _they_ (not the government) feel it is necessary.

I am well aware of the position, but it leaves no room for the 30-40% of
Americans that believe that abortion is murder.  Just because the platform
tolerates the 60-70% that believe that it is a matter for the woman to decide,
don't pretend that those with differing positions are being tolerated.


|> >didn't notice that those that believe sodomy is immoral were routinely
|> >ridiculed for not being "gay bashers," even though sodomy is still illegal in
|> >over two thirds of the states.  You probably didn't notice that Quayle
|> 
|> Unfortunately.  And it's also unfortunate that most of the people who
|> believe sodomy is immoral _are_ gay bashers.

Please provide your statistics.

|> 
|> >was ridiculed as having been a "child of privilege".  (Or, perhaps, the
|> >privilege must have been being raised in a Republican family.  After all, Al
|> >Gore and Lloyd Bentsen zinged DQ even though they were clearly raised in
|> >families that were more wealthy than the Quayle's.)  You obviously
|> 
|> Got some evidence?
|> 
|> >didn't see how Jessie Jackson, et al, were required to cow down to the wishes
|> 
|> Points of syntax: the name is Jesse, without an i, and the term is "kowtow".

Actually, a typo.  And the term that I meant was indeed "cow down".  (You can
either look in a dictionary or ask Clinton, Gore, Bush, or Perot and they will
explain this "country" term to you.)

|> 
|> >of Clinton before he was allowed to have input on the Dem platform.  And let's
|> >not forget the fear tactics that the Dem's are using on the economy in order
|> >to avoid the question regarding the 1990 tax bill and their tax/spend history
|> >since FDR introduced socialism (excuse me, the PC term is now "economic
|> >democracy") to the US.
|> 
|> Well, honey, that "socialism" got us out of that Depression.
|> And as for fear tactics, I'm afraid for the economy, hell yes.  While Bush
|> is stressing optimism and saying our economy is "the envy of the world".
|> Shyeah right.

Please don't rewrite history.  That socialism did not get us out of the
Depression, the war economy created by WWII did.  (BTW, you'd better be
careful throwing around the word "honey", you might be defendent in a sexual
harassment case someday.)

dp

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***