From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Whew. Back online again.
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:21:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: csusac.1992Apr11.233846.13880
Organization: California State University, Sacramento

In article <1992Apr8.171143.10269@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>I'm trimming a lot out of this.  Everyone has seen it in it's entirity.
>
><1992Apr4.204545.15595@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) said:
>><1992Apr2.014941.7491@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu - Dennis Hall. 
>>>>Message-ID: <1992Mar30.225819.19499@csusac.csus.edu>
>.. 
>
>I don't recall them all, but there have been a few in the past.  She is
>the most visible though.  Given the treatment pro-lifers get in this group
>I can understand anyone not wanting to post here. (Hey, I'm not saying
>that they don't sometimes deserve it.)

 I disagree with treating pro-lifers like scum. Their IDEAS and VIEWS
are scum, but besides the militants who block clinics and/or bomb them,
they are not scum in themselves. Anymore than we are, just because we're
wrong in the eyes of many in one place, and a tiny few in most other
places.. 

>>                   it's because those that show up, are most likely
>>Christian-influenced. Suzanne proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. And
>>also, she's a homophobe, anti-semite, and so on. 
>
>We all know that already.

	Have you heard of the Religious Freedom & Restoration Act? It
would, I believe, give women the right to have abortions for religious
reasons, if hell were to freeze over and abortion was made illegal. It
would give us back the freedom of religion principle in the First
Amendment of the US Constitution. 

	Of course, if abortion is banned by folks of a non-religious
nature, then the RFAR would be irrelevant. But that's not likely to ever
happen. 

>Please realize that, while I would prefer that more people stopped letting
>old celibate men in dresses do their thinking for them, I do not want 
>to "cure" people of their opinions.  I would like to change their minds 
>with reasoned logic, but "cure" sounds dangerously close to what the radical
>right wants to do to all us heathens, like we're "sick" or something for
>holding differing opinions.

	Woah, I understand. I do not mean to "cure" people of wrong
thoughts. That's not right. You said it right, though: the idea is to
use reasoning, to prove one's position, rather than eliminate the other
position simply by wiping it clean. 

	Which reminds me: I just watched this school, California State
University, Sacramento, pass a resolution which makes this campus
pro-choice, and which has its student lobby group go out and lobby for
abortion rights. The campus newspaper did not like it (and they're the
best friends of abortion rights), and 41% of the students voted against
it. Including myself. The issue is not an internal, university-oriented
issue, and is an external one in the main political arena. It would be
like asking CSUS to lobby against war, nuclear testing, or even for the
Democrat or Republican party: these things are not internal issues
related to our school, and should be pursued by the student groups, not
the school and all students' tuition money. 
	In the end, the initiative did have opposition from all
anti-abortion groups, and even many pro-choice people. I heard from
someone that at the rally against the initiative, a pro-choice woman
spoke. 
	Is this akin to trying to cure the campus of an incorrect idea?
I think they've just crammed one side of this issue down the throats of
an entire school, whether they all like it or not, and being still
controversial, I question its fairness. 

>Definately the majority of bible-thumpers here are overwhelmingly
>pro-life.  But they always give themselves enough rope to hang themselves
>(with enough left over to reach from here to the Vatican).

	Now, THAT's funny. 

>You apparently didn't know that we've set and sprung ever trap there is to
>set and spring.  If you've got a new one let us know. :-)

	You know, I thought I had invented ALL the traps. It's been 
	enormously fun, too. The best traps I've ever set were about
	birth control & punishment for abortions. Ever wonder why
	they never seek to punish those who seek the "crime" of "murder"
	in this case? If you hammer at the issue long enough, you'll
	throw them into confusion. I do admit, though, that it is easy
	for some anti-abortionists to leave their religious motivations
	out of a debate, so that we think they're not out to force their
	views on God, on the rest of America. It's great public relations.

	But I've been having some problems with folks around here, lately,
	and, well, I've just *gotta* win, y'know. I can't stand losing a
	debate with as much stakes as this. It makes my side look bad, to
	say nothing of myself. I was advised to practice on a debate line
	called talk.abortion, where I'd hear arguments and styles not seen  
	in the mainstream. And from what I've read, this place is VERY
	EDUCATIONAL. There really isn't one trap I could spring that
	hasn't been sprung here. I don't think.

	That and now, I can finally lay fetal personhood to irrelevance,
	thanks to you folks. It was really a heaven-sent thing, that
	straightforward "no right to inhabit" approach. (Did not mean to
	smear a Christian word there..)  

>>>Post a GIF file for us.
>>
>>What and break the net? 
>
>I'd still like to see a GIF of Chaney.  After dinner, of course.

 	How do you make a GIF? And besides, I really dislike being
around him. I guess I could find a picture of him somewhere, but I
really do not want to put out the effort. Getting near him can result in
an ulcer-maker of a debate. How about ME?  

>...
>
>> But, okay, I'm sorry, Suzanne. I apologize publicly for posting your
>>private e-mail. I'll be a big boy and own up. 
>
>I respect your ability to own up and publically apologize *directly*.  A
>lot of people kinda-sorta-apologize in a back-hand way that really nevers
>admits that they made a mistake.  I don't respect that.

	Hey, maybe it's because pro-choicers do not have this attitude
of being perfect little boy/girl scouts that can never do wrong, even if
we do screw up. We're the scum of the earth: we're.. <gasp!> HUMAN! I
bet, and this is just speculation, that if you look at the number of
honest retractions versus clear mistakes, per person, you'll find a
better ratio with us. 
	Our opponents have to hold the moral high ground if they're to
win this debate in their mind. To make a mistake blows away their
highness on this issue, and it helps reinforce to those who read this,
that we're not living in their *ideal* world. Hence, while we may make
the same # of mistakes as they do (and that's just hypothetical), our
ability to retract and correct ourselves, allows our mistakes to reset
and decrease, while the other side continues to ignore theirs and defend
them to the death.. Their mistakes then get bigger, and they multiply,
and then mutate into other mistakes. Then, when someone might want to
retract, they've got such a long fall from their high ground, that they
would not dare retract then. They do what I believe you call,
"backpedalling."  

>>>Gordon
>>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>
>>- Pro-abortion? Uh, that should be pro-choice.. Did I miss something here?
>
>Nope - I'm pro-abortion.  You have missed something.  If you like I can
>explain it to you.

Please do. My position is not pro-abortion; I'd rather it not happen.
Pro-abortion is anti-abortion jargon for people who favor abortion over
childbirth, or worse, who would rather push for abortion over
childbirth. I do not intend for any woman to be pushed either way. China
pushes women towards abortions, and is as much a violation of her right
to her own body, as those who push women by law, away from it. 

I am not saying that this applies to you, but my feeling is, it's bad
enough for women to feel bad about having abortions, but making a woman
feel bad about having a child? We'd be playing right into that
"PRO-DEATH ANTI-LIFE PRO-ABORTION DEATHMONGERS!" propaganda, which would
hurt our image badly.   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing that the only pro_abortion I know, is of that above, anti-freedom
kind of pro-abortion, and seeing that I could not imagine you to be of
that type, there is a version of pro-abortion that I obviously not seen,
so I would like to hear about it from you.  

>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.

Really? 

>-- 
>
>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.

Who IS Dan Bredy? 

-----------------
- Dennis Hall 
AKA The Sonar (alt.sex.movies)
AKA Garage Kit Productions (alt.sex)
AKA ap.6298@layout.Berkeley.EDU (in general)

And I'll be glad to explain both of those nicknames via personal e-mail.

Standard Disclaimer. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity