From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.184628.5599@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- staying within the lines) writes:
>What: <1992Jul22.171318.495@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>
>>>  = Jay T Stein
>>>> = Doug Holtsinger
>
>>>> Yeah, Stein seems to enjoy promoting the idea that abortion is a 
>>>> religious issue, 
>>
>>> I have never made any such claim.  I do not promote this idea, and in fact
>>> I have stated on numerous occasions that abortion is NOT a religious issue,
>>> as far as the law is concerned.  Either support the claim or retract, please.
>>> I'd hate to think that you misrepresent me deliberately.
>>
>>On numerous occasions, I've seen you make reference to religious
>>abortion protesters. You must have a reason for doing that, and I
>>just assume that you want to promote the idea that abortion is a
>>religious issue (at least, for some people). 
>                                ==== ======
>
>Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
>Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
>movement seems to have strong religious connections.

So does the abortion rights movement. 

You DID read that Planned Parenthood director's statement, didn't you?

>>> One more time Doug - it is okay for one's *personal* view on abortion to
>>> be guided by religious beliefs.  It is *not* okay for abortion *legislation*
>>> to be guided by religious beliefs.  This has always been my stated view
>>> on t.a.
>>
>>Fine. I was just commenting that your tactics could backfire. 
>
>They're not tactics Doug, I'm simply stating my views.  I find it interesting
>that pro-lifers here seem to be the ones stuck on using war terms:  enemy,
>generals, tactics, weapons...

Lessee... maybe because this IS a war? 

>>I have previously stated that religious beliefs are an inadequate
>>basis for supporting or opposing abortion laws. I have publically 
>>criticized pro-lifers (and pro-choicers) for using religion in this
>>manner. I don't publically criticize every poster because it's a
>>waste of bandwidth. 
> 
>This paragraph applies exactly to me as well.

What? That criticizing you is a waste of bandwidth? 

I believe we hit the nail on his head, Doug! 

>>I asked you to comment on a pro-choice religious statement that
>>"personhood begins...a month after birth". In response, you ignored it.
>
>I did not ignore it, I said that she's entitled to her opinion.  As for
>whether I agree with it, you know that I don't - I've said that my
>opinion is that personhood begins at birth.

You also seem to ignore that her opinion was pushed as abortion
advocacy. 

Either personhood begins at conception or it can be pushed beyond
birth to several months, even years, after. 

How's about that child they recently wanted to kill for organs? They
definitely tried to circumvent her personhood status. 

>>You asked me to comment on a pro-life religious statement. In response,
>>I disagreed with it.
>
>Yes, you did.  So we're back where we started - and that is with your
>claim that I'm trying to make abortion a religious issue.  Please stop
>misrepresenting me.

Please stop misrepresenting him, Doug... (sniff sniff.) 

>>That's right, you ignored Feldt's comment that "personhood begins... 
>>a month after birth". Certainly it wouldn't be too hard to say 
>>"I disagree with that statement", or "I think she's correct"? 
>
>I disagree with that statement.

Well, what will you do as Planned Parenthood pushes this advocacy and
eventually gets the influence to push personhood a month further? 

If you try to oppose them, they'll kick your teeth in unless you join
a movement experienced in fighting (and so far, beating) Planned
Parenthood... 

The National Right to Life Committee. 

>>>>            Pro-choicer Feldt's remark
>>>>            that her logic is based upon  
>>>>            a religious perspective 
>>>>          -------------------------------
>>>>
>>              Pro-choice religious beliefs
>>              make for bad legislation, but
>>              can't bring himself to criticize
>>              individual pro-choicers. 
>
>This statement is not correct.  I have criticized pro-choicers both
>on the net and in real life.

Under a different name and behind a mask, perhaps. 


Just kidding. 

>>> If you really think I'm basing my pro-choice view on religious tenets,
>>> Doug, then you haven't understood a word I've said.
>>
>>I never said that.
>
>You have implied it, by making the assertion that started this article.
>I would really appreciate a retraction.

Yeah, right. 


===============================================================================
>My God, I can hardly believe what I'm reading! 
						- Jay T Stein 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion