From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:52:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <17366@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
>   (Ronald Bense) writes: >

>>This is called brainwashing, Bill. You know, where the facts are limited
>>and only those that the censoring entity wants to show are presented.
>>Therefore, due to input from any other sides of an issue, only the one
>>is regarded as correct, since it is the only one known.

[...] deleted details of commercial showing the miscarriage detectives 
investigating a miscarriage at a house

>After all, if
>the pro-lifers have their way, such a scenario may become a reality
>in the near future.  Planned Parenthood sponsored this and numerous
>other ugly, misrepresentative "advertisements" about a year ago as
>an attack on the pro-life movement.  The ads ran in Time, Newsweek
>et al.  Those ads were not only biased, but malicious, as well.  My

Seems like a not too far out picture of what many ardent supporters
of pro-life could legislate. Take Iran forinstance, a country where
women are arrested, beaten, tortured, raped, and even killed. For what
you might ask? For that great and terrible crime of not wearing the
proper religious clothes and having the correct (subservient) attitude
toward men.

The add may have been malicious toward pro-lifers, but they have been
as malicious in turn, ie accosting women on their way into an abortion
clinic. What ad has not been biased on this issue. At least Planned
Parenthood offers all the info and is open about it. An attack on those
who attack it seems more than justified.

>Not everyone in the pro-life movement bases their position on some
>theological tenet.

Most do. I personally have not met one who hasn't had religion be a
major influence.

>>If you're one of those 'If they don't know about it, it won't happen'
>>folks, look around you. People no longer go by a single religious set
>>of morals, and engage in a wide range of activities, which no one group
>>should even attempt to control.

>I don't know what this means.  A great many people subscribe to the
>teachings and traditions of mainstream Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
>Hinduism, Buddism, etc.  To the extent that these religions represent
>a "single set of morals", I have to disagree with you.

Then let me explain it to you. These religions are separate. To enforce
one religions beliefs on another is wrong, not to mention dangerous
(N. Ireland, Lebannon). They do not represent a single set of morals,
they do represent a subset of the complete set of morals (there are
others). The set of morals representing mainstream christianity is a
single set of morals. Can you agree with this?

Provided that you agree with the above, my point was that you cannot
impose the Hindu belief that cows are sacred onto the largely christian
population of the US, who hold that cows are nothing but walking steak
factories. Likewise, the RCC should not be able to impose its belief
that the fetus is sacred. (including other minor factions of the pro-life
group)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion