From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:36:43 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <dshEr*gY0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Sep06.202709.28349@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> 
> > In article <hZ7Dr*7X0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > > In article <1992Sep01.051252.24415@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> > > > Wrong.  The Constitutional Ammendment proposed by the pro-lifers would
> > > > give no such provision for abortion to save the mother.  It's possible
> > > > that some courts could interpret it that way, but it clearly on the
> > > > face would seem to say that all abortions, for whatever reason, are
> > > > illegal.
> > > 
> > > No, you are wrong.  The pro-life movement definitely does not favor prohibiting
> > > abortions when the life of the mother is endangered.  In fact, you probably can't
> >  
> > Jim, the proposed pro-life ammendment to the Constitution doesn't say
> > anything about abortions when the mother's life is endangered.  It's not
> 
> It is NOT approved yet.  If it is approved, it is almost certain to contain the
> exception for the life of the mother.  Probably it will contain others.
 
 
Sure.  Perhaps, perhaps.  Give me one source that shows that they plan
to change the ammendment.  The RNC favors a constitional ammendment and
the pro-life ammendment they favor (which has been published) says nothing
about a mother's life.  If they planned on adding all sorts of other
caveats why haven't they done it yet?  Have you ever read the proposed
ammendment?
 
> > at all clear how the court would rule, since it would be required to
> > consider both the mother and fetus equal.  Whether pro-lifers intend for
> > it to be read that way or not, it won't matter once the courts get ahold
> > of it.
  
> > Before you accuse me of lying you better learn to read.  I said that the
> > Constitutional Ammendment provides no such provision to save the life of
> > the mother.  Where is the lie in that statement?
> 
> I don't believe that the RNC wrote a proposed amendment, so how could you know
> what is in the amendment?
> 
> However, my statement is accurate.  It is extremely unlikely that you can find a
> majority of the pro-life people who would not make an exception for the life of the
> mother.
 
Sorry, no dice.  I said that the ammendment (which has been approved by
the RNC) did not include such a clause, at which point you called me a
liar.  You're fighting a strawman.  I never claimed anything about what
members of the RNC believe.  And that isn't even the issue.  What's an
issue is that the ammendment the RNC supports doesn't include such clause.
If there was a vote tomorrow, that's what would be offered up as the
pro-life ammendment.
 
I realize it's in fashion on tx.politics to personally insult people, but
since you called me a liar I'm going to insist that you show me where I
lied.
 
(In general, I apologize for the past message I've copied in this message.
I believe it's important to show Jim hasn't bothered to read a thing I've
said).
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton