From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:26:00 GMT
 <1992Sep25.123734.3353@afit.af.mil> 
 <1992Sep27.174655.27087@ils.nwu.edu>  
 <1992Sep28.143618.21655@afit.af.mil>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

StarOwl writes:

"You are a "right-to-life-except-in-certain-circumstances" person?"

Actually, I am ALSO against the death penalty! Don't make assumptions
about my positions (I deliberately used "MOST people" for a reason!).
What I was correcting was the ridiculous assertion that a convicted
killer is more innocent, and the killing of one is more heinous, than
the aborting of an unborn fetus.

"It is also _equally_ possible that aborting a fetus MAY NOT be taking
a life.  As far as "society" erring on the side of caution, how do
you define society, and what gives the government authority to dictate
on behalf of society?"

Instead of arguing about semantics, why don't you respond to my
original point? The government, through its imposition of law, has set
some basic standards for our SOCIAL behavior. We cannot rob, rape,
murder, et al. If abortion MAY be murder -- as it is defined by law --
isn't it the responsibilty of those responsible for the imposition of
law to protect those that MIGHT be getting murdered?

Maybe we disagree about this. We can disagree, you know. 8)

Brian Kendig writes : "I feel that there's as much chance that a fetus
before myelination could be thinking as there is a chance that a rock
could be thinking. Neither of them has the neurological wiring that
would allow thought as we currently understand it."

Using that same argument, we could also, therefore, kill the retarded
and others that are mentally impaired! Mental capability has all of a
sudden become a criterion for life?

"because of a theory which currently has no scientific support..."

Neither argument has scientific support (as in evidence) -- which is
why we're obviously arguing here!

"One of the reasons I support abortion is..."

Do you support abortion or the "right" to choose abortion? Are you one
who wishes to promote abortion? Ironically, it seems that some people
(like Slick Willie) seem to be saying that "I support the right of a
woman to make a wrong choice!" 8)

"If faced with a decision between having to care full-time for a moose
(buying everything it needs) or killing it, I know of very few people
who would opt to care for it."

But a moose isn't a human being. That's the difference.

Back to Mr. StarOwl... "Be careful how you choose your words.  A wrong
choice of words can make you look like an idiot."

Sorry. Make that "mass-murder", not "genocide". Sorry.

What I don't like is some of the nastiness around here. Instead of
name-calling, let's make an attempt -- an attempt, one little attempt
-- to try to debate issues with respect to others and their positions.
There is no need to insult others!

However, now that I think about it, maybe my PREVIOUS wording was
correct after all.

"Unless you can provide evidence that by legalizing abortion, the U.S.
is
systematically eliminating one or more specific races/ethnic groups,
I say that your claim is unsubstantiated and ludicrous!"

Minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, get more abortions than
the general population, according to statistics. Therefore, one can
(and I've heard one pro-life black activist -- they do exist -- make
it) make the point that what exists is a government-condoned genocide
of minority infants, to prevent them from increasing their role and
power in society. I personally don't agree with this argument, but it
strangely makes sense! Hmmm...

Dances With Babes writes: "Government does not dictate in a democracy. 
You want abortion to be legal? Overturn R.V.W. and vote for it.  Or
vote against it if opposed.  Government then upholds and enforces the
decision, it does not dictate. R.V.W. is a good example of dictating by
the government."

Roe v. Wade was the consequence of appointment of judges to the court
by elected officials (many of the judges in fact were liberals
appointed by conservatives!) -- no "true democracy" or direct voting
was allowed in its passage. Therefore, using your argument, abortion
should be illegal, because R v. W was never "voted on"!

(And yes, Libertarians, I know -- freedom is unlimited until restricted
by the government, so abortion should be legal because there was no
referendum was ever passed for its prohibition, according to your
theory.)

Actually, I would be in favor of a referendum on abortion -- I think
that most Americans, in the privacy of a voting booth, would in fact
vote to prohibit abortion. Ironically, abortion rights' groups are
AGAINST such a referendum.

And did you see the latest CNN-USA Today poll? 51% of Americans are for
legalized abortion, 45% oppose legalized abortion. Despite what Kate
Michaelman says, I see NO consensus here.

Regards,
Bill
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6004 alt.activism.d:3366 alt.politics.elections:14421 alt.politics.bush:6910 alt.politics.clinton:7476 talk.politics.misc:48197 talk.abortion:38850