From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Flamers on both sides of the Potomac (Part 2)
Summary: The best way to cross the river?  Roe vs. Wade(?!)
Keywords: abortion life comprehensive readme part2 sex
Organization: You see, Burke Lee.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 06:58:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221249.11640@advtech.uswest.com> (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.194417.26891@coopsol.com> (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>In another article (John Stevens) writes:
[...what is justice?]
>>>You are the brutal one.  You advocate the unrestrained killing of
>>>millions of babies.
>>
>>Babies?  Who's advocating the killing of babies?  I've never seen a post
>>where Tim or any pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated killing babies.
>
>Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  I would appreciate it
>if you people would just admit that.  Saying that killing the fetus is
>not killing a baby is exactly the same as saying that murder shouldn't
>be illegal.  If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
>baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
>adult?

Don't forget about the woman.  Having a child will steal her probable
future.  (Women?  What are they?  Oh yeah, those human-incubator sorta
things...)  The least we can do is protect her right to have some sort of
control over it.  GS writes that "[no] pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated
killing babies," and I don't think any of us do.  You write "Pro-abortion
means pro the choice to kill a baby."  I don't think I'd agree with that,
but if you said "Pro the choice to kill a pre-baby means pro-abortion," then
I'd agree with you.  Why?  1)  If you're gonna kill it before it's born, then
you must be pro-abortion.  2)  As you later on say, it's all "probables."
If the pregnancy continued, it would "probably" be a baby, but we don't know
for sure how it will all turn out.  3)  I wouldn't consider anything not
born yet to be a baby.
Also, saying "that killing the fetus is not killing a baby is exactly the
same as saying that murder shouldn't be illegal" is totally ludicrous.
Why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child or adult?  Because
they've been born and have rights accorded to them by virtue of being U.S.
citizens.  (The pro-life stance raises a question in my mind:  if you are
pregnant on 12/31 of a given year, can you claim a tax-deduction for another
dependent on your return?)

>>>>And I will work to stop you until my dying breath.
>>>
>>>Feel free.  I will do the same.
>>
>>Why not just mind your own business and allow women to make their own
>>choices?
>
>I am minding my business.  Because it isn't just 'their own choice' to make.
>It is OURS.

Don't forget to take care of THEM after they give birth.  Oh, and wouldn't
"OUR" choice include her?  (Our choice?  What choice?  a) give birth
b) carry the pregnancy to full term  c) wait 9 months and then make a
decision...)

=============================================================================

In article <1992Jul27.225002.9315@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.080216.3547@doug.cae.wisc.edu> (Jon Debling) writes:
[...money compensation issue deleted...]
>>Note: The abortion pill will arrive in the U.S. fairly soon (legal or
  otherwise)
>>and this will put an end to the debate.
>
>And an end to the company that imports the pill: It will die from
>boycotts and malpractice suits like those that hit the IUD
>manufacturers. 

Boycotts?  Either you need the pill or you don't.  (Gee, I feel like taking
a RU486 today.  *NOT*)  The company in general?  Hmm, maybe so.  I keep
wondering how we're going to even test it.  Does it work?  What else can
we use it for?

>That pill will never make it here. Guaranteed. The last time it came
>here, good old Clarence Thomas took a nice, hefty swipe at it...  

Ah, good 'ol politics entering the realm of medicine.  Is the pill safe?
Will it be benificial in non-abortion arenas?  I've no idea.  We haven't
tested it in the U.S.  [Because of the FDA?]  No, because of politics...

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

That's kinda pushing your reasoning, doncha think?  (See my last post.)
Kinda speaking of which, when does a child become an adult?  When they
turn 18?  When they become a parent themselves?  When they can make
decisions on their own?

>	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

That's ok.  I don't speak for my boss, either.

=============================================================================

In article <1992Jul27.231818.10374@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.165219.820@wam.umd.edu> (Jay T Steinz) writes:
>>In article <92205.201247JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> (Jennifer Brown) sez:
>>
>>>Quayle should be banned!  Last night, he said that if his daughter were
>>>an adult, he would go along with whatever her decision was.  However, today
>>>he said that "last night, it was suggested that she was an adult, as a
>>>child, she would definitely have the child".
>>
>>Yes, and his wife said simply, "She *would* have the child."  No hint of
>>concern for their daughter's health, no trace of compassion for whatever
>>situation she might be in... a fine example of why parental consent
>>laws are dangerous.
>
>Well, Jay, if she's told that abortion = prompt removal from the home,
>she'll carry the child to term. Guaranteed 90%+ success rate. 
>
>Ultimately, parents can find ways to beat pro-choice extremists. Let's
>not even get into sneaky and tricky parents - they're virtually
>unbeatable.

Did you read the last paragraph?  "No hint of concern... no trace of
compassion..." that's the kind of non-thinking we don't need.  I would
find "no abortion = prompt removal from the home" to be an equally repulsive
means of COERSION.  (Sneaky and tricky parents?  Why should we turn children
against their parents?  And what if she miscarries?  Would these same
parents believe that she /didn't/ get an abortion?)
"Parental consent" laws?  Adult or not, they'll be parents soon...  


-Richard
(Continued...?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion