NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/10281

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 7.9 KB | 172 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!iscnvx!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:45:20 GMT
Lines: 161

In <[e-mail]>, Kathi Mills writes:

>>> CJ Silverio
>> D Bremley

>Dipshit, leave the attributions in.  This is the second time you have
>left them out entirely.

Sheesh!  Who took a shit in your Cheerios this morning?

>>[Irrelevant data charts deleted]

>Irrelevant only because they proved you flat wrong.

>>>What bothers me is how raving lunatics aren't one bit concerned
>>>about living, breathing women, yet the idea of undifferentiated
>>>tissue getting removed-- which nature does on its own, for 2/3 of
>>>all conceptions-- sends them into frothing control freakouts.

>>  anti-abortion = doesn't care about women ???  I don't think so...

>*I* know so, and I know a hell of a lot more about it than you.

You know that all people who are anti-abortion don't care about women?  That's
as ridiculous as saying that all people who have abortions don't care at all
about human life.  That's a very pointed statement, Kathi.  Are you prepared
to defend it and tell me why?

>>  Undifferentiated tissue?  Do you realize that second and even
>>  third trimester abortions are performed daily by the thousands?

>Second-trimester, yes.  Third trimester?  By the thousands?  Where?
>And I noticed you didn't quote your source.  That's typical fundie
>intellectual dishonesty (if "intellectual" is the right word).

I don't know about third-trimester abortions either.  Aren't there only a
handful of doctors who will even perform them?  And stop with the "typical
fundie intellectual dishonesty" crap.  If your arguments are solid enough, you
don't need infantile name-calling.

One thing that does seem hypocritical is that the people who complain about
second- and third-trimester abortions are the same people who oppose all
efforts to legalize RU-486...

>I also know that children are starvinng to death by the MILLIONS in
>Africa, yet you don't seem to have any passion about that.  After
>all, forcing women to undergo pregnancy and birth that they don't
>even want is a hell of a lot more glamorous than saving wanted,
>starving children.

Yes, we as a nation have always attacked symptoms rather than find cures, it's
true.  We as a nation have tried to treat symptoms for many years.  When the
hell are we going to look for the *cures* to our peoblems?

>>  Have you ever seen what get's sucked out of the womb?

>Do you know that very few fetuses are "sucked out of the womb" anymore?
>(Now remember, anything less than 50% is an "irrelevant minority" to you,
>like the married women who have abortions.)

>BTW, Have YOU seen a suction abortion?  If so, what the hell were you
>doing in the middle of a sterile operating room?

>>It's arms,
>>  legs, heads...  not "tissue".

>Oh really.  I have another source for you:


>"On my third visit to the clinic, I made bold to ask to see the products
>of some abortions.  I asked in such a way as to make refusal easy, but my
>request was granted.  The aborted matter is placed inn small cloth bags
>and put in jars awaiting disposal.  I asked to see the contents of one of
>the bags of a typical abortion - a six- to nine-week pregnancy - and it
>was opened and placed inn a small metal cup for examination.  I held the
>cup in my hands and saw a small amount of unidentifiable fleshly matter
>in the bottom of the cup.  The quantity was so little that I could have
>hidden it if I had taken it into my hand and made a fist.

>"It was impressive to realize that I was holding in the cup what many
>people think to be the legal and moral peer of a woman, if not, indeed,
>her superior.  I thought too of the Human Life Amendment that would
>describe what I was seeing as a citizen of the United States with rights
>of preservation that would countermand the good of the woman bearer.  I
>have held babies in my hands and now I held this embryo.  I know the
>difference."

>Is this the quote of some raving liberal?  Some leader of the pro-choice
>movement?  Hardly.  It's Father Daniel C. Maguire, a Catholic priest,
>describing his visit to the Milwaukee Women's Health Organization in
>the article, "A Catholic Theologian at an Abortion Clinic: Weighing
>Reality Against Doctrine," in _Ms._, December 1984, pp. 129-132.

Fine.  One priest has been converted.  What's the point?

>Perhaps you should read this article and realize that there are NO easy
>solutions inn abortion, such as the simple moral absolutes you advocate.
>Perhaps it would inspire you to THINK and gain a little compassion.

To me, compassion is allowing people to do as they see fit.  If that means
abortion for you, fine.  If that means a pro-life taxpayer demanding that
their taxes not be used for abortion, that's fine too.  Compassion comes from
the heart, and it can't be legislated.  You can't FORCE someone to care.

>>Since you're so gung-ho about
>>  abortions,

>I don;t know anyone who is "gung-ho" about abortions.  Every single person
>I know wishes there were no abortions, since there is no need for abortions.
>Perhaps you'd care to tell us why you think CJ does not fit this description?

OK, here's one:  What, in your case, could our wonderful and over-powerful
government have done to eliminate YOUR need for abortion?

>why don't you go see for yourself what gets aborted!

>She may not feel that it matters.  Or perhaps she has some respect for the
>privacy of women unndergoing such an emotional event and would not dream
>of intruding on that privacy in the way you suggest.  Or perhaps she
>understands that an operation room is not ann observation lounge for
>curiosity seekers.  Or perhaps she *has* seen what gets aborted, and it
>hasn't changed her position.

Unlike the NARAL people who *cheer* for women entering abortion clinics?

>I personally have *had* an abortion, and that experience galvanized my
>pro-choice philosophy.

Wow!  People are different!  Have we learned something today, class?

>>  Well, I'm more interested in discussing Rush than abortion, so this
>>  is all I have to say concerning abortion on alt.rush-limbaugh.

>Yeah, suddenly uninterested because soundly beaten.  Well, that's one
>less uneducated twit we'll have to listen to.  The door's that way.

Soundly beaten by your ranting and raving?  Soundly beaten by your name calling
and out-of-control demeanor?  You raised some good points.  It's too bad that
you had to undermine your credibility with unnecessary personal attacks.

Kathi, I have one question, if I may.  Do you favor "getting the government
out of the womb?"  I thought so.  So why do pro-choicers always want the
government to fund abortions?  Don't you think that forcing a fundie (in your
words) to fund an abortion with their tax dollars violates their First
Amendment religious freedom?  I'd say most pro-"choicers" are hypocritical in
that respect.  "Government out of the womb?"  Only when it serves your purpose,
right?  Are you like most pro-choicers in that respect?

As far as I'm concerned, you can all have your abortions.  I'm personally
opposed to them, but I realize that I have no right to stop you.  I'd like to
think that the issue of abortion is none of my business.  But dammit, when *my*
tax dollars are used, it IS my business.  As long as the pro-choicers insist
on government funded abortion, people who pay for it (all taxpayers) have a
legitimate stake in the issue.  Isn't it better to get them out of the picture
and put your money where your mouth is by donating to your local Planned
Parenthood chapter and telling the government to go away *completely*??


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Schutzstaffel!"   Blam!  Blam!  Blam!    "Mein Leben!!"