home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!bard
- From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: One track mind
- Summary: ..in which I ask dsh questions and explain why I think he should answer them.
- Message-ID: <1992Nov24.012058.6289@wdl.loral.com>
- Date: 24 Nov 92 01:20:58 GMT
- References: <1992Nov23.065624.29065@ncsu.edu>
- Sender: news@wdl.loral.com
- Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
- Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
- Lines: 75
-
- dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
- # It should be painfully obvious that if a woman is denied
- # an abortion, she will quite likely suffer emotional distress.
- # She can say "I need an abortion because my emotional health
- # will suffer if I don't get one". Instant abortion-on-demand.
-
- In your twisted, narrow-minded understanding of what `abortion on
- demand' means...
-
- If she finds a doctor who agrees that her psychological health will
- suffer if she does not have an abortion, a woman can legally have an
- abortion after fetal viability. Or so it would seem.
-
- It also seems from what I've seen posted here, that Roe vs. Wade
- simply DOES NOT grant doctors total license to perform post-viability
- abortions pell-mell -- which is what you are disingenuously implying.
-
- -----
-
- To change the subject (I know this is your favorite subject, Mr.
- Holtsinger, so I won't stray too far), what's your problem with Roe
- vs. Wade anyway?
-
- Let's presume you've got a live one here, Mr. Holtsinger? For the
- sake of argument, I'll agree with your narrow interpretation of Roe
- and Doe that, combined, they recognize an unrestricted right to
- abortion on demand throughout pregnancy.
-
- Perhaps you could answer these questions:
-
- -- Do you want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned?
-
- -- If so, why?
-
- -- If not, why not?
-
- -- Do you merely want to see the Supreme Court roll back
- abortion rights so that post-viability abortions are not
- available `on demand? but with everything else remaining
- intact.
-
- -- If so, why?
-
- -- If not, why not?
-
- -- What do you think should be done to remedy the problems you
- have with Roe vs. Wade?
-
- My expectation is that you don't have the cajones to answer all these
- questions, Mr. Holtsinger. So far, the only opinion we have you on
- record for is that you do not support Roe vs. Wade. If you wish to
- make the claim that your purpose here in talk.abortion is to influence
- the debate to promote the idea that Roe vs. Wade should be changed,
- you should TELL US HOW IT SHOULD BE CHANGED and *WHY* IT SHOULD BE
- CHANGED. Simply saying, ``It's currently abortion on demand
- throughout pregnancy,'' means nothing to those of us who don't see
- that as a problem IN ISOLATION. Explain why that's something that
- should change, and what changes should be made, and perhaps I, at
- least, will stop calling you a mindless automaton enslaved to your sex
- fascist masters in Virginia Beach. Of course, then again, perhaps you
- already know that your position is unpopular, and that admitting to it
- will mean that you'll be mired in megabytes of flamage from
- pro-choicers... as if that isn't the case now.
-
-
- --
- +---------------------------+ ``I guess the government that robs its
- | J H Woodyatt | own people earns the future it is
- | bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com | preparing for itself.''
- +---------------------------+ -- Mark Twain
-
- P.S. Please Mr. Holtsinger. I really want you to answer these
- questions without me having to get insistent. I don't look forward to
- the prospect of demanding answers to them, as I have done in the past.
- I implore you. Please answer the questions soonest.
-