home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!tcsi.com!iat.holonet.net!news.cerf.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!ra!usenet
- From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
- Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
- Message-ID: <C1HJAr.7yz@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
- Organization: NRL
- References: <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu> <1993Jan26.221421.23863@ncar.ucar.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:44:51 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1993Jan26.221421.23863@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
- (Brian Kauffman) writes:
- >> = dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
- >------------------------------------------------------------------------
- >>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
- >>the pro-life position. [...] If it were possible to transfer the child
- >>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
- >>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".
- >
- >An interesting hypothetical, but since this is *not* possible, the reality
- >is that pro-lifer's *are* opposed to the choice to 'terminate a pregnancy'.
- >
- >>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
- >>pro-choice position. Pro-choicers not only want the right to
- >>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose
- >>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
- >>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex.
- >
- >I don't suppose there's any point in mentioning it, but your credibility
- >really suffers when you make statements like this.
- >
- >-Brian
- >
- This is encouraging - so abortion for sex selection doesn't fall within the set
- of 'acceptable' choices. I hope the pack doesn't get wind of this.
-
- - Paul
-