home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 58347 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-28  |  1.8 KB  |  51 lines
  1. Newsgroups: talk.abortion
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!news.acns.nwu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!usenet
  3. From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
  4. Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer [preoccupations]
  5. Message-ID: <C1Io4u.MtI@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
  6. Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
  7. Organization: NRL 
  8. References: <C1HLEn.92H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1k5h4mINNnk6@news.aero.org>
  9. Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:26:53 GMT
  10. Lines: 39
  11.  
  12. In article <1k5h4mINNnk6@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
  13. >In article <C1HLEn.92H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
  14. >>                    ... On the other hand, even the supposedly
  15. >>pro-woman abortion advocacy groups themselves admit that their preoccupation
  16. >>with legalizing abortion has left them taking a back seat to the pro-life
  17. >>sponsored support systems.
  18. >
  19. >    Since abortion *is* legal, a more accurate statement would
  20. >    make the point clear that the "preoccupation" (a loaded term,
  21. >    leading one to suspect the wielder has no potent arguments)
  22. >    is with keeping other groups from making abortion *illegal*
  23. >    again.  There's no argument from me that resources would be
  24. >    better spent on support systems for pregnant women, if those
  25. >    anti-abortion forces were no longer at work
  26.  
  27. I have no objections to your rewording. Somehow, however, despite the equal
  28. 'preoccupation' of the pro-life side they still managed to put their money
  29. where their mouths were with regard to not only trying to outlaw abortions but
  30. to provide support for alternatives.
  31.  
  32.  
  33. > (I'm strongly 
  34. > against government involvement in forced childbirth).
  35.  
  36.  
  37. >                Dave Suess    zeus@aerospace.aero.org
  38. >
  39. >
  40.  
  41.  
  42.  
  43. Look, I won't deny using terms which may appear "loaded" from your point of
  44. view, Dave, but it seems disigenuous for you to use an oxymoron (a forced
  45. natrual process?) to support your supposedly "potent" arguments.
  46.  
  47. - Paul
  48.  
  49.  
  50.  
  51.