On 21 Jun 2003 17:36:02 -0700,
Marie A. <WatchMeEatCrap@yahoo.com wrote:

Craig Chilton <

David Simpson <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote:

Nathan A. Stine wrote:

[ ... ]

(A guaranteed debate-winner: "Choice of WHAT? Right to
choose WHAT?")

ANSWER: The right of every woman faced with that which she
regards to be an ill-timed pregnancy to CHOOSE between *these*
two options, FREE of any and all interference and restriction:

(1) To carry-to-term, or

(2) To obtain the remedy of safe and legal abortion, upon request.

There. See how EASY it was for PRO-Choice to WIN that debate?

Since the ANTI-Choicers' alternative is the hateful and loathesome
one of DENYING the option of safe-&-legal abortion-on-request to women,
which would FORCE gestation upon them, against their will. A very REAL
9-month-long form of RAPE. And that'll never, EVER happen again.

The bight of abortion's being illegal is just as extinct as OTHER,
similarly-ignorant, bigoted, and hateful aspects are -- such as slavery,
denial of the vote to women, and segregation. America has outgrown
YOUR form of bigotry, too, and NEVER will revisit it again. It's GONE.

Tough break, loser. You'd better jump on the homophobic bandwagon,
now, to feed your hateful malcontentedness. That's probably good for
another year or two, before America outgrows THAT, once and for all, TOO!

After that, you're probably screwed. America may well be a
bigotry-free zone from that point on!

Sir, you have to be just about one of the dumbest dickheads
posting in these newsgroups, and that's saying a mouthful. Dave, on
his very worst day in a coma and on life support, could run circles
around that pea brain of yours.

Your... er... "eloquence" in whining is noted. (LOL!!!)

Choice of "what" IS a guaranteed winner, Craig. And it's a winner
because your crowd...

My "crowd" being my fellow SENSIBLE and FAIR-minded egalitarians
who DO give a rat's ***** for the well-being and individual liberties of
all people. But steeped in hateful ignorance as you are, you couldn't
even BEGIN to comprehend that.

...refuses to address the issue of what it is that's being chosen.

Probably since there's no "issue." Abortion is merely a valuable
REMEDY for all who choose it, and carrying-to-term is the other option
available for them to choose. NEITHER of those are "issues."

And the ONLY reason that availability of ACCESS to one of those
choices is an issue *at all* is because there is a mindless and hateful
collection of LOONS running around who seek to make the lives of
millions of women miserable by DENYING them access to the remedy,
and FORCING them to gestate to term. Total IDIOTS. And when the
Anti-Choice agenda has joined its first cousin in bigotry, segregation,
in extinction, then there will no longer even be THAT issue.

This is not rocket science. I know it's tiresome for certified
geniuses such as yourself to grasp these simple concepts, but merely
screaming about a woman's right to choice cannot be divorced from
what it is she's choosing to do, otherwise one can claim that a person
has a right to "choose" to do anything, even to murder another person.
Can you track with me on that highly complicated line of thought, Craig?

Apples and oranges. Abortion is merely a harmless remedy. The REAL
issue is merely the question of how much longer it'll be before enough
Americans get bored with Anti-Choice that they'll LAUGH them right off
the continent.

Having explained this really "complex" matter of what's being
chosen, ...

Not comples. Merely a REMEDY. A hugely-BENEFICIAL remedy.

...then the next step is to recognize that the argument is NOT
about choice, as such, but the act of abortion.

To YOU maybe. But you and your ilk have to fit the prerequisit of
being bone-ignorant, just to BE Anti-Choicers.

Many of us don't like abortions, Craig, ...

Fine. Then don't HAVE one. If someone ELSE does, it is
absolutely NONE of your business, nosy and busybodyish
control-freak.

especially of the elective kind involving the slaughter of
viable mid and late term infants.

Now you're off-topic. Make up your mind, nitwit. We've been talking
about abortion, and NOW you suddenly are whining about infanticide!

Abortion affects only fetuses and embryoes. ALL *infants* have been
BORN, so abortion has NO effect on them.

This is what you're defending, Craig, ...

No it isn't. NO one would defend infanticide.

...not the woman's right to choose, ...

Wrong. I *DO* defend her right to choose between safe & legal
abortion on request,and carrying to term. HER body. HER choice.
NO one else's business.

...because if it were otherwise you would also defend her right
to choose to do anything else she pleased.

Well, now, I don't see any OTHER right being attacked by a collection
of ignorant loons. So unless you get around to doing that, TOO, then I
guess we don't have to *defend* them against your assault.

The logic here is inescapable.

You probably escaped THAT many years ago. And never
returned to it.

You're defending abortion, so shut up about "choice."

Wrong. People don't *defend* ANY remedies. That would be JUST like
claiming that a person were defending ASPIRIN if a bunch of crazy nitwits
like you suddenly sought to DENY everyone ACCESS to it. We clearly in
that case would NOT be defending aspirin. But we WOULD be defending
the RIGHT of everyone to have ACCESS to that remedy. I.e., to be free to
CHOOSE that remedy. And it is *precisely* the SAME with abortion.

Have you GOT it *this* time, or shall I re-estimate your IQ downward
by ANOTHER 10 points? Which would put it into the negative numbers.

It's a convenient smokescreen to hide an act of cold-blooded murder in
many of these abortions.

See how easy it was to win that debate, Craig? See how anyone can
claim to win a debate, and how impressed we all are with your claim?
BTW, there are words you can use other than bigotry and intolerance
when you argue these issues. It might be a bit more difficult to frame
an argument, but you might try it. Now go play with your blocks, you
lying sack of *****. (Marie)

-- Craig Chilton