home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!news
- From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
- Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
- Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug19.202158.42208@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:21:58 GMT
- Distribution: na
- Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
- Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lamail.watson.ibm.com
- Organization: The Village Waterbed
- Lines: 34
-
- In <1992Aug19.170543.18257@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
- > In article <1992Aug19.042801.14790@cco.caltech.edu>
- > tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:
- >
- > > Sorry. The Democratic platform is NOT unrestricted abortion-on-demand, as
- > > has been pointed out to you an almost uncountable number of times by now,
- > > Mr. Holtsinger. The platform supports the FOCA, which is not unrestricted
- > > abortion-on-demand per se; and the reality of the current situation is
- > > *definitely* not unrestricted abortion on demand.
- >
- > But I've seen no proof that the FOCA is not unrestricted abortion-on-
- > demand. The FOCA is intended to codify Roe v. Wade into law,
-
- The second sentence is proof of the first.
-
- > since Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand,
-
- This is not true.
-
- > I've presented proof that Roe is abortion on demand,
-
- This is not true. You've presented paranoid speculation.
-
- > And where's the proof for this "three doctors" claim?
-
- Perhaps you missed the post saying it was on 60 Minutes recently.
- Write them for a transcript.
-
- > I'm illustrating the realities of the situation,
-
- The reality of the situation is that if Bush is re-elected, women will
- become second-class citizens.
-
- Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
-