Abortion Rights


This is all from bc.general, a heated debate that took place November/94 after Dr. Romalis, a gynecologist in Vancouver BC who performed abortions as part of his practice, was shot in the leg by a sniper while eating breakfast in his own kitchen. I believe he spent some time in hospital, but recovered completely.

There have been accesses to these pages!

********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AK47's??
Date: 12 Nov 1994 01:36:18 -0800

In article , Rick Sutcliffe wrote:

> You might want to note that the speculation that this shooting was done by
> someone considering him(her) self allied with pro-life is just that -
> speculation.  One could just as easily speculate it was an underworld
> contract shooting, drug related, or personal revenge.  At this point, no
> one knows.  
> In any case, I doubt that any of the pro-life leaders would fail to
> condemn such a barbaric act.


We might not know for sure what the motive was, and will not until the 
criminal is caught, but the difference between 99% sure and 100% sure is not 
that large.

How often does a shooting like this occur, for drug-related or other reasons 
that you suggest (to someone who is not obviously involved in such 
activities)? How can it be coincidence that this man was a doctor who 
performed abortions as part of his practice? He was well known to the    
"pro-life" community who frequently protested in front of his home.

You seem to have an overly lenient and protective attitude towards the anti-
abortion (I will use this term, rather that "pro-life", because it much more 
accurately describes their attitude) movement, as if you think that no one 
who believes that strongly in the sanctity of life could deliberately 
attempt to take one. Well, events have proven otherwise on many occasions in 
Canada and the US.

BCTV news was easily able to find and interview, on television news, a 
number of local anti-abortionists who said, essentially, that this doctor 
got what he deserved. I don't know how many anti-abortion "leaders" agree 
with this, because of course they would never admit it on the record to a 
news reporter, but my suspicion is that they would probably tend to agree 
with this sentiment, to at least some degree. Feel free to correct me if you 
think I am wrong on this point.

Unfortunately, I don't think the assassin will be caught easily. This was a 
professional job, by a hit man hired for good money. He is long gone. We may 
never even know who hired him, it could have been anti-abortionists from out 
of the country.

If I was an anti-abortion fanatic, this is exactly what I would do. I would 
hire hit men to rub out abortion doctors in different parts of the 
continent, to make it that much more difficult to trace. The doctors are all 
well known to the local anti-abortion communities, and that information must 
be easily spread throughout the anti-abortion network. It wouldn't take very 
many of these fanatics to pursue such a course of action, without the 
knowledge of the "legitimate" anti-abortion movement (ie the ones listed in 
the phonebook under "pro-life").

However, it is the religious absolutism and conviction that God and Man has 
the right to determine the process of a woman's bodily functions, regardless 
of her attitudes on the matter, that leads to this behavior.

The whole anti-abortion movement sickens and disgusts me.

--
randall g

********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AK47's??
Date: 15 Nov 1994 18:48:05 -0800

In article <3aakdf$j0q@kaos.deepcove.com>, Barry Hamm wrote:

> randallg@wimsey.com (randall g) writes:
> 
>>We might not know for sure what the motive was, and will not until the 
>>criminal is caught, but the difference between 99% sure and 100% sure is 
>>not that large.
> 
> And how can you be 99% sure that it was pro-lifers?
> 

OK, maybe 98%, or 97%. Something high probability like that, anyway, is my 
point.

The numbers just work out that way. Every bit of intimidation and violence 
ever perpetrated against abortion providers and abortion recipients has been 
caused by pro-lifers (at least, that I have heard of). The only other 
possibility worth serious consideration (for the doctor shooting) is that it 
had nothing to do with the abortion issue at all, and that probability seems 
small to me.

While I understand the desire of many anti-abortion sympathizers to not be 
associated with violence, you are going to have to realize that it leads to 
violent behaviour on the part of those more fanatical than you.



>If we are speculating, let's try another scenario...  It makes good media
>coverage for the pro-abortion side to be able to blame something on the pro-
>life side.  What if the "hitman" was hired by the pro-abortion side to give
>bad press to the pro-life side?  

Interesting scenario, just highly unlikely. This sort of thing has never 
happened before. Besides, the pro-choice community doesn't need to give the 
pro-lifers bad press. They couldn't do it better on their own.


 
>While there are those out there who would (and did) say that the doctor got
>what he deserved, there are many more who believe that two wrongs don't 
>make a right (myself included).  I personally think it is terrible that the 
>doctors life was threatened in any way.  Protesting something peacefully is
>one thing, violence does not gain anything, on the contrary, it hurts 
>whatever cause you are fighting for.

Right on, couldn't have said it better myself. Now go and convince all the 
rest of the pro-lifers.



> The whole idea of abortion sickens me too.

Fine, just keep your beliefs out of my laws, out of my way, and generally 
out of my face.



--
randall g


********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 12 Nov 1994 16:46:13 -0800

In article <39rg2sINNpa@groucho.cs.ubc.ca>, Joseph Wu wrote:

> Why is it that the "pro-choice" people, who do use that term in describing
> themselves, are consistently called "pro-choice" by the media and everyone
> else when the "pro-life" people are called "anti-choice" or
> "anti-abortion"? Why, then, are the "pro-choice" people not called
> "anti-life"?


It is quite simple, and is simply a matter of accurately describing the 
belief. The "pro-life" movement has one and only one goal: to stop legal 
access to safe abortions, using, depending on the degree of fanaticism 
involved, whatever means necessary. To suggest that these people are
"pro-anything to do with life besides unborn human fetuses" would simply not 
be accurate. (In fact some of them may be very warm human beings, but that 
isn't relevant when they are organizing for the sole purpose of preventing 
abortions.) "Life" is a very general term. The most accurate short term for 
the "pro-lifers" would be anti-abortion or perhaps anti-choice.

The term "pro-choice", on the other hand, is sufficiently restrictive to 
describe accurately the belief "pro-freedom of choice with respect to 
abortion". They are not "anti" anything at all. "Pro-abortion" would also be 
accurate.

To suggest that "pro-choice" should be termed as "anti-life" would suggest 
that pro-choicers are fighting to force all pregnant women to have abortions 
(using the same logic as the "pro-lifers").



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor shot
Date: 12 Nov 1994 20:55:14 -0800

In article <3a2r81$lea@Island.amtsgi.bc.ca>, Andy Mulcahy wrote:

> It follows that such fetus worshippers need our help rather than 
> our censure. Jailing such people seems particularly unproductive when they 
> can probably be fully rehabilitated through psychiatric care.

Bullshit. The only way to be sure this and other nut cases won't harm anyone 
else is to lock them away for good. When he gets "rehabilitated" and 
released, how would you like him moving in next door to you?


> but let us keep in mind that these 
> people are not to blame for their present condition-- they are a product 
> of our society

Our society specifically does not condone murder, and you won't be able to 
convince me that the would-be assassin did not know this.

These loonies are a byproduct of extreme fundamentalist Christian belief, 
with their twisted message of tortured love from their vengeful, self-
righteous and evil god.

Sick, yes. Salvageable, I doubt it.


--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Semantics (was: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot)
Date: 12 Nov 1994 20:55:10 -0800

In article <3a12nh$bpv@deep.rsoft.bc.ca>, Michel Goudeseune wrote:

> It seems to me that this whole semantic debate about abortion could be
> easily avoided.  Rather than deal with the pregnancy once it's happened,
> why not simply prevent the pregnancy *in the first place*?  Abstinence or
> birth control, take your pick.  Like one other poster said, "I'm pro-birth-
> control".  Perhaps the "choice" should be "get pregnant, or not", rather
> than "terminate the pregancy, or not".


Well that's all fine and good in your perfect dream world, but in the real 
one everyone else lives in women do get pregnant unintentionally. Abstinence 
and birth control may be ideal methods of avoiding this (unless you are 
Catholic), but there will always be some who wind up pregnant anyway. What 
about them? Would you then deny them the option of abortion, because they 
already made the wrong choice due to ignorance, male pressure, lack of 
access to birth control, rape, or whatever?

I doubt very many women who end up choosing abortion got pregnant 
intentionally in the first place. There just might be some who chose "not to 
get pregnant" but ended up that way for reasons beyond their control.

By all means encourage the proper use of birth control (or abstinence if you 
think anyone will listen). It is, however, dangerously simplistic to think 
this will solve the problem and that there will never again be an unwanted 
pregnancy.



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 13 Nov 1994 11:53:34 -0800

In article , Edward 
Seedhouse wrote:
 
I originally wrote:

>> The term "pro-choice", on the other hand, is sufficiently restrictive to 
>> describe accurately the belief "pro-freedom of choice with respect to 
>> abortion". They are not "anti" anything at all. "Pro-abortion" is also  
>> accurate.

> A minor quibble in response to your generally sensible and well written
> article.  I deny that I am "pro abortion" in any way.
[...]
> I tolerate abortion because I think
> to do so is less evil than to attempt to banish it by means of law.
> I am not pro abortion.
 


Fair enough, it was incorrect of me to impy that pro-choice is the same as 
pro-abortion. Quite possibly no one is "pro-abortion" to the extent of 
preferring abortion exclusively over other means of dealing with the problem 
of unwanted pregnancy. The issue, as you say, is one of choice, and keeping 
the grimy hands of the state off our bodies. Therefore I will not use the 
term pro-abortion again. Thank you for the clarification.

It still leaves the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" as the most 
accurate ones possible. Therefore it is correct of the media to use them.


--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor shot
Date: 13 Nov 1994 11:53:40 -0800

In article <58627@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick Walsh wrote:

I wrote originally:
>> These loonies are a byproduct of extreme fundamentalist Christian belief,
>> with their twisted message of tortured love from their vengeful, self-
>> righteous and evil god.
>> Sick, yes. Salvageable, I doubt it.

> This statement tells me you have lost it.  The group you so vehamently
> lambaste seems to have you quite twisted.  Why so?


Well, I don't know what I may have lost, but there are good reasons for 
being disgusted with religious extremists (note my persistent use of the 
term "extreme"). To varying degrees such assholes use their perception of 
their god's commands to justify everything from limitations of my rights to 
terrorism and murder.

Specifically referring to Christian extremists, their god demonstrates 
repeatedly his vengefulness and evil nature, both in the bible and in the 
actions of his minions on earth.

I don't care what anyone believes, until that person feels justified in 
shoving it down my throat.

I may be outraged, but I don't think I am twisted.



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor shot
Date: 14 Nov 1994 18:37:48 -0800

In article , Rick Sutcliffe wrote:
> In article <...>, randallg@wimsey.com (randall g) wrote:
>
> > Specifically referring to Christian extremists, their god demonstrates 
> > repeatedly his vengefulness and evil nature, both in the bible and in he 
> > actions of his minions on earth.
>
> I do not know what a "Christian extremist" is,

I guess it is a term that I made up, but here are some obvious examples of 
what I mean: the Ku Klux Klan, Operation Rescue, the Spanish Inquisition, 
the Irish Republican Army. How about a person who kills a gynecologist 
because he performs abortions?

To varying degrees, these people are (were) willing to use intimidation, 
violence and possibly murder to accomplish their goals. The universal 
justification behind their actions is that "God wills it". They all claim to 
be Christians.

Ken McVey posted an informative article today, which you may have missed. 
Here are a few of the organizations mentioned in it that I would call 
extreme:
> Missionaries to the Preborn, Christian Patriots Defense
> League, the racist, Christian Identity-influenced, Posse
> Comitatus, and other white supremacist groups such as the Aryan
> Nations and the American Front.
and others...

Note that other religions besides Christianity also produce their share of 
extremists (look at some Islamic and Jewish groups in the Middle East).

If you don't like the term "Christian extremist" then suggest a better one. 
I think it is accurate.



> but your parody of God
> bears no resemblance to Christianity.  Your words may not be "twisted" but
> your ideas are certainly a distortion of what Christianity teaches. 

Of course it is a distortion of what Christianity teaches. I never claimed 
that you or I or any reasonable person believes in that god, either. There 
are others that do, though, and they call themselves Christians. I'm sure we 
both agree that this is not what Jesus had in mind, nor what the more 
mainstream Christian churches currently teach. The god that motivates these 
types of people is the evil god I am talking about.



> Sorry, but I don't think you have sufficient knowledge to have any idea
> what you are talking about.

Yes I do. Just try not to take it personally.


--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 22 Nov 1994 22:54:40 -0800

In article , Jeff Hay-Roe wrote:
> In article  randallg@wimsey.com (randall g) writes:
>> 
>>You wishing it doesn't make it so. Why can't it happen gradually? How else 
>>could it happen? (unless you believe that God implants the soul at the 
>>instant the sperm hits the egg, in which case there is no debating with 
>>you).
> 
>Oh, is that how we play this game?  Okay, my turn:
>  If you believe that life does not begin at conception then there
>  is no debating with you.
>How's that?


You are correct, there is no debate. I don't believe a complete human is 
suddenly created at conception, and you do. You believe your position is 
unassailable, and I don't agree.

And if you are invoking the divine argument, neither do I believe in gods or 
souls. In these matters the burden of proof is on you.



> If it happens gradually, then do you think that a doctor who performs
> an abortion at, say, 6 months is guilty of 65% of a murder?  Hmmm...

No.


>>The basic point 
>>is that we don't need a law to regulate the process, and that decisions in 
>>these matters are best left to the woman and medical professionals.

> NOT if these medical professionals are killing people.  And that's is
> the point.

That's just your opinion, as has already been made clear.



> Your premise that in the first trimester the fetus is really just 
> a mess-o-cells is false, so any conclusions you drag from it are 
> equally false.

You are already at odds with the majority opinion in science and in society. 
That's fine if you like it that way, but your absolutist opinion is neither 
provable nor popular.

Belief in souls, gods and divine judgements is waning; eventually, I think, 
to all but disappear. In the meantime, protest peacefully if you must, but 
realize that most of us will not let you remove our individual freedoms.

I hope you don't find it too frustrating. Others do, and resort to 
intimidation and violence when they can't get their way.



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Cannibalism (was: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot)
Date: 22 Nov 1994 22:53:19 -0800

In article <1994Nov18.232837.1999@sol.UVic.CA>, Melvin Klassen wrote:

> Pro-choicers believe in killing the innocent of their own kind.
> It's that simple.

No they don't, and no it isn't. The majority of Canadians do not share your 
belief that a fetus is a human life requiring the full protection of the 
law. THAT is how simple it is.



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor shot
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:47:22 +1000

In article <3ao8v2$enr@blksmth.spydernet.com>, Patrick Wilson wrote:
> 
> randall g (randallg@wimsey.com) wrote:
> 
> > To varying degrees, these people are (were) willing to use intimidation, 
> > violence and possibly murder to accomplish their goals. The universal 
> > justification behind their actions is that "God wills it". They all
> > claim to be Christians.
> 
> I somehow have my doubts that Pro-Life extremists are limited to only
> Christians.

I don't. Every single pro-lifer I have seen in the media is a Christian. 
Every pro-lifer posting here seems to have a Christian slant, or doesn't 
mention their religion. While I don't claim that they are therefore ALL 
Christians, it seems that the majority of them are. It makes sense, 
Christians vastly outnumber other theists in this society.



> Besides anyone that would be willing to "kill", especially in
> the name of "God wills it", probably would not be considered a
> Christian by most mainstream Christians out there.

There have been some Christians making this point here previously. I don't 
entirely buy it though. If someone calls himself a Christian, who am I, as a 
non-Christian, to argue. If they believe in the God of the Bible, and that 
Jesus Christ died for their sins, that pretty well fits the definition. 
Sure, they may believe in other crazier things that are not mainstream, but 
to me it all looks like different points on a smooth continuum of belief. At 
what point on that continuum is someone who thinks they are a Christian 
actually not a Christian?


> ... the reality is that most Christians would disagree with them.  

Certainly lots of Christians disagree with them. All the ones posting here 
seem to, for instance. However, I don't think they statistically represent 
Christians in general. I wonder what proportion of Christians would assert:

"I do not support in any way the use of intimidation or violence to prevent 
women from excersizing their legal right to obtain abortions in safety."

(Not just the Christians with the ability to post to the Internet).



> Abortion is legally acceptable in our society. People that find it morally
> unacceptable should take it up with the lawmakers (politicans) rather than
> the doctors that provide the service. Regardless of what peoples view on
> Abortion are, I find it repugnant that some peoples opinions on this issue
> could lead them to attempt to murder someone else.

This is so obvious it amazes me that anyone could think otherwise. I also 
think it is repugnant to use any other means of intimidation or violence 
short of murder.


> > Note that other religions besides Christianity also produce their
> > share of extremists (look at some Islamic and Jewish groups in
> > the Middle East).
> 
> Exactly.  Why single out Christians.

Because we are talking about anti-abortionists in Canada and the US, and 
they are virtually all Christians.


> Oh yeah,  before someone accuses me of something that I'm not,  I should
> state for the record,  that I am an Atheist.  I assert that God does not
> exist,  I do however respect the rights of others to believe in the
> existance of God if they so choose.  

So am I, and so do I. That's why I insist that theists keep their beliefs 
out of my laws and out of my face.



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AK47's??
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:49:09 +1000

In article , David Black 
wrote:

> In article , werewolf@io.org (Mark Terka) wrote:
> > [ hateful vitriol removed... ]
> 
> This kind of post is what makes me believe that it was someone in the
> anti-choice movement who attempted to murder Dr. Romalis.
> In fact, I'm so sure of it I'll take bets at two to one odds that when the
> man (this will be part of the bet as well) is caught, and he will be, he
> will be either linked with the anti-choice movement or will provide
> anti-choice rhetoric for his defence.
> Any takers?



I'll also take the same bet, but I'll beat David by offering ten to one 
odds. However, I am not so sure he will be caught (in which case, 
unfortunately, no one wins).



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AK47's??
Date: 22 Nov 1994 19:17:06 -0800

In article <59354@mindlink.bc.ca>, Keith Richmond wrote:
 
> In article , randallg@wimsey.com (randall
> g) writes:
> > In article , David
> > Black
> > >This kind of post is what makes me believe that it was someone in the
> > >anti-choice movement who attempted to murder Dr. Romalis.
> > >In fact, I'm so sure of it I'll take bets at two to one odds that when
> > >the man (this will be part of the bet as well) is caught, and he will
> > >be, he will be either linked with the anti-choice movement or will
> > >provide anti-choice rhetoric for his defence. Any takers?
> >
> > I'll also take the same bet, but I'll beat David by offering ten to one
> > odds. However, I am not so sure he will be caught (in which case,
> > unfortunately, no one wins).
>
>This is foolishness. Likely the person was, but so what? It is like saying
>that the terrorists from the David foundation will claim their acts of
>terror are done in the name of environmental concern. Are you going to lump
>them in with greenpeace and other such groups the way you are implying you
>will lump this person in with the pro life movement.



It is not foolishness. It is a response to the assertion of some anti-
abortionists who insisted that "we don't know who did it or why, it could 
have been anything, don't go blaming pro-lifers."

Well it wasn't just anything, it was almost certainly an act of anti-
abortion violence. If you don't think this criminal should be lumped in with 
the pro life movement, then take my bet. You stand to make some easy money 
from my "foolishness".


randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Abortion...nobody's business
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:50:23 +1000

In article , Jeff Hay-Roe wrote:
> 
> The abortionists are there to help "get rid of the problem", but where
> are they when it's time to pick up the pieces afterward.

For that matter, where are the anti-abortionists after they have managed to 
force a woman to bear a child she didn't plan for, didn't want, or does not 
have the means to raise properly? She gets to sacrifice twenty years of her 
life, possibly living in poverty, and lose many of her options in life.



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion...nobody's business
Date: 22 Nov 1994 19:13:45 -0800

In article <59356@mindlink.bc.ca>, Keith Richmond wrote:
> 
> In article , randallg@wimsey.com (randall g) writes:
>
>>For that matter, where are the anti-abortionists after they have managed
>>to force a woman to bear a child she didn't plan for, didn't want, or does
>>not have the means to raise properly? She gets to sacrifice twenty years
>>of her life, possibly living in poverty, and lose many of her options
>>in life.
>
> For that matter, the Hope Network for one provides assistence and consel,
> half way houses, adoption referrals, and the like.



It's still too serious a situation for you or anybody else to be allowed to 
force a woman into without her consent.

--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:52:01 +1000

In article , Jeff Hay-Roe wrote:
> 
> I don't suppose that anybody would claim that an embryo becomes a 
> human-life-worthy-of-protection-from-being-killed GRADUALLY.  Surely
> it must be an instantaneous thing.  There must be some significant 
> event which makes the embryo a person.

You wishing it doesn't make it so. Why can't it happen gradually? How else 
could it happen? (unless you believe that God implants the soul at the 
instant the sperm hits the egg, in which case there is no debating with 
you).


> I think there are really only
> two choices:  conception, and birth.  And I think that most people
> have enough sense to know that an abortion performed at 9 months is
> equivalent to killing a person.

Your premise that there are only those two choices is false, so any 
conclusions you draw from them are equally false. Don't forget, abortions 
beyond the first trimester (when the fetus really is just a mess-o-cells) 
are rare, and performed only in exceptional circumstances. The basic point 
is that we don't need a law to regulate the process, and that decisions in 
these matters are best left to the woman and medical professionals.


> So what is, then, Orion, Ed et al?  You've mocked those who've said
> that life begins at conception, but what is your alternative?

They have explained it clearly in other posts, which you obviously have 
either not read or not understood.




********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 25 Nov 1994 23:38:04 -0800

In article , Rick Sutcliffe wrote:

> In article , orion@aroga.wimsey.com (Orion)
> wrote:
> > 
> >   I'll give you this: you haven't quoted the Bible yet, anyway.
> 
> Would you like me to, so that I can reinforce your stereotype?



Pro-lifers as bible-thumpers is not an inaccurate stereotype. One of them 
keeps sending me email quoting the bible at me, as if I care (btw Melvin if 
you expect me to read you much less respond, do it publicly).

Any pro-lifers out there who aren't devout Christians? Let's take an 
informal poll; I'd be interested in some numbers.



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Pro-Life AK47's??
Date: 26 Nov 1994 17:42:10 -0800

In article , Aaron Clausen 
wrote:
> 
>In <8qNp0H2ua3qRaPol06b@wimsey.com> randallg@wimsey.com (randall g) writes:
>>Well it wasn't just anything, it was almost certainly an act of anti-
>>abortion violence. If you don't think this criminal should be lumped in
>>with the pro life movement, then take my bet. You stand to make some easy
>>money from my "foolishness".
> 
> I hadn't even realized they had interviewed a suspect yet.  Perhaps
> we should wait until they somebody in custody before we create the
> "Great Pro-Choice Lynching Mob".  You guys are as ridiculous as your
> pro-life counterparts.
> 

You have completely missed the point of this particular thread. I can only 
assume you did not read the earlier posts that this was a response to. The 
point of David's and my bet offers (which were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, you 
missed that too) was that until we do know the motive for the doctor 
shooting (which OBVIOUSLY we don't) we believe it was highly likely to have 
"pro-life" overtones.

At no point did I or anyone else say anything even hinting at a "lynch-mob" 
scenario (pro-choice vs pro-life? huh?). Although if the shooter had 
successfully murdered the doctor, I wouldn't try to stop a lynch mob from 
carrying out some rough justice on him (and him alone).



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:48:05 -0800

In article <59784-786070574@mindlink.bc.ca>, Keith Richmond wrote:
> 
> In art[A[A[Bicle , orion@aroga.wimsey.com
> (Orion) writes:
> > Over 75 percent of us favor *choice* in the matter of abortion...and
> > that number is is only growing larger with each passing year as religion 
> > fades inexorably away.  Face it, Aaron...you've LOST.  Abortion will
> > never again be illegal in this country, so quit your whining and get on
> > with the process of learning to accept reality as it exists...not as you
> > *wish* it could be.
> 
>It never cesases to amaze me that, once they realize that they have a
>majority, leftist thinkers suddenly become populists. Since that is the
>basis of ayour argument on this thread, Orion, 

It never ceases to amaze me how anti-abortionists attempt to bring up things 
from the past like slavery, as if past injustices have any bearing on 
today's problems. If you recall, the vast majority at that time were DEVOUT 
GOD-FEARING CHRISTIANS. They all went to church regularly, studied the 
bible, believed in God with little or no doubt. They didn't tolerate 
abortion but they did tolerate slavery. All this shows is that the gradual 
demise of religion in favour of secularism has led to greater fairness and 
human rights. If anything you have shown the opposite of what you intended.

Today's majority is vastly different to the majority of that time. Things 
change. Try and show that these changes have not led to increased justice 
and rights of the individual. Try and show that today's majority does not 
have more tolerant and fair attitudes than ever before in history. Try and 
show that the today's majority opinion has no value. Try and show a better 
way of settling societal problems that ignores the opinion of the majority.

And if you think things are ever going to change back your way you are 
living in a dream world.



>I would Assume that you also
>approve that black slavery was approved by the majority some decades ago.

Are you joking or are you a complete idiot?


randall g


********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 28 Nov 1994 23:24:42 -0800

In article <2z3tSXf1wxDJQKol06b@wimsey.com>, randall g wrote:
> In article <59784-786070574@mindlink.bc.ca>, Keith Richmond wrote:

> >I would Assume that you also
> >approve that black slavery was approved by the majority some decades ago.
> 
> Are you joking or are you a complete idiot?

When I first read this, I thought it was the stupidest thing I had seen all 
day, and replied in haste. After some reflection, I realized that it could 
have been meant somewhat more sarcastically than I first thought, and was 
perhaps just a cheap barb. If so, please accept my statement as just a cheap 
barb.

If, however, you actually believe that any pro-choicer would approve of 
slavery in any way, my insult stands.


--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Tired of Abortion Debate Here
Date: 30 Nov 1994 12:49:28 -0800

In article <3bgr59$hb4@infomatch.com>, Robert Neville wrote:
> 
> I think that there are places on the Usenet which welcome discussion of 
> the pro-life/pro-choice issues.  I don't mind skipping some of this 
> discussion, but it is getting hard to put up with.  ALL OF THIS HAS 
> BEEN ARGUED OUT AD NASEUM ON THE USENET IN VARIOUS PLACES FOR YEARS.  
> THERE IS _NOTHING_ NEW IN THE DISCUSSION CURRENTLY TAKING PLACES AND I DO 
> NOT WANT TO READ IT ANY MORE.  Could you folks please find somewhere else 
> to do this and let this be a .general newsgroup again?  
> 
> I tell ya, between this and the gun control stuff, its enough to make a 
> guy give up the Usenet altogther.  
> 


I must agree. While I personally and some others have obviously been 
enjoying this debate, this is no longer the place for it. bc.general should 
be confined to discussion pertaining to bc, which is what started this whole 
topic (the shooting of Dr Romalis).

I would like to see continued discussion of:
    - Further developments in Dr Romalis' case.
    - Local anti-abortion rallies, events, disturbances.
    - Hard facts and statistics about abortion in BC and Canada.
These subjects should be appropriate for bc.general.

It is also a good time to check the Internet for more reference material 
pertaining to the abortion debate in general. There must be some ftp or web 
sites containing such info; if anyone knows of any could they post them? I 
would urge everyone seriously interested in this issue to do the same. The 
opinion of everyone in bc.general (who cares to post on the topic) has been 
made quite clear - it would be interesting to see more.


BTW, didn't the gun control threads get here through some kind of 
crossposting mishap?



--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 2 Dec 1994 18:55:48 -0800

In article <+X23uA5ABh107h@taocow.hakatac.almanac.bc.ca>, Aaron Clausen 
wrote:

>I have no problem with abortions, other than the fact that we are supposed
>to accept the fact that society has no right to give input.

There is a big difference between giving input and legally (or illegally) 
preventing access to abortions.


>We are
>supposed to accept you and your *kinds* arguments without question, because
>you obviously have the moral upperhand by mere fact that you embrace
>a popular opinion.

Yes, it is an upper hand. As has been made clear by others, it is not an 
argument in the question "is abortion murder?". However, this matter 
apparently cannot be settled (to everyone's satisfaction) using reason. The 
debate ends up being a huge grey area for most people, who in this case lean 
towards maximizing the freedom of the individual (already born) person.

The point is that this debate is not really necessary (except in an academic 
sense), if the majority opinion has already ruled. And it has, because there 
is no law in Canada restricting abortion and, because of that majority 
opinion, never will be again.


>Women (especially teenagers) should be made aware
>of the consequences of their actions.  If they still choose to abort the
>fetus, then, if they are of the age of majority, I have no problem with
>the procedure.

Then you are not one of "them", you are one of "us"  :-)
BTW, what if they are not of the age of majority? Should they require 
parental permission? What if the parents refuse? Forcing a (say) 14 year old 
girl to bear a child still seems unreasonable to me.


>Pregnant women looking to abortion, like anybody else, must be made aware
>that they are responsible for their decision, and what that decision
>entails.

Having such information available for women considering abortion is one of 
the functions of a clinic/hospital where abortions are performed. Do you 
have a problem with the amount or quality of such information in local 
facilities?


--
randall g



********************************************************************************
From: randallg@wimsey.com (randall g)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Abortion Doctor Shot
Date: 6 Dec 1994 22:08:35 -0800

In article , Aaron Clausen 
wrote:
> 
> Just as side thought.  Since a fetus is not a person, is it permissible
> for a mother to slap back, say, a case of beer a day throughout the
> pregnancy?
> 

If you mean legally permissable, of course it is. She is also permitted to 
run up and down stairs, go skydiving, windsurfing, and basically do anything 
that a free individual can do.

Should she? Of course not, and there are literature and advertising 
campaigns (signs in bars) going on to inform women about alcohol and 
pregnancy.

But there is no way to force a woman to safely carry her baby to term, short 
of placing her in custody, and tying her down if necessary. I don't think 
there is enough of a problem to justify that kind of draconian measure.


--
randall g