>
> Access to abortion is good, and so are its medical
> providers. But that is not the same as saying abortion
> is good.
If abortions are bad, then how can access to abortions be good? If an intelligent woman, given the choice between abortion or no-abortion, chooses abortion, then she obviously judges abortion to be more good than no-abortion in her particular case.
> you will be squandering vital political credibility as you do
> it.
What did you intend to do with this political credibility of yours, that is more important to the women in this country (speaking of "political credibility" that's half the voting public right there) than keeping abortion legal? Do you think they aren't aware or don't care about the issue? Or are the little ladies just supposed to shut up and play dumb while you bargain away their reproductive rights?
> ..The point is to give women choices, resources, and
> respect, so that far fewer abortions are needed.
No it is not. We're not in a contest with the theocratical right to see whose policies ensure that fewer abortions are needed. They want to eliminate all abortions whether they are "needed" or not. That's the point.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "we" in that last sentence. Maybe you don't give a shit.
> Why don't you, Ms. Prole? (What does an RN in SF make
> these days? It ain't minimum wage.)
Well, I can't answer that one, I'll ask my wife.
- hey hons, this guy Dawson here sez you career nurses should take a big honking pay cut, down to Wal-Mart wages, to express solidarity with your fellow proles...
- honey calm down, tell him _what_? Oh my, such language, I can't type that! I think there's a moderator on this mailing list, and also isn't there a Federal law against transmitting speech like that over common carriers?
Yours WDK - WKiernan at ij.net