🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:16:15 -0600, Papa Jack
<papajack@express-news.net> wrote:

<snipperoonie>

>          ===========================================================
>> >Rob Hocker wrote:
>> >This is nothing more than the tired and totally brain-dead
>> >argument that valid opinions regarding an issue may only be
>> >held by those that have been involved with that issue.
>
>          ===========================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>This is a typical Pro-Abortion Righter's (PAR's) ploy.  Arbitrarily
>setting up conditions, allows Screamer to eliminate all men and all
>women who have not actually gone into a PP and asked for counseling/
>choices/alternatives.

How can you comment on something you have never experienced?

Can you say a Whopper is a horrible sandwich, if you've never eaten
one?

>  That's a small group who is very likely to
>defensively protect PP -- anything else would be criticizing themselves.
>
>Wonder how Screamer would react if I told her the same sort of thing 
>after she criticized a man's words/actions?  "Well, you just can't
>comment, Screamer, unless you've been a male and be subjected to male
>harmones and pressures of society."  I'm sure she'd go along with 
>that -- yeah, sure she would.

Actually, PJ, I do, and I would.  I have no idea what it's like to be
kicked in the testicles, and I certainly couldn't comment on it.

Nor, however, would I kick a man in the testicles.

Get it?

>
>          ===========================================================
>> Screamer wrote:
>> Wrong.  You can't say Big Macs suck if you've never been in 
>  a McDonalds.
>
>          ===========================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>Of course you can.  What if you read in a reliable source that 
>McDonalds often used tainted beef patties?  Would you have to go
>there, eat one, and get sick before you could say, "Big Macs suck!"
>I don't think so.

Reliable source?  And where exactly did you get your PP info?  I'll
lay odds it's not from the general media, is it?  Anti-Choice
propoganda is NOT reliable material.

>
>Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United 
>States, performed 134,277 abortions in 1993. In contrast, a mere 
>9,943 women received prenatal care -- Planned Parenthood's 1994 
>Service Report does not even mention adoption. 

PP is available for women who need prenatal.  However, most women who
decide to carry a pregnancy to term go elsewhere to seek their care.
Why is that so difficult to understand?

PP is not in the adoption business.  They do not set up adoptions.
HOWEVER (And please make sure you understand THIS) - they can and DO
send women to the correct place, should that be the option of the
three presented she CHOOSES.

Get it?


>(Source:  PP's
>1993-94 annual report)
>
>          ===========================================================
>[...]
>> >Rob Hocker wrote:
>> >Let's just listen for the pertinent facts in each person's
>> >presentation of their view and avoid trying to discredit
>> >someone because they're not the right sex (or, in this
>> >discussion, the right age!!!)
>
>          ===========================================================
>> Screamer wrote:
>> This has LESS to do with the fact that PJ can't be pregnant than it
>> has to do with the fact that PJ HAS NEVER BEEN TO A PP, AND THEREFORE
>> CANNOT COMMENT ON WHAT GETS SAID OR DOESN'T GET SAID WITHIN THE
>> CONFINES OF THE WALLS.  Please try and read what I'm writing.
>
>          ===========================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>Ah, but now you change what you said.
>
>     PJ, have you ever been pregnant, and gone into a PP, asking for
>     counseling/choices/alternatives?
>
>As noted above, you try to set up conditions where you would only
>have PP judged by females who have actually used their services.

Actually, when a woman gets pregnant, most times - especially if they
decide to continue the pregnancy - it's stated that the couple is
pregnant.  You could go with your wife.  Same thing.

Article Unavailable