Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <866@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jul-84 11:01:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.866
Posted: Tue Jul 17 11:01:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 02:47:34 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>, <766@ihuxn.UUCP> <3259@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 22

}If the pro-choicers
}would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then 
}Paul's [DuBois] examples would have a valid point. [HOSHEN]

> But then they wouldn't be "pro-choicers", would they?  It seems that, by
> definition, you can't oppose anything a "pro-choicer" does. [DUBUC]

At last!  NOW you finally understand!

As long as the "choices" are not involving taking action against individuals
that would harm them or impinge on their individual freedom, you admit (at
last!) that one has no "moral" ground for opposing such choices.

[If the discussion branches into "but what about the freedom of the fetus as
 a human being", we will have ventured into territory better discussed in
 net.abortion (in fact, already driven into the ground in that newsgroup over
 100 times).  What about other personal freedoms that would be restricted by
 those who say "What about my viewpoint that all people should be XXX?  You're
 not being really 'neutral' if you don't give my viewpoint an equal shot?" ?]
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr