Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Modest Response to the Laws for t
Message-ID: <117200125@inmet>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 16:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200125
Posted: Mon Sep 22 16:07:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:23:57 EDT
References: <5407@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl.DEC.COM:-540700:inmet:117200125:000:817
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 22 16:07:00 1986


[arndt@lymph.dec.com.UUCP ]
>[A piece of satire. Would be fine, except that the sentences are
>a mile long]

Ironic mode off, Ken Arndt says:

>PS In fact I would fight, by force if necessary after  all  legal
>means  were  exhausted  and  perhaps before, against any such law
>just as I am against the laws supporting abortion on demand.

Ken: fighting against unjust coercion is the right thing  to  do.
But  the  laws  don't  *support* abortion, they *ignore* it. When
Khomeini's courts execute  someone  for  fornication,  U.S.  does
nothing - but that does not imply support. It is Iran's internal
affair. If you want to fight it, your fight is  against  Khomeini
and  his henchmen, not against US non-intervention. What is wrong
with non-intervention by state into a woman's internal affairs?

		Jan Wasilewsky