Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Quayle on abortion

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Alex S. Crain

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 1:06:32 PM7/23/92
to

I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
decsion that she made".

Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
--
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

Alex Crain
UMBC Academic Computing Services

Greg Halbrook

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 2:05:03 PM7/23/92
to
al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".

> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
(I know that some people might)
I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
do I see any lessening of family values in this.
--
Greg.

Thorongil

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 3:17:37 PM7/23/92
to

Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...

___ ____
/__) / ^ __| ^ |\ /| ______________________________
/ . \_/ . / \(__|/ \| V | (__ pa...@erc.msstate.edu
_______________________________________)
Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation

Pim van Meurs

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 5:19:18 PM7/23/92
to
In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
> Alex Crain
Not that I want to defend Quayle but his response to this question
is one that every parent in america should be able to relate to:
support of your children's decisions, whether you agree with them or
not. I consider myself pro-choice but feel that abortions should be
used as little as possible. Of course I am a male and it is not my
choice... If my daughter would come to me and asked me to support
her in her decision, I would talk things over with her and then
support her. I wonder though if such a decision should be considered
'pro-choice'. I would call it 'pro-family'. Maybe they are not the
family values which conservatives like so much but they are surely
my kind of family values.
Pim van Meurs

--
Pim van Meurs UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla CA 92093 ARPA : VANM...@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc

EMIL CHUCK

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 5:19:23 PM7/23/92
to
g...@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:

:al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
:> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
:>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
:>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
:>decsion that she made".
:> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
:>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

He REALLY said that??? Well, he's off the ticket! He's a
liability to Bush's reelection! Get him outta there!!! :)

:What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any


:decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
:Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
:Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
:Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
:(I know that some people might)
: I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
:pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
:do I see any lessening of family values in this.

This sounded a lot like Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis
four years ago about if Kitty Dukakis (wife) were
raped/assaulted/killed if Dukakis would agree to the death penalty for
him. Of course, Dukakis was railed for having still opposed the death
penalty despite the crime to his wife. He was portrayed thereafter as
being heartless and not caring for his family. This is a small Catch-22
for Quayle: if he won't allow his daughter to have an abortion, then
he's seen as a callous, uncaring father; but if he did, he'd be branded
as a hypocrite.
I would've personally preferred that she had not engaged in
having sex in the first place (if she were raped, then she should have
the option to elect abortion). However, I think if such an event
happened, the last thing a parent should do is disown the daughter. She
needs support from her family most of all, and I agree that Dan's
reaching out to his daughter does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him
a good parent.

--
Emil Thomas Chuck DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993 1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!

EMIL CHUCK

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 5:29:29 PM7/23/92
to
In article <40...@news.duke.edu> e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
: This sounded a lot like Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis

:four years ago about if Kitty Dukakis (wife) were
:raped/assaulted/killed if Dukakis would agree to the death penalty for
:him.
Sorry. No antecedent. "Him" refers to the assailant.

Susan E Schudt

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 9:53:12 PM7/23/92
to

In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S.


For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
can't believe how some people are reading into this...
--
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're Right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"

Tim Buckley

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 11:46:15 PM7/23/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ssc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
>their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
>with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
>can't believe how some people are reading into this...
>--
>Susan E. Schudt
>Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
>"When you're Right, you're right!"
>"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"

You are right on target, Susan. But your comments apply not only to
children but friends as well. I have had several friends come and talk
to me about the possibility of having an abortion. Some had an abortion
some did not. I do not love them any less but I am sorry that they
killed their child (fetus if you insist). No matter what the outcome
was they were glad I was there. Does this make me pro-abortion? I
don't think so and neither do they. But they did trust me to be
unfailing in my love. I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite. The
whole thing is about love. It is unfortunate that some have such an
immature understanding of the term.

Tim

John R. Moore

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 5:35:36 PM7/23/92
to
Keywords:

In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,


]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
]decsion that she made".
]
] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
made the choice.

Greg Halbrook

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 12:00:58 PM7/24/92
to
al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.

> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:

> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?

> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----

> KING: What would you do?

> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?

> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?

> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.

>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".

> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it quite that way. If Quayles daughter did
decide to become a murderer (not via abortion, but say she shot and killed
someone (premeditated and all that)), again I say his standing by her and
giving her all the support he can is not hypocritical. Even if abortion
were illegal and she had one, it wouldn't be hypocritical for him to support
his daughter in her times of duress. It would be hypocritical if he tried
to exempt her from any punishment that her crime warranted.

***DISCLAIMER*** In no way do I contend or mean to imply that it is my opinion
that abortion is murder.

>--
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services

( A side note to Alex: I often disagree with your posts, even to the point of
ire. But they do make me think. Once or twice you've even opened my eyes
to the errors in my own thinking. Thanks :)
--
Greg.

Chad R. Berthelson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 8:40:23 AM7/24/92
to

>In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>]
>] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice. He was asked
if his daughter came to him with this 'problem' what he would do..his
answer was 'I would council her and I hope that she would make the right
decision' (that's my paraphrase..I don't have the transcript, but it's
real close). The next question was 'well, if after all that her
decision was abortion, what would you do?', he said that he would
support her no matter what she did...

In this VERY hypothetical instance, Quayle obviously doesn't want his
daughter to have an abortion (and I am sure would be heart-broken if she
did), but the fact is..the law (as it reads in most places), leaves
him (the parent) out of the legal question. If after all of his pleading
and 'counciling' she still had an abortion, he just said that he wouldn't
hound her forever or disown her, he would support her.

The pro-life stance is that if the law was different, Dan would never
be asked stupid hypotheticals and if it ever did happen as stated, then
he would have his 'counciling' and the law on his side.

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
cr...@ra.msstate.edu Biological Engineering
cbe...@abe.msstate.edu Mississippi State University

Chip Switzer

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 10:00:51 AM7/24/92
to
pa...@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:

>Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...

The two were asked different questions. The vice president was asked
about an adult daughter, and Mrs. Quayle was asked about a 13 year old
daughter.

They both answered very consistently with their beliefs. It
is not up to 13 year old to decide on matters such as this (of course
Mrs. Clinton would argue the opposite side even if the child were 5...).
And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
and see how *you* would answer it? "Would you support your daughter if
she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"

This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just
about strong family commitment and love.


Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves nothing."
jswi...@afit.af.mil -- Voltaire

Russ Anderson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 9:29:24 AM7/24/92
to

In article <gsh.71...@hela.iti.org>, g...@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> >decsion that she made".
>
> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>
> What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
> decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?

Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
support that decision too?

> Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
> Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
> Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
> (I know that some people might)

No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
with?

> I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
> pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
> do I see any lessening of family values in this.

I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.

Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.

--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Russ Anderson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 9:36:53 AM7/24/92
to

In article <1992Jul24.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, ssc...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> >decsion that she made".
> >
> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>
> For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for
> their children. This is the ultimate in "family values." One may disagree
> with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her. I
> can't believe how some people are reading into this...

I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
in similar circumstances as his daughter.

If he would not treat his daughter like a criminal, he should not support
legislation to make other women criminals.

Russ Anderson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 9:40:22 AM7/24/92
to

I would answer as Dan did. The difference is that Dan supports legislation
to make women in similar situations a criminal, while I oppose such legislation.

Alex S. Crain

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 11:02:19 AM7/24/92
to
In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.

Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words


verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
slightly. He said:

KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
it?

QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
do have to deal with it, but obviously ----

KING: What would you do?

QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
whatever decision she made?

KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?

QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
decision.

The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".

My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
at least that far for your own kids.

--

Greg Halbrook

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 11:32:58 AM7/24/92
to
r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <gsh.71...@hela.iti.org>, g...@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>
>> > I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>> >decsion that she made".
>>
>> > Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>>
>> What would you expect him to say? His supporting his daughter in any
>> decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?

>Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>support that decision too?

I said he supported his daughter, not her decision. Why are you trying to
read things into something I didn't say? If she did decide to rob a bank,
I would hope he'd support her through out the trial and sentence.

>> Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
>> Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
>> Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
>> (I know that some people might)

>No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
>and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
>disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
>with?

In some cases I would. It depends on the decision. There are some types of
people I would prefer to have nothing to do with. Are you saying that you
would welcome Adolph Hitler with open arms? After all, it was just a little
thing like his decision to exterminate an entire race that you disagreed
with.

>> I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is
>> pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
>> do I see any lessening of family values in this.

>I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
>trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.

>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.

I find it hard to dispute your logic here :)



>--
>Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

--
Greg.

Debbie Fuhry

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 11:41:33 AM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
it?

QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
do have to deal with it, but obviously ----

KING: What would you do?

QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
whatever decision she made?

KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?

QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
decision.

[...]

> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

He *is* willing to go that far to prevent his own *adult* daughter from
having an abortion. However, since we're talking about an *adult*
daughter, that's all he can do. Once she's gotten the abortion, should he
disown her? I don't think he was saying he'd tell her "Oh, it's alright
honey, do whatever you think is best, and we're behind you all the way."
I'm sure it's something like "You know what we believe about this decision,
but you're still our daughter, and we won't stop loving you because of it."

I think there's a massive gulf between those two sentiments, Alex.

Thorongil

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 12:01:08 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>
>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
>
> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:
>
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
>
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>
> KING: What would you do?
>
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
>
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
>
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
>

No, he is not saying that if she chose to become a murderer that he'd
support her decision. Instead he is saying that if my daughter chose to have
an abortion ( become a muderer, thief, etc. - you substitute in what you
like ) that he'd support her when she faced the consequences. It is like
a mother supporting her son who killed someone and is in jail. There is
nothing wrong with that. He is not condoning that act ( of abortion, murder,
theft, ... ), but is condoning the support of the people after the act is
performed.

Jeffrey J Spencer

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 12:02:38 PM7/24/92
to
What is Dan supposed to say. "Well I would probably take her home and beat her
first for getting pregnant. Then I would force her to marry the father and live
a long and happy life."
He didn't say he woudn't care if she decided to have an abortion. He simply
meant that he loves his daughter and would support her even if she made a
decision he felt was bad. On tv this morning the bank robbery analogy was used
to illustrate how even if she robbed a bank, he would still be behind even
though she made a bad decision. It's not called being a hypocrite, just a good
parent.

William Kucharski

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 2:26:35 PM7/24/92
to
While reading article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) said the following:

> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

He is. The point is, if she were an adult and decided to have an abortion,
"traditional family values" dictate that you love and support your children,
regardless of whether you agree with what they have decided.

I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
make him pro-life?
--
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kuch...@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"

EMIL CHUCK

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 3:10:28 PM7/24/92
to
al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
: KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you

: and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
: it?
: QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
: do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
: KING: What would you do?
: QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
: whatever decision she made?
: KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
: QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
: decision.
:The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
:from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
:abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
Just a few more quotes for the benefit of discussion...

"While we welcome VP Quayle's newfound respect for his own daughter's
freedom to choose, we regret that he and President Bush want to take
that same freedom away from everyone else. It smacks of a double
standard for VP Quayle to support his daughter's decision when he's
worked so hard to allow the government to interfere in every other
woman's decision."
Kate Michelman, NARAL President (National Abortion Rights Action
League)

"There is a clear distinction between supporting your children's
decisions, right or wrong, and supporting a woman's right to choose. ...
If she's an adult, clearly, he's a loving father, he would support his
daughter even if she makes the wrong decision. ... He's not saying he
supports her right to choose. He supports his daughter because he loves
her."
Jeffrey Nesbit, spokesman for VP Quayle

"[Quayle's comments] are consistent with a pro-life position. We reject
the violent act of abortion. We do not reject the people involved. ... A
parent can still support the child without approving of the act that the
child has carried out."
Darla St. Martin, assoc. executive director, National
Right-to-Life Committee

"I don't think I should comment on Dan Quayle's relationship with his
daughter. He made a personal statement. ... I think it reinforces my
position that these matters should not be turned back into crimes.
<< Asked what he would do if his daughter Chelsea, now 12,
became pregnant, Clinton said: >> I wouldn't talk to the press about
it."
Gov. Bill Clinton, Democratic nominee for President.

Quotes taken from Washington Post 24 Jul 92, A16.

Now, my notes:
1) According to the context of this excerpt, Larry was prompting
Quayle on his support for his family and his daughter. Remember this was
a hypothetical problem "that all fathers fear." Note he said: "I would
support her" and "I'd support my daughter."
2) It seems interesting that Clinton said he wouldn't comment about
Quayle's statement. Watch and see if the rest of the party would be so
"gentlemanly."
3) Michelman's comment about Quayle's "newfound respect for his
daughter's freedom to choose." Again, if he spurned his daughter, then
she'd probably deride Quayle for being a cold-hearted Republican for
putting his ideology over his own flesh-and-blood. As I said once
before, it's a Catch-22 for Quayle. He can't please his opponents no
matter what. (That's what George Bush has learned in four years of
compromise with Congress.)

: My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially


:is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
:murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
:one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
:anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
:stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
:at least that far for your own kids.

And what if Corinne Quayle chose to have the baby?
*Sigh.* I guess you approved of Gov. Dukakis saying he would
still disapprove of using the death penalty even against a criminal who
fictitiously murders his wife. How noble of him to be consistent on his
stand even when it affects him (hypothetically) personally. When someone
breaks into your house and holds you and your family at gunpoint, how
noble you are if you're for gun-control and refuse to use your gun in
self-defense and defense of your family.
Finally, would you support your son or
daughter marrying someone you didn't think would make a good spouse for
him/her, or would you disown your own child? Some parents despite their
apprehensions and opposition would still support their children in times
of need. This last point is an example of how parents support their
children even if they don't agree with the decision. Sorry if you don't
agree.

William Kucharski

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 2:36:49 PM7/24/92
to
While reading article <1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com>, I noticed that
r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) said the following:

>Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>support that decision too?

I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.

>No, of course not. Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children
>and you should love them as you love your own children. Are you going to
>disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree
>with?

Well, setting aside for the moment that they're not your own children, I'd
say that it takes quite a bit of willpower to feel this way towards someone
other than your own child. Remember, Saddam Hussein is one of God's children
too, but I digress.

>I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter. I do flame him for
>trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.

>Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.

Why should he? He has a viewpoint, that abortion is wrong and is perfectly
free to follow his feelings and try to put controls on or stop abortion
altogether. If you're female and have an illegal abortion, there's nothing
saying that Dan Quayle (or your parents) will love you any less for it.

Don Porter

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 3:42:17 PM7/24/92
to
<1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com> (Russ Anderson) :

>> Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>> support that decision too?

<Brwp1...@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.

I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
about being used in this way? This is getting about as bad as the
Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife. I'm sure the
Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people,
but that doesn't mean it's right to continue. Isn't there some
other way we can discuss the VP's comments?

>| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501

Hey, Longmont! That's where my family lived from 1969-71. I built
many a fine snowman there.

| Don Porter | d...@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis |
| "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they |
| please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|

Alex S. Crain

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 4:07:06 PM7/24/92
to
In article <BrwoK...@solbourne.com> kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:

>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>make him pro-life?

Mr. Clinton is not trying to make joining operation rescue an illegal
act. A better example would be "How would X feel if their kid went off and
joined a jamacan drug Cartel".

The pro-family folks cheered when an 8 year old girl turned her drug
using parents into the police - Ronald Reagan congradulated the girl personally
as a good American citizen. I realize that Quayle and Reagan are not of the
same administration, but they seem to be preeching the same gospel, and that
being the case, I would expect Quayle to use whatever means necessary to
prevent what he claims is a hidious crime, from occuring. His support for
operation rescue suggests that he supports using force to prevent abortion
from happening, it wasn't clear that he would apply the same standard in his
daughters case.

Note that I don't object to his answer per-se, I would do the same
thing - but I don't equate abortion with murder, either.

Russ Anderson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 5:50:44 PM7/24/92
to

In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <crb2.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>
> >Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
> >never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
>
> Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
> verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
> slightly. He said:
>
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
>
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>
> KING: What would you do?
>
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
>
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope that she wouldn't make that
> decision.

Heck, why can't Dan be honest and say he'd force her to bear the child by
shutting down all legal abortion clinics.

> The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
> from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
> abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
> is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
> murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
> one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
> anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
> stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
> at least that far for your own kids.


--

Russ Anderson

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 6:01:22 PM7/24/92
to

In article <1992Jul24.1...@wuecl.wustl.edu>, d...@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com> (Russ Anderson) :
> >> Hmmm... If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
> >> support that decision too?
>
> <Brwp1...@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> > I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.
>
> I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
> anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
> about being used in this way?

Has Dan Qualyle given any thought to how my wife (or future daughters)
might feel if forced to bear a child against her will? This difference
is that I'm not trying to force Dan's wife or daughter to do anything
they do not want to.

> This is getting about as bad as the
> Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife. I'm sure the
> Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people,
> but that doesn't mean it's right to continue. Isn't there some
> other way we can discuss the VP's comments?

Sure. Dan can keep the *HELL* out of my families decisions.

Tim Buckley

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 7:14:18 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24....@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <BrwoK...@solbourne.com> kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>
>>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>>make him pro-life?
>
> Mr. Clinton is not trying to make joining operation rescue an illegal
>act. A better example would be "How would X feel if their kid went off and
>joined a jamacan drug Cartel".

Are you sure that this is accurate, Mr. Crain? I'm not sure what his
views on this are but many of his supporters are working to see to it
that Operation Rescue is, in fact, restrained from continuing their
tactics. They have had mixed success but continue the battle. Perhaps
Governor Clinton does not support these efforts but I suspect that he does.


>
> The pro-family folks cheered when an 8 year old girl turned her drug
>using parents into the police - Ronald Reagan congradulated the girl
>personally

Some did but I'm sure others did not. I know this to be true. I
consider myself pro-family (I suspect many Clinton supporters are also)
and I was extremely upset. I certainly did NOT cheer.

>as a good American citizen. I realize that Quayle and Reagan are not of the
>same administration, but they seem to be preeching the same gospel, and that
>being the case, I would expect Quayle to use whatever means necessary to
>prevent what he claims is a hidious crime, from occuring. His support for
>operation rescue suggests that he supports using force to prevent abortion
>from happening, it wasn't clear that he would apply the same standard in his
>daughters case.

Even Operation Rescue (with whom I personally have many disagreements
over tactics) does NOT use "whatever means necessary" to prevent the
hideous crime. Extreme as they sometimes are it is not hard to think of
many other things that they could do that are even more extreme.

Tim

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 10:35:38 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.0...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
> do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
> in similar circumstances as his daughter.
>

Who says that Quayle doesn't have love for all women? You've got a LOT
to prove here, buddy.

> If he would not treat his daughter like a criminal, he should not support
> legislation to make other women criminals.
>

Women were never ever made criminals. Doctors were held responsible.
This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
abortion in the 20 years since.

> --
> Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
> ------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
> EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or my...@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Susan Garvin

unread,
Jul 25, 1992, 2:51:20 AM7/25/92
to

In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
[text deleted]
#Women were never ever made criminals. Doctors were held responsible.
#This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
#abortion in the 20 years since.

You really should try listening or reading some news now and again.
(Unless, of course, you enjoy your current state of ignorance.)

There's been plenty of legislation against abortion in the nineteen
years since Roe. At least one piece (the Utah law) initially
made the woman eligible for the death penalty.

Susan

Mark Gansle

unread,
Jul 25, 1992, 1:17:35 PM7/25/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.

> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially


>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

Really, Alex, you don't have to resort to intellectual dishonesty. In the
interview, the inflection was clear: Quayle emphasized the phrase "my daughter."
So what did he mean? He meant that he would try to dissuade his daughter, but
as it is legal under _Roe_ for her to get an abortion and he has no legal right
to stop her, he would have to deal with the reality of the situation. He would
hate her decision and lover his daughter as person none the less.

I mean, really! Plenty of liberals have posted to the board already, demon-
strating that *they* are intelligent enough to understand the distinction
between supporting a person and supporting his/her actions. Why can't *you*
grasp this distinction? Surely you're not stupid? My guess is you just
can't let any chance go to bash Quayle (or any Republican, for that matter),
even if you have to lie to do it.

My mother smokes; I hate the fact that she does so and wish she would stop,
but that does not diminish my love for her. Maybe you have an analogous
dilemma in your life?


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus |Think globally. |
| |Act locally. |
|ze...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |Eat my shorts totally. |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+


Mike Schwartz

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 6:05:38 PM7/23/92
to
In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
> I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> decsion that she made".
>
> Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

Comment: She would choose to not have an abortion. Supporting that
decision is easy. This is the quote from Marylin Quayle after the
show (it also is getting press - "supposedly" the Quayles disagree
with eachother).

Comment: Legalized abortion is the law. If you respect the law, you
must respect those who obey the law. That's reality.

> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services

--

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 10:41:49 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
> from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
> abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>

There are many many conservative editorial staffs on newspapers. It is
TV media that has the stronger influence and (almost) absolute bias.

> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
> is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
> murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
> one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
> anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
> stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
> at least that far for your own kids.
>

You yourself quoted where Quayle said this is a hypothetical situation.
Hypothetical implies that it may or may not happen - I would cross those
types of bridges when they came...

Wanting Roe overturned and wanting Abortion illegal are two separate
issues. Abortion was LEGAL before Roe (just not in every woman's
back yard).

Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)

> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services

--

Alex S. Crain

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 12:12:33 PM7/26/92
to
In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
>to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)

Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he makes".

Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.

Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and murder is still a
moral infraction, even if the murderer is a family member. I don't fault
Quayles response, I just find it inconsistant with his stated public policy.

Debbie Fuhry

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 9:22:19 AM7/27/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

> Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
>comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
>I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he
makes".

For this to be an appropriate analogy, the murder you're referring to above
would have to be completely legal in this country, and your son would have
to be an adult. Now that we're dealing with an analogous situation, just
exactly what "more than support him in whatever decision he makes" are you
planning to do? Will you take your adult son and lock him up so he can't
commit this perfectly legal action? Will you take him to the police and
say, "Excuse me officer, my son here is on his way to commit murder." and
the officer will explain to you that there's not law against it so there's
nothing more you *can* do.

So, your son goes out and commits a legal act of murder (If you need an
example to be able to conceptualize this, go back in your mind to places
and times where duels were accepted practice.) Now what are you going to
do? He's not in any trouble with the law... Are you going to disown your
son? Tell him that since he committed that murder, you never want to see
his face again?

> Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
>Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
>performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
>against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
>forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.

Marilyn Quayle and Dan Quayle were not talking about the same situation,
sir. The Vice President was referring to an *adult* daughter, Mrs. Quayle
was referring to the girl at her current age of 13.

I don't see where you have a leg to stand on, Mr. Crain. This is clearly a
non-issue.

Debbie Fuhry

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 3:10:11 AM7/27/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <mykes...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> my...@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
> >Any acts that Quayle has taken to overturn Roe would apply equally
> >to his daughter. You have ZERO credability :)
>
> Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
> comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
> I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he makes".
>

And Quayle might do more than stick his head in the sand while his daughter
commits "murder", too.

> Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
> Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
> performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
> against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
> forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.
>

Dan Quayle refused to answer the question Larry King asked. Period.
King asked "Would you support your daughter's decision?"
Quayle answered "I would support my daughter."
Many other people, even several well knwon Liberals in this group, have
pointed out how silly it is to question Quayle's love for his daughter
and family.

And Quayle took an Oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution
of the United States - even those parts he disagrees with. You are making
accusations that Quayle gives the names of doctors to extremists. Care
to back that up?

FWIW - I do not question very many peoples' patriotism, not Carter,
not Teddy, not at all. I do question their policies. I do not question
Quayle's patriotism, either, nor his devotion to God or his family...

> Abortion is either murder, or it isn't, and murder is still a
> moral infraction, even if the murderer is a family member. I don't fault
> Quayles response, I just find it inconsistant with his stated public policy.
>
>

Clearly YOU don't believe it is murder and I do, but there is NOTHING you
could ever say to change my mind and vice-versa. This is clear of the
entire population who have positions on abortion. I won't try to dissuade
you of YOUR opinion, but I will continue to point out that the Supreme Court
has no justification in deciding what life is or isn't.

As it stands now, it is only Quayle's OPINION that abortion is murder. The
law of the land, as determined by the activist Supreme Court of the early
'70s, is something that Quayle would change given his way. Not given his
way, he has 2 options in this hypothetical case. He can disown his daughter
or he can give her the support that is totally consistent with his stated
public policy WRT family values.


>
>
> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> Alex Crain
> UMBC Academic Computing Services

--

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:28:42 PM7/27/92
to
In article 21...@umbc3.umbc.edu, al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> it?
> QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
> KING: What would you do?
> QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on
> whatever decision she made?
> KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
> QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
> decision.
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

Ever heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do?"

---
Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:34:42 PM7/27/92
to
In article C...@solbourne.com, kuch...@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>While reading article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue. If he said
>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>make him pro-life?

You are missing the point. Of course Clinton would support his daughter because
Clinton is pro-choice. Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
That's where the lies come in.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:32:57 PM7/27/92
to
In article 14p8bd...@early-bird.think.com, fu...@think.com (Debbie Fuhry) writes:
>He *is* willing to go that far to prevent his own *adult* daughter from
>having an abortion. However, since we're talking about an *adult*
>daughter, that's all he can do. Once she's gotten the abortion, should he
>disown her? I don't think he was saying he'd tell her "Oh, it's alright
>honey, do whatever you think is best, and we're behind you all the way."
>I'm sure it's something like "You know what we believe about this decision,
>but you're still our daughter, and we won't stop loving you because of it."

If he were true to his word (abortion is murder, etc.) then he would condemn
and disown his daughter. Since he is not and doesn't believe in the anti-
choice point of view he is only showing his true colors. He should show the
same condemnation for his daughter having an abortion as he would if his
daughter were to throw his grandchild into a vat of hot oil. This is what
is so duplicitous and disingenuous on his part.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:24:53 PM7/27/92
to
In article 7119...@Ra.MsState.Edu, cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>In this VERY hypothetical instance, Quayle obviously doesn't want his
>daughter to have an abortion (and I am sure would be heart-broken if she
>did), but the fact is..the law (as it reads in most places), leaves
>him (the parent) out of the legal question. If after all of his pleading
>and 'counciling' she still had an abortion, he just said that he wouldn't
>hound her forever or disown her, he would support her.

Again, this just proves that pro-choice comes before anything else and
that the anti-choice movement is just a bunch of BS.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:34:03 PM7/27/92
to


As long as he's going to be going along with all those people who scream
their gibberish about ABORTION IS MURDER and all that other crap I think
he is being a bit disingenuous in his stands on choice. If his daughter
were to kill his grandchild in cold blood I think there would be a rift
there and it might even strain their relationship.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:15:25 PM7/27/92
to
In article 18...@afit.af.mil, jswi...@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
>into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
>and see how *you* would answer it? "Would you support your daughter if
>she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"
>This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just
>about strong family commitment and love.

I am pro-choice and I would support any of my hypothetical kids whatever
they did. I am not faced with this quandry because pro-choice views are
consistent. Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:26:16 PM7/27/92
to
In article 17...@hemlock.cray.com, r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>I don't criticize Dan for his "unconditional love" for his daughter, but I
>do flame him for not having the same unconditional love for *all* women
>in similar circumstances as his daughter.
>If he would not treat his daughter like a criminal, he should not support
>legislation to make other women criminals.

It fits the conservative dogma to act this way. Selfishness, every man for
himself, get yours now, etc. It fits with his Chicken-Hawk stands and is
very consistent. He would send our kids to war but he would never go.

Mitch Sako

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 2:12:55 PM7/27/92
to
In article 17...@anasazi.com, jo...@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Keywords:
>In article <1992Jul23.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>] I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and

>]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>]decsion that she made".
>] Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
>your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
>try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
>made the choice.

I think this proves what the pro-choice people (the majority of
Americans) have been saying since the beginning. When push comes
to shove, virtually ALL Americans are pro-choice. I don't see why
they hide behind this pandering, limp excuse for a weak attempt at
silly symbolism regarding their stand on being anti-choice.

Jim Huggins (8-8305)

unread,
Jul 28, 1992, 10:46:56 AM7/28/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> al...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

But that's not what he was trying to say. I happened to catch that
part of King's show while channel-flipping. His answer to King's
question ("If she chose to have an abortion, would you support that
decision?") was "I would support *her*" (emphasis Quayle's, not mine).
That is -- "I would continue to love and care for my daughter, although
I would disagree with her actions."

What would you rather Quayle say to be consistent? "Dad, I just had
an abortion." "Get out of my house now, you murderer." That's silly.

Frankly, that's about the only answer Quayle could give. As the law
stands, if Quayle's daughter wanted to get an abortion, there's not
a thing he could do about it (though he could prohibit her from
going on a field trip or getting her ears pierced).

A man speaks about how he would love his daughter even when she does
something with which he strongly disagrees and liberals jump down
his throat. Sigh.

--------------------

William Kucharski

unr