NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48016

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 3.9 KB | 109 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!usc!rpi!keegan
From: [e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Message-ID: <_=[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:13:44 GMT
Lines: 97

[e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
->[e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>[e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>->[e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>->>[e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>->>->I would not object to some restrictions on abortion.
->>->>
->>->>are you referring to just your access to abortion, ray,
->>->>or to everyone's access to abortion?
->>
->>->Neither, twit.
->>
->>you seem upset, ray. are you upset because you never
->>answered my question about whether you want to imprison
->>women who have banned abortions?

->I'm annoyed because you're a dishonest slimeball who can come up with
->nothing better than lies and strawmen.

aha. i'm sure that an honest, straight-shooter like you
wouldn't have said something like that unless you had
some proof. so.........

->As an example note that I
->never said anything about banning abortions.

what's this an example of, ray? did i say you wanted to
ban abortions? this looks like one of those strawmen
you were talking about. what i want to see is one of
those lies you claimed i made. come on, you must be
able to find one.

what i asked you ray, several times in fact, was
whether you wanted to imprison women who have banned
abortions.

you still haven't answered that question.

->And further, before you
->go scurrying off to your archives, note carefully that "restrict" is
->not synonymous with "ban"

so you want to make it hard for women to have
abortions, but not ban them, is that correct, ray. do
you oppose legislation to ban abortion? just how
restricted to you want abortion, ray?

->>there's no need to be coy about what abortion
->>restrictions you'd not object to, ray. it's ok for you
->>to mention them. it is, really. but if you're
->>embarassed to post what restrictions you'd not object
->>to, well, that's ok too. just tell me that you're
->>embarassed to comment and i won't ask you again.

->And when will come forward with your comments about just what you
->would allow?

oh i did that when i first asked you whether you'd
imprison the women who had banned abortions. you even
responded to that note, although you were honest and
straightforward enough to cut out my comments. dodie
does that, you know. he deletes something a person has
written and then he asks them again and denies that they
made the original comment. if you don't keep copies of
the the posts you reply to, i'll be happy to repost it
for you. heck, anyone who's embarassed to answer an
abortion-related question in talk-abortion doesn't have
much character, do they?

which reminds me, you will be answering my questions,
won't you?

->Would you allow a woman giving birth to twist off the
->head of the fetus/baby just before it is clear of the birth canal?

heck, you really need to find that text you deleted,
don't you?

->Or do you also condone restrictions on abortion (sorry, in your
->terminology that would be "are you also anti-choice?").

now you just let me know if you can't find that text.
had you read it you wouldn't have asked those last two
questions. that raises an interesting question. don't
you read the posts you reply to?

don't forget to come up with something to support
your claim that i'm a liar. you wouldn't want people to
think you're like dodie or nyikos.

[referring to her abortion-restriction plan]
"I think it will deny abortions in cases of rape and a handful of
sex-selection abortions."
<[e-mail]>

do you want to deny abortions in cases of rape, ray?