NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48513

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utgpu!utorvm!ryevm.ryerson.ca!admn8647
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 22:56:18 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Lines: 129

In article <[e-mail]> Kevin Darcy says:
>In article <[e-mail]> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>In article  <[e-mail]> Kevin Darcy says:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> Linda Birmingham writes:

>>>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?
>>
>>>Stop euphemizing. You support abortion rights up to the moment of pregnancy,
>>>do you not? You support abortion FOR ANY REASON, do you not? Therefore, you
>>>would, in theory, support the "right" of a woman to maliciously have her
>>>almost-newborn butchered moments before birth, would you not? That, my dear,
>>>_is_ Extremist, no matter how much you try and sugar-coat it with vague,
>>>indefinite terms.
>
>>I support what is the situation in my country - no
>>abortion legislation.  Abortion is considered a medical
>>procedure and is regulated under the Health Act.

>Quite frankly, I don't think that approach would work in this country,

How very sad for American women.  However this has nothing
to do with the fact that the above is my position, one
shared not only by the majority of Canadians but is the
current legal situation re abortion in this country and you,
old chap, have labeled this position as radically extreme.

>>Please post where I have ever stated that I support
>>"a woman to maliciously have her almost-newborn
>>butchered moments before birth"?

>It was the "for any reason" verbiage which lead me to that interpretation.

Which means of course that I have never stated such a
thing, my Kebbie you're bordering on honesty.

>>>>Is it insulting and inflammatory to repeatedly declare
>>>>that someone has done something, after the person has
>>>>said they did not, and not offer a shred of evidence
>>>>to support your accusation?

>>>You mean like
>>>
>>>       "Darcy has been [...] arguing for abortion restrictions"
>>
>>>??? Something like THAT, you mean? Yes, I found that unsubstantiated
statement
>>>_very_ insulting and inflammatory. What do you intend to do about it?
>
>>Considering you posted a global retraction  of your
>>arguments for abortions restrictions recently I
>>would hardly say that statement was unsubstantiated

>Huh? My retraction was not "substantiation" of that claim one way or another,

Are you now denying that you posted a retraction of your
previous posts supporting legislative restrictions?

>Ms. Birmingham. Please re-read it. And, even if it were, do you lack moral
>integrity to such a degree that you would attack someone for a statement
>they'd retracted????

Please point out where I attacked a person for a statement that
they retracted?

>>and in its original form without your deletions
>>it was also accurate.

>Do you have a problem with my deletion, Ms. Birmingham? If so, could you
>please just come right out and tell us what it is? I find these shadowy
>innuendoes rather tiresome.

Do you think I should find your blatant innuendos
of baby killer tiresome Kevie?

>>Further since I did not make
>>that statement I am not going to do anything about it.

>My only point in raising it is to show how blatantly SELECTIVE you are, Ms.
>Birmingham. You castigated me (presumably) for my characterization of your
>views as "radically extreme",

Kevie once again you have failed to see the point. Do try again.

>You implied that my characterization was "insulting and
>inflammatory".

Did I really?  Here I thought I was asking a question.

>Yet, at the same time, you conveniently look the other way
>when Susie Garvin states, as a matter of FACT (not opinion), that I, Kevin
>Darcy, have been arguing for abortion restrictions, where in actual point of
>fact, I have NOT argued for any such abortion restrictions,

Kebbie dear, as Ms. Garvin pointed out you had "been
consistently criticized" for arguing the need for
restrictions with several people, in particular Ms. Cook,
and on more than one occasion you responded to me, using
caps no less, about the evils of infanticide to which I
pointed out at the time that your argument had the ring of a
prolifer.  What was that you were saying about naivety?

>>You however are rabbiting on about the inappropriateness
>>of labelling people in this forum, particularly when
>>they have expressed a dislike for the label, yet you have
>>no qualms about participating in exactly the same
>>behaviour.  What do you intend to do about that Kebbie?

>My preference is that all pro-choicers just simply accept other pro-
>choicers, regardless of minor differences in opinion. Moderates should be
>able to work with Extremists towards a common goal.

Do you think a common goal should be to jail women?

>Or, to put it in terms you might understand: I'll stop if you guys stop.

My what a big boy you are.  Based on statements like
this, Kevie, people are going to believe that you
really are controlled by others.



Linda
--
It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  Alfred Adler