NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48805

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 7.4 KB | 174 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:44:46 GMT
Lines: 163

In article <[e-mail]> Linda Birmingham <[e-mail]> writes:
>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.

I have never labelled the majority of Canadians "radically extreme", Ms.
Birmingham. Please stop this misrepresentation. What I have pointed out
is that the saccharine platitude "abortion is a decision to be made between
a woman and her doctor" is vague almost to the point of meaninglessness,
and accommodates a wide range of pro-choice viewpoints, some of which are
Extremist, and some of which are Moderate. Furthermore, I place your position
in the Extremist sub-category of Canadian pro-choice.

>>>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.

That was not a direct quote, Ms. Birmingham. But you have implied such a thing
by insisting that, at any point in her pregnancy, as long as a woman has a
doctor ready and willing to perform an abortion on her (which, by the way, is
primarily a function of the $$$ she is willing to put up, thereby giving more
"rights" to the rich than to the poor), that she should be able to obtain one,
regardless of her reason(s). Is that not correct?

And if you wish to quibble over the wording of the question, please reconsider
just expediting this issue by answering the ultimate question:

    In your opinion, does a woman have an unconditional, absolute legal
    right to abort at any time in her pregnancy, for any reason?

In fact, I would encourage all pro-choicers to answer this question.

My answer is "no", by the way. Even if such a right did happen to exist, I
would not consider the right to be unconditional and absolute. I'm comfortable
with, for example, a clear, democratic majority of voters passing -certain-
post-viability restrictions.

>>>>>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 carefully contemplate where this line of questioning is
leading. Either

    A) Such posts do in fact exist, made prior to my retraction,

        or

    B) No such posts exist.

So, by harping on the subject, you are either criticizing me for something
I didn't do in the first place, or for something which I did, but subsequently
retracted. In either case, this behavior is symptomatic of a marked lack of
character and integrity.

Do you wish to continue it?

>>>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?

Please define "blatant innuendo". Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

And, please cite at least one instance of "baby killer" <whatever>.

Oh, and you forgot to answer the question, by the way.

>>...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,

Red herring. The part of her sentence that you quote was true, but the other
part -- the "[Darcy has been ...] arguing for restrictions" part -- was a
blatant falsehood. Do you condone prevarication, Ms. Birmingham? Do you
conveniently "look the other way" when one of your net.friends lies? Do you
give Susie Garvin free license to slander people you don't happen to like?

>>>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?

I will not even dignify such a ridiculous, loaded question with a
substantive answer.

>>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.

Controlled, no. Influenced and affected, of course! That's what human
interaction is all about. Were you "controlled" to post a response to
my article, Ms. Birmingham?

                                - Kevin