NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48832

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 5.1 KB | 130 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!keegan
From: [e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Message-ID: <d#[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:08:30 GMT
Lines: 118

[e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Linda Birmingham <[e-mail]> writes:
->>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.

you're lying again kevin. ms birmingham has repeatedly
pointed out to you that her position is shared by the
majority canadians. she has even offered statistics to
document this fact. despite that, you have repeatedly
labeled her position as radically extreme. in doing so,
you have labeled the position of the majority of
canadians as radically extreme.

[...]

->>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.

you're lying again kevin. proof of your argument for
restrictions is appended to this post,

->>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.

scared, eh?

don't you get at all embarassed when you keep getting
caught lying?

=========proof of kevin's argument for abortion
restrictions================


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <l![e-mail]> <#[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

    *IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
    good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive
    legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
    exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
    etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
    be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
    late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

    *IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
    for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
    legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible",
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

    Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
    fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

                                - Kevin