NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53091

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 4.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!hsdndev!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.rice.edu!patrick
From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:46:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Distribution: na
Organization: TSAKC, Local 810
Lines: 78
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:38:48 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:

 In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
 >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
 >>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
 >>>
 >>>Kebbin is just mad because we live in the Real World (tm) and not in
 >>>some Darcian fantasy in which it is more dangerous to terminate a
 >>>pregnancy then to carry the fetus to term.
 >>
 >>Learn the difference between a hypothetical question and a fantasy, ignoramus.
 >
 >Talk about your basic irony -- you're telling someone else to learn the
 >difference?  Might I suggest you start with yourself, before you presume to
 >tell anyone else what the difference is?
 >
 >>>Considering his tendancy to
 >>>argue both sides of any given question, I'd say he is the one who
 >>>needs to be concerned with moral inconsistancy.
 >>
 >>Arguing a position and believing it aren't necessarily the same thing, schmuck.
 >
 >Sure, kebbin.  I bet Karl Marx was really an aristocrat, too.

 The inability to see the other side of an argument is a sign of superficiality.

Silly me -- I thought it was a sign of just plain stupidity.

 The uncriticized, unanalyzed viewpoint is almost certain to be a worthless
 viewpoint. As for Karl Marx, he probably COULD argue convincingly for the
 aristocratic point of view in a debate, because although he ultimately didn't
 agree with it, he understood it and appreciated it up to the point of his
 disagreement.

Why am I reminded of a former grad student at NCSU who claimed he knew
Aristotlean thought better than Aristotle?  Is there anyone else you insist
you're qualified to speak for.  (Not that Jesus guy, I hope -- Kaldis has
already claimed him. :-)

 Now, are there any more contentless harangues you'd like to make on this
 point?

How could I make one even if I wanted to, when you're doing it for me?
(and so well, too...)

 >>>I'm still waiting for your real life example to validate your question
 >>>Kebbin...
 >>
 >>Can you guarantee me that there is no possible or foreseeable combination of
 >>medical factors which could make termination of pregnancy more dangerous
 >>than carrying to term? Are you willing to put whatever medical credentials
 >>you possess on the line over this question? I _do_ have some contacts at
 >>the UofM Medical Center (largest medical complex in the world, perhaps
 >>you've heard of it?), which is a couple of miles down the road from me.
 >>I _can_ check this out, if necessary, and if you've been propagating bogus
 >>medical information on the Net... well...
 >
 > [lots of pee-pee waving about largeness of medical centers]

Translation:  you engaged your mouth before putting your brain in gear, and
you were shown to be wrong again.  Otherwise, you'd never mention it.

 Okay, Humpty, have it your way. The SECOND largest medical complex in the
 world...

It's not my fault you're ignorant of such things, despite your pretense.

 Besides, it's not just the size of your medical complex, it's how you use it :-)

Indeed -- I guess that's why we have UTMDAH down here, and not up in some
ice mine in Michigan, eh?  (I wonder why we have such folks as Michael
DeBakey and Denton Cooley around here -- I guess they just couldn't stand
the competition for your pearls of "wisdom" up there at Moo U...:-)

--PLH, not a doctor *or* a lawyer, and honest enough not to play one on the
net.  Would that kebbin could do the same...

--