home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
- From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
- Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.220403.23297@rotag.mi.org>
- Organization: Who, me???
- References: <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <1992Dec29.123243.749@hemlock.cray.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:04:03 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Dec29.123243.749@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
- >In article <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
- >>
- >>
- >>You were doing great Kevin, until you bit the bait.
- >[...]
- >>In other words Kevin, you've been had.
- >>
- >Isn't it funny how this pro-forcer, at first glance,
- >thought Kevin was one of his own?
-
- If certain pro-choicers were a little more rational in their arguments, I
- wouldn't feel so obligated to argue AGAINST their speciousness, Muriel, and
- run the (fairly-small) risk of getting mistaken for a pro-lifer. This one
- wasn't a big deal anyway -- Mr. Lebow posted another article dated less than
- half an hour later, which acknowledged that I was pro-choice, so what did I
- really lose?
-
- As a curiosity question, though, with whom does the blame for such misidentifi-
- cations ultimately lay? With a) the pro-choicer who cares enough about the
- cause to put specious pro-choice arguments out of their misery, or b) the
- malodorous throng of pro-choicers who will irrationally grab at _any_ argument
- which sounds superficially plausible for use as "ammo" to hurl against their
- favorite pro-life target(s)?
-
- - Kevin
-