NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53725

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 5.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!ra!nrl.navy.mil!psl
From: [e-mail] (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Shot Across Lebow (WAS Re: SJM slur alert)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:20:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NRL
Lines: 165

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] ( Steve Novak) writes:
> Joining the Sleazebag Parade, Lebow proves he can twist and quote out of
> context with the best of Liar Doug or the clueless Math Whiz.
>
> > = (Paul Lebow) writes:
> >> = S Mezias writes:
>
> >Slur alert!  Examples of pro-abort rhetoric neatly woven in as mere
> >incidental remarks:
>
> Extremist forced-birther attack!   Whooooooaaaa Nellie!!
>
> >> If we just keep government out of women's uteri....
>
> >Here SJM raises the unfounded Orwellian fear of invasive government
> >control.
>
> Unfounded?  Exactly how do you term a woman forced to give birth by her
> government?  Oops!  Paul looks stupid already!  That wasn't hard.

I was born that way.  But forcing a woman not to kill her child is the
goal.  If you don't like mother nature's consequence, birth,  watch birds.

> >Neat trick - Totally distracts one from the truth - it is the
> >child in the uterus not the mean old government.
>
> Except that it's a *fetus*, you're right.

I repeat my reference to the common usage of "child" in MW 9th dictionary.

> With abortion legal, there is
> no "mean old government".  If abortion were ever made illegal (fat
> chance), then indeed the government is interfering with the woman's
> reproductive decisions.
>
> Too bad you're stuck with that pathetic pretense of not understanding
> simple English.  Let's you pretend you're being wickedly funny though,
> huh Paul?

Glad you find this funny.

>
> >> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
> >> permission.
>
> >Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates
> >how we use our bodies.
>
> That's not what he said, asshole.  Quit lying.

I don't need to.  Although your image of the unborn being able to ask
permission is.... cute.

>
> The government never enslaves women and forces them to give birth.
> You're certainly sounding thick here, Lebow.
>
> >> I really like your analogies for the fetus FANATICS.  They do often
> >> seem like CRAZED snipers to me, ...
>
> >(caps are mine - PL)
>
> Why are you changing his statement?

For emphasis

>
> >Here SJM uses the ubiquitous "bogey man" innuendo.  To be pro-life one
> >must obviously be a crazed fanatic.
>
> It seems to be a general requirement, yes.  Some of the best laughs I've
> had is "escorting" at an abortion clinic, and watching these
> bible-screeching, hating lunatics with bad teeth spitting tobacco...
>
> ...and the men were even worse! <dit dit, *CRASH*>
>

I know - you seem to have a thing for docile Christains (see below)


> >I hope you don't have any pro-life friends or relatives lurking in you
> >closet!
>
> Several relatives, only a few friends.  But they're the true
> compassionate christian types, so we get to discuss abortion peacefully
> and get along fine.
>
> Of course here on t.a., we get all the frustrated no-lives and weenie
> college students who get real brave behind their terminals.  They spout
> hatred all day, along with their lack of compassion for women.

Do you have an Ethernet port sticking out the back of your neck?
If you're referring to me - show some examples of hate and lack of
compassion I've demonstrated.
>
> It's the Phyllis Schlafly Brigade - like you, Paul - who augment their
> anti-abortionism with lies and narrow-mindedness, that I look out for.

You have to lump anti-abortion people all together in you fear mongering
image.  Sadly, that tactic does work.
>
> >>...the fact is that they are quite intentionally TAKING AIM AT WOMEN.
> >>...
> >> SJM
>
> Hey Paul, how about not pulling a Holtsinger, and letting readers see
> the statement IN CONTEXT?  Another way to spot a dishonest pro-lifer.
> You've done it *twice* now.

I think it is totally self contained.  If not show me how not.

>
> >Totally unsupported - but sounds great to the unsuspecting politically
> >correct.
>
> Gads.  Doing the Limbaugh Rock again, Paul?

I don't listen to him, do you?

>
> Anyone that states matter-of-factly that women should be forced to give
> birth has a problem with women, or they mistakenly worship a fetus as
> more important then the woman carrying it.  Hardly unsupported.

Gee, I guess you must have accidentally deleted my statement to that
effect.  Surely you wouldn't fabricate.

>
> >I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic
> >of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy.
>
> Hmm.  Maybe you could clarify whatever the hell this has to do with
> Mezias' statement.  Sounds like you're just trying to get your whining
> in for the day.

My tone of voice doesn't affect the veracity of my statement.

>
> >Of course, men are just disinterested bystanders who have no stake
> >whatsoever in keeping abortion legal.
>
> EARTH TO PAUL!  What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Quite a lot, I'm afraid.

>
> >And of course the concept of mothers killing their
> >offspring is a good light to hold women to.
>
> I thought we were talking about abortion.

Uh, oh - he's in his 'denial' stage.

>
> If I was an anti-abortionist, I'd be embarrassed by this Paul guy.  His
> patronizing, smirky innuendo and lies wouldn't sway the pope away from
> pro-choice.
>
>
> | Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"|

Steve, I guess I'm just a quick learner.

- Paul