NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53905

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 4.5 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 02:27:52 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 74
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>do you "know" that
>>>Kevin Darcy been arguing for restrictions on abortion? See .sig.
>>
>>We all do, since James Keegan posts an example every time you claim the
>>following is a lie.
>
>In what way do Keegan's regurgitations prove anything one way or another?
>Last time I asked you this, you "missed" my request...

If you're talking about the same post you referred to in email, I explained
that it never made it to my system, and invited you to email me a copy if you
wanted a response; I never heard back from you.

>>>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
>>> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>>>                                   Susie Garvin
>>>                                   Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>>>                                   <[e-mail]>
>>
>>This is true; you *have* been consistently criticized for exactly that.
>
>That part of the statement is true, and, one will note, NOT supported by
>Keegan's regurgitations; in fact, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the article that Keegan
>reposts to directly prove the "has been ... criticized" assertion, since it's
>MY ARTICLE that he reposts. I wonder if he thinks I was criticizing MYSELF
>in that article, or is he just regurgitating for the sake of regurgitating?
>
>The lie, however, resides in the "arguing for restrictions on abortion"
>part. No-one has proven, objectively, that I have EVER "argued for
>restrictions on abortion" (certainly the article Keegan regurgitates doesn't
>prove that, right?), so how on earth could I have been "arguing for
>restrictions" at the same time ("while") I was being criticized for it?

Ignoring for the moment whether or not you actually *did* argue for
restrictions, you've already agreed that you were criticized for:
   labelling yourself "pro-choice" while arguing for restrictions on abortion

So Ms. Garvin's statement is true.

>>(You also *appear* to be continuing to argue for restrictions; although
>>you claim that's not what you're doing, the fact remains that your
>>arguments are indistinguishable from those of someone who is in favor
>>of restrictions.)
>
>My arguments are very distinguishable, Larry; you're just too dim and/or too
>lazy to make the distinction. Where a pro-lifer will say "abortion should be
>restricted in way X", I may say only "there is nothing inherently wrong with
>abortion being restricted in way X". Note the difference between "should"
>(= morally right) and "not inherently wrong" (= not morally wrong).

But if a "pro-lifer" says "abortion should be restricted in way X", and a
pro-choicer says "no it should not, and here's why", then both you and the
"pro-lifer" will argue against the pro-choicer in the same fashion.

>Nowhere have I expressed positive moral support for any abortion
>restriction whatsoever. I just disagree with the foolish and naive pro-choice
>absolutist assertion that all abortion restrictions are _per se_ morally
>wrong and must be vigorously opposed, regardless of the wishes of the
>populace.

And I disagree that this is, in general, "foolish and naive".

>Instead of engaging in absolutism games -- e.g. is a barely-
>measurable (and therefore maybe not even real) difference in maternal risk
>worth the almost-certain destruction of viable fetus? -- why not just let the
>people decide what THEY think the value of a fetus is?

Do we generally let the people decide whose rights will get violated?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)