NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53910

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 3.8 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 03:15:31 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Lots of deletions]
>>
>>>UNRETRACTED LIE
>>>---------------
>>>
>>>"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]>
>>
>>Kevin, this is not a lie. Whether you see yourself as arguing in favor
>>of restrictions, or against the lack of them is irrelevant. A large
>>number of people here interpret your remarks asbeing in favor of
>>restrictions,
>
[Deletions]
>
>If it's easier for you to understand, try thinking of this in terms of a
>vote. You might vote "no" on a given abortion restriction, and a pro-lifer
>might vote "yes" on the same abortion restriction. If I vote "abstain", then
>in a sense I'm voting against BOTH of you -- I'm indicating that I don't
>consider either of you to be "right" in an absolute sense, and I'm willing
>to abide by the outcome of the concensus, whatever that may be.
>
No Kevin, you're expressing a desire to weasel out of making a
commitment so that later, you can claim it wasn't *you* that wanted to
pass the legislation, no matter how many arguements you posted in
favor of it.

>>You may not agree with those who criticize you, (we hardly expect you
>>will agree with anybody) but that doesn't make this a lie.
>
>She asserted not only that I have been criticized, but that I have been
>criticized "while arguing for restrictions on abortion". That is the part I
>consider a lie.
>
Well Kevin, since you're such a fan of rule by concensus, lets examine
this...
The most common response to the statment you are claiming is a lie is
that it is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I can think of
only *one* person (that's you) that sees the matter any differently.
*Everybody* else who has posted on this subject sees your remarks as
being in favor of restrictions. Therefore, the concensus is that you
are in favor of restrictions. So just accept the label Kevin, you've
certainly earned it. Or are you going to reverse yourself and claim
that a concensus on this matter is irrelevant, and the only concensus
you are concerned about is that which you want to see restrict a
womans right to control her own body?

>                                - Kevin
>
>"before i comment further, i want to say that you calling yourself
> a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
> statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy. you,
> kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person i've seen post
> to this newsgroup."
>                <[e-mail]>
>
>"i haven't seen kebbie argue for legislation."
>                <[e-mail]>


--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.