NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58520

Text File | 1993-01-29 | 4.1 KB | 94 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!bard
From: [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Yet Another PinHead Weighs In
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:42:22 GMT
Lines: 81

[e-mail] writes:
# [e-mail] (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# >Actually, Mr. Holtsinger, if you wanted to be honest, you'd write that
# >a majority of Americans of *both* genders don't support unrestricted
# >abortion on demand without apology.
# >
# >Furthermore, Mr. Holtsinger, if I were you, I would dismiss charges
# >that I employ `cheap emotionalism' as trivial and concentrate on the
# >much more damaging charges of `egregious lying and distortion.'
# >
# >#                                  Are the women who oppose abortion
# ># "misogynists", Ms. Regard?
# >
# >Are the *men* and women who oppose abortion `misogynists?' -- would be
# >the appropriate question.
#
# What's the difference?  I'd like to see an answer to either.
# So would my women pro-life friends.

You failed to note that the purpose of my post was to complain about
Mr. Holtsinger's whinging on the subject of `cheap emotionalism,'
while at the same time, employing yet more `cheap emotionalism.'

Specifically, while complaining that someone else was employing `cheap
emotionalism' and subsequently complaining about his `cheap
emotionalism,' he further employed `cheap emotionalism' himself when
he asked leading questions about popular support for abortion on
demand, but restricting the discussion to such support among *women*,
for seemingly no reason other than to inflame.

The issue at hand is not whether people who oppose abortion are
misogynists, but rather whether Mr. Holtsinger was being provocative
by overlooking male opposition to legal abortion.  For that matter --
have you no male pro-life friends interested in the issue you were
trying to raise?

-----

# >
# >#                             Do they think of themselves as
# ># "breeding animals"?  Surely you must have a better opinion of
# ># American women than that.
# >
# >Some of us have grown to harbor a certain contempt for the majority
# >opinion, Mr. Holtsinger -- there is no shame in that.  A majority of
# >Americans think miscegenation is immoral, and a truly shocking (but
# >not quite a majority) proportion of them think it should be illegal.
# >I have contempt for that majority opinion as well.
# >
# >Are the majority of American women who oppose miscegenation `racist?'
#
# How does this relate to the question????

Egads, I have to explain everything.

Mr. Holtsinger was flirting with the idea of advancing his arguments
by supporting them with the fact that public opinion in the U.S. tends
to weigh against his opponent (I'd point out that public opinion tends
to weigh against him about equally, but I would be speculating on what
Mr. Holtsinger's opinions regarding the abortion issue actually are,
since he is so loathe to discuss them openly).

I was demonstrating the fallacy he was in danger of committing, by
pointing out that The People are not necessarily always right (they may
be the sovereign, but they make mistakes in congress just as surely as
they do individually), that public opinion isn't a good indicator of
righteousness.

To explain the question about miscegenation, the parallel should be
obvious, i.e. huge numbers of people are opposed to miscegenation, yet
few will admit that that's racism -- is parallel to -- huge numbers of
people are opposed to legal abortion, yet few will admit that that's
misogyny.


--
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| [e-mail] |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.