From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:23:16 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

-> Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over
-> whether or not I'm a pro-choicer....

that may be your interpretation, ms. bartley, but it's
not so. now let's see what i might have said to cause
you to make that blatent assertion and offer no
evidence whatsoever to support it.

-> In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com>
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:
-> 
-> >-> But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not
-> >-> you take away yours -- please!  I'm embarrassed
-> >-> that he's on my side.
-> 
-> >i don't believe he is on your side, ms. bartley.
-> 
-> I'd love to disown him, Keegan.  You too, frankly.

you don't own either of us, ms. bartley. nor are either
of us related to you in any way that i can observe.
what exactly is it that you'd love to disown

-> Unfortunately, I disagree with you and him over less
-> than 100 out of 1,600,000 cases a year.  I think
-> that constitutes "on my side."

you didagree with each of us on the items i've listed
below; items that represent the foundation of the
disagreements between the people who support choice and
those who would restrict it.

-> >i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to
-> >restrict abortion.  you support such legislation.
-> 
-> Why don't you post the rest of the facts, Keegan?
-> 
-> I support legislation to restrict third-trimester
-> abortions to cases where the mother's life or health
-> is in danger and very major fetal deformities.

yes. that is what i said. you support legislation to
restrict abortion. i don't see that my stating that
fact, which we each agree is an accurate statement of
your position, might cause a flamewar unless you're
somehow discomforted by your own position.

-> >i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
-> >would punish women who have abortions. you have.
-> 
-> I would enforce said laws with penalties to parties
-> that broke them.

again, you agree with my representation of your
position. i said you'd punish women who have abortions.
you agreed. i don't see that my stating that fact,
which we each agree is an accurate statement of your
position, might cause a flamewar unless you're somehow
discomforted by your own position.

-> >i don't believe that mr. kaufman has ever suggested
-> >that there should be fewer abortion rights for
-> >stupid woman than for other women. you have.
-> 
-> I don't recall saying this.
-> 
-> I'd ask you to post the quote, which I'm sure you've
-> saved.

i'd be happy to collect it and repost it if you'd like.
but ...

-> However....  Since I'm sure you're going to continue
-> posting articles like this, and I can't resist
-> defending myself if I see them, and I have *NO*
-> intention of being caught in a permanent flamewar
-> with you, I'm creating a KILLfile just for you -- so
-> I won't see it, anyway.

if you'd like me to post the articles, ms. bartley,
feel free to ask.

-> So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't
-> respond, it's not because he's right and I don't
-> have a defense; it's because I didn't see the attack
-> in the first place.

if anyone sees ms. bartley's agreement with my
representation of her position as an attack, feel free
to do so.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion