From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:35:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.164252.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>
>>>Susan has proved to be one of the few people who are generally logical and
>>>well-thought out in her responses and statements.
>>
>>Are we talking about the same "Susan", Gordon?
>
>Susan Garvin.  But you knew that.
>
>>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
>>
>>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen:
>
>That's "Gordon" (speaking of knowing who we're talking about...  :-)

Argh! That's the second time I've done that. Sorry, Gordon, I don't really
MEAN to insult you like that...

>>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...

>>"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
>>                                   <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>
>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?

>That you've disclaimed all previous arguments in favor of restrictions
>doesn't alter the fact that you *were* criticized for them at the time
>you made them.

I was criticized for making them, Larry, sure, but not "while" making such
arguments.

>(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). The former 
expresses a positive opinion, i.e. that it would be better than not if the 
restriction existed, whereas the latter expresses a negative opinion (perhaps 
it could be considered a "double-negative" opinion), i.e. that there is no 
absolute moral exclusion of some (perhaps very limited) class of abortion 
restrictions. 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. I think the moral pros and cons of _some_ abortion restrictions are 
sufficiently close and/or subjective that the matter should be left up to 
concensus. Protecting unilateral fundamental rights is all very good and well, 
but after the point of viability, the question of the fetus'es value starts
to figure into some of the equations, and I think the question of fetal value
can ONLY be decided by concensus. There's nothing inherently dirty or 
dangerous about Democracy, folks; it's one of the pillars upon which our 
society is built, and STILL the Proper Tool to apply to some socio-political 
problems. 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? It is THEY, i.e. the 
Common Man and Common Woman, who have to live with the bulk of the 
consequences, after all, not the absolutist ideologues...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion