From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual thread: live by the sword...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:04:23 GMT

In article <92311.173924ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article  <1992Nov3.080633.4379@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92305.094124ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct26.154453.277@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>>>>In article <1992Oct23.181741.19224@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
>>>
>>>>>Is it not insulting and inflammatory to someone wishing to call themselves
>>>>>"pro-choice" to be "informed" by a net.label.cop that they can no longer use
>>>>>the label? Can such insulting, inflammatory statements not be validly
>>>>>characterized as "attacks"?
>>>
>>>>I would tend to think so.
>>>
>>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?
>>
>>Stop euphemizing. You support abortion rights up to the moment of pregnancy,
>>do you not? You support abortion FOR ANY REASON, do you not? Therefore, you
>>would, in theory, support the "right" of a woman to maliciously have her
>>almost-newborn butchered moments before birth, would you not? That, my dear,
>>_is_ Extremist, no matter how much you try and sugar-coat it with vague,
>>indefinite terms.
>
>I support what is the situation in my country - no
>abortion legislation.  Abortion is considered a medical
>procedure and is regulated under the Health Act.

Quite frankly, I don't think that approach would work in this country,
Ms. Birmingham, and I think it reveals quite a bit of naivete on your
part to keep bringing it up as if it were a potential solution for us.
Treating abortion "as a medical procedure" would simply cause our beloved
(NOT!) anti-choice whackos to take their battle to the state licensing
boards. Instead of a national struggle, we would have 50 state struggles
embroidered with white coats and stethoscopes. What would that gain us?

>Please post where I have ever stated that I support
>"a woman to maliciously have her almost-newborn
>butchered moments before birth"?

It was the "for any reason" verbiage which lead me to that interpretation.

>>>Is it insulting and inflammatory to repeatedly declare
>>>that someone has done something, after the person has
>>>said they did not, and not offer a shred of evidence
>>>to support your accusation?
>>
>>You mean like
>>
>>       "Darcy has been [...] arguing for abortion restrictions"
>>
>>??? Something like THAT, you mean? Yes, I found that unsubstantiated statement
>>_very_ insulting and inflammatory. What do you intend to do about it?
>
>Considering you posted a global retraction  of your
>arguments for abortions restrictions recently I
>would hardly say that statement was unsubstantiated

Huh? My retraction was not "substantiation" of that claim one way or another, 
Ms. Birmingham. Please re-read it. And, even if it were, do you lack moral 
integrity to such a degree that you would attack someone for a statement 
they'd retracted????

>and in its original form without your deletions
>it was also accurate.  

Do you have a problem with my deletion, Ms. Birmingham? If so, could you
please just come right out and tell us what it is? I find these shadowy 
innuendoes rather tiresome.

>Further since I did not make
>that statement I am not going to do anything about it.

My only point in raising it is to show how blatantly SELECTIVE you are, Ms. 
Birmingham. You castigated me (presumably) for my characterization of your 
views as "radically extreme", which is a matter of PERSONAL OPINION, detailed 
in numerous posts discussing various specific parts of your position(s) on 
the abortion issue. You implied that my characterization was "insulting and 
inflammatory". Yet, at the same time, you conveniently look the other way 
when Susie Garvin states, as a matter of FACT (not opinion), that I, Kevin 
Darcy, have been arguing for abortion restrictions, where in actual point of 
fact, I have NOT argued for any such abortion restrictions, Susie Garvin has 
not _cited_ any post where I argued for any abortion restriction, and she has 
not even _enumerated_ *ANY* of the abortion restrictions I have allegedly 
supported. Does this total and complete lack of substantiation, on a matter 
of FACT, not make her statement a ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more "insulting and 
inflammatory" than my heavily-supported statement of OPINION, Ms. Birmingham? 
If not, why not?

>You however are rabbiting on about the inappropriateness
>of labelling people in this forum, particularly when
>they have expressed a dislike for the label, yet you have
>no qualms about participating in exactly the same
>behaviour.  What do you intend to do about that Kebbie?

My preference is that all pro-choicers just simply accept other pro-
choicers, regardless of minor differences in opinion. Moderates should be
able to work with Extremists towards a common goal. However, as long as you
and your hero Keegan (and a handful of other self-styled "pro-choice purists")
continue to foment divisiveness and an exclusionary atmosphere by insulting 
the views of, and declaring "not pro-choice" people who, like Ms. Bartley, 
support third-trimester restrictions, and people like me, who are _neutral_ on 
third-trimester restrictions, and *ESPECIALLY* when you are grossly selective, 
not treating Cochran (pro-restriction) in nearly the same manner as, say, you 
treated Siren (neutral), then, yes, I will return the favor by spotlighting 
your selective Extremist intolerance.

Or, to put it in terms you might understand: I'll stop if you guys stop.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion