From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kebbin Darcy:  Net.Engineer, Net.Lawyer, Net.Idiot, Net.Asshole...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:53:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.154312.29363@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>>>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>>>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>>>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>>>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>>>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>>>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>>>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>>>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>>>in case".
>>>
>>>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>>>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>>>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>>>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.
>>
>>You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
>
>Oh, good imagary there, Mr. Net.Director.
>
>>Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
>>of our government already?
>
>Define "retroactive social planning", please, Mr. Net.Dictionary.

I just made it up, you idiot; hence the scare quotes. I doubt it exists in
_any_ dictionary. Any fool could figure out the meaning of the term from its
constituent parts, however. Well, not ANY fool, I guess -- there's at least 
one too dim to even manage that much.

If you're hell-bent on playing dictionary games, though, you might consider
looking up "imagary" [sic], and telling us what you find.

>>Look, the situation is quite simple:
>
>Maybe it is for you Mr. Net.Simpleton.
>
>>
>>	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>>	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
>>	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>>	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>>	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
>>	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
>>	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.
>
>The ease with which you are willing to trade away the rights of women really
>scares me, Kevin.  

I'm not proposing to trade away anything, Keith. I'm only stating what kind
of "deal" would be acceptable to me personally. Am I not allowed to express
a personal opinion?

>>	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
>>	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
>>	legislation.
>
>Please provide some proof that late-term abortions are being performed for
>"trivial" reasons, Kebbin.  You're starting to sound like Eric Gorr with your
>"if"'s.

"If" denotes a conditional, Keith. In this case, it introduces a hypothetical. 
Are you really so moronic that you think hypotheticals need be "proven"?

>>>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>>>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>>>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>>>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>>>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  
>>
>>If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
>>then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.
>
>Now you're talking about trading away the rights mothers to have custody
>of their children.  Wonderful.

And your alternative is to give custody of children to "horrible, 
irresponsible" mothers? And you criticize Forgach for her alleged "lack of 
compassion"?!?!?!

What a fucking hypocrite.

>>>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>>>don't fix it.
>>
>>I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:
>>
>>	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
>>	fires" afterwards
>
>You have engineering credentials also?  

When and where did I ever state that I had engineering credentials?

>>which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.
>
>Restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to restrict late-term abortions.

They purport to address the problem of unjustified late-term abortions, which,
if Cathi's claim that this is not yet a problem is to be believed, can only be 
regarded as a purely preventitive measure.

								- Kevin