From: roger@access.digex.com (Roger Williams)
Subject: Re: Roger Williams confused about what constitutes a lie!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:29:09 GMT


In article <sgcshho@zola.esd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes: 

>Not surprising from Roger Williams, though.  Ignore him-- nobody
>takes him seriously.  He hasn't contributed anything worthwhile
>to the abortion debate here that I've seen.  He only shows up to
>throw rocks at prominent pro-choicers.  Russell Lawrence &
>Adrienne were favorite targets of his, I recall.

It's true that I haven't posted lately to talk.abortion as much as
formerly.  Some of us have a life outside of Usenet, you know.

As for not having "contributed anything worthwhile to the abortion
debate":  I had an exchange with Lou Marco (aka wharf rat) some
time ago.  Wharfie doubted that live births had resulted from saline
abortions and offered $50 to the pro-life charity of choice of anyone
who could show otherwise.  I managed to find references to at least
three such cases in medical literature and, to his credit, wharfie made
good on his word and donated $50 to Birthright. (He also added
quickly that he donated $100 to Planned Parenthood as well).

In an exchange with Russell Lawrence, to which you may refer,  Mr.
Lawrence posted a claim that some 40,000 deaths resulted annually
from illegal abortion in Mexico.  I responded by challenging this figure
and after some back and forth lasting for about a month, Mr. Lawrence
indicated that sufficient doubt had been cast on the statistic and that
he would no longer use it until it was further verified.

Finally, a pro-choice poster (I believe it was Dean Kaflowitz) and
David Rasmussen were having a dispute about some aspect of
"wrongful life" lawsuits.  I stepped in to say that I thought that
Rasmussen was correct and that I would spend some time
researching the question and post my findings.  I spent the
time and discovered that it was Kaflowitz rather than Rasmussen who
was correct in this particular matter.  I posted my findings along with
a fairly extensive list of legal citations.  In response Kaflowitz (if
memory serves) posted a gracious article complimenting me on
the extensiveness of my research and concluding that I was "a
scholar and a gentleman".  (Although I suspect that now he wishes
he could have the words back).

Have you been similarly complimented by a pro-lifer, CJ?  If not,
then let me be the first:  You are a very able and articulate
advocate of the pro-choice position and a worthy adversary.
Your point about my more recent articles has some merit and I
will strive to do better.

Roger Williams
roger@access.digex.com
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc