From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:09:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.194705.9100@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> You claimed that Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her personal
>> religious views the law of the land.  Whether the FOCA is based
>> upon on religious beliefs is not relevant to that claim. 

> Your remarks imply that the FOCA tails entirely with Ms Feldt's
> religious views and is entirely based on religious principles.

This statement is not correct.  As I said before, whether the 
Freedom of Choice Act is based upon religious beliefs is irrelevant 
to your claim that Gloria Feldt is not attempting to make her 
personal religious views the law of the land.  Ms. Feldt's views 
on abortion are based (in part) on a religious perspective, 
and if she does support the FOCA, then it would appear that 
she would be making her religious views the law of the land. 

> If it is not a religously-based piece of legislation, then whether
> or not it tails with Ms Feldt's religious perspective is
> irrelevant.  

No, whether or not the FOCA is based upon religious beliefs
is irrelevant to your claim. 

> Furthermore, you only assume she supports the FOCA
> without knowing the answer.  Perhaps a reasonable assumption,
> perhaps she has her own quarrels with it.  

I said that it seemed likely that Ms. Feldt would support the
FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers, but I was hesitant to
assume that she did support the FOCA.  

> The fact is that
> you have no evidence whatsoever that she is trying to make her
> personal religious views the law of the land, and are simply
> indulging in Nyikos-style speculation.  

The fact is that you have no evidence that she is not trying
to make her religious views the law of the land, and are simply
indulging in Margolis-style speculation.  

> Certainly the quotes
> provided do not indicate that she is seeking to have legislation
> enacted that is based solely on her religious perspective.  In
> fact, once you had posted the full quotation, we find that she
> brings more than just her religion to the view she espouses.

Whether Ms. Feldt is seeking to have legislation enacted based
solely on her religious perspective is not the issue.  She has
indicated that her beliefs about abortion are driven in part
by a religious perspective, and that if she does support the
FOCA, then she would be attempting to make her religious views
the law of the land. 

>> I said that I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious 
>> beliefs into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or 
>> not she supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  I think it would be
>> extremely illogical for a pro-choicer such as Ms. Feldt to oppose 
>> the passage of the FOCA, but I'm hesitant to assume that she does
>> support the FOCA.

> Again, her support for the FOCA is irrelevant.  

No, her support for the FOCA based upon religious views would
imply that your claim is incorrect.

> I am glad you
> admit that you don't know.  I take it then that you are disagreeing
> with Chahallney's reading of Ms Feldt's remarks.  Good.  That's
> a healthy admission.

I entered this thread for one reason: to address your claim
that Ms. Feldt was not seeking to make her personal religious
views the law of the land.  I am pleased that you now furiously
backpedalling from that claim by bringing up irrelevant issues.

>> I seriously doubt that Gloria Feldt became a Planned Parenthood 
>> executive solely on the basis of her religious views towards 
>> abortion.  But that's not even relevant to your original claim.
>> Let's not stray off the topic, shall we?  

> Oh, I'll stray whither I please, thank you very much.  

Fine, but don't expect me to follow your meanderings.  


[.. rest of meanderings deleted ..]
>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion