From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:55:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

Mr Nyikos wallows in speculation to no clear purpose unless it is to
somehow imply that clinics that provide abortion services have been
bombed by their own staff for insurance purposes.  This flies in
the face of the facts, which include convictions in court of some
of the bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life."

In article <nyikos.715043061@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug27.120315.9416@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> >> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
> >> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
> >> 
> >> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
> >> pro-life movement.
> 
> >That is not at all accurate.  The "doctor" in question is a sick
> >man, if the charges are true, and very harmful, but there is nothing
> >to indicate that his foul behavior is an outgrowth, by-product, or
> >in any way connected to the fact that he performed abortions.
> 
> >The clinic bombings are also the behavior of sick people, but the
> >difference is that the bombings are directly attributable to their
> >"pro-life" beliefs.
> 
> If the clinics had been torched instead of bombed, would you be so
> quick to conclude any of this?  Or would you entertain the possibility
> that 
> (1) the torching was an inside job to collect insurance and try to 
> discredit the pro-lifers by blaming them?

If you have any evidence that this has occured, please post it.
If you have anything beyond some bizarre speculation about events
that have not occurred, please post it.  Otherwise, what the hell
are you talking about?  "Pro-life" advocates have admitted to
bombing clinics that provide abortion services, and been convicted
and jailed for their activities.  Can you provide anything but
idle, and slanderous, speculation?

> (2) the torching was the work of a pyromaniac who had never said
> a pro-life sentence in his life and therefore would never be suspected
> of the act.

See above.
> 
> Here in Columbia there is a clinic, Southern Women's Services, which
> seems ripe for a torching of the (1) variety.  It looks like a seedy
> old motel that AAA would not even think of listing.  If they have
> enough insurance, they must be awfully tempted to go the (1) route
> and replace it with a clinic that looks like a health center instead
> of a roach motel.
> 

I can't think what you are trying to say here.  Has the clinic
been the target of arson?  Have they found the arsonists and
tried and convicted them?  All I can see here is a statement
that you know of a rundown clinic.  That's the only fact and,
not having seen the clinic myself, even the condition of the
clinic is simply your subjective opinion.  I wonder if you
have ever been inside it.

> BTW this clinic did over 1,500 abortions last year.

If the clinic's conditions are unsanitary, then I certainly
hope they clean it up.  I have only your word on the
conditions.

Now, getting back to the original thread, you did the exact same thing
there as you do here:  post some gratutitous remarks to smear
those who provide abortion services which are not at all relevant
to much of anything.  Here you speculate about arson without
showing in any way that aboriton providers have been involved in arson,
while ignoring the factthat "pro-lifers" have been convicted of
bombings.  You also ignore my point that the bombings are a direct
result of the "pro-life' viewpoint, while the behavior of the
infamous doctor in question is unconnected to his having performed
abortions.

If you have a point, something beyond merely throwing out wild
claims about arson that have no basis in fact, or implying that
because person X did something bad, and person X is a doctor
who provides abortion, that abortion is bad, I owuld be happy
to see it.  Got anything like that?  Or better yet, why don't
you just admit you did a bad job of a bizarre smear and leave it
be?

Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> Peter Nyikos