From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:14:49 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-> #Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over
-> #whether or not I'm a pro-choicer....
-> 
-> I have no quarrel with you calling yourself anything
-> that you want.

my posts didn't raise that issue either. i think this
remark was just a red herring.

-> I do have a problem with you defining "sides" and
-> assuming that many people who support legal abortion
-> share your beliefs.

that's what prompted my earlier reply: her comment
about being embarassed that kaufman was on her side,
which he isn't anyway.

-> #In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com>
-> #james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> ##eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:
-> #
-> ##-# But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not
-> ##-# you take away yours -- please!  I'm embarrassed
-> ##-# that he's on my side.
-> #
-> ##i don't believe he is on your side, ms. bartley.
-> #
-> #I'd love to disown him, Keegan.  You too, frankly.
-> #Unfortunately, I disagree with you and him over
-> #less than 100 out of 1,600,000 cases a year.  I
-> #think that constitutes "on my side."
-> 
-> I sincerely doubt that either Keegan or Kauffman
-> share your "disgust" for women who have abortions
-> for reasons other than the ones on your "approved"
-> list.  I do not share that feeling.

you properly represented my feelings.

-> ##i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to
-> ##restrict abortion.  you support such legislation.
-> #
-> #Why don't you post the rest of the facts, Keegan?
-> #
-> #I support legislation to restrict third-trimester
-> #abortions to cases where the mother's life or
-> #health is in danger and very major fetal
-> #deformities.
-> 
-> That's certainly legislation to restrict abortion.  

which is what i said.

-> For many people, "pro-choice" means "I support a
-> woman's right to terminate a pregnancy."  For you,
-> it seems to mean "I support a woman's right to
-> terminate a pregnancy as long as I approve of the
-> circumstances."
-> 
-> I doubt that many people would be willing to waste
-> their time discussing this if you did not proudly
-> proclaim your stance in your .sig.  Believe me, if
-> Holtsinger or Chaney put "Pro-choice" in their
-> .sigs, they would get a similar response.

oh i wasn't making fun of her .sig. i think anyone who
has read her positions understands that her use of the
term "pro-choice" actually means something else.

-> The broad definition of "pro-choice" is most
-> commonly used to argue that >70% of Americans are
-> "pro-choice."  I wish that they would simply say
-> that most Americans support abortions in some
-> circumstances.  If "pro-choice" includes people with
-> opinions like yours, then it also includes people
-> with opinions like George Bush.

george would like that right now, i suspect.

-> ##i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that
-> ##he would punish women who have abortions. you
-> ##have.
-> #
-> #I would enforce said laws with penalties to parties
->that broke them.
-> 
-> Again, that's certainly punishing women who had
-> abortions under the laws that you desire.

which is what i said.

-> ##i don't believe that mr. kaufman has ever
-> ##suggested that there should be fewer abortion
-> ##rights for stupid woman than for other women. you
-> ##have.
-> #
-> #I don't recall saying this.
-> #
-> #I'd ask you to post the quote, which I'm sure
-> #you've saved.
-> 
-> I didn't save the quote, either, but I do recall
-> your statements about women who were too stupid to
-> have an abortion within the time frame that you
-> would dictate.  I really don't think that it's
-> stupidity that you're punishing, I think it's
-> poverty.  I fully understood from our discussion of
-> waiting periods that you have no problem with
-> punishing women for being poor.

i have that quote somewhere. i sent it to someone who
wanted to post it before ms. bartley seft for the
summer. if i can't find my copy, which i think i can, i
can always get it back from the person i mailed it to
if ms. bartley would like to see it posted again. i
read it the way you did: that ms. bartley wanted to
punish women.

-> #However....  Since I'm sure you're going to
-> #continue posting articles like this, and I can't
-> #resist defending myself if I see them, and I have
-> #*NO* intention of being caught in a permanent
-> #flamewar with you, I'm creating a KILLfile just for
-> #you -- so I won't see it, anyway.
-> #
-> #So, people, if Keegan attacks me and I don't
-> #respond, it's not because he's right and I don't
-> #have a defense; it's because I didn't see the
-> #attack in the first place.
-> 
-> Forgive me if I don't believe you.  You responded to
-> Keegan here, and you had no defense.  You agreed
-> with him.  Your multiple announcements of your new
-> killfile would be more convincing if you hadn't
-> accompanied them with an attempt to get in the last
-> word.  (And, yes, I know, you'll killfile me now,
-> too.  I'm sure that people who care will realize
-> that they're not allowed to discuss your position.
-> I just doubt that many people will care about
-> avoiding your killfile.)

that was a puzzling little move, wasn't it. on the one
hand, she agreed with everything i said about her
position and on the other hand, she implied that my
statements meant that i wanted to start a flamewar. one
wonders what she means when she accuses others of truth
by blatent assertion. i suppose, in a way, that's like her
abortion position: it's ok for her to choose, but not
ok for others.

-> You're free to believe what you like and to label
-> yourself what you like.  I wish that you were
-> willing to admit that you are misleading people with
-> your .sig, though.

i do too, although i'm not going to make fun of her for
it. i do wonder sometimes what kind of person would
call themselves pro-choice in each and every post when
that same person wants to legislate against choice.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion