From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:31:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.131050.28952@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
(dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <C0I741.5It@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>> In article <1993Jan7.133403.23651@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
>> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >In article <C0En7z.115@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>> ....
>> >"Headpieces stuffed with clay"
>> >
>> ...
>> 
>> Dean - 
>> 
>> 	This tit for tat is not very enlightening for either of us.  Let me
summarize
>> my position, how I see your objection to my position, and "where I'm coming
>> from"
>
>You deleted everything from my posting except a line I inserted after
>my name, a quote from T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men," which I added
>as an echo of the word "strawman."  I find that especially
>unenlightening.

(1) First lets not be sloppy with our language.  I did not delete anything from
your posting, and you very well know it. I chose not to repeat your last post
for the reason I gave in my first sentence above.  I wonder if you speak as
loudly as you write.

>>Regardless of what you have inferred from my initial objections to Heather's
>> question, it was rhetoric and not rights that I was adressing. I've noticed
the
>> word, "lier" is used quite frequently on t.a. (though not from you).  If you
>> feel I am being deceitful, say so and forget it.  You are certainly entitled
to
>> your opinion.  
 
>
>No, I feel you're just flat out wrong, and that you keep avoiding
>the actual discussion.

(2) Oh, I see, I'm wrong about what my intentions are, but I'm not being
deceitful.  That, Sir, is doubletalk.

>  But your next remarks demonstrate how far
>from the actual discussion you are.  In fact, your next remarks
>make it clear that I have been wasting my time since you don't
>seem to understand what was being discussed at all.
>
>> I have been sensitized to the rhetoric on BOTH sides of the debate and react
>> when I feel language is used (consciously or not) in an ambiguous way. I
will
>> be glad to be "educated" by you or anyone else on the ramifications of
rights
>> of the unborn vs mother, but it just wasn't my intent.
>> 
>> You are apparently very well versed on the question of rights, it looms
large
>> in your mind, so large in fact that you feel I must be "unresponsive" or
>> deliberately avoiding the issue if I don't breakdown and admit that indeed
>> rights are the central issue and my concerns are meaningless.
>
>Heather asked if anyone could name rights that could be granted to
>a fetus that would not remove rights from a mother.  You refuse to
>address the issue of rights and instead make up a lot of supposed
>assumed conclusions on the part of Heather's question.  If you
>can find a way to make a question like "what rights can be granted
>X that would not remove rights from Y" into a question that does
>not revolve around the issue of rights, well, you haven't, and despite
>much effort, managed it yet.  If Heather's question wasn't about
>fetal rights versus women's rights, why did she use the word "rights"
>as she did?  And why did you include a discussion of rights in your
>first response to her?  In fact, you addressed that issue as one
>of your "pre-supposed conclusions."

(3) Despite what the Supreme Court may have said in the text of their decision,
the EFFECT of Roe v Wade combined with Doe V Bolton is to allow the killing of
the unborn for any reason and at any time.  That is, the purposely vague
condition, "health of the mother" has nullified any pretense toward recognizing
meaningful rights for the unborn.  Thus, the current state of affairs is that
the mother has TOTAL authority over the existance of the unborn.  To recognize
ANY rights for the unborn, BY DEFINITION, makes that authority no longer TOTAL.
 Get it?

>
>> I have failed to convince you of the inappropriateness of Heather's
question;
>> but the vigorous way in which you try to discredit everything I say
surprises
>> me.  For instance, you have repeatedly claimed I avoid answering THE
question,
>> as if that were some sign of uncertainty on my part.  Again, call me a liar
if
>> you must, but that assertion is false.
>
>I have remained impersonal in this discussion.  Your tone suggests
>you took all this personally.  That is yet another error on your
>part.  If most everything you say is wrong and I point that out,
>then that is all I have done.
 
See my second remark above.

> I am extremely unconcerned with your emotional well-being, Mr Lebow.

Mean spirited and gratuitous.  

>
>I have no idea what you mean by dragging the word "liar" into this.
>I took great pains to demonstrate both how your postings were
>wrong and how you were avoiding addressing the question Heather
>asked.  I am not up to explaining the difference between a lie
>and an erroneous statement.  That is simply not part of the
>discussion.

See my second remark above.

>
>And you most definitely avoided Heather's question.  You came
>up with assumed conclusions for her question which weren't even
>there, and specifically stated that you couldn't answer her question
>because of conclusions that the question assumed.  And again, the
>question did no such thing, which I went to some lengths to show.
>
See my second remark above.

>> As far as me being nasty (previous post of yours), I can tell you that
despite
>> my sarcasm, I have never felt the urge to hurl imvectives at you or anyone. 
If
>> I have, I apologize for sloppy language.  As for Muriel being "bitter", why
>> would anyone call a perfect stranger a woman hating "twit" unless they were
>> predisposed  by prior unpleasant interactions with others?  To me, this
defines
>> "bitterness".
>
>It is a shame that you cannot recognize the misogyny that others
>saw in your posting, and which prompted Muriel's calling you a
>"misogynistic twit."  She reposted the article that prompted her
>response.  She did not seem bitter.  She made sense.

So sorry Dean.  For one who has T.S. Eliot at the tip of his tongue, I find
your lack of precision baffling.  Muriel gave a bating, leading and I hope,
rhetorical question,"Would you like to go back to to the days of illegal,
unsterile or self-induced abortion?"  How should one respond Dean, yes or no?
My response,

 "Guess what, Muriel?  There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than
now- try a diffent line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, 'back alley, coat
hanger' image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keep those
undecided folks shaking in their shoes"

So what exactly, what precisely did I say that implies I hate women?  Please,
tell me.  


>
>Furthermore, recognizing misogyny in another by no means
>defines bitterness.  I can recognize anti-Semitism in others
>based on previous experiences, and wouldn't hesitate to
>call an anti-Semite an anti-Semitic twit.  But that's not
>bitterness.  That's just realism.  

Oh really?  Your emotional detachment is admirable.  I can see the article you
might write for a prominent sociological jounal, "The Predominance of
Anti-Semitic Twits Among Middle-Class Males"

>It is no more bitterness
>than calling a wonderful human being a wonderful human
>being when you come across a wonderful human being.
>


>As I said before, Muriel strikes me as piquant and zesty, not bitter.
>Don't know about sweet.  If she offers to run out at 11 PM to
>get me a pack of Funnybones I'll add "sweet" to the list.  There
>is only so much one can tell from electronic communications.

From this pillowtalk I think I understand the defensiveness now.

>
>> I feel deep sadness by some of the nastiness I've seen here. 
>
>I don't believe you.  I really don't. 

Surprise, surprise!

> This last line of yours
>really has the flavor of pure rhetoric.  "Deep sadness?"  I
>seriously doubt that.  If it were true, I would say you have some
>emotional problems and that participating in the net is unhealthy
>for you.  On the other hand, you might say that I am once again
>trying to show how everything you say is wrong.  It is not,
>however, personal.  I just don't believe that "deep sadness"
>business.

Right. What do I have to be sad about? They are just clumps of cells after all.

>
>> Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.  I have no use for any "pro-lifers"
who
>> might come to my defense spewing some of the stuff I've heard from the
>> pro-abort side, and I would make that clear to them.  Thankfully this has
not
>> occurred.
>
>"Scares the hell out of" you?  Why are you reading the net if it
>causes you deep sadness and great fear? 

Irrelevant.  My reading of the net has nothing to do with what is on it.

> You have been very admanant
>about the rhetoric involved in these discussions, yet yours has
>consisted of a lot of sarcasm, avoidance of issues, and now
>some rather strange hyperbole...

Hyperbole?  How so? I think your self-described thick-skinned nature can take a
little sarcasm.

Again, you accuse me of lying (in a sterile way) about not only my thoughts but
emotions.  Sorry you have the need to do so.  

>
>> I would look forward to a discussion of rights, but the rhetoric I hear will
>> always be of major concern to me.
>
>If you were interested in a discussion of rights then when someone
>presented a question concerning rights you would have addressed that
>issue.  Instead you gave us a discussion of rhetoric, and even when
>you addressed the matter of rights you addressed it in terms of
>rhetoric.  This does not seem to me the work of someone interested
>in a discussion of rights.

On your terms, of course.

>  For numerous postings between us the
>issue was there for you to address.
  
Hardly.  You've devoted most of your efforts trying to discredit my assertion. 
Part of that tactic involved raising the strawman issue of me not answering a
question.

>Now, in this last paragraph,
>you provide us with a statement of your interest in a discussion
>of rights.  And it is only so much rhetoric.

Sounds nice, but totally unsupportable. You seem to have trouble controlling
your ipse dixits too.I suppose a discussion of rights is as important to me as
a discussion of abortion debate rhetoric is to you.

- Paul




Newsgroups: talk.abortion