From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:08:07 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> >In article <1992Aug16.213617.11219@midway.uchicago.edu>
-> >>In article <Bt39C7.D54.1@cs.cmu.edu> Susan Garvin writes:
-> >>>In article <1992Aug16.154953.1952@midway.uchicago.edu>
-> >>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-> >>>#In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr writes:
-> >>##eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:
-> >>>#Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar
-> >>>#over whether or not I'm a pro-choicer....
-> >
-> >This, Ms. Bartley, is inflammatory and unnecessary.  
-> 
-> Is the referent of "this" your comments, or Ms.
-> Bartley's? Your statement MAY be true...

the answer to your question was in the next sentence,
which you didn't even bother to delete. one wonders
what reason you could have had for asking, other than
the continuance of your vendetta, of course. here's the
answer to your question

-> >You have no idea what Mr. Keegan wants or does not
-> >want, indeed he has consistently denied this
-> >charge.  If, as you persistently state, you wish to
-> >avoid flamewars I suggest you refrain from
-> >attributing motivations to people.
-> 
-> Please
-> 
->      a) Brush up on your reading comprehension
->         skills generally,
-> 
-> 		and
-> 
->      b) Look up the key word "apparently" and muse
->      productively on its meaning, and its function
->      in the sentence above

goodness me! is this more of your vendetta?

-> >>Huh?  Most people around here support the right to
-> >>abortion for reasons totally unrelated to the
-> >>reasons I support the right to abortion.
-> >
-> >This is what Ms. Garvin has pointed out.  One does wonder
-> >though if, as you say, you recognize that few share your views
-> >in this newsgroup, why you feel the need to publicly disown
-> >people from your "side".
-> >
-> >>##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.
-> >>
-> >>Yes.  Note that I didn't accuse Keegan of having
-> >>his facts wrong; I just objected that he'd told
-> >>that little of it.
-> >
-> >Facts are facts.  Legislation is legislation.
-> 
-> Parts is parts. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
-> 
-> Your POINT, Linda?

what was that you wrote earlier in this post about
reading comprehension?

-> >>However, it's legislation that restricts a
-> >>sufficiently small number of abortions
-> >
-> >If it is a small number, why the need for
-> >legislation?  Canada has no abortion laws Ms.
-> >Bartley, there has been no increase in the number
-> >of late term abortions.
-> 
-> Note of course that the question of whether such
-> legislation is NEEDED is a completely different
-> question than whether support for such legislation
-> disqualifies one from being "pro-choice".

strawman. the issue of disqualification from anything
has not been raised in this thread. so of what
relevance is it here? what is your point?

-> >>That's especially true in talk.abortion, where I'm
-> >>one of few (or the only?) person that supports
-> >>some restrictions on abortion but not restrictions
-> >>that would affect very many abortions.
-> >
-> >Ms. Bartley you are certainly not the only person
-> >in this newsgroup that supports some restrictions,
-> >and I genuinely doubt you are one of a few.
-> >
-> >>>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."
-> >>
-> >>This seems to be a frequent accusation leveled at
-> >>me.  It is sufficiently inaccurate as to be wrong.
-> >>I don't support a woman's right to terminate a
-> >>pregnancy as long as "I approve of the
-> >>circumstances."  I support a woman's right to
-> >>terminate as long as the fetus is not a person, or
-> >>if she doesn't kill it in the process.
-> >
-> >The fetus is not now, nor has it ever been, defined
-> >as a person Ms. Bartley.  Until recently,
-> >personhood of the fetus was not an issue in the
-> >abortion debate.  It was prolife organizations who
-> >decided to utilize the success of the civil rights
-> >movement to create a competing rights argument.
-> >
-> >Your restrictions are indeed based on circumstances
-> >that you find acceptable and you have stated that
-> >under anything other than these circumstances the
-> >woman should have no rights.
-> >
-> >>Dammit, I recognize that it's *wrong* to deny a
-> >>woman an abortion, and it takes more than my
-> >>disapproval to be willing to do so.
-> >
-> >Ms. Bartley I recognize that it is wrong for some
-> >women to have abortions, but I certainly would not
-> >impose my morality on anyone.
-> >
-> >>I wouldn't do so at all if I didn't think that
-> >>allowing the death of the fetus was the greater of
-> >>the two evils.
-> >
-> >Personally I think the autonomy of a woman is the
-> >lesser of two evils.
-> >
-> >>>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.
-> >>
-> >>I hope they'd get a louder resopnse, given that
-> >>the legislation they support would have a much
-> >>broader impact.
-> >
-> >Legislation is legislation.  In the cases that you
-> >advocate, it is nothing more than a blunt
-> >instrument that can and will open the door for more
-> >restrictions.
-> 
-> Prove it. I don't buy "slippery slope" arguments
-> from the pro-lifers, e.g. pro-choice leads to
-> euthanasia, then to eugenics, etc., why the hell
-> should I buy it from a pro-choice extremist???

prove ms. birmingham is a pro-choice extremist. forst,
of course, you, heve to define pro-choice extremist.
based on what you've posted to this newsgroup, i'd
guess that you mean by pro-choice extremist anyone who
supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

-> >>>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.
-> >>
-> >>Here you're claiming that the word "pro-choice"
-> >>can only mean two things: either
-> >>pro-completely-unrestricted-choice or
-> >>pro-any-choice.
-> >
-> >No Ms. Garvin is simply stating that Mr. Bush has
-> >the right to claim he is prochoice.
-> 
-> Do you think she REALLY believes that, Ms.
-> Birmingham? Susie's comments struck me as more as an
-> _argumentum ad absurdum_. I could be wrong. But
-> then, it's at least as likely that you misunderstood
-> her.

no it isn't. it's much more likely that you
misunderstood as ms. birmingham and ms. garvin are in
regular communication. as a result, it is far more
likely that ms. birmingham would understand what ms.
garvin said. then again, i don't really think anyone
misunderstood. i believe it's much more likely that you
were simply pursuing your net.vendetta again.

-> >>But in a forum like talk.abortion, where the
-> >>debate is largely between those who would make
-> >>almost no abortions legal and those that want no
-> >>laws whatsoever, I think the term "pro-choice" is
-> >>fairly accurate when used to describe me.
-> >
-> >There are some people in this forum, Ms. Bartley,
-> >who happen to be actively involved in the prochoice
-> >movement.  Particularly Ms. Garvin, who at this
-> >moment is far from home protesting to protect your
-> >rights, and the rights of American women, to bodily
-> >autonomy.
-> >
-> >That this gets lost in the nonsense that occurs in
-> >t.a is irrelevant to the reality.  Abortion rights
-> >are but a subset of women's rights.
-> 
-> Crapola. Maybe _you_ see it in those terms, and yes
-> there are SOME undeniable intersections, but there
-> are also many other dimensions -- state's rights,
-> individual vs. state, medical ethics, broad socio-
-> economic implications, population control, etc..
-> Feminism has no monopoly on the abortion issue.

particularly from the perspective of a male who wants
to impose his beliefs on women, eh kebbie?
[...]

-> >Call yourself what you wish but do not insult the
-> >intelligence of those that are involved with
-> >organizations and who are working to make a
-> >difference that t.a should set a standard.
-> 
-> T.a is not, has never been, and IMO should never be,
-> a propaganda organ for militant abortion
-> organizations.

where in this, or for that matter any other, thread did
someone suggest that it should be? this isn't still
more of your net.vendetta, is it?

-> The day that happens is the day it should be
-> rmgroup'ed permanently. If you can't participate in
-> a free intellectual exchange amongst a variety of
-> viewpoints, Ms. Birmingham I suggest you and your
-> organization(s) find another conduit for your
-> propaganda, preferrably one which does not consume
-> U.S. tax dollars for its propagation.

it was more of your net.vendetta, wasn't it? don't you
get, well, embarassed about conducting yourself like
this, kebbie? common sense dictates that when someone
outwits you, which i'll admit happens all the time in
your case, you'd be far better off to ignore the post
or to just respond to the segments you can comment on
rather than making up arguments and then attacking the
arguments you made up.

-> >>>##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.
-> >>
-> >>It's another case of what he said being literally
-> >>true but sufficiently suggestive of positions I
-> >>don't hold that I find it deceitful.  In other
-> >>words, the denotations are accurate, the
-> >>connotations most certainly are not.
-> >
-> >Ms. Bartley there is not a single prochoice organization
-> >that would support punishment, particularly jail terms,
-> >for women who obtained an illegal abortion.  
-> 
-> Straw man. Ms. Bartley didn't claim they did. The
-> central question remains, however: would those
-> organizations DISQUALIFY Ms. Bartley from adopting
-> the pro-choice label, if she chose to adopt it? I
-> remain confident that they would NOT. None of the
-> alleged "proof" presented so far has shaken that
-> confidence, either.

since you raised the question, which wasn't present in
the thread until you did, why don't you call some
pro-choice organizations and ask them.

personally, i think that would be silly. the point has
long and repeatedly been made. you are the only person
continuing it. are you interested in the point, or are
you just pursuing your vendetta

-> >>>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'm willing to support things that will the poor
-> >>more than they will the rich.  Pragmatically, how
-> >>the hell can you *not* support some things that
-> >>will hurt the poor more than the rich?  I do not
-> >>consider thing "punishing" the poor and I most
-> >>certainly don't "have no problem" with it.
-> >
-> >Much of the support by prolifers for waiting
-> >periods is because it will cause women to delay
-> >getting an abortion.  For poor women this delay is
-> >exacerbated by trying to obtain funds.  If they are
-> >forced into the 2nd tri they must seek even more
-> >funds, often with the result they enter the 3rd tri
-> >and therefore can not obtain an abortion at all.
-> 
-> Did you ASK Ms. Bartley if she supported Medicaid
-> funding for elective abortions, Ms. Birmingham, or
-> did you just _assume_ that she opposed such funding,
-> and therefore might economically "force" some women
-> to carrying children to term? You may be making a
-> grave error here.

it's much more likely that you're making the error,
particularly since you raised the medicaid issue. this
appears to be another case of your raising a previously
non-existant issue and then debating it. are you that
much intimidated bu the subject you're discussing or is
this just more net.vendetta stuff?

-> >>It is not a safe assumption that just because I
-> >>support something I "have no problem" with it.  I
-> >>support many things that I consider the lesser of
-> >>two evils, but don't consider not wrong.
-> >
-> >One would think that a woman's right to bodily
-> >autonomy is the lesser of two evils.
-> 
-> I will note that there is nothing necessarily
-> incompatible between Bodily Autonomy and
-> restrictions on certain KINDS of post-viability
-> abortions.

are you arguing against a woman's right to choose,
kevin?

-> >>>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
-> >>
-> >>Oh, please.  Here you're just being silly.
-> >
-> >Frankly Ms. Bartley I found your multiple
-> >announcements silly.  Personally I find this whole
-> >killfile trend childish and reminiscent of small
-> >children who pick up their toys, stomp their feet
-> >and say "Nyah, nyah, I'm not playing any more"
-> 
-> This, from the same person whose "input" into the
-> recent "child abuse" charade was a stream of
-> contentless insults heavily laced with vulgarities?
-> You are HARDLY in a position to be lecturing your
-> betters on their "childishness", Ms. Birmingham.

this, from the same person whose "input" into the
recent "child abuse" charade, as you call it, was to
create that charade by venomously attacking susan
garvin by attacking the fact that her SO has been
sexually abused. this from the same person who blamed
everyone else for his sick actions in some 25+ posts
and who then apologized, and who then continued blaming
everyone else but himself and who continues to do so as
of a day ago? you are hardly in a position to be
lecturing your betters on anything, kebbie.

-> >>I'm very fond of what I consider the proper usage
-> >>of the English language: I've gotten into so many
-> >>debates on exactly what words meant what, I have
-> >>to grit my teeth occasionally to stop from flaming
-> >>spelling mistakes, and I just like to see things
-> >>written properly in general.
-> >
-> >I happen to find it ironic that you have "flamed"
-> >people for using the word child on more occasions
-> >than I care to remember, yet you are offended by
-> >the questioning of your usage of "prochoice" in
-> >your sig. after it has been pointed out that your
-> >position bears little resemblance to the philosophy
-> >of the prochoice movement.  But then, I happen to
-> >be rather committed to the prochoice movement as is
-> >Ms. Garvin.

[darcyspeak similar to the INDIVIDUAL kevin darcy and
the GROUP kevin darcy deleted]

-> >>But I think the term is accurate in the context of
-> >>talk.abortion in general, and in that context I
-> >>intend to continue calling myself by that term.
-> >
-> >Why?  I certainly feel no compulsion to remind
-> >everyone with each post, my position.  Ms. Garvin
-> >has no desire.  Why do you Ms. Bartley?
-> 
-> You *ASSUME* Ms. Bartley does this from
-> "compulsion", Ms. Birmingham?  Typical smear
-> tactics. A far more plausible explanation is that
-> she -likes- people to know what her views are, and
-> she -likes- being associated with the label
-> "pro-choice", in spite of members like you.

i agree that ms. bartley likes being associated with
the label pro-choice. the rest of your comments smacks
of net.vendetta to me.

-> >>Back then, I called myself "middle-of-the-road".
-> >>When I began to have doubts about whether or not I
-> >>wanted restrictions in the second trimester at
-> >>all, I called myself "middle-of-the-road lending
-> >>to pro-choice".  But now that it's a matter of the
-> >>third trimester only and 100 abortions a year, I
-> >>consider the term "pro-choice" to be accurate and
-> >>I use it accordingly.
-> >
-> >Ms. Bartley I suggest that you fail to understand
-> >the full concept of prochoice philosophy.  It has
-> >nothing to do with trimesters.  It has nothing to
-> >do with myelination, fetal rights or religious
-> >persuasion.  The core of the prochoice argument is
-> >a woman's right to bodily autonomy/security.
-> 
-> That's one interpretation. Among many.
-> 
-> >That this is being lost along the way is
-> >unfortunately a testament to the success of the
-> >prolife movements fetal right's argument.  A fact
-> >that I personally worry about.
-> 
-> Scare tactics. Paranoia. Perhaps you should retreat
-> into a bunker along with the rest of the True
-> Believers, Ms. Birmingham. Don't forget to take
-> plenty of Kool-Aid with you. You may need it.

your post reeks of sick anger kebbie.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.