From: goldsman@cc.gatech.edu (Michael G. Goldsman)
Subject: I have given up trying to engage in Rational debate with Forgach
Reply-To: goldsman@cc.gatech.edu
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:18:55 GMT


For about the last six weeks or so I have been TRYING, through e-mail,
to get Susan Forgach to stick to the rules of logic, and to  answer my 
questions about a particular facet of the abortion debate.

I have finally thrown in the towel, becasue she has REFUSED
to be direct and to answer the questions presented to her.
It is a hopeless task to try to be inteligent and rational
with an irrational fanatic.  Here is a summary of the e-mail
between us to give you a feel for it.


My original posting asked the questions:


1.  Does killing a 3 month old fetus = killing a 5 month old baby?
2.  Do you agree that a woman who murders her 5-month old baby should
    receive a severe jail term?
3.  If the two crimes are identical, why shouldn't
    the woman who aborts be charged with murder? Letting
    a murderer go free is unjust. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I posted my three questions about 1'st deg. murder and a fetus etc...
2. Susan posted "Pro-lifers are far more interested in protecting the
   innocent unborn children than they are in punishing anybody.
   Without even accomplishing the first, the second is entirely moot"
3. I posted... "there is no way to restrict abortion if you
   are not going to be punishing people who break the laws."
4. Susan mailed me a letter saying that she had answered those questions
   100 times on talk.abortion, and that the answer is very clear.
5. I claimed that calling my question moot is NOT answering it, but
   sidestepping it, and claimed that pro-lifers are logically inconsistent
   on this question.
6. She said you lost the posting with the questions, and said that
   she wasn't sidestepping the issue, but that I just didn't like answer.
7. I mailed her another copy of the posting.
8. After two days, I asked if she had answered yet?
9. she said she answered once, but that I didn't like it, and
   that maybe she would answer it the next time she was on the net.
10. I replied and said I didn't mind waiting a few days for her to reply.
    I restated that Law + punishment went hand in hand.
    I said I was curious to see if there was a logical way to get around
    pro-lifers not wanting woman who abort their babies to be charged 
    with murder.
11. You said that a logical way did exist.  You suggested that punishing
    doctors would be far more effective than punishing woman because a
    single doctor accounts for far more abortions/year than a single woman
12. I aggreed that the doctor would be committing a crime, but asked you if
    the woman would be committing a crime by murdering her baby.
    "What if a woman ingests the abortion pill?" ... "Why isn't this
    1'st degree murder?"
13. she said, "Yes of course she has murdered her baby, but like I 
    said before, we are only interested in a practical method of 
    ending abortion, not being punitive on anybody." She
    then said that she was surprised that abortion defenders
    do not accept this "compassionate" solution.
14. I replied that I am not discussing this on a practical level per se.  
    I was just trying to force consistency.  I restated that law is ineffective 
    without punishment.  I again asked the three questions.
15.  She said "Who are you to force anything. I will gladly accept the
     practical in order to end the vast amount of abortions at the
     least amount of expense, and you are nobody to 'force' otherwise."
     Then she accused me of disliking the solution because it might end
     my "beloved" abortion.
16.  I told her that I used the term force only in the scope of our
     discussion, not in terms of public policy. I also talked about my
     true feelings about abortion. "I do not love abortion, I think 
     it is a disgusting act. Thats why I have been working to increase 
     education about contraceptive methods and the availability of 
     contraceptives."
     I again asked her the three questions.
17.  She never responded to the letter, so I mailed it again to her.
18.  I got the letter below  about a week ago...
     You can see my reply below, but she never did reply to it.  

>> - Mike
>  - Susan

>>I hate to keep beating a dead horse,
>Obviously, no you don't.

Really, I do. I would much much rather you had answered my three 
questions weeks ago...

>>but you never responded to this letter...
>For a reason.

What reason? You can't engage in polite discussion without
get bent out of shape.

>>Just answer the three questions...

> I've already answered them and you simply didn't like my answers.
> You can go to hell.

I am very disappointed that you must resort to insults.
I cannot see how my actions provoked this, and I will not 
stand for this method of debate.

> In fact a woman who kills a 5 month old baby is probably LESS guilty of
> first degree murder than a woman who has an abortion, because abortion
> is always premeditated, and baby killing is generally not.   As such, 
> I would legally prosecute the abortionist the most severely.

this looks like an answer to question 1.

Answer to 1. killing a 3 month old fetus is worse than killing a 
             5 month old baby.   
Answer to 2. You never answered this question directly.
Answer to 3. Because you never answered question 2, question 3 cannot
             yet be answered. 

Here are the questions again:

1.  Does killing a 3 month old fetus = killing a 5 month old baby?
2.  Do you agree that a woman who murders her 5-month old baby should
    receive a severe jail term?
3.  If the two crimes are identical, why shouldn't
    the woman who aborts be charged with murder? Letting
    a murderer go free is unjust. 

I am not going to write you again, because for one, I doubt I am ever
going to get straight answers out of you, and two, you have reached
that point where you must shout "Go to Hell" instead of being rational, and
civil.

However, I would like to post this message to talk.abortion.
If you do not want me to, however, I will refrain from doing so.

soooo please e-mail me your answers to questions 2 and 3.


-Mike Goldsman

   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Goldsman              __o          o__      o__      o__      o__    
36004 Ga Tech Station    _ \<,_        _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   _.>/ _   
Atlanta, Georgia 30332  (_)/ (_)      (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_) (_) \(_)
begin 600 mikeskey.pub
MF8X ZAA:*@AG;VQD<VUA;MX#Y\YJH.AUL%\6;SRX-DN*(L=DZ6B)L]FK,"W=
M=M*D*SE]!5CAMC<7T Y5ZMO CV_L/*A+P!L"CE>F4E6K1P.[)Z%6I)@$M_I<
M2-L>:-]*PXH 70_R)Z^HD:Q!1LA;$DL6\I3SJZ/%TB& )A]%NL$2UI.R;@'W
*;AEF;KPY+P4 $0_R
end
Newsgroups: talk.abortion