From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice(K. Welch to defend INTEGRITY against lies)
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:03:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Okay Kevin, due to some email, and your own request, here's your response.
Have at it.

BTW, I deleted a lot of BS from both sides to get rid of extraneous
insults, as enough are contained in what's left, and other net.readers
probably get tired of seeing them. I tried to leave in everything I
considered pertinent, and you may feel free to pull info out of your
previous post or mine, if you wish.

Note: Sarcastic remarks won't qualify as proofs, as they're generally
      made for reasons other than supporting a point logically.

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn) writes:
>Ron

>Either way, I don't eat my words.

This I've seen. Although I may watch you eat these, before the main
course.

>Learn some respect, though.

I have plenty for those worthy of it. Why don't you learn to respect
the choice of the pregnant woman, whatever her choice may be?

>>After that slavery thing,
>>which you've stumbled into twice now, you have negative credibility
>>with me, if that were possible.

>With you, nothing is possible.

Really? Then why do ask below whether I'll give you a chance to defend
your integrity, if you think this is impossible? Do you believe the
defense is impossible, and therefore ask me if you can, so you can say
it is my fault when you fail? Please, I'd like to know.

>I find you to be a human being, Ron, just like me.  I respect every
>belief that you hold, whether I disagree with it or not.  I respect your
>lifestyle.  I will defend your right to say whatever you want on this
>network.  I believe in freedoms such as these.  I believe in letting
>others live their lives without harming others.

Thanks for finding me to be a human being. I'm not like you, however,
or not at this time. The fact that you respect my beliefs is nice, as
well as defending my right to speak. I, however, believe in letting
others live their lives without interference from others (which includes
harming others, BTW).

>Well if age is a level of maturity, then I am indeed immature compared
>to Gordon, 35.  I am indeed immature compared to Patrick, (God knows).

>If character is a measure of maturity, then you have none.  If respect
>is a measure of maturity, you have none.

Your opinion, since these are completely subjective. But, since you
have attacked my character, please show me where I lack it. I have given
backing for everything I said, where requested, and capitulated one 
word for sake of clarity. Failing this, of course, indicates a lack
of character on your part. Not to mention respect. You should have valid
reasons not to respect someone. You'll gain mine when you earn it, by
gaining some credibility.

>It seems as though every time I interject something that has force, especially
>when it's said by the leaders of your side, you discount it as irrelevant.
>To you, this is the blatant assertion that you do not bother with.  This
>is the problem you have with my presence.

Give me an example, please. A minimum of three are actually required, 
by your context, but I'll take one. And who are the leaders of my side, 
anyway? Pro-choice is a conglomeration of people with many different 
ideas but one thing in common, that abortion should not be outlawed. 
That's about as far as it goes. For the rest, many do wish some restrictions 
on abortion, and follow many different people. We are not led around 
by the nose like the Catholic pro-lifers are by the pope. The other 
pro-lifers I'm not including here, obviously.

>>and most things that you say are so
>>flawed, they can easily be turned on you. You counter by emotional or
>>blatant assertions.

>You are the one who twists, not I.  (retyped, emphasis may be wrong)

This is a blatant assertion which is really pointless to argue, as it
will be settled by direct proofs below. (yours or mine) If I'm correct,
then it can easily be shown that you twist logic, if you can disprove
me, then I must be twisting logic. Somehow, I don't believe the latter
is the case.

>>You gloat over minor points, that most don't care about, while consistently
>>ignoring the major ones.

>If the points are minor, why did you argue them in the first place?
>Is it an ego thing, Ron?  Or did you find some value in them?

I can admit I was led into them at first. Now I'm dragging you into
the main issue. No ego, it was a willingness to debate small points 
in the hope that you would be enlightened. That was before I knew that 
you "don't eat my words" and would never concede a point. They then
lost their value.

>>As for that major point, you've finally come out and said it, you think
>>the woman totally worthless,

>Quote it or retract it.  I demand of you the same respect that I have
>given you.  If you cannot supply one piece of evidence where I have
>said the woman is "totally worthless", you are a liar.

OK, I'll retract 'said' and replace it with 'implied'. What can you 
deduce from statements like your response to:

    If there is a 99.99999% chance that the woman would become a parapalegic,
    you refuse to let her have an abortion?
    Your answer:"That is not 100% dead" in reference to the fetus.

and statements like:
    "pregnancy is LIKE a harmless slavery"

other than that you consider the woman is totally worthless is beyond me.
Care to dispute this? Please give a logical explanation why subjecting
women to slavery makes women worth something, other than as material
property or similar values attributed to slaves. Please explain how
making someone a parapalegic, when it could easily have been avoided,
is making that person worth something more than what they were before.
Logically please, as I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this.

BTW, am I a liar because I mis-stated the one word that I corrected?
Or will you retract that in turn?

>>not even in control of her own body.

>Quote it or retract it.  I said her body is not her property.  A man's body
>is not his property.  S/He cannot do with that body as s/he pleases.

here's your quote:

	    I said her body is not her property.  A man's body
	    is not his property.  S/He cannot do with that body
	    as s/he pleases.

Except that now you've added men to it also. How fairminded of you.
Hear that everyone? Now you must ask permission, from who I have no
idea, before you take that body and place it in the shower. You can't
do as you please with your body any more, and don't even think of letting
X touch it without permission.

>>If it is not her property, with your meanings attached, then she isn't
>>in control of it.

>Wrong.  I didn't say this.  Quote it or retract it.  I said property
>and body are two separate entities.

Same quote as above. Not being able to do with it as you please means
you are not in control of it.

2 out of 3 directly supported by your post.


>Do I want to say I hate homosexuals?
Don't know, you did tell Keith something or other along the lines of
'fag' however. In case you weren't aware of it, this term connotes very
negative feelings toward gay men, and is generally used by those who
dislike or despise gay men, because they are gay.

>DO I want to say I hate women?
Don't know, but you seem to think them worthless, which might be worse.
See above.

>Do I want to say I worship fetuses?
Don't know, you seem to, with your constant dismissal of the woman involved
in the pregnancy.

>DO I want to say I hate you?
Don't know, but from the language in the post, I could probably say
yes.

>Do I want to say I want to control women?
Don't know, but you want to outlaw abortion and force all pregnant women
to carry to term. Sounds like you want to control them to me.

>Do I want to say that we should ban contraceptives?
Don't think so, I have little to base my opinion in this area on, so
I'll leave it at that.

>Do I want to say that all pro-choicers should go to hell?
Don't think so, as you don't seem to be the rabid religious fanatical
pro-lifer that sometimes appears here.

And now for the overall assessment of the above points:
No, you probably want everyone to believe what you say with zero argument,
since you have yet to defend a major point logically.

>NO.  I believe in none of the above.

You don't hate me? That's reassuring.

>What is it that I want to say, Ron?  Since you can read my mind better
>than I can, tell me.  

See above. It's in your own words, complete with analysis.

>Do me one last piece of courtesy before you ignore me forever.  Provide 
>me with one honest position so that I can defend my integrity and my
>thoughts.

You'll have several. Look above.

>Provide me with one last opportunity so that I can exercise my Constitutional 
>rights to free speech.

You've got it, although I never kept you from exercising it.

>Assault me, Ron.  DO IT!  Come on!  Stone me to death.  Let's go.  right
>now.

Naah, I don't believe in starting violence.

>From now on it's you an me, Ron.  Morality on Morality.  
>Or haven't you got the respect.  I didn't think so.

Blatant assertion proven wrong by this post. It did work though. You
did get me to post, transparent as the attempt was.

And isn't that supposed to be 'mano a mano'?

>>You are a worm of the lowest form, with zero compassion for your fellow
>>man/woman.

>If you wish to call me such, I am just that.  Your lie may become truth
>with your followers, but lies only become real when people choose to
>believe in them.

Or the proof stares them in the face. I've given statements that indicate
what I've said is true. My last statement was an opinion derived from
these previous statements. I've invited you to prove these statement
false. Unfortunately, the only way I can see you proving them false is
to 'eat your words' which would prove that you still state falsehoods.

As for followers, I don't think I have any. Compatriots, probably. Any
that want to join into this little flame war/vendetta I seriously doubt.

BTW, lies don't really become real, even when everyone chooses to believe
them. Take the Flat Earth Theory as example number 1, the geocentric
theory of the universe as number 2, the believe (a long time ago) that
the stars were candles in the sky as number 3,.....etc. None of these
were real, although many people believed them. A lie remains a lie.

>Point taken.  It's obvious that insults don't matter to you.  You are
>impervious to pain, but you're a man, just like me.  An you'll never
>have that ability to understand abortion as I will never have.

I'm a man, yes, thanks. Like you, no. Impervious to pain, no. The ability 
to understand abortion, no neither of us ever will. This is all I asked 
you initially to consider, that you should let those who do have this 
ability to make their own decision regarding this, as we as men will 
never be able to understand their particular agonies.

>Ron...I have nothing else to say.  I feel like grabbing a burger.  Maybe
>some fries.  Then I'll sit back and watch Star Trek and then study some
>more, ever becoming smarter than you.

Definitely get the fries.

>When you want to respect me as I you, let me know.

When you start making logical arguments, realize that the woman is the
prime participant in this subject, and can admit that someone else might
be right. I have given you the respect you asked for in a chance to 
defend your integrity by given you definite arguments to dispute.

As for myself,I do admit someone else might be right regularly, see 
above capitulation, but I refuse to force my beliefs on anyone else 
or make their decisions for them or to allow anyone to force their beliefs 
on me or make decisions for me, in regards to a private issue such as 
abortion.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity