From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:56:21 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less


Why am I not surprised that Mr. Holtsinger is coming to the defense of
such an odious bete noire as Robert J Kolker?  Could he be trying to
smear everyone with humanistic reasons for supporting abortion rights
by associating them all with Kolker, a vile and diabolical screwhead
of monolithic evil?  Or is he simply a pedantic git who takes pride in
correcting the record of Mr. Kolker's malignant offenses, by dwelling
on the comparatively trivial errors of omission committed by his
ideological opponents?

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
# >mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
# >> I hope that this latest piece of bilge suffices to demonstrate
# >> that this scum is *not* pro-choice, and that you will retract your
# >> statements that he is.
# 
# > Sh-yeah... don't you know by now that when [Holtsinger] sinks his 
# > little mental claws into a distortion, he's loath to let go of it even
# > when proven wrong?
# 
# Kolker supports the legal availability of abortion, and contrary
# to what you and Mark Cochran have stated, he does not support
# forced abortion or forced sterilization:  

Well, Kolker *claims* to be pro-choice.  He has hinted at his
willingness to condone forced abortion and forced sterilization --
which is curious for a self-professed `libertarian' trying to make it
clear that he's pro-choice.

#    "Frankly I am not in favor of involuntary anything (including
#     sterilization), niether am I in favor of being taxed to support these
#     discultured primitives.  Let'em starve, a *give* away sterilizations 
#     for free."
#                     rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
#                     <C0ytpq.3CG@world.std.com>
# 
# 
# That makes him pro-choice.  I hope I won't have to repeat
# myself again.

Heh.  I'd laugh but it isn't funny.

The only reason Mr. Kolker can make a legitimate claim to being
pro-choice is because he hasn't the intellectual steam to realize that
his savage, social-Darwinist, racist and sexist, quasi-Nazi
actualization is completely incompatible with his spoon-fed, pseudo-
libertarian non-coercion-principle, fundamentalist, demagogic
claptrap.

One day soon, he'll realize that `survival of the fittest' simply
doesn't fit in the same ideology with absolute individual liberty,
without fudging both, and like the linear-minded, squirrel-cage,
cryptofascist that he clearly has the potential to be, he'll opt for
one or the other rather than compromise.

Three guesses which dogma I have little doubt he will discard like a
broken toy -- at which point I will have little sympathy for him, no
matter what horrors might befall him.  Evil dies as evil lives, as
it is said.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, he's already demonstrated a
bone-chilling, diabolical anti-humanism that puts me in such a mind
that I, for one, will gladly propose a toast to the cheery, though
fairly unlikely prospect of his timely and violent demise.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.