From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:18:32 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

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com writes:
-> > -> > -> > ->   Wrong, RVW breath!  You're on.
-> > -> > -> > -> That is, in fact, exactly what I
-> > -> > -> > -> support.  Now, please start
-> > -> > -> > -> supporting a ban on 3rd trimester
-> > -> > -> > -> abortions.
-> > -> > -> > 
-> > -> > -> > it's interesting watching you guys trade
-> > -> > -> > away the rights of women.
-> > -> > -> 
-> > -> > ->   Do grow up.
-> > -> > 
-> > -> > why is that, jimmie? don't adults comment on
-> > -> > two men publically trading away the rights of
-> > -> > all women? or is it just that you had no idea
-> > -> > what you were saying in the first place?
-> > -> 
-> > ->   Your comments are not adult but in fact
-> > -> rather foolish, as your use of the (IE) ending
-> > -> of my name indicates a desire to be insulting,
-> > -> not clarifying.
-> > 
-> > are you referring to my comments on your
-> > willingness to trade away the rights of women,
-> > jimmy? how would you have expressed it, jimmy? oh,
-> > do accept my apologies for writing jimmie, rather
-> > than jimmy.
-> 
->   <*chuckle*>  

do you really think that your giving away the rights of
women is funny, jimmy? sometime soon, i suspect,
someone will repost the list of newbie excuses. that
list usually appears every year or so. listed fairly
high is the "i was only joking" excuse.

-> My.  All these references to my name.  

after the concern you expressed about my use of jimmie,
rather than jimmy, i thought i'd give you a little pat
on the top of the head. i guess it didn't make you feel
better, huh?

-> Ahh, having trouble remembering it?  I mean, it IS
-> in the Att.  lines...

aren't you sounding shrewish now, jimmy. gee. and
you're one of those people who is always calling for
no-flame-content posts too. do you see a conflict?

-> > ->   My "trading" is in fact a expression of
-> > -> support for RVW and the FOCA.
-> > 
-> > do you see your quote above jimmy, the one which
-> > reads, "Now, please start supporting a ban on 3rd
-> > trimester abortions?" do you remember writing
-> > that? do you think that your quote is synonymous
-> > with "i support RVW and the FOCA?"
-> 
->   Hmmm.  The FOCA and RVW both forbid any
-> restriction prior to viability, basically prior to
-> 3rd trimester, and allow them afterwards.  I like
-> the idea.  You did not answer my question from the
-> previous post.  

nor did you answer mine. do you think that your
statement, "Now, please start supporting a ban on 3rd
trimester abortions?" is synonymous with "i support RVW
and the FOCA?"  

-> Do YOU support the FOCA and RVW?

but of course i'll answer your question whether or not
you answer mine. i think any legislation to limit a
woman's right of choice is bad legislation. given that
the world is filled with crazies and fundies who try to
impose their will/morality on others, i think RVW has
and FOCA probably would benefit some women by
protecting them from the crazies.

-> > -> All our rights are trade-offs, Mr. Keegan.
-> > -> Giving more to some means taking away from
-> > -> others in many cases.
-> > 
-> > it's not your rights you're giving away, jimmy;
-> > the rights you're giving away are rightrs held by
-> > people who might become pregnant. you are not one
-> > of them, are you? even if you were, who empowered
-> > you to give away someone else's rights, jimmy
-> 
->   The US Constitution allows me to support via my
-> vote and my voice laws and acts which may effect
-> millions, if not potentially billions, of people.
-> You have that same power.

so then you're agreeing with my statement that you're
giving away the rights of others; those others being
women.

-> > -> > -> > do you have special powers to do this or
-> > -> > -> > do you think any male has the power to
-> > -> > -> > barter away the rights of all females?
-> 
-> [my original attempt at light-heartedness deleted.
-> At least Larry liked it.]

yes he did.

-> > -> > do you think making jokes about your
-> > -> > willingness to trade away the rights of
-> > -> > others will fool people.  (actually, it
-> > -> > probably will fool many of the fools who have
-> > -> > been posting to this group lately.)
-> > -> 
-> > ->   Actually, I was not trying to fool anyone,
-> > -> just treating your commentary with contempt.
-> > 
-> > it wasn't my commentary you treated with contempt
-> > jimmy. it was women you treated with contempt;
-> > something you've done on several occasions.
-> 
->   In YNSHO, of course.  

of course.

-> If my disagreeing with someone over a moral point is
-> showing contempt, then so be it.

oh but you weren't disagreeing, jimmy. you were
actively stating that you wanted to take rights from
women and you were urging others to agree with you. you
were trying to impose your morality on women, jimmy.

-> > -> Learn that democracy oft-times requires trade-offs.
-> > 
-> > you can't trade something you don't have, jimmy.
-> > the rights you're trying to give away are someone
-> > else's rights.
-> 
->   You obviously have no knowledge of history or the
-> legal system.  

actually jimmy, your ignorance of t.a. is showing
again. i spent half of my life as a lobbyist. i
understand very clearly how the system works.

-> People's rights have been traded away by others for
-> centuries.

well then, why not just state that you want to trade
away the rights of others. this is what you've been
saying, isn't it? are you now trying to justify your
position? 

-> In any event, Mr. Keegan, many women in this group
-> support RVW and the FOCA.  I have decided I must do
-> so as well.

that is your choice, jimmy. but that doesn't answer the
question i asked you earlier in this post and in my
previous post.

-> Supporting both these items carries the high
-> likelihood that, in guarunteeing some rights, others
-> are put up for grabs.  If you prefer, and can
-> present a cogent argument for it, as opposed to
-> being a smart-ass, I suppose I could see my clear to
-> OPPOSE these items.

can you be a bit more precise on what you mean by
"smart-ass" jimmy? are you referring to my commentary
on your call to give away the rights of others?

i really think you're being a bit overly sensitive,
jimmy. people like you come into t.a. every year and
hang around for a while offering solutions to
everything. usually those people disappear before
anyone notices them. their superficial solutions are
forgotten and are replaced by the the superficial
solutions of still newer people. i don't think you're
going to be around long enough to see this cycle jimmy.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame