From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:09:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David Knapp
>Kevin W.
>>David
>>>>>a fault in decision making?
>>>>I say that there is no such thing as an accident.

>>>Ac.ci.dent, n. 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening, unintentionally
>>>caused and usually resulting in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty;
>>>mishap *automobile accidents* (dictionary has this in italics). 
>>>2. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
>>>Taken from the Random House Dictionary (big thick one; must be good ;-)

>>>I have been using the above definition. That is what I condider to be an
>>>'accident'.  I would say that ther *is* such a thing as an accident by
>>>the above definition. You are clearly in the minority in thinking there is
>>>no such thing as an accident, just judging by this morning's paper.

>>Accident:  (My definition)
>>1.	A happening that is not expected, forseen, intended.
>>2.	An unpleasant and unintended happening, sometimes resulting from
>>	negligence, that results in injury, loss, damage, etc.
>>6.	LAW an unforseen event that occurs without anyone's fault or negligence

>>This is from Webster's New World Dictionary (A big, thick one, too :-)

>>Now, David.  My premiss was that there was no accident if there was fault.
>>I did not say that it had to be intentional.  Your definition uses the
>>word intentional:


>It actually uses the word 'unintentional.' Your premise uses fault as a reason
>to avoid the term accident.

Unintentional is there.  Unintentional means not intentional, or in other
words it means that some one didn't want to do it or mean to do it.  
However, intention does not exonerate someone from fault.

In my estimation, accident is directly related to fault.  Accident means
faultless, without negligence, and all those things you cited.

>In a car 'accident', there is usually blame allowed. Someone failed to 
>check over their shoulder. They should have. They obviously did not expect
>to get into the wreck. It was unforeseen, unintended, and unexpected unless
>they are some kind of masochists. It was unpleasant, negligent and resulted
>in injury (let's say) loss and damage.

Sure, I agree it was not intentional.  But it was not faultless.  It
was not an accident.  It was a mishap, a car wreck, a collision.

>Your def. #6 is not one I have heard of, frankly.

SO, does that mean it is non-existent?  Of course not.

>When I hear 'accident' 
>(when those I have discussed this with hear it), we do not assume
>there is not fault as there is usually someone who could have prevented it if
>they were more careful.

The key words are "When I hear. . .." When people hear the word heartburn,
they (ignorant) think something is up with their heart.  But that's not
so.  When people hear of certain things, that doesn't mean they receive
the full truth of the situation.

"Accidents" occur because of fault.

>You original assertion was there 'there is no such thing as an accident'.

There isn't, since there is always fault.


>>>unintentionally caused

>>Whether it is unintentional is irrelevant.  I don't intend to hit anyone
>>when I change lanes.  BUT, if I don't look in my mirrors, I made a fault
>>in my judgment and caused a wreck that could have been avoided.


>Your assertion was not regarding the definition per se but rather questioned
>the existence of  an accident.

I original assertion WAS that there is no such thing as an accident, based
on its reliance of fault.  So, my assertion was regarding the definition
since it deals with fault and negligence.

>>My premise is that accidents occur without fault.  Such is my definition,
>>reinforced by Websters.


>According to your definiton(s), it *may*. 

is.

>>>I would also say that an unwanted pregnancy fits this description very well
>>>also. It was unexpected.

>>Sure it was.  But was someone or something to blame?


>You may  use the word blame. Blame trojan, blame the human libido. Sure.
>Pregnancy is the result of an action that someone took. 

All right, then.  Trojan was at fault.  Their was a condom failure.  The
IUD didn't work right, wasn't inserted properly.  The user didn't put
enough spermicide, blah blah blah.  Fault fault fault.  It's there.
Pregnancy may be a result of that, a result of someone's fault.

Thus, pregnancy is not an accident.


>>>The purpose for an abortion is to end a pregnancy. The purpose of an abortion
>>>is to end a pregnancy.
>>No, no, no.
>>>Nobody I have spoken to about your differentiationj
>>>can make sense of it.

>>Larry suggested that I was talking about purpose OF while he was talking
>>about purpose FOR.

>Which still doesn't seem to matter to *anyone* but you.

Your assertion was that nobody you spoke to made a differentiation.


>>>Even the pro-lifers I discuss your posts with. They 
>>>are in fact quite angry with you for, in their words, "making us look bad."

>>Like who?


>Would you like me to ask if I can publish their names?

Sure, you can send them to me over mail.  Or they can drop me a line.
I will take no revenge on them.  I would appreciate their honesty with
me more than hiding their true feelings about me.  If you feel you want
to express your distaste for me, feel welcome and I will accept your
comments as criticism.  If you don't, how will I ever know how to change
and better represent our side?

>>That's fine.  If they don't want to side with me, that's there prerogative.

>You might want to ask those people who *get* abortions what their purpose
>was in  getting one. Don't you think they would know more than  a bystander?

What has this got to do with my side not liking me?  Nothing.  0.  Nil.

I've already answered that question.  With Larry that is.


>>And I don't like them any less for doing such.  I argue for myself.  I say
>>things for myself.  If someone asks me to speak for him/her, I will.

>You really *do* argue for yourself.

I said that.  (Is there an echo in this newsgroup????)

Besides, do you think I am someone else arguing under Kevin as a pseudonymn?

>>Prolifers have different attitudes about method.  Be it as it may, I am more
>>aggressive and not affraid to mow people in the process.


>Aren't you areguing *against* mowing fetuses though?

I argue against abortion and the slaughter of these human beings.  THe
method at which I go about it may be different than from what some
other pro-lifer does.  That doesn't mean we don't believe in mercy.

>>like me.  Besides, I've talked to a bunch and they seem to like me well
>>enough.


>I don't think the issue had anything to do with them 'liking' you.

And those same ones tell me to keep posting.


>>Perhaps you are lying, but I can't prove that.  If you are lying to put
>>in a cheap shot and make me stop posting, well, guess again, buddy.  I
>>would just assume yell obsenities at you if you are lying.


>It is certainly not a cheap shot. It was to point out that you are not in a 
>majority in your interpretation of the intent of a woman who seeks abortion.
>That is all.

So, are you lying then?  Of course I am not in the majority of opinion
here.  There are many more pro-choicers on this net than pro-lifers,
ones that post at least.

Tell me one thing:  Did you lie about other's not liking me because I
"make our side look bad"?  If you tell me the truth and it turns out to be
that you had lied before, I won't hold it against you.  But if I find
out later that you were, I'll forgive you as well, but my opinion of you
will have suck to below the scum of my roommate's toe jam.  I will never
treat you as an intelligent debator again (if this comes about).


>>(Note, if any lifer out there has something to say about me - ie "get lost,
>>Kevin" type deal...let me know.  It's okay :)


>That is not the issue either.

It was not intended for you.


>>I realize that words are important in such a debte.  But I think everyone
>>knows we're talking about human abortion here, and the fate of human life.


>Sorry, I wanted to maitain the level of articulateness.

It's fine.  Sometimes we must clarify, but sometimes it's obvious as well.


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

welch

--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.