From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:58:33 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> >-> >-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
-> >-> >-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or
-> >-> >-> >-> the state, might get an abortion veto-power, then
-> >-> >-> >-> certainly the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this
-> >-> >-> >-> power to a neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as
-> >-> >-> >-> a compromise position.
-> >-> >-> >
-> >-> >-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak
-> >-> >-> >like you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to
-> >-> >-> >lessen women's control of their bodies that you want
-> >-> >-> >to give that control to a "neutral adjudicator."
-> >-> >-> 
-> >-> >-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
-> >-> >-> 	"X is a possibility"
-> >-> >-> 		and
-> >-> >-> 	"I support X"
-> >-> >
-> >-> >why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make
-> >-> >decisions for what a woman can and can not do with her
-> >-> >body and it's contents, kevin? don't you think that
-> >-> >decision should be left to the woman?
-> >-> 
-> >-> I did not and do not "call for" [sic] this to happen. But,
-> >-> as long as it is a POSSIBILITY (and I think it is), we as
-> >-> pro-choicers should have answers ready as to why it's such
-> >-> a bad idea.
-> >
-> >before i comment further, i want to say that you calling
-> >yourself a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single
-> >most damaging statement i've seen written on the pro-choice
-> >philosophy. you, kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice
-> >person i've seen post to this newsgroup.
-> 
-> Please support this. *NOW*. Or forever bear the badge of
-> "liar".

are you so far gone in your seemingly psychotic tumble into
irrationality that you call me a liar for expressing my opinion
-as- -an- -opinion- ?

you, on the other hand, have posted countless lies; none of which
you have withdrawn. it is absurd to talk about your supporting
what you post because it's clear to anyone who reads the net that
you can't. if, that confuses you, here a are a few examples of
what i mean:

here's one of your lies.

        'Is this the same James Keegan who donned his net.cop
        badge and uniform, and told me to get "my" [sic]
        child-support threads out of t.a this past December??'
		kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)
		<1992Feb26.002308.5595@cfctech.cfc.com>

here's another lie (this about susan garvin):

        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

-> >now, on to your "POSSIBILITY." kevin, stop being ridiculous.
-> >you are not empowered to trade-off or barter away a woman's
-> >right to her body, not even to your "neutral adjudicator, not
-> >to anyone.
-> 
-> I'm NOT "calling for" anything. I'm NOT supporting anything.
-> I'm acknowledging the possibility, like a weatherman
-> acknowledges the possibility of rain tomorrow.

stop backpedaling, you coward. do you recognize this?

        'It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
        possibility exists that the potential father, and/or the
        state, might get an abortion veto-power, then certainly
        the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this power to a
        neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as a compromise
        position.'

whose rights do you want to compromise away, kebbie?

-> Talking about _issues_ is what we do here, 

kevin, you don't talk about issues. you lie about people. you
carry on net.vendettas. you accuse people of doing what you do.

-> >-> Larry ran away from the hypothetical. 

-> >margolis didn't run away from your posts kevin. he defeated
-> >you in a particular discussion and, when you began to repeat
-> >and repeat arguments you had already lost, margolis stopped
-> >playing.  you're not going to begin another vet.vendetta are
-> >you?

-> He never answered the question. 

big deal. who cares about your question? take care of your lies
first.

        "Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
        with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
		Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> 
		<15249@encore.Encore.COM>


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