From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:10:50 GMT

In article <C0I741.5It@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.133403.23651@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <C0En7z.115@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> ....
> >"Headpieces stuffed with clay"
> >
> ...
> 
> Dean - 
> 
> 	This tit for tat is not very enlightening for either of us.  Let me summarize
> my position, how I see your objection to my position, and "where I'm coming
> from"

You deleted everything from my posting except a line I inserted after
my name, a quote from T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men," which I added
as an echo of the word "strawman."  I find that especially
unenlightening.
 
> Regardless of what you have inferred from my initial objections to Heather's
> question, it was rhetoric and not rights that I was adressing. I've noticed the
> word, "lier" is used quite frequently on t.a. (though not from you).  If you
> feel I am being deceitful, say so and forget it.  You are certainly entitled to
> your opinion. 

No, I feel you're just flat out wrong, and that you keep avoiding
the actual discussion.  But your next remarks demonstrate how far
from the actual discussion you are.  In fact, your next remarks
make it clear that I have been wasting my time since you don't
seem to understand what was being discussed at all.

> I have been sensitized to the rhetoric on BOTH sides of the debate and react
> when I feel language is used (consciously or not) in an ambiguous way. I will
> be glad to be "educated" by you or anyone else on the ramifications of rights
> of the unborn vs mother, but it just wasn't my intent.
> 
> You are apparently very well versed on the question of rights, it looms large
> in your mind, so large in fact that you feel I must be "unresponsive" or
> deliberately avoiding the issue if I don't breakdown and admit that indeed
> rights are the central issue and my concerns are meaningless.

Heather asked if anyone could name rights that could be granted to
a fetus that would not remove rights from a mother.  You refuse to
address the issue of rights and instead make up a lot of supposed
assumed conclusions on the part of Heather's question.  If you
can find a way to make a question like "what rights can be granted
X that would not remove rights from Y" into a question that does
not revolve around the issue of rights, well, you haven't, and despite
much effort, managed it yet.  If Heather's question wasn't about
fetal rights versus women's rights, why did she use the word "rights"
as she did?  And why did you include a discussion of rights in your
first response to her?  In fact, you addressed that issue as one
of your "pre-supposed conclusions."

> I have failed to convince you of the inappropriateness of Heather's question;
> but the vigorous way in which you try to discredit everything I say surprises
> me.  For instance, you have repeatedly claimed I avoid answering THE question,
> as if that were some sign of uncertainty on my part.  Again, call me a liar if
> you must, but that assertion is false.

I have remained impersonal in this discussion.  Your tone suggests
you took all this personally.  That is yet another error on your
part.  If most everything you say is wrong and I point that out,
then that is all I have done.  I am extremely unconcerned with your
emotional well-being, Mr Lebow.

I have no idea what you mean by dragging the word "liar" into this.
I took great pains to demonstrate both how your postings were
wrong and how you were avoiding addressing the question Heather
asked.  I am not up to explaining the difference between a lie
and an erroneous statement.  That is simply not part of the
discussion.

And you most definitely avoided Heather's question.  You came
up with assumed conclusions for her question which weren't even
there, and specifically stated that you couldn't answer her question
because of conclusions that the question assumed.  And again, the
question did no such thing, which I went to some lengths to show.

> As far as me being nasty (previous post of yours), I can tell you that despite
> my sarcasm, I have never felt the urge to hurl imvectives at you or anyone.  If
> I have, I apologize for sloppy language.  As for Muriel being "bitter", why
> would anyone call a perfect stranger a woman hating "twit" unless they were
> predisposed  by prior unpleasant interactions with others?  To me, this defines
> "bitterness".

It is a shame that you cannot recognize the misogyny that others
saw in your posting, and which prompted Muriel's calling you a
"misogynistic twit."  She reposted the article that prompted her
response.  She did not seem bitter.  She made sense.

Furthermore, recognizing misogyny in another by no means
defines bitterness.  I can recognize anti-Semitism in others
based on previous experiences, and wouldn't hesitate to
call an anti-Semite an anti-Semitic twit.  But that's not
bitterness.  That's just realism.  It is no more bitterness
than calling a wonderful human being a wonderful human
being when you come across a wonderful human being.

As I said before, Muriel strikes me as piquant and zesty, not bitter.
Don't know about sweet.  If she offers to run out at 11 PM to
get me a pack of Funnybones I'll add "sweet" to the list.  There
is only so much one can tell from electronic communications.

> I feel deep sadness by some of the nastiness I've seen here. 

I don't believe you.  I really don't.  This last line of yours
really has the flavor of pure rhetoric.  "Deep sadness?"  I
seriously doubt that.  If it were true, I would say you have some
emotional problems and that participating in the net is unhealthy
for you.  On the other hand, you might say that I am once again
trying to show how everything you say is wrong.  It is not,
however, personal.  I just don't believe that "deep sadness"
business.

> Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.  I have no use for any "pro-lifers" who
> might come to my defense spewing some of the stuff I've heard from the
> pro-abort side, and I would make that clear to them.  Thankfully this has not
> occurred.

"Scares the hell out of" you?  Why are you reading the net if it
causes you deep sadness and great fear?  You have been very admanant
about the rhetoric involved in these discussions, yet yours has
consisted of a lot of sarcasm, avoidance of issues, and now
some rather strange hyperbole.  I do believe I have been wasting
my time trying to address the issue with you.

> I would look forward to a discussion of rights, but the rhetoric I hear will
> always be of major concern to me.

If you were interested in a discussion of rights then when someone
presented a question concerning rights you would have addressed that
issue.  Instead you gave us a discussion of rhetoric, and even when
you addressed the matter of rights you addressed it in terms of
rhetoric.  This does not seem to me the work of someone interested
in a discussion of rights.  For numerous postings between us the
issue was there for you to address.  Now, in this last paragraph,
you provide us with a statement of your interest in a discussion
of rights.  And it is only so much rhetoric.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Those are pearls that were his eyes"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion