From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:01:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.050142.15310@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.014554.9607@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>...I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice 
>>>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes. Furthermore, I _care_ about the 
>>>pro-choice position more than I do the pro-life position: if a pro-lifer
>>>starts spouting absolutes, I generally just chuckle, sit back, and watch
>>>him or her self-immolate, but when a misguided pro-CHOICER starts spouting
>>>absolutes, my instinctive reaction is to quickly douse the spark before it 
>>>does any real damage.
>>> 
>>With the end result being that you do indeed argue in favor of
>>restrictions on late term abortions Kevin. 
>
>Wrong. "In favor of" implies that I'd prefer their existence over their
>non-existence, and that's just not true.
>
>>Just admit it Kevin.
>
>Why don't *you* admit that you jumped to conclusions about my position, and/or
>have been influenced by Keegan's malicious propaganda that I'm a pro-forcer?
>
>>There's nothing inherently *wrong* with your position, other then the
>>fact that you won't admit that your position is, in reality that early
>>abortions are Ok with you, while you favor late term restrictions.
>
>No, I do >not< "favor" late term restrictions. The only thing that viability
>marks for me is the point beyond which I _might_ think, morally, that it's 
>appropriate for a given restriction to be decided by concensus. But I have no 
>preferences as to the outcome of that concensus. I'm neither for nor against 
>the enactment of even those restrictions I regard as "concensus-able".
>
Right. You're about as neutral on the subject as DODie. If you were
truely neutral, your arguments wrt late term abortions would show a
balance between those in favor of restrictions, and those against
restrictions. They do not, they are 100% in favor of restrictions.
Claiming to be neutral while posting 100% in favor of restrictiosn on
late term abortions makes you as neutral as DODie. After all, he
claims to be neutral too, despite posting from only one side of the
issue.

>>>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>It *sounds* the same as someone arguing for them.
>>>
>>>Then don't just "listen", Larry -- try actually READING what I'm saying. 
>>>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and 
>>>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any 
>>>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.
>>>
>>>"Pro-choice Quality Control" is another way to describe the way I see what I 
>>>do, Larry. Maybe that's a little too whimsical, though, perhaps even bordering
>>>on presumptuous...
>>>
>>It's way past the border Kevin.
>
>Well, if I'm not Mr. Pro-choice QC, who is? With all of the specious pro-choice
>arguments flying around here thick and fast, there's definitely a need for
>someone to assume that role...
>
Obviously, not everyone agrees with you Kevin. In fact, it seems as if
the vast majority here totally disagrees with you.
However, assuming we *did* need somebody for QC, I have no doubts we'd
find somebody who could do a more credible job.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion