From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:39:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

I'll explain this one last time and then drop it.  I don't
think you're too dumb to understand this Doug, I just think
you said something that was wrong and are too dishonest to
admit it.

You claim that if Gloria Feldt supports the Freedom of Choice
Act, and because she bases her reasoning about abortion
partly on religious views, she is trying to make her religion
the law of the land.  But the Freedom of Choice Act is not
a religious law, nor is it based on religious law, and in
fact, from what you quote her as saying about her religious
beliefs, the Freedom of Choice Act runs counter to them.
That is pretty straightforward andeasy to understand, which is
why I think you just hate to lose an argument and are going
to drag this silly thing out rather than admit that you said
something that was wrong.

The rest of this is the previous article, so anyone who hasn't
already skipped this, and doesn't want to see it again, can
skip the rest now.  I leave it in to preserve context.

Oh, and Doug, what is it you have against Judaism anyway?

Dean Kaflowitz



In article <1992Sep10.220913.28880@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.194705.9100@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> You claimed that Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her personal
> >> religious views the law of the land.  Whether the FOCA is based
> >> upon on religious beliefs is not relevant to that claim. 
> 
> > Your remarks imply that the FOCA tails entirely with Ms Feldt's
> > religious views and is entirely based on religious principles.
> 
> This statement is not correct.  As I said before, whether the 
> Freedom of Choice Act is based upon religious beliefs is irrelevant 
> to your claim that Gloria Feldt is not attempting to make her 
> personal religious views the law of the land.  Ms. Feldt's views 
> on abortion are based (in part) on a religious perspective, 
> and if she does support the FOCA, then it would appear that 
> she would be making her religious views the law of the land. 
> 
> > If it is not a religously-based piece of legislation, then whether
> > or not it tails with Ms Feldt's religious perspective is
> > irrelevant.  
> 
> No, whether or not the FOCA is based upon religious beliefs
> is irrelevant to your claim. 
> 
> > Furthermore, you only assume she supports the FOCA
> > without knowing the answer.  Perhaps a reasonable assumption,
> > perhaps she has her own quarrels with it.  
> 
> I said that it seemed likely that Ms. Feldt would support the
> FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers, but I was hesitant to
> assume that she did support the FOCA.  
> 
> > The fact is that
> > you have no evidence whatsoever that she is trying to make her
> > personal religious views the law of the land, and are simply
> > indulging in Nyikos-style speculation.  
> 
> The fact is that you have no evidence that she is not trying
> to make her religious views the law of the land, and are simply
> indulging in Margolis-style speculation.  
> 
> > Certainly the quotes
> > provided do not indicate that she is seeking to have legislation
> > enacted that is based solely on her religious perspective.  In
> > fact, once you had posted the full quotation, we find that she
> > brings more than just her religion to the view she espouses.
> 
> Whether Ms. Feldt is seeking to have legislation enacted based
> solely on her religious perspective is not the issue.  She has
> indicated that her beliefs about abortion are driven in part
> by a religious perspective, and that if she does support the
> FOCA, then she would be attempting to make her religious views
> the law of the land. 
> 
> >> I said that I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious 
> >> beliefs into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or 
> >> not she supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  I think it would be
> >> extremely illogical for a pro-choicer such as Ms. Feldt to oppose 
> >> the passage of the FOCA, but I'm hesitant to assume that she does
> >> support the FOCA.
> 
> > Again, her support for the FOCA is irrelevant.  
> 
> No, her support for the FOCA based upon religious views would
> imply that your claim is incorrect.
> 
> > I am glad you
> > admit that you don't know.  I take it then that you are disagreeing
> > with Chahallney's reading of Ms Feldt's remarks.  Good.  That's
> > a healthy admission.
> 
> I entered this thread for one reason: to address your claim
> that Ms. Feldt was not seeking to make her personal religious
> views the law of the land.  I am pleased that you now furiously
> backpedalling from that claim by bringing up irrelevant issues.
> 
> >> I seriously doubt that Gloria Feldt became a Planned Parenthood 
> >> executive solely on the basis of her religious views towards 
> >> abortion.  But that's not even relevant to your original claim.
> >> Let's not stray off the topic, shall we?  
> 
> > Oh, I'll stray whither I please, thank you very much.  
> 
> Fine, but don't expect me to follow your meanderings.  

PLEASE NOTE THAT DOUGIE BOY DELETED MY ARGUMENTS HERE BECAUSE
THEY MADE HIM LOOK LIKE THE FOOL HE IS, AND NOT BECAUSE THEY
WERE MEANDERING.  IN FACT, RATHER THAN MEANDER, I ADDRESSED
THE POINT HE RAISED HIMSELF.  I GUESS HE CAN'T STAND IT WHEN
HE MAKES AN ASS OF HIMSELF WITHOUT PAUSING EVEN FOR BREATH.
> 
> 
> [.. rest of meanderings deleted ..]
> >Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger
> 
>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>  we want to be precise)..."
>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
> 
>   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>