From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.163825.15920@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.160117.1298@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes to Steve Chaney:
> 
> >>> What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
> >>> Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
> >>> perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
> >>> personal religious views the law of the land.  
> 
> >> ...
> >> 
> >> Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
> >> value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
> >> citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
> >> process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.  
> >>      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) and that the well-being of the woman must
> >> prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
> >> at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
> >> childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
> >>      * * *
> >> ...
> 
> > Thank you, Doug.  Now show where what she says is somehow an
> > attempt to make her religious beliefs a law.
> 
> 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.  But I think it's likely that 
> she does support passage of the FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers. 

Huh?  So are you trying to tell us that the FOCA is a religion-
based piece of legislation?  If not, then Ms Feldt's religious
views are irrelevant.  If yes, then I would myself oppose
the establishment of a solely religious law.

Also, I am glad you admit that you have no information about
whether Ms Feldt is attempting to establish her religious
beliefs as law.  I rather doubt that she is.

 
> > Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
> > more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
> > out of context and change their meaning.  
> 
> I think a person would have to be rather naive to assume that
> Ms. Feldt's views towards abortion could be based solely on 
> religion, given that she's a Planned Parenthood executive. 

Uh huh.  Then you close with your .sig, which has the out-of-
context quote.  Any reader can see where what you say and what
you do differ, Doug.  I'd call it cute, but it isn't.  Hell, I
am a very skeptical reader, and I bring my skepticism up to
HIGH when I see something of yours, and yet I had interpreted
Ms Feldt's comment differently based on the quote provided, and
neglected to note that is was, as usual, out of context.

Clearly, and counter to your deceptive claim, anyone reading the
statement below could easily be deceived into thinking that
Ms Feldt was saying her logic was based solely on a religious
perspective.

How do you manage to catch yourself red-handed like that?

> 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>

By the was, just add me to the list of those who see nothing
reprehensible about Ms Feldt's statement.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion