From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What makes me very sad (and I don't call anyone names!)
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:03:30 GMT

[.. sorry if this got out twice ..]

In article <1993Jan10.000139.23205@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>[Doug answers my complaint that no one has posted a snippet of evidence
> that making abortion illegal would even reduce the abortion rate by 
> asking what I would accept as evidence.  He suggests that perhaps
> people are either tired or afraid of having their words rejected.]

I'm tired, not afraid, of having pro-choicers reject my sources
with no accompanying explanation.  If I was afraid, then I wouldn't
be here. 

> That hasn't stopped or slowed Mr. Holtsinger from bringing up yet
> again his quoted sources that say abortion is legal throughout 
> pregnancy.  

That's because the evidence is overwhelming and it can be
demonstrated as a fact. I'm not confident that I could
present overwhelming evidence that any particular piece of
legislation would significantly affect peoples' beliefs or 
actions.

> Is Mr. Holtsinger so afraid of my rejection?

No, I don't want to waste time researching the subject if
you can't tell me your definition of "sufficient evidence". 
 
> The point is that no one has posted any evidence that using the law
> to try to ban abortion will indeed reduce abortion, not that I may 
> or may not accept the evidence.  

I'm asking you what constitutes evidence.  It's a fair question.
You haven't answered it.

> Neither is the point that you may
> not be able to provide evidence for other laws.  

Sure it is.  You concluded that the absence of evidence
which proves that abortion laws are effective is grounds
for rejecting the enactment of abortion laws.  I'm asking 
you to be consistent and apply that reasoning to other laws.

> I've noticed that
> a lot of people use this as a rationale for changing the legal status
> of abortion, but it seems that no one really knows exactly why, at 
> least no one has posted any evidence that their dreams might come true.

I'm not using it as a rationale--I believe that pro-lifers 
should demonstrate that abortion laws will be effective.

> I notice you don't either:  You instead seem to want to have a discussion
> about my definitions of evidence or my rationale for or against laws.

No, I just want to agree on a starting point--your definition
of evidence.  I will use your definition to research the subject.

>> Sticking my body between the abortionist's knife and the child
>> will not prevent an abortion; it will only delay it.  

> Oh, I don't know Doug, why don't you try it?  Especially if
> the "abortionist" is holding a knife.  According to you, they
> don't have any respect for life...

When I first read that, I laughed out loud.  That was pretty funny.
But don't hold grudges for too long. 

> I'm really sorry (actually I'm lying, I could have edited it out) that 
> the above slipped in there.  I'm trying to refrain from making 
> derisive or insulting comments in this thread, as well as trying
> to keep from calling people names.  I'm not entirely successful, but
> I hope pointing it out makes things a bit smoother...

Why is so hard for you to refrain from making insulting comments?  
Did you not enjoy reading my comment about the abortionist's knife?  
I thought it could make the beginnings of a good TV movie myself.... 


>Galen Hekhuis  


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion