From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:30:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.150159.8991@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>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.

First, you haven't read enough of my posts for that "100%" figure to be
credible, Mark. Secondly, who the hell are you to try second-guessing my
motivations? When I decide to attack a specious argument in t.a, it's NOT
necessarily JUST because it's specious, I also weigh whether it's important
for the argument to be attacked by _me_ or not. I can't attack EVERY specious
argument, after all -- there aren't enough hours in a day. Quite frankly, most 
pro-lifers arguments usually fall apart on their own, without my help. Not
very challenging. Specious pro-choice arguments, however, are not only more
subtle and challenging, on average, but I CARE about them more, since I, as a
pro-choicer, don't want to get discredited by them, even just by association.
Thirdly, your premise is in error -- I never claimed to be a "pure" neutral. 
If you really want to know, I place myself somewhere between "moderate" pro-
choice and "extreme" pro-choice.

>Claiming to be neutral while posting 100% in favor of restrictiosn on
>late term abortions ...

Yet another erroneous premise. I do not "post ... in favor of restrictions",
early-term OR late-term...

>>>>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.

I've never claimed popularity, Mark. Of what relevance is your observation?

>However, assuming we *did* need somebody for QC, I have no doubts we'd
>find somebody who could do a more credible job.

Credible job? Don't you mean someone who'll rubber stamp the propaganda of
the pro-choice Extremists? Sorry, I'll continue to attack whatever specious
arguments I feel like attacking, whether you try to brand me a pro-lifer
or not. Oh, and don't assume that the majority of people whom you happen to
see screeching and wailing about my views necessarily represents the
majority of t.a participants, who have been reading my posts for a while,
and KNOW that I'm far from being pro-life or even "neutral". Most of the
honest folks stay out of these meta-discussions, and they may very well
form a silent majority you haven't even considered in your hasty judgment
about me.

							- Kevin