From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:21:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not that I can detect (using sensitive instruments).

In article <1992Jul23.014836.233362@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.200354.26116@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>#In article <1992Jul22.020303.239422@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##In article <Jul.21.14.45.46.1992.3784@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>###stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>####In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#A mature, adult thing to do.  And since I've explained myself multiple
>#times, and you still don't get it, maybe I should start making fun of
>#you. . .
>#
>#Nahhhh!  No sport in it.  Just to damn easy.
>
>Try not to make spelling errors when you think you're
>flaming, Stevens.  Some people will take advantage of
>it.

Feel free.  Flames are the meaningless result of an emotional outburst.
And flaming someones misspellings requires not a single shred of thought,
just a spell checker or a good dictionary.  Such attacks simply
illustrate the lack of originality and thought of the attacker.

>I get your meaning just fine.

Not so far, you haven't.

>If you can't control the
>abortion decision on a private level (forcing women
>who have sex with you to have your baby), then you
>want to control it on a public level (no woman
>can have an abortion.)  Your selfishness is too
>disgusting to be believed.

I see.  You mean you should be allowed to do what ever you want, irregardless
of what damage it does to others.  But when someone trys to point out
the unfairness of your actions, they are 'too disgusting to be believed'.

If attempting to gain equal rights is an act 'too disgusting
to be believed', then I am happy and proud to be disgusting.  Your
negative judegement is a compliment to me.

>##Stevens seems to be incapable of deciding whether he'
>##opposed to abortion because of his concern for the fetus
>##or the sperm donor.  
>#
>#Why are the two reasons incompatible?  Why must there be only ONE
>#supporting reason?
>
>If you think abortion is murder, then it shouldn't matter
>if the fetus has some of your genetic material or not.

Why not?  My belief that abortion is murder is a religious one.  And
I have already stated that my religion forbids me to force my beliefs
on others.  If I support outlawing abortions, it will not be because
I believe that abortion is murder, it will be because outlawing
abortions makes the whole situation fairer.

>#And I don't oppose legal abortion.  Typical, after all of this, you
>#still have no idea of what I've said.
>
>You have said that you can support legislation that makes
>abortion illegal because it evens things out.

As ONE possible solution.  Not the only one.  Just one of many.
Refer back to the post when I listed a number of possible solutions,
and specified which ones were fair IMHO.

I do believe that passing legislation to outlaw abortion would 'even
things out', yes.  And it would probably be the easiest course, since
there are others who would support such a law.  But IMHO, this would
not be the best of the possible solutions that I posted.

>#Most of my days are good ones.  I especially enjoy reading the mindless
>#propaganda on USENET.  It's always good for a laugh, to see people
>#spout political cant, without actually thinking through the consequences
>#of their beliefs.
>
>I know the consequences of my beliefs.  
>
>I'm glad that my beliefs don't reveal me to be a self-centered
>control freak.

????  The hell they don't.  They reveal you to be just such a person.

>##Susan
>#
>#I know, I know, the OTHER Susan, right?
>
>That's right, Stevens.  There are lots of people who don't
>view all women as merely walking vaginas and wombs.  They
>have little trouble telling women apart.  

To bad you have no sense of humor.

I have no trouble telling women apart.  I key off of voice, movement and
smell.  As this medium gives me none of those, I am forced to attempt to
tell people apart by the views they express.  When two people with the
same first name post viewpoints that are almost exactly identical, I
get confused.

You extrapolate an understandable confusion into a personality trait,
then attack that non-existent personality trait.  It seems you are having
trouble telling me apart from some of the other men you have met.

If both of you had signed your postings at the bottom with both first AND
last name every time, I would have been less likely to confuse you.

I do not confuse shannon with Susan.  Different debate styles, different
first names.  As all can see, this discussion has been about fairness
all along, and you have just given ample proof that that is a concept
you are totally incapable of understanding.  To say nothing about your
lack of ability to forgive (I did apologize for getting confused).

>Susan,

Typical.  No email address, no last name.  And she flames me for mixing
her up with all the other knee jerk reactionaries who unfortunately share
the same name.

>who hopes you enjoyed debating CJ in misc.test

CJ does not debate.  He flames.  It seems that is all he is capable of.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity