From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:39:01 GMT
	<1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <1992Dec26.201022.7074@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Hackers Union, Local 01000101

In article <1992Dec26.201022.7074@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <1162@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
   sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   >> I think what Mr. Kendig is trying to say is that he's
   >> seen too many biased accounts of Operation Rescue's
   >> activities to gain an impartial opinion of the group. 

   > I think that Mr. Kendig expressed himself quite well.  

   I agree, but I think you misunderstood what he was
   saying.  He wanted an unbiased account of Operation
   Rescue's activities, not an explanation of their
   activities from someone who is so obviously biased
   against them.

Rev, if you're going to be a mind-reader, the least you can do is put some
effort into it, eh?  Perhaps you should digest the elementary concept that
Mr. Kendig is quite capable of speaking for himself first, before you start
dictating what he's saying?

   >>> The book that Holtsinger got his bloody fetus descption from,
   >>> _Caught in the Crossfire_ by Sue Hertz, is a good report
   >>> of a year's worth of O.R. blockades in Boston.  

   >> The book that you describe is radically pro-abortion in
   >> nature.  Mr. Kendig wants an unbiased account, not propaganda.  

   > The book that you have quoted repeatedly is an unbiased account.
   > Hertz was not a participant in the blockades in Boston, she
   > was a reporter.

   When a reporter writes a book, they are under no professional 
   obligation to give an unbiased account.  Even when they do
   write for a paper, there's no guarantee that the story won't
   be biased, especially on such a emotionally-charged issue. 

So?  Do you have a point to make here that we haven't yet heard?  Of course,
you casually discount that maybe a good reporter has a habit of being as
neutral as possible -- at least that's the way I learnt it when I was a
radio-TV major at UH in the early '70s.  You also seem blind to the
possibility that the reporter might be biased in favor of YOUR opinion --
but I guess that's not really bias to you, is it?

   >>> Be aware that the name "Operation Rescue" is rarely used any
   >>> longer.  The national organization was fined tens of thousands
   >>> of dollars for violating an injunction in NYC, 

   >> The fact that they've broken the law is not indicative
   >> that their activities are wrong -- the phrase ``civil 
   >> disobedience'' quickly comes to mind.

   > The fact that apologists for this group of terrorists describe
   > their criminal acts as "civil disobedience" 

   Can you name one single act of 'terrorism' which the
   group has condoned or endorsed (with references)?  

Check the Pittsburgh papers about the miscarriage caused by one of the
little OR bastards.  (I'm making no pretense of being impartial -- like
anyone else who's done clinic defense, I've seen their true colors.  Unlike
you, though, I'm honest enough to admit it.)

   As far as being an 'apologist', I am neither a supporter
   nor an opponent of the group.  I just want people to
   receive unbiased information about the group.

Sure you do, Rev.  The only fly in the ointment is, your definition of
"unbiased" is better translated as "unquestioning acceptance of anything
said by OR".  It looks to me like you're pretty worried that someone will
link you with them, but fear not -- I have no doubt you'll manage to do that
all by yourself.  You're off to a good start, so far.

--PLH, they'll be outta *my* neighborhood.

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion