From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:13:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.052528.2101@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Cool World applicant) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>  = Stephen A Chaney [to Doug]

>>> Hey, Doug, ever notice how Jay Stein whacks on and on about religious
>>> bends in the PRO-LIFE camp? 

>> Yeah, Stein seems to enjoy promoting the idea that abortion is a 
>> religious issue, 

> I have never made any such claim.  I do not promote this idea, and in fact
> I have stated on numerous occasions that abortion is NOT a religious issue,
> as far as the law is concerned.  Either support the claim or retract, please.
> I'd hate to think that you misrepresent me deliberately.

On numerous occasions, I've seen you make reference to religious
abortion protesters. You must have a reason for doing that, and I
just assume that you want to promote the idea that abortion is a
religious issue (at least, for some people). 

>> but I think his strategy will backfire badly once 
>> more pro-choicers start voicing their religious views on abortion.

> One more time Doug - it is okay for one's *personal* view on abortion to
> be guided by religious beliefs.  It is *not* okay for abortion *legislation*
> to be guided by religious beliefs.  This has always been my stated view
> on t.a.

Fine. I was just commenting that your tactics could backfire. 

>> Did you ever notice that pro-choicers back off from their "abortion
>> is a religious issue" rant whenever Mark Ira Kaufman opens his mouth?
>> We definitely need to get Kaufman posting more. 

> I notice, Doug and Steve, that you were both VERY silent about this article:

I have previously stated that religious beliefs are an inadequate
basis for supporting or opposing abortion laws. I have publically 
criticized pro-lifers (and pro-choicers) for using religion in this
manner. I don't publically criticize every poster because it's a
waste of bandwidth. 
 
[..article deleted, which I do not agree with, and I do not support it..]

Actually, the poster did not claim that he supported abortion laws,
only that he was anti-abortion. 


> So on the one hand you get on my case for refusing to comment on a
> religious statement, when you refused even to acknowledge the above
> article.  In other words, pot:f(kettle)="black"

I asked you to comment on a pro-choice religious statement that
"personhood begins...a month after birth". In response, you ignored it.

You asked me to comment on a pro-life religious statement. In response,
I disagreed with it.

Now what were you saying about pots and kettles?
 

> [..]
>> And even when asked, Stein 
>> ignored Feldt's remark that "personhood begins...a month after birth". 

> Because it's irrelevant.  I have already said that her belief is, if based
> on religious tenets, an inappropriate basis for legislation.  Aside from
> that, it makes *no* difference what I think of her comment.

That's right, you ignored Feldt's comment that "personhood begins... 
a month after birth". Certainly it wouldn't be too hard to say 
"I disagree with that statement", or "I think she's correct"? 

The score-card:

>>                                          Pro-choicer Feldt's remark
>>       Feldt's remark that "personhood    that her logic is based upon  
>>       begins...a month after birth"      a religious perspective 
>>       ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Stein     Ignored the remark                Criticized the remark

>          because it's irrelevant.          No, I didn't criticize this
>                                            remark - I said only that it
>                                            makes bad legislation.

Stein        Ignored the remark             Pro-choice religious beliefs
                                            make for bad legislation, but
                                            can't bring himself to criticize
                                            individual pro-choicers. 


Let's see... you ask my opinion of an individual pro-lifer who holds
religious views on abortion, and yet you refuse to offer an opinion 
of an individual pro-choicer who holds religious views on abortion...

Gee, that's awfully hypocritical...

 
> If you really think I'm basing my pro-choice view on religious tenets,
> Doug, then you haven't understood a word I've said.

I never said that.

>Jay T Stein 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion