Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:10:57 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Oct28.101701.2639@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) whines:
>>> In article <1992Oct24.131736.2602@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[...]
> Sorry, Brian.  We had a discussion about how esthetic and emotional
> considerations should not enter into a debate, and I clean forgot 
> that you *did* tell me that you and your wife *knew* abortion is
> morally wrong.  My sincere apologies.

No problem...  I'm not sure if it's correct to say "I *know* abortion
is morally wrong" though.  I know it's a fact for me, but it might
not be for some other dude.  Not sure.

>>>>If I presented my own personal opinions of abortion and said
>>>>I thought they should be enacted into law my ass would be flamed
>>>>crispier than Jeffery James Price's.  The reason I am pro-choice is
>>>>because I am not as narrow-minded as some people are in thinking that
>>>>my personal opinions should be enacted into law.
> 
> This is the kind of talk that clouded my mind and made me wonder whether
> you had changed your moral stance. 

What's wrong with the above kind of talk?

>>>  You still haven't
>>>>answered my email question:  Why should everybody be forced to
>>>>obey anti-abortion laws just because *you* think that somebody may
>>>>"be home" 5 weeks after conception?  I assume you don't have an answer
>>>>for this, otherwise you would have emailed it to me a week ago.
> 
> I saw no pressing need to answer it, and still don't. 

You could do it just as a common courtesy.

> It would seem to
> me that the person who would allow that "somebody home" to be consigned
> to oblivion without even a fair trial is the one with explaining to do.

Why?  You need to expand on just how much "somebody is home" and why
you think they are home, and why you think everybody should ahere to
what you think.  
 
> Once again, I am sorry.  But if you do not base your moral stance against
> abortion on sympathy for that "somebody home," on what *do* you base it?

See my previous postings :-)!!!
 
>>> I never knew that the F word was acceptable in a debate.  Interestinng.
>>Who's debating?  How would you react, Simon, if Peter posted that he thought
  **************
>>your personal aversion to abortion was comparable to Bush's aversion to 
>>broccoli?  Would you be happy about it?
> 
> I did not say I thought anything, I asked a question.  Apparently some
> questions are so loaded that the questioner can only be dealt with by
> resorting to gutter language.  

I'm sure everyone will agree that the word "fuck" has grown to be quite
a lot more than gutter language.  I hear it everywhere I go, how about you?

> Interesting how you keep esthetics and emotions separate from other things, 
> Brian.

I never said they should be kept separate, I said if you want to have a
rational debate, you need to keep emotions at bay.  There was no debate
happening, you only questioned my morals.

> Here is what you said in a recent e-mail to me, between the ____ lines:
> 		___________________________
> When you are trying to hold a rational discussion you *must* try to keep
> emotional clouds at bay. 

I called that one pretty well, eh?

> Sure, you may make an argument about appearances
> once in a "weak" while, but *really* there is no reason to grant extra
> moral weight on the grounds of appearances.  This was one of the key
> lessons I learned from my Contemporary Social Issues prof.  If you
> want to find out what is right and what is wrong, you cannot allow
> yourself to be biased by warm fuzzy feelings.  I made a billion and
> a half examples in that sonogram/mother of all prejudices post.
[...]
> It has *nothing* to do with being pro-abortion.  It is apalling to argue from
> either side about rights equating to moral worth.  My attack on Chaney/
> everyone else with similiar appeal to emotion arguements was
> completely called for.  If we want to make people cry and feel bad, then
> maybe we should resort to these tactics, but if we want to get to the
> heart and truth of the matter, then such appeals should be trashed.
> 			_________________
> But uses of gutter language should not be trashed, eh?

I was not attempting to make an argument concerning debate, I was reacting
in an angry fashion to statements which made me angry.
 
> Lest anyone think I stepped out of line by making e-mail public, this
> is a direct quote from a subsequent post of Brian:
> 
> "I urge you to say anything you want in public.  You have my permission
> to post any email you receive from me from the beginning of time to the
> end.  I have nothing to hide."

Same goes for anybody else I happen to mail.  It's your mail, not mine.

[me saying Simon was whining that I didn't get flamed for posting "fuck"] 
> 
> I dunno, I think Brian is misrepresenting Simon here.

Maybe I was, but that's how I saw it.  It made me smile anyway, so it
wasn't all bad.
 
> *I* think saying "Fuck off, Peter" is just a disguised form of whining.

Maybe it is, but you'd have to expand for me to understand what you mean
by that...  When someone angers you, and you make an angry response,
is that whining?  Idaknow.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca