From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:45:25 GMT
Summary: Now he's playing games.  Time to end this.

Mr Lebow has resorted to gamesmanship, which does not interest
me at all.

In article <C0K3vv.Ly7@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.131050.28952@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <C0I741.5It@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan7.133403.23651@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
> >> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> >In article <C0En7z.115@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> >> ....
> >> >"Headpieces stuffed with clay"
> >> >
> >> ...
> >> 
> >> Dean - 
> >> 
> >> 	This tit for tat is not very enlightening for either of us.  Let me
> summarize
> >> my position, how I see your objection to my position, and "where I'm coming
> >> from"
> >
> >You deleted everything from my posting except a line I inserted after
> >my name, a quote from T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men," which I added
> >as an echo of the word "strawman."  I find that especially
> >unenlightening.
> 
> (1) First lets not be sloppy with our language.  I did not delete anything from
> your posting, and you very well know it. I chose not to repeat your last post
> for the reason I gave in my first sentence above.  I wonder if you speak as
> loudly as you write.
> 

In the first place, in order to quote the line you quoted you
had to follow-up my posting and delete everything except the one
line.  Which is what you did.  So if we're going to
talk about being sloppy, it is more accurate to say you deleted
everything from my posting except the one line.  I am astonished
that you could write that you deleted nothing when all of the
material is right there to be examined, including attributions.
.
> >>Regardless of what you have inferred from my initial objections to Heather's
> >> question, it was rhetoric and not rights that I was adressing. I've noticed
> the
> >> word, "lier" is used quite frequently on t.a. (though not from you).  If you
> >> feel I am being deceitful, say so and forget it.  You are certainly entitled
> to
> >> your opinion.  
>  
> >
> >No, I feel you're just flat out wrong, and that you keep avoiding
> >the actual discussion.
> 
> (2) Oh, I see, I'm wrong about what my intentions are, but I'm not being
> deceitful.  That, Sir, is doubletalk.

Your opinions are wrong and your interpretation of the issue
under discussion is wrong.  Pretending to misunderstand me is
possibly an entertaining tactic to you, but it is a pretty
obvious and trivial tactic.  You begin to bore me with your
nonsense.

> >  But your next remarks demonstrate how far
> >from the actual discussion you are.  In fact, your next remarks
> >make it clear that I have been wasting my time since you don't
> >seem to understand what was being discussed at all.
> >
> >> I have been sensitized to the rhetoric on BOTH sides of the debate and react
> >> when I feel language is used (consciously or not) in an ambiguous way. I
> will
> >> be glad to be "educated" by you or anyone else on the ramifications of
> rights
> >> of the unborn vs mother, but it just wasn't my intent.
> >> 
> >> You are apparently very well versed on the question of rights, it looms
> large
> >> in your mind, so large in fact that you feel I must be "unresponsive" or
> >> deliberately avoiding the issue if I don't breakdown and admit that indeed
> >> rights are the central issue and my concerns are meaningless.
> >
> >Heather asked if anyone could name rights that could be granted to
> >a fetus that would not remove rights from a mother.  You refuse to
> >address the issue of rights and instead make up a lot of supposed
> >assumed conclusions on the part of Heather's question.  If you
> >can find a way to make a question like "what rights can be granted
> >X that would not remove rights from Y" into a question that does
> >not revolve around the issue of rights, well, you haven't, and despite
> >much effort, managed it yet.  If Heather's question wasn't about
> >fetal rights versus women's rights, why did she use the word "rights"
> >as she did?  And why did you include a discussion of rights in your
> >first response to her?  In fact, you addressed that issue as one
> >of your "pre-supposed conclusions."
> 
> (3) Despite what the Supreme Court may have said in the text of their decision,
> the EFFECT of Roe v Wade combined with Doe V Bolton is to allow the killing of
> the unborn for any reason and at any time.  That is, the purposely vague
> condition, "health of the mother" has nullified any pretense toward recognizing
> meaningful rights for the unborn.  Thus, the current state of affairs is that
> the mother has TOTAL authority over the existance of the unborn.  To recognize
> ANY rights for the unborn, BY DEFINITION, makes that authority no longer TOTAL.
>  Get it?

I see you do not wish to address my point and now leap to the
discussion you could have had weeks ago.  Tell The Reverend I
said that it didn't wash when he played the game and it doesn't
wash here.  The unborn are not killed for any reason at any
time.  Rather, the effect of those two decisions is to leave
the determination of the affect of a pregnancy on a woman's health
in the hands of the woman and her medical attendants.  If it is
your opinion that the state is better able to determine the
affect of a pregnancy on a woman's health than she or her
medical attendants, please explain how you arrive at that
conclusion.

Furthermore, please show me how women are able to obtain abortions,
for example, late in the third trimester for any reason.  If
the woman has total authority over the decision, then by
your very definition doctors do not have the right to refuse
a woman an abortion beyond the 30th week, for example.  Many
states restrict abortions after the second trimester begins,
except reasons of health.

What I find most ridiculous in these arguments about the definition
of health is the notion that the state is better able to declare
by fiat what affect a pregnancy will have on a woman than is the
woman and her physician.  The impression left by the rhetoric of
the "there are no real restrictions" crowd is that any woman can
obtain an abortion at any time in her pregnancy for any reason,
as though the system were chaotic and run amok.  If there is
any evidence beyond anecdotal evidence of such a situation, I
would like to see it.

Even if such evidence were presented, it would not, I should not,
be an argument against abortion in, for example, the first 20 weeks
of pregnancy, but merely an argument for a better definition
for the term "health."

The declaration that the "mother has TOTAL authority over
the existance of the unborn" is entirely incorrect, since what
she actually has is a right to obtain an abortion when her
health is threatened late in her pregnancy.  Again, if you can
do better than find anecdotal evidence that women are getting
late-term abortions in the absence of any threat to their health,
please do so.  But not too much.  Reverend Douglas Holtsinger
bores me.  He was already shown to be incorrect in his assertions
on this matter and has been trying to foist this argument of his
on talk.abortion for an age and an age.

> >> I have failed to convince you of the inappropriateness of Heather's
> question;
> >> but the vigorous way in which you try to discredit everything I say
> surprises
> >> me.  For instance, you have repeatedly claimed I avoid answering THE
> question,
> >> as if that were some sign of uncertainty on my part.  Again, call me a liar
> if
> >> you must, but that assertion is false.
> >
> >I have remained impersonal in this discussion.  Your tone suggests
> >you took all this personally.  That is yet another error on your
> >part.  If most everything you say is wrong and I point that out,
> >then that is all I have done.
>  
> See my second remark above.
> 

Second remark where above?  What does that have to do with you
taking my remarks personally?

> > I am extremely unconcerned with your emotional well-being, Mr Lebow.
> 
> Mean spirited and gratuitous.  

But I am unconcerned with your emotional well-being.  If that is
mean-spirited then I plead guilty.  You have taken my arguments
personally, though there is nothing personal about them.  I
didn't call you a liar, I demonstrated how your arguments are
wrong.  If this has an affect on your emotional well-being
then the problem is your own.

> >I have no idea what you mean by dragging the word "liar" into this.
> >I took great pains to demonstrate both how your postings were
> >wrong and how you were avoiding addressing the question Heather
> >asked.  I am not up to explaining the difference between a lie
> >and an erroneous statement.  That is simply not part of the
> >discussion.
> 
> See my second remark above.

That is non-responsive.

> >And you most definitely avoided Heather's question.  You came
> >up with assumed conclusions for her question which weren't even
> >there, and specifically stated that you couldn't answer her question
> >because of conclusions that the question assumed.  And again, the
> >question did no such thing, which I went to some lengths to show.
> >
> See my second remark above.

Hardly worth answering you anymore since you have no answers for
me.

> >> As far as me being nasty (previous post of yours), I can tell you that
> despite
> >> my sarcasm, I have never felt the urge to hurl imvectives at you or anyone. 
> If
> >> I have, I apologize for sloppy language.  As for Muriel being "bitter", why
> >> would anyone call a perfect stranger a woman hating "twit" unless they were
> >> predisposed  by prior unpleasant interactions with others?  To me, this
> defines
> >> "bitterness".
> >
> >It is a shame that you cannot recognize the misogyny that others
> >saw in your posting, and which prompted Muriel's calling you a
> >"misogynistic twit."  She reposted the article that prompted her
> >response.  She did not seem bitter.  She made sense.
> 
> So sorry Dean.  For one who has T.S. Eliot at the tip of his tongue, I find
> your lack of precision baffling.  Muriel gave a bating, leading and I hope,
> rhetorical question,"Would you like to go back to to the days of illegal,
> unsterile or self-induced abortion?"  How should one respond Dean, yes or no?
> My response,
> 
>  "Guess what, Muriel?  There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than
> now- try a diffent line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, 'back alley, coat
> hanger' image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keep those
> undecided folks shaking in their shoes"
> 
> So what exactly, what precisely did I say that implies I hate women?  Please,
> tell me.  

I don't recall precisely the postings in question.  I believe there
was more to it than what you quote here, since I did see the repost.
I recall agreeing with Muriel.  By the way, I have yet to see you
post any facts to back your assertion in what you just quoted.  The
facts offered by various people indicate that you are wrong.  I
posted at the time a question concerning the significance of absolute
numbers versus the percentages or relative dangers of abortion
versus child-birth and the dangers of the associated procedures.

> >Furthermore, recognizing misogyny in another by no means
> >defines bitterness.  I can recognize anti-Semitism in others
> >based on previous experiences, and wouldn't hesitate to
> >call an anti-Semite an anti-Semitic twit.  But that's not
> >bitterness.  That's just realism.  
> 
> Oh really?  Your emotional detachment is admirable.  I can see the article you
> might write for a prominent sociological jounal, "The Predominance of
> Anti-Semitic Twits Among Middle-Class Males"

Your sarcasm is unnecessary.  Your remarks are not funny or even
remotely droll, which I assume you were aiming at.  The discussion
was about the term "bitter."  I can hate an anti-Semite, which is
far from being detached, but I am not bitter.  You criticized me
for an alleged sloppiness of language at the beginning of this
posting.  Here you seem to show no understanding of reasonably
common terms such as "bitter" and "emotional detachment."  I
guess my point is lost on you or you are being deliberately obtuse.
I will spell it out.  "Bitter" is not an accurate term for
Muriel's response to you or for my response to anti-Semitism.
A better term might be "hostile."  Hostility is not by definition
bitterness, though one might be both bitter and hostile.

> >It is no more bitterness
> >than calling a wonderful human being a wonderful human
> >being when you come across a wonderful human being.

> >As I said before, Muriel strikes me as piquant and zesty, not bitter.
> >Don't know about sweet.  If she offers to run out at 11 PM to
> >get me a pack of Funnybones I'll add "sweet" to the list.  There
> >is only so much one can tell from electronic communications.
> 
> From this pillowtalk I think I understand the defensiveness now.

Please enlighten me.  I am curious to know where I, if it is me
you are referring to, have been defensive.
 
> >> I feel deep sadness by some of the nastiness I've seen here. 
> >
> >I don't believe you.  I really don't. 
> 
> Surprise, surprise!
> 
> > This last line of yours
> >really has the flavor of pure rhetoric.  "Deep sadness?"  I
> >seriously doubt that.  If it were true, I would say you have some
> >emotional problems and that participating in the net is unhealthy
> >for you.  On the other hand, you might say that I am once again
> >trying to show how everything you say is wrong.  It is not,
> >however, personal.  I just don't believe that "deep sadness"
> >business.
> 
> Right. What do I have to be sad about? They are just clumps of cells after all.

You said that you "feel deep sadness by some of the nastiness
[you've] seen here."  Since we were discussing Muriel's response
to you and the general tenor of discussion on talk.abortion, I assumed
you were referring to your reaction to the tone of discussion here.
Now you claim it was something else that saddened you.  The pattern
has been fixed nicely now.  You change the terms of the argument
to suit you.  For someone who claimed before that context is so
important, you abandon context when it is convenient.  I am not
sure who you think you are fooling.  Perhaps the emotional appeal
("clump of cells") is designed to sell to someone somewhere.  The fact
remains that this is not what we were discussing when you claimed your
deep sadness.
> 
> >
> >> Frankly, it scares the hell out of me.  I have no use for any "pro-lifers"
> who
> >> might come to my defense spewing some of the stuff I've heard from the
> >> pro-abort side, and I would make that clear to them.  Thankfully this has
> not
> >> occurred.
> >
> >"Scares the hell out of" you?  Why are you reading the net if it
> >causes you deep sadness and great fear? 
> 
> Irrelevant.  My reading of the net has nothing to do with what is on it.

Your "reading of the net has nothing to with what is on it?"
That is obvious from your responses, which have little do with
what you are responding to.  As an example, Heather asked a
question about rights and you constructed a bunch of pre-suppositions
for her question which, in fact, were not pre-suppositions for
her question.  They were not there.  When I showed this about
your pre-suppositions, you responded with a bunch of irrelevant
arguments about the importance of context, which in the case
of Heather's question was not an issue and did not, in fact,
support what you had pre-supposed for her question.

> > You have been very admanant
> >about the rhetoric involved in these discussions, yet yours has
> >consisted of a lot of sarcasm, avoidance of issues, and now
> >some rather strange hyperbole...
> 
> Hyperbole?  How so? I think your self-described thick-skinned nature can take a
> little sarcasm.

It is, however, unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion.  I
think you're just trying to get me to respond in kind.
 
> Again, you accuse me of lying (in a sterile way) about not only my thoughts but
> emotions.  Sorry you have the need to do so.  

Why do you try so hard to get me to call you a liar?  You have
repeatedly brought up the issue of lying, almost begging me to
call you a liar.  Anyone who reads this posting can see that for
her or himself.  I am completely mystified by it.  To call
hyperbole hyperbole is not the same as calling you a liar.
An exaggeration does not rate the epithet "liar."  And no,
I do no really believe you are deeply saddened by the rhetoric
of talk.abortion, nor do I believe that it scares the hell out of
you since you embrace it.  One does not embrace that which
saddens and frightens them.
> 
> >
> >> I would look forward to a discussion of rights, but the rhetoric I hear will
> >> always be of major concern to me.

I just want to point out that this remark of Mr Lebow's, if read
contiguously with his earlier remarks, indicates very clearly
that when he said he was "deeply saddened" he was not talking
about the "clumps of cells" but about the rhetoric itself.  And
no "clump of cells" rhetoric had been a part of the discussion at
all until Mr Lebow's latest posting in this thread.

> >If you were interested in a discussion of rights then when someone
> >presented a question concerning rights you would have addressed that
> >issue.  Instead you gave us a discussion of rhetoric, and even when
> >you addressed the matter of rights you addressed it in terms of
> >rhetoric.  This does not seem to me the work of someone interested
> >in a discussion of rights.
> 
> On your terms, of course.

That is just gamesmanship, Mr Lebow.  Your terms were to state that
the discussion of rights did not exist.  That is hardly a term
under which to discuss rights.

> >  For numerous postings between us the
> >issue was there for you to address.
>   
> Hardly.  You've devoted most of your efforts trying to discredit my assertion. 
> Part of that tactic involved raising the strawman issue of me not answering a
> question.

If you go back to my original postings, you find that I continuously
reasserted the question of rights and the surrounding issues.  Early
on I dealt with the question in full.  That disappeared some time
back and now you wish to claim that I never did that.  Those who
read the articles know what went on.

> >Now, in this last paragraph,
> >you provide us with a statement of your interest in a discussion
> >of rights.  And it is only so much rhetoric.
> 
> Sounds nice, but totally unsupportable. You seem to have trouble controlling
> your ipse dixits too.I suppose a discussion of rights is as important to me as
> a discussion of abortion debate rhetoric is to you.

The support lies in the fact that the only time you have
actually discussed rights in this thread is in this posting that I
am following.  Previous to that you never entered the matter,
though I had initiated precisely that discussion in the early
days of this thread.  I am really unable to understand why you
are being so sarcastic with me.  I wonder if you are able to have
a reasonable discussion at all.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - The Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55029 alt.dads-rights:3272 alt.feminism:7001 alt.abortion.inequity:6376