From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Keegan excludes anyone from being prochoice if they support restrictions on abortion
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:55:11 GMT
	<LABACH.92Nov6121215@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<1992Nov7.041109.18976@rotag.mi.org>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Nov7.041109.18976@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes: 
> In article <LABACH.92Nov6121215@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
> labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes: 
> >Of course, clueless one, "restrictions" on abortion are not the same as
> >"legislation" on limiting abortion.  You seem to be trying to read as
> >much as possible into a statement for the purposes of twisting it.
> 
> The fact remains, however, that Keegie, one of our resident net.label.cops,
> would disqualify someone from the label "pro-choice" merely because of 
> differences between their view on third-trimester abortions and his own. 
> Third-trimester abortions, as has been posted numerous times in this group, 
> amount to about 0.000067% of all abortions performed in this country. The
> percentage seems a tad, er, insignificant to warrant such a heavy-handed 
> "orthodoxy" purge, doncha think?

That's why I don't worry about such things.  Really, there are new
issues that arise in the abortion debate all the time.  Wasting time on
this isn't very important to me.  Sometimes, though, one just gets
provoked by the silliness to say something.  I'd rather be out defending
clinics, or better yet, living in a society where clinics don't have to
be defended.

> >I don't personally know any pro-choice advocate who thinks there should
> >be legal restrictions on abortions.  
> 
> Do you think such a view could be at least compatible with pro-choice?

Yes, but I've yet to encounter it in the trenches.

> >In any case, since Keegan is not forcing anyone to stop using the label
> >"pro-choice" even if he thinks that it is inaccurate, ...
> 
> He continually posts insulting followups to such people's articles,
> accusing them of all manner of "lying" and "hypocrisy" and whatnot.
> So, while it's technically true that he's not _forcing_ anyone to conform to 
> his view of what "pro-choice" is, that's not for lack of trying; it's only
> for lack of EFFECTIVENESS in achieving his apparent goal.

What "trying"?  If he says "don't call yourself that", people can ignore
it.  He can call my position on abortion rights "bungee-jumping" if he
wants.  That won't change the facts:

	1) He is not trying to make the law enforce his view of reality
	   like the anti-choicers do.
	2) His views and mine are so close on the legal results we want
	   to see come out of the abortion debate that I'm not going to
	   get upset about what seems to be nothing more than name-calling.

> >...a statist dipstick
> >like you who wants the law to force women to become birthing machines
> >can only make claims about others being "fascist control freaks" in the
> >most ironic of senses.
> 
> What about the pro-choicers who have criticized Keegie for exactly the
> same behavior (albeit not quite with as much passion as Doug has here)? 
> Does our criticism qualify us as "fascist control freaks" too?

Hmm, I guess I don't read t.a often enough.  I thought you were an
anti-choicer...  I classify those who want to force people to use their
bodies in undesired ways as "fascist control freaks".  That would
include murderers, muggers, rapists, generals, and anti-choicers.

- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I myself an a free man only insofar as I recognize the humanity and
 liberty of all the men who surround me.  In respecting their humanity I
 respect my own."
 - Mikhail Bakunin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion