From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Kevin's "Unretracted lie" documented as truth
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:53:40 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

(I'm posting this because I think Darcy has Keegan in a killfile, so might not
see that this is being posted by Keegan every time Darcy posts Susan's quote.
It would save a lot of bandwidth if Darcy would stop incorrectly labelling
it as a lie...)

In <v4g2+qm@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>->UNRETRACTED LIE
>->---------------
>
>->"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
>-> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>->                                 Susie Garvin
>->                                 Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>->                                 <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>
>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>Path: rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
>From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
>Message-ID: <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org>
>Organization: Who, me???
>References: <1992Sep27.163248.9935@hemlock.cray.com> <l!_ps+.bskendig@netcom.com> <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu>
>Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT
>Lines: 61
>
>In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just
>>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>>in case".
>>
>>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.
>
>You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
>Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
>of our government already?
>
>Look, the situation is quite simple:
>
>       *IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>       good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive
>       legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>       exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>       etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
>       be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
>       late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.
>
>       *IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
>       for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
>       legislation.
>
>Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with
>nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.
>
>>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.
>
>If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible",
>then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.
>
>>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>>don't fix it.
>
>I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:
>
>       Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
>       fires" afterwards
>
>which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.
>
>                                                               - Kevin
>
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty