From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice(K. Welch to defend INTEGRITY against lies)
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron

>Kevin W.
>>Ron

>>Either way, I don't eat my words.

>This I've seen. Although I may watch you eat these, before the main
>course.

What words of my own have I eaten?  Place them down before me so I
may acknowledge that you are indeed correct.

>>Learn some respect, though.

>I have plenty for those worthy of it. Why don't you learn to respect
>the choice of the pregnant woman, whatever her choice may be?

I respect her wishes.  I cannot respect a decision to kill humans unless
a situation would warrant that person's waiver of life.

>>>After that slavery thing,
>>>which you've stumbled into twice now, you have negative credibility
>>>with me, if that were possible.

>>With you, nothing is possible.

>Really? Then why do ask below whether I'll give you a chance to defend
>your integrity, if you think this is impossible? Do you believe the
>defense is impossible, and therefore ask me if you can, so you can say
>it is my fault when you fail? Please, I'd like to know.

With you, the other side has no possibility to express its wishes and
beliefs.  Once a pro-life man enters the debate, like hornets you
attack him.  Except there is one crucial difference, a hornet stings and
kills.  It's efficient.  You, however, pick and slice away at integrity.
You weapons are words, personal attacks, phrases like "woman-hater", 
"fetus-worshiper" and "get your god out of my life".  You try to
create wounds and then salt them.  Well, nothing on me but you has festered,
Ron.

>>I find you to be a human being, Ron, just like me.  I respect every
>>belief that you hold, whether I disagree with it or not.  I respect your
>>lifestyle.  I will defend your right to say whatever you want on this
>>network.  I believe in freedoms such as these.  I believe in letting
>>others live their lives without harming others.

>Thanks for finding me to be a human being.

Like I say, all are equal in my eyes.

>I'm not like you, however,
>or not at this time.

Other than the fact that you don't look like me or share my beliefs, you
are no more important to society.  You are no less important to
society than I.  You, Ron, are no different.  You are just another man
fighting for what he believes to be correct, excercising his freedoms.

>The fact that you respect my beliefs is nice, as
>well as defending my right to speak. I, however, believe in letting
>others live their lives without interference from others (which includes
>harming others, BTW).

If you believe in harming others, tell me how often you do it, Ron.  You have
yet to harm me.  Show me your ways.  Come forward and strike me down.
Your stance on abortion is offensive to me.  Your slanders to people
like me are offensive to me, yet they are your opinions.  I cannot
let your opinions be ignored.  However exposed they are, they demonstrate
your manhood.

>>Well if age is a level of maturity, then I am indeed immature compared
>>to Gordon, 35.  I am indeed immature compared to Patrick, (God knows).

>>If character is a measure of maturity, then you have none.  If respect
>>is a measure of maturity, you have none.

>Your opinion, since these are completely subjective.

Yes, it is my opinion, and you have every right to discount it.

>But, since you
>have attacked my character, please show me where I lack it. I have given
>backing for everything I said, where requested, and capitulated one 
>word for sake of clarity.

You have made assertions about my character which you could not possibly
ever prove.  And I have done the same to you.

We have both failed.

>Failing this, of course, indicates a lack
>of character on your part. Not to mention respect. You should have valid
>reasons not to respect someone. You'll gain mine when you earn it, by
>gaining some credibility.

I should have valid reasons not to accept someone.  I should have no valid
reason to not respect someone.  I have valid reasons to not respect
ACTIONS, WORDS, and THOUGHTS, not PEOPLE, people like you and me.

>>It seems as though every time I interject something that has force, especially
>>when it's said by the leaders of your side, you discount it as irrelevant.
>>To you, this is the blatant assertion that you do not bother with.  This
>>is the problem you have with my presence.

>Give me an example, please. A minimum of three are actually required, 
>by your context, but I'll take one.

I have cited countless quotes by Mary Anne Warren, Faye Dunaway (sp) of
Planned Parenthood, Kate Michelman of NARAL, and others.  Most recently
you have shot down my assertions of what Mary Anne Warren has to say about
the body and property, giving her no once of credit.

>And who are the leaders of my side, 
>anyway?

Those which I have mentioned, including the voices of NOW and other womens
organizations.

>Pro-choice is a conglomeration of people with many different 
>ideas but one thing in common, that abortion should not be outlawed. 

Pro-Life is a conglomeration as well.  But we have people that organize,
people that we look up to, people that no more about the law and social
issues than we do.  The same goes for your team.

>That's about as far as it goes. For the rest, many do wish some restrictions 
>on abortion, and follow many different people. We are not led around 
>by the nose like the Catholic pro-lifers are by the pope. The other 
>pro-lifers I'm not including here, obviously.

The pope leads the Catholic Chruch.  Baptists for life do not follow the
pope.  Atheists for life do not follow the pope.  Modernists for life
do not necessarily follow the pope.  We are pro-life because we believe in
it.


>>>You gloat over minor points, that most don't care about, while consistently
>>>ignoring the major ones.

>>If the points are minor, why did you argue them in the first place?
>>Is it an ego thing, Ron?  Or did you find some value in them?

>I can admit I was led into them at first. Now I'm dragging you into
>the main issue. No ego, it was a willingness to debate small points 
>in the hope that you would be enlightened. That was before I knew that 
>you "don't eat my words" and would never concede a point. They then
>lost their value.

Did they lose their value or did you just lose the fight, Ron?

I have been in the main issue for half my life.

>>>As for that major point, you've finally come out and said it, you think
>>>the woman totally worthless,

>>Quote it or retract it.  I demand of you the same respect that I have
>>given you.  If you cannot supply one piece of evidence where I have
>>said the woman is "totally worthless", you are a liar.

>OK, I'll retract 'said' and replace it with 'implied'. What can you 
>deduce from statements like your response to:

>    If there is a 99.99999% chance that the woman would become a parapalegic,
>    you refuse to let her have an abortion?
>    Your answer:"That is not 100% dead" in reference to the fetus.

This indicates that I value the fetus in the chance the woman may survive.
That means I hope both survive.  That means I pray both survive.  That means
I value the woman.

There is no statement in here in which I devalue a woman.

>and statements like:
>    "pregnancy is LIKE a harmless slavery"

It is of sorts, compared to actual slavery.  I ahve not devalued a woman.
Nor will I ever.

>other than that you consider the woman is totally worthless is beyond me.

I do not believe a woman is totally worthless.  I say again, Ron, do
not you're opening a Pandora's box with me and it's going to be hell
when you continue to mislead the other readers with your opinions.  Again
I say, Ron, quote it or retract it.

>Care to dispute this? Please give a logical explanation why subjecting
>women to slavery makes women worth something,

I subject no woman to slavery, Ron.  Quote it or retract it.  Why is it
that you must continually stuff words into my mouth, Ron.  YOu said earlier
it is not an ego thing, but I feel that it is.  You revel in trying to
destroy my credibility.  You enjoy sitting down at your terminal and lying
about what I have said.  I NEVER said I would subject a woman to slavery.
Perhaps you should sit down at your desk at home or school or office and
look up the word "like".  It is a very complex word at start, Ron, but
it has a very distinct meaning.  And then look up the word "is".  This is
a very long definition isn't it?  "Like" is not "is".  I did not say
pregnancy is harmless slavery.  That would be subjecting women to
slavery, a position which I have repeatedly denied but you assert.  I have
not implied that women should be subjected to slavery to serve the purpose
of men, either.  I have stated that for women, pregnancy creates a biologic
inequality with men that is unfortunate, but true.  It is because of their
biology that women have been denied decent jobs and equal pay.  It is because
of their biology that women have been unjustly forced to stay at home and
raise the children while the men work.  It is because of their biology that
a woman who sleeps with many men is a slut while a man who sleeps with
many women is a stud.  It is because of her biology that a women has
been unjustly put in a situation like slavery.

I will not subject anyone to slavery.


>Please explain how
>making someone a parapalegic, when it could easily have been avoided,
>is making that person worth something more than what they were before.
>Logically please, as I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this.

The condition that may result is indeed unfortunate.  But the destruction
of life is avoided.

>BTW, am I a liar because I mis-stated the one word that I corrected?
>Or will you retract that in turn?

If you corrected yourself then I retract calling you a liar.  

>>>not even in control of her own body.

>>Quote it or retract it.  I said her body is not her property.  A man's body
>>is not his property.  S/He cannot do with that body as s/he pleases.

>here's your quote:
>
>	    I said her body is not her property.  A man's body
>	    is not his property.  S/He cannot do with that body
>	    as s/he pleases.

>Except that now you've added men to it also.

Yes now I have added men.  I realize I should have before.  I was wrong not
to add men, but the quote was specifically designed for David with the
Mary Anne Warren quote in mind that made references only to WOMEN.  It
was MAW who claimed a woman's body is not her property.  I restated. 

>How fairminded of you.
>Hear that everyone?

Yes, I should have put men in before, but that would be a misquote of what
MAW said.

>Now you must ask permission, from who I have no
>idea, before you take that body and place it in the shower. You can't
>do as you please with your body any more, and don't even think of letting
>X touch it without permission.

Do with your body as you please refers to the thread of Kantian
self-preservation in which one cannot hurt one's self.

You are right, Ron, no one can touch me without my permission.  That is a
1907 court decision handed down by Judge Scordozo (sp) in the court case
Scholendorff v. Society Hospital of New York (may be wrong title, Ted).
It is the basis for informed consent.  Breifly the decision says that
any intrusion of the body against the person's consent is unauthorized
and the person responsible for the action can be liable for damages under
the Tort of Battery.  So, don't touch me, as I will exercise my rights.

>>>If it is not her property, with your meanings attached, then she isn't
>>>in control of it.

>>Wrong.  I didn't say this.  Quote it or retract it.  I said property
>>and body are two separate entities.

>Same quote as above. Not being able to do with it as you please means
>you are not in control of it.

I said she cannot do what she pleases with her BODY.  I did NOT say she
could not control it.  I did NOT say she
cannot do what she pleases with her PROPERTY.  Body and property are two
different entities.  Quit lying, Ron.  My blood pressure is rising.

>2 out of 3 directly supported by your post.

You are batting .001, Ron.  I give you .001 because you have become
more receptive to my comments and generally accepted that you have faults
as I have faults.  You were batting around .267, but then you lied about what
I said.


>>Do I want to say I hate homosexuals?

>Don't know, you did tell Keith something or other along the lines of
>'fag' however.

I NEVER ONCE USED THE TERM 'FAG'.  Stop lying, RON.  Now, to salvage
your credibility, post exactly for our readers hear where I called him
a fag.  DO IT!

>In case you weren't aware of it, this term connotes very
>negative feelings toward gay men, and is generally used by those who
>dislike or despise gay men, because they are gay.

I do not despise gay men.  I do not like what they do, but that is their
choice and I have no say in their personal lives.  I would never call
him a "fag".

I demand you post where I condemned Keith in any form for being homosexual.
DO IT!  To save yourself and to show the world you are not a liar.

>>DO I want to say I hate women?
>Don't know, but you seem to think them worthless, which might be worse.
>See above.

Wrong.  See above.

>>Do I want to say I worship fetuses?
>Don't know, you seem to, with your constant dismissal of the woman involved
>in the pregnancy.

Never once dismissed any party.

>>DO I want to say I hate you?
>Don't know, but from the language in the post, I could probably say
>yes.

If you wish to think that i hate you, Ron, then I hate you.  If you wish to
think that I do not, then I do not.  If you want me to hate you, well then
you are out of luck.  I hate no one.

>>Do I want to say I want to control women?
>Don't know, but you want to outlaw abortion and force all pregnant women
>to carry to term. Sounds like you want to control them to me.

I want to ensure that human life is valued.

>>Do I want to say that we should ban contraceptives?
>Don't think so, I have little to base my opinion in this area on, so
>I'll leave it at that.

The answer is no.

>>Do I want to say that all pro-choicers should go to hell?
>Don't think so, as you don't seem to be the rabid religious fanatical
>pro-lifer that sometimes appears here.

I am religious, Ron, and I am not afraid to say so.  I bought the
ticket with the Catholic Church and now I'm on my way home.  However,
you may not be Catholic, Christian, or believe in any god at all.  It
is not my position to make you believe in any god.

>And now for the overall assessment of the above points:
>No, you probably want everyone to believe what you say with zero argument,
>since you have yet to defend a major point logically.

No one has to agree with me.  I want respect from everyone.  Although I
am unlikely to get it, I will not stop.

>>NO.  I believe in none of the above.

>You don't hate me? That's reassuring.

Don't you read the entire posts before responding?  I do.  No, I don't
hate you, Ron.

>>Assault me, Ron.  DO IT!  Come on!  Stone me to death.  Let's go.  right
>>now.

>Naah, I don't believe in starting violence.

Hypocrite:

>	I, however, believe in letting
>	others live their lives without interference from others (which
>	includes harming others, BTW)


>>From now on it's you an me, Ron.  Morality on Morality.  
>>Or haven't you got the respect.  I didn't think so.

>Blatant assertion proven wrong by this post. It did work though. You
>did get me to post, transparent as the attempt was.

I won then.


>>>You are a worm of the lowest form, with zero compassion for your fellow
>>>man/woman.

>>If you wish to call me such, I am just that.  Your lie may become truth
>>with your followers, but lies only become real when people choose to
>>believe in them.

>Or the proof stares them in the face. I've given statements that indicate
>what I've said is true. My last statement was an opinion derived from
>these previous statements. I've invited you to prove these statement
>false. Unfortunately, the only way I can see you proving them false is
>to 'eat your words' which would prove that you still state falsehoods.

I don't eat words, I make mistakes.  I don't go back on my word either.
What you have given are arguments that are piss poor at best.  You slander
my reputation by stetching my statements to thier elastic limits.  
Unfortunately, they've reached their limits and their structures have
exploded, exploded in your face.  You've made assertions about my
treatment of women, fetuses and gays.  You've stretched my statements
and lied about what I have stated in the past.


>BTW, lies don't really become real, even when everyone chooses to believe
>them. Take the Flat Earth Theory as example number 1, the geocentric
>theory of the universe as number 2, the believe (a long time ago) that
>the stars were candles in the sky as number 3,.....etc. None of these
>were real, although many people believed them. A lie remains a lie.

not too philosophical, are you?  But your posts are indicative of that.

>>Point taken.  It's obvious that insults don't matter to you.  You are
>>impervious to pain, but you're a man, just like me.  An you'll never
>>have that ability to understand abortion as I will never have.

>I'm a man, yes, thanks. Like you, no. Impervious to pain, no. The ability 
>to understand abortion, no neither of us ever will. This is all I asked 
>you initially to consider, that you should let those who do have this 
>ability to make their own decision regarding this, as we as men will 
>never be able to understand their particular agonies.

And we should sit along the sidelines and accept the slaughter of human
beings?  And we should sit passively as the mother destroys the human
being we helped create?  The being that we wanted?

But it's a woman's decision...  We play...no role in the creation of
a child.  Perhaps I will sit passively next time as my wife sets out
to kill the child I want and helped to create.  It's not really mine.


>>When you want to respect me as I you, let me know.

>When you start making logical arguments, realize that the woman is the
>prime participant in this subject, and can admit that someone else might
>be right. I have given you the respect you asked for in a chance to 
>defend your integrity by given you definite arguments to dispute.

I am logical, only John Bates seems to know more about logic than
I ( :-/ ).  I respect women highly.  I will never disrespect a woman.
I admit that people have correct opinions.  I admit that people
believe killing the fetus is right for them.  I admit that they are
correct and true to themselves...but true to humanity...no.  I will
not admit that killing human beings for economic and social reasons
are correct.  I will not admit that killing an unborn child is
correct.  Until extenal fertilization is succesful and supportive.


>Ron

Oh, life.  It's bigger.
It's bigger than you, and you are not me
The lengths that I will go to.
The distance in your eyes.
Oh no I've said too much.
I haven't said enough.
-
Empty prayer empty mouth, talk about the passion.


Think of these two REM bits, Ron.  What about life.  It's certainly
a concept I have yet to grasp.  It's special.  It's worth protecting.

But, as for you, Ron, I don't know what to say.  Lie as you do, what
is left for me but my bandwagon of friends and books.  I'll continue
my life long after you get ulcers.  Brewing in that stomach of yours...
you chose the fries.  Bad move...

End of file.

--
See that you are sainted			   /* Mr. Kevin Welch to you */
Remain true and pure				   kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Do that you never get lost
So matter what you may endure				- Harry Connick, Jr.