From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 03:36:32 GMT

In article <92230.235121ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.213617.11219@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>In article <Bt39C7.D54.1@cs.cmu.edu> Susan Garvin writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug16.154953.1952@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>#In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr writes:
>>##eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:
>
>>>#Keegan apparently wants to resume our flamewar over whether or not I'm
>>>#a pro-choicer....
>
>This, Ms. Bartley, is inflammatory and unnecessary.  

Is the referent of "this" your comments, or Ms. Bartley's? Your statement
MAY be true...

>You have no
>idea what Mr. Keegan wants or does not want, indeed he has
>consistently denied this charge.  If, as you persistently state,
>you wish to avoid flamewars I suggest you refrain from attributing
>motivations to people.

Please

	a) Brush up on your reading comprehension skills generally,

		and

	b) Look up the key word "apparently" and muse productively on its 
 	   meaning, and its function in the sentence above

>>>I have no quarrel with you calling yourself anything that you want.
>>
>>>I do have a problem with you defining "sides" and assuming that
>>>many people who support legal abortion share your beliefs.
>>
>>Huh?  Most people around here support the right to abortion for
>>reasons totally unrelated to the reasons I support the right to
>>abortion.
>
>This is what Ms. Garvin has pointed out.  One does wonder
>though if, as you say, you recognize that few share your views
>in this newsgroup, why you feel the need to publicly disown
>people from your "side".
>
>>##i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to restrict
>>##abortion.  you support such legislation.
>>>##abortion.  you support such legislation.
>>
>>>#Why don't you post the rest of the facts, Keegan?
>>
>>>#I support legislation to restrict third-trimester abortions to cases
>>>#where the mother's life or health is in danger and very major fetal
>>>#deformities.
>>
>>>That's certainly legislation to restrict abortion.
>>
>>Yes.  Note that I didn't accuse Keegan of having his facts wrong; I
>>just objected that he'd told that little of it.
>
>Facts are facts.  Legislation is legislation.

Parts is parts. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Your POINT, Linda?

>>However, it's legislation that restricts a sufficiently small number of
>>abortions
>
>If it is a small number, why the need for legislation?
>Canada has no abortion laws Ms. Bartley, there has been
>no increase in the number of late term abortions.

Note of course that the question of whether such legislation is NEEDED is
a completely different question than whether support for such legislation
disqualifies one from being "pro-choice". 

>>That's especially true in talk.abortion, where I'm one of few
>>(or the only?) person that supports some restrictions on abortion
>>but not restrictions that would affect very many abortions.
>
>Ms. Bartley you are certainly not the only person in this
>newsgroup that supports some restrictions, and I genuinely
>doubt you are one of a few.
>
>>>For many people, "pro-choice" means "I support a woman's
>>>right to terminate a pregnancy."  For you, it seems to
>>>mean "I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy
>>>as long as I approve of the circumstances."
>>
>>This seems to be a frequent accusation leveled at me.  It is
>>sufficiently inaccurate as to be wrong.  I don't support a woman's
>>right to terminate a pregnancy as long as "I approve of the
>>circumstances."  I support a woman's right to terminate as long as the
>>fetus is not a person, or if she doesn't kill it in the process.
>
>The fetus is not now, nor has it ever been, defined as a person
>Ms. Bartley.  Until recently, personhood of the fetus was not an
>issue in the abortion debate.  It was prolife organizations who
>decided to utilize the success of the civil rights movement to
>create a competing rights argument.
>
>Your restrictions are indeed based on circumstances that
>you find acceptable and you have stated that under anything
>other than these circumstances the woman should have no
>rights.
>
>>Dammit, I recognize that it's *wrong* to deny a woman an abortion, and
>>it takes more than my disapproval to be willing to do so.
>
>Ms. Bartley I recognize that it is wrong for some women to
>have abortions, but I certainly would not impose my morality
>on anyone.
>
>>I wouldn't do so at all if I didn't think that allowing the death
>>of the fetus was the greater of the two evils.
>
>Personally I think the autonomy of a woman is the lesser of
>two evils.
>
>>>I doubt that many people would be willing to waste their
>>>time discussing this if you did not proudly proclaim
>>>your stance in your .sig.  Believe me, if Holtsinger or
>>>Chaney put "Pro-choice" in their .sigs, they would get
>>>a similar response.
>>
>>I hope they'd get a louder resopnse, given that the legislation they
>>support would have a much broader impact.
>
>Legislation is legislation.  In the cases that you advocate,
>it is nothing more than a blunt instrument that can and will
>open the door for more restrictions.  

Prove it. I don't buy "slippery slope" arguments from the pro-lifers,
e.g. pro-choice leads to euthanasia, then to eugenics, etc., why the
hell should I buy it from a pro-choice extremist???

>>>The broad definition of "pro-choice" is most commonly
>>>used to argue that >70% of Americans are "pro-choice."
>>>I wish that they would simply say that most Americans
>>>support abortions in some circumstances.
>>>If "pro-choice" includes people with opinions like yours,
>>>then it also includes people with opinions like George
>>>Bush.
>>
>>Here you're claiming that the word "pro-choice" can only mean two
>>things: either pro-completely-unrestricted-choice or pro-any-choice.
>
>No Ms. Garvin is simply stating that Mr. Bush has the right
>to claim he is prochoice.

Do you think she REALLY believes that, Ms. Birmingham? Susie's comments
struck me as more as an _argumentum ad absurdum_. I could be wrong. But
then, it's at least as likely that you misunderstood her.

>>But in a forum like talk.abortion, where the debate is largely between
>>those who would make almost no abortions legal and those that want no laws
>>whatsoever, I think the term "pro-choice" is fairly accurate when used
>>to describe me.
>
>There are some people in this forum, Ms. Bartley, who
>happen to be actively involved in the prochoice movement.
>Particularly Ms. Garvin, who at this moment is far from home
>protesting to protect your rights, and the rights of American
>women, to bodily autonomy.
>
>That this gets lost in the nonsense that occurs in t.a is
>irrelevant to the reality.  Abortion rights are but a subset
>of women's rights.  

Crapola. Maybe _you_ see it in those terms, and yes there are SOME
undeniable intersections, but there are also many other dimensions --
state's rights, individual vs. state, medical ethics, broad socio-
economic implications, population control, etc.. Feminism has no
monopoly on the abortion issue.

>It is the one area that affects women and women only.  

Quick counter-example: breast cancer research.

Another quick counter-example: lesbian rights.

Quick rebuttal: abortion "affects" men too, though obviously to a lesser
		extent. Absolute statements can be hazardous to your
	    	credibility, Ms. Birmingham.

>Call yourself what you wish but do not insult the intelligence of
>those that are involved with organizations and who are working to
>make a difference that t.a should set a standard.

T.a is not, has never been, and IMO should never be, a propaganda organ
for militant abortion organizations. The day that happens is the day it
should be rmgroup'ed permanently. If you can't participate in a free 
intellectual exchange amongst a variety of viewpoints, Ms. Birmingham I 
suggest you and your organization(s) find another conduit for your 
propaganda, preferrably one which does not consume U.S. tax dollars for 
its propagation.

>>>##i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
>>>##would punish women who have abortions. you have.
>>
>>>#I would enforce said laws with penalties to parties that broke them.
>>
>>>Again, that's certainly punishing women who had abortions
>>>under the laws that you desire.
>>
>>It's another case of what he said being literally true but
>>sufficiently suggestive of positions I don't hold that I find it
>>deceitful.  In other words, the denotations are accurate, the
>>connotations most certainly are not.
>
>Ms. Bartley there is not a single prochoice organization
>that would support punishment, particularly jail terms,
>for women who obtained an illegal abortion.  

Straw man. Ms. Bartley didn't claim they did. The central question
remains, however: would those organizations DISQUALIFY Ms. Bartley
from adopting the pro-choice label, if she chose to adopt it? I remain 
confident that they would NOT. None of the alleged "proof" presented so far 
has shaken that confidence, either.

>>>I didn't save the quote, either, but I do recall your statements
>>>about women who were too stupid to have an abortion within
>>>the time frame that you would dictate.  I really don't think
>>>that it's stupidity that you're punishing, I think it's
>>>poverty.  I fully understood from our discussion of waiting
>>>periods that you have no problem with punishing women for
>>>being poor.
>>
>>I'm willing to support things that will the poor more than they will
>>the rich.  Pragmatically, how the hell can you *not* support some
>>things that will hurt the poor more than the rich?  I do not consider
>>thing "punishing" the poor and I most certainly don't "have no
>>problem" with it.
>
>Much of the support by prolifers for waiting periods is
>because it will cause women to delay getting an abortion.
>For poor women this delay is exacerbated by trying to obtain
>funds.  If they are forced into the 2nd tri they must seek
>even more funds, often with the result they enter the 3rd tri
>and therefore can not obtain an abortion at all.

Did you ASK Ms. Bartley if she supported Medicaid funding for elective
abortions, Ms. Birmingham, or did you just _assume_ that she opposed
such funding, and therefore might economically "force" some women to
carrying children to term? You may be making a grave error here.

>>It is not a safe assumption that just because I support something I
>>"have no problem" with it.  I support many things that I consider the
>>lesser of two evils, but don't consider not wrong.
>
>One would think that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is the
>lesser of two evils.

I will note that there is nothing necessarily incompatible between 
Bodily Autonomy and restrictions on certain KINDS of post-viability
abortions.

>>>Your multiple announcements of your new killfile would be
>>>more convincing if you hadn't accompanied them with an attempt
>>>to get in the last word
>>
>>Oh, please.  Here you're just being silly.
>
>Frankly Ms. Bartley I found your multiple announcements silly.
>Personally I find this whole killfile trend childish and
>reminiscent of small children who pick up their toys, stomp
>their feet and say "Nyah, nyah, I'm not playing any more"

This, from the same person whose "input" into the recent "child abuse"
charade was a stream of contentless insults heavily laced with vulgarities?
You are HARDLY in a position to be lecturing your betters on their 
"childishness", Ms. Birmingham. Wash out your mouth with soap first.
 
>>I'm very fond of what
>>I consider the proper usage of the English language: I've gotten into
>>so many debates on exactly what words meant what, I have to grit my
>>teeth occasionally to stop from flaming spelling mistakes, and I just
>>like to see things written properly in general.
>
>I happen to find it ironic that you have "flamed" people for
>using the word child on more occasions than I care to remember,
>yet you are offended by the questioning of your usage of
>"prochoice" in your sig. after it has been pointed out that
>your position bears little resemblance to the philosophy of
>the prochoice movement.  But then, I happen to be rather
>committed to the prochoice movement as is Ms. Garvin.

Oh, quit with the holier-than-thou bit, please. The pro-choice PHILOSOPHY
is an abstract, multi-faceted collection of beliefs. Your commitment to
some manifestation or another of the pro-choice MOVEMENT does not translate
into intellectual credentials wrt the pro-choice PHILOSOPHY, nor does it
entitle you to mount your pedestal like a little tin god, and start 
proclaiming who are the faithful and who should be excommunicated from
pro-choice. You need to earn a whole hell of a lot more credibility and
respect before you can do that. Until then, I'd advise you to adopt a
pro-label-choice stance, and, within reasonable limits, let folks call
themselves whatever they want.

>>But I think the term is accurate in the context of
>>talk.abortion in general, and in that context I intend to continue
>>calling myself by that term.
>
>Why?  I certainly feel no compulsion to remind everyone
>with each post, my position.  Ms. Garvin has no desire.
>Why do you Ms. Bartley?

You *ASSUME* Ms. Bartley does this from "compulsion", Ms. Birmingham?
Typical smear tactics. A far more plausible explanation is that she
-likes- people to know what her views are, and she -likes- being 
associated with the label "pro-choice", in spite of members like you.

Perhaps everything _you_ do on the Net is driven by compulsion, Ms. 
Birmingham. I understand that's a symptom of manic obsession. But
some of us actually ENJOY our interactions here. We gain something from
them, instead of simply trying to destroy others. Do you comprehend
any of this?

>>Back then, I called myself "middle-of-the-road". When I
>>began to have doubts about whether or not I wanted restrictions in the
>>second trimester at all, I called myself "middle-of-the-road lending
>>to pro-choice".  But now that it's a matter of the third trimester
>>only and 100 abortions a year, I consider the term "pro-choice" to be
>>accurate and I use it accordingly.
>
>Ms. Bartley I suggest that you fail to understand the full
>concept of prochoice philosophy.  It has nothing to do with
>trimesters.  It has nothing to do with myelination, fetal
>rights or religious persuasion.  The core of the prochoice
>argument is a woman's right to bodily autonomy/security.

That's one interpretation. Among many.

>That this is being lost along the way is unfortunately a
>testament to the success of the prolife movements fetal
>right's argument.  A fact that I personally worry about.

Scare tactics. Paranoia. Perhaps you should retreat into a bunker
along with the rest of the True Believers, Ms. Birmingham. Don't
forget to take plenty of Kool-Aid with you. You may need it.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion