From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Legal control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:02:11 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1k7dnvINNr48@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <lmdph0INNati@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>Thanks to this %$@#%^ newsreader (trn), I can't post anything that has more
>>quoted text than what I add.
>
>Try substituting something else for the >>s.

'Tis done.  Using "]" on the first of the ">"s, as per Ron Bense's timely
tip.  Thanks.

>>Understood.  At first this seemed to be a moral/ethical type discussion; my
>>posts seem to have steered it into the legal arena for the time being. 
>
>I specifically asked how you would vote.  You are certainly entitled to your
>personal opinion as is any person on this net, and I wouldn't dream of attemp-
>ting to change your mind, AS LONG AS we are just taking about your personal
>opinion.  However, I asked about your VOTE.  Now, that's a private matter,
>and you can say, "None of your business" with impunity.  But what you said,
>and what I gather from the text you wrote this time, too, was that the
>POSSIBILITY that the fetus is a human being (and you haven't even solved
>this thoroughly for your own self!) was enough for you to vote to REDUCE
>the HUMAN RIGHTS of the woman involved.  I'm arguing with that *vote*.

Hmmm, hurm, okay, uh-huh, right....yes, all of that you said is accurate.
This _was_ pretty much a discussion of my opinions (I'm sort of a passive
guy, and don't ask a whole lot about others' beliefs); I think what I
meant was that it was my opinions on moral/ethical aspects, rather than
the more pragmatic legal aspects.

>...I have noted (as long as we are talking about subjective analyses (-:)
>that when people are asked hard questions, questions that reach down into
>areas they haven't considered completely, or areas where contradictions hide,
>they get a little upset, and respond accordingly.  That's about the time
>where we see them calling other people 'emotional'.  I believe (Bill
>Overpeck, you will correct me if I'm wrong, won't you?) that's called
>"projection."  Think about it.

I agree with you on the "harsh" effect of these questions...and I don't
think I've seen near as many of these hard questions pop up, as in the
abortion arena, I must say.  This group'll test the mettle of ANYBODY
here, if they allow themselves to think about it...

Also, the more I think, the more my emotion tends to keep silent.  Which
explains to some extent why I haven't "flamed" anyone.  :)

>I don't have any wish to offend, either.  I certainly do wish to question
>your beliefs to the point of causing you doubt, and reconsideration.  I 
>also use caps and asterisks and underlines to highlight the words I would
>stress were I speaking.  Some people read that as shouting....

Heh...I know _I_ did.  I was going to point that out once, but I was afraid
I'd make things worse.

>...I consider them
>to be unimaginative.  (-:  Now that we are all cordial, we can continue.

Yes, we are cordial.  And I shall add, your smilies are backwards, you
non-conformist!  (That's as far as _I'll_ flame...)

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate