From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:56:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <24537@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>Sorry, I've been on talk.abortion only two months and this is the
>first mention I've seen of Koop.

Apology accepted. The reason it is not mentioned very often is because
no one has anything bad to say about it, or they can't say anything
bad about it except that they don't like/believe/etc the report. Pro-choicers
aren't about to hang something that supports them out to dry because
it was written by a pro-lifer. Actually, I don't know about others,
but I applaud his honesty in reporting what he did, even though it went
against his inner beliefs. He showed much integrity with that report.

>> Thanks for admitting the hopeless stance you've adopted by
>>admitting you're "outnumbered".

>I'm referring to talk.abortion, most of whose members are from the
>academic world, which is far more pro-choice than the populace in general.

True, and you also miss the dig at humor. :( Oh well, I'll try not to
be as obtuse next time. :) Some of us do try at times to inject a little
humor, you know, otherwise this forum would really become a boring unbearable
burden to read.

>I know it's demeaning, I was being sarcastic.  Like Dick Gregory, on
>the cover of his book _Nigger_: "Mama, if you hear the word `nigger',
>you'll know they're talking about my book."

So I miss an occassional bit of sarcasm also. I got the rest, though.
:)

>>As for the parenthized portion of the statement, it is obvious that
>>Kathi Mills' post just blinked in front of your eyes. (That was the one
>>where she described in detail how the abortion she had was necessary,
>>and why, and the ramifiacations if she hadn't had one.)

>The parenthetical statement admitted no exceptions.  Pregnancy, period,
>has these effects.  Should I have read between the lines somehow?

>Or did you mean to write "even if" instead of "even though"?  I'm
>a mathematician, not a mind-reader.

By Jove, he's got it! :) Not everything I write is literal. Unlike Loomis,
I don't spend three weeks on one article before posting it, as I write
from my personal thoughts. (They seems organized enough on this topic.:)

>On the other hand, pro-choicers have been able to call lots less
>sweeping pro-life claims lies, and make them stick.

Pardon? Care to start listing them and having them shown false? (PRoviding
of course that you don't list asinine things like after nine months
in term, generally a baby is born, etc.)

>>And you are the paragon of truth and honor.

>>As you indicate here that I'm dishonest, a liar, and worse, please indicate
>>where I've said anything dishonest, to at least prove one point in your
>>implications.

>I just did.  Or am I lacking in integrity just because I was unable
>to read your unwritten thoughts?

Really? Just because your interpretation is one thing, and mine another,
doesn't make it a lie, Peter. I don't think you'll be able to produce
a lie, a mis-statement maybe, but not a lie, as that would involve knowingly
giving falsehood.

I do note, however that you take no offense to my implication....

>> Not that anyone except your fellow pro-lifers believe
>>you to begin with anyway, but just to indicate how hollow your integrity
>>really is. Not only are you an ignorant misogynist oaf, but a malicious
>>liar to boot. (Note, implications are as good as an outright lie, subtlety
>>does not change the fact that a lie has been made.)

>Whether you can make these charges stick or not, the fact is they
>are unfounded.

If I can make them stick, then they would not be unfounded, would they?
Not to get overly malicious or anything, but you have spouted a rather
one-sided argument, and have admittedly seen only one side's view. You
have since then rejected everything that conflicts with this view, and
although you personally might not be said to be a liar, you at least
could be said to ignorant of some facts, which would be understandable
and probably preferable to the action of being a liar. Until you start
warping truth and facts in the way Holtsinger does, I'll retract the
implication I made, and just consider you unknowledgable in this area,
at least for the moment.

>>You must sleep well at night.

>If I don't, it won't be because of you.

I hope not. My SO might be a bit peeved. :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.