From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 04:37:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.174429.2292@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
>-> >-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the
>-> >-> >-> possibility exists that the potential father, and/or
>-> >-> >-> the state, might get an abortion veto-power, then
>-> >-> >-> certainly the LESS RADICAL possibility of giving this
>-> >-> >-> power to a neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as
>-> >-> >-> a compromise position.
>-> >-> >
>-> >-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak
>-> >-> >like you kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen
>-> >-> >women's control of their bodies that you want to give
>-> >-> >that control to a "neutral adjudicator."
>-> >-> 
>-> >-> Keegan, do you understand the difference between
>-> >-> 	"X is a possibility"
>-> >-> 		and
>-> >-> 	"I support X"
>-> >
>-> >why do you call for a "neutral adjudicator" to make decisions
>-> >for what a woman can and can not do with her body and it's
>-> >contents, kevin? don't you think that decision should be left
>-> >to the woman?
>-> 
>-> I did not and do not "call for" [sic] this to happen. But, as
>-> long as it is a POSSIBILITY (and I think it is), we as
>-> pro-choicers should have answers ready as to why it's such a
>-> bad idea.
>
>before i comment further, i want to say that you calling yourself
>a pro-choicer ("we as pro-choicers") is the single most damaging
>statement i've seen written on the pro-choice philosophy. you,
>kevin darcy, are, imo, the least pro-choice person i've seen post
>to this newsgroup.

Please support this. *NOW*. Or forever bear the badge of "liar".

>now, on to your "POSSIBILITY." kevin, stop being ridiculous. you
>are not empowered to trade-off or barter away a woman's right to
>her body, not even to your "neutral adjudicator, not to anyone.

Quit your smear tactics, you little twerp. I'm NOT proposing anything. 
I'm NOT "calling for" anything. I'm NOT supporting anything. I'm 
acknowledging the possibility, like a weatherman acknowledges the 
possibility of rain tomorrow. Talking about _issues_ is what we do here, 
Keegan, and that INCLUDES future, potential issues as well as past history 
and present realities. I realize you just see talk.abortion as a dumping
ground for your malice and hate and vendettas, but that's not what *I*
prefer to use it for. If you don't want to read my posts, use a killfile,
for christ's sake. No-one's forcing you to read my stuff.

>-> Larry ran away from the hypothetical. 
>
>margolis didn't run away from your posts kevin. 

He never answered the question. He just mumbled "it'll never happen" 
and waffled on about sexual bondage with Drieux. Very disappointing.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion