home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 54768 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-08  |  2.4 KB  |  61 lines
  1. Newsgroups: talk.abortion
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!keegan
  3. From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
  4. Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
  5. Message-ID: <6a#3y+d@rpi.edu>
  6. Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
  7. Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
  8. References: <ny!38-_@rpi.edu> <1993Jan8.183842.26144@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
  9. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:58:10 GMT
  10. Lines: 49
  11.  
  12. sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
  13. ->eegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.):
  14. ->> just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
  15. ->> admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
  16. ->> and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
  17. ->> family.
  18.  
  19. ->This was posted email by Chaney to Humphrey, right?  If that's what you're
  20. ->referring to, it was far too disgusting and perverse to merit any
  21. ->sort of response.  Besides, it was email, and therefore not necessarily
  22. ->appropriate for public consumption.
  23.  
  24. i read it here in talk.abortion, as you did.
  25. consequently, i think it's reasonable to state that it
  26. was posted, which is why i said that it was posted.
  27. your position, if i understand it, is that some things
  28. are so disgusting and perverse that they don't merit a
  29. response? if so, that strikes me as, well, unusual. how
  30. do you feel about child molestation?
  31.  
  32. ->> we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
  33. ->> that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
  34. ->> discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
  35. ->> fathered by another man.
  36.  
  37. ->That's pretty disgusting.  It's deserving of condemnation, if in
  38. ->fact that's what was actually said.
  39.  
  40. don't you read forgach's posts? did you not see exactly
  41. what it said?
  42.  
  43. ->> i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
  44. ->> of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
  45. ->> nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
  46. ->> anti-choice perspective, of course.
  47.  
  48. ->I'm sure you believe that only "anti-choicers" post offensive
  49. ->material.  Not that I care what you think, James, but I'm more
  50. ->than willing to criticize other pro-lifers, and I've done it
  51. ->on several occasions.  The next time I see something offensive
  52. ->written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
  53. ->After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?
  54.  
  55. you just point out the first pro-choicer who attacks an
  56. adversary by suggesting he's had oral sex with his
  57. adversary's spouse and i think you'll see a lot of
  58. criticism. oh heck, find something similar if that's
  59. the kind of thing you like to do.
  60.  
  61.