NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/32392

Text File | 1992-08-18 | 5.2 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tlynch
From: [e-mail] (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: chamber
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:50:37 GMT
Lines: 107

[e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend) writes:

Definitely time to change the name field, Drew.  If Chaney's the only one who
responds to you, you're doing something *very* wrong.  :-)

>>[e-mail] (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>>># *Suppose your kid switches sides, and becomes pro-life? And:
>>
>>So?

>So far, it seems hard to find how Susan Garvin can claim to plug "I'd be
>tolerant and wouldn't occasionally wipe the floor with his ass" when her
>proven attitude is clearly contradictory to that.

No.  What you consider her "proven attitude" ON THE NET is possibly contradic-
tory to that some of the time.  That has not thing one, necessarily, to do
with her attitude in the real world.

Perhaps you've failed to read any of the innumerable surveys which show how
much easier it is to become nasty when one is not dealing with people face-to-
face.  Perhaps you've never read the netiquette guides sitting in
news.announce.newusers.

Or, as seems quite possible given your past actions (e.g. Dennis Hall), perhaps
you just have a great deal of difficulty separating the net from reality.  If
so, you have my deepest sympathies.

>>>># *Suppose they want to join the Catholic Church?
>>
>>I won't be going with them.  Big deal.

>This was largely aimed at Pat Harumphrey and Mark the Irate Cough Man.

>Again, folks whose proven attitude grossly contradicts the claim "I'd be
>tolerant."

"Proven" having a markedly different usage than what Webster's would suggest,
of course.  (I will admit that Kaufman can, and often does, be *very* extreme;
just because the pro-choice camp on t.a almost has a lock on sanity doesn't
mean there aren't a few extremists in the bunch.)

>>>>Where do you even get the idea that pro-choicers wouldn't tolerate
>>>>pro-life activism in their sons and daughters and choose to punish
>>>>them with emotional or, worse yet, PHYSICAL abuse?
>>>
>>>From right here in Sacto. It happens all the time - I have two members
>>>in our group who don't want their names listed too conspicuously
>>>because they have active NARAL-member parents and family who'd pull
>>>their tuition money and send them, 19 and 21, off to live on their
>>>own. And there isn't any pro-abort around here who'd have a beef about
>>>that.
>>
>>Untrue.  That's poor parenting, no matter WHO does it.

>The attitude is, if the kid doesn't want to face a little heat (as being
>assured a loss of tuition money and so on, is called a "little heat"), they
>ought to either "get enlightened" (translation: abandon pro-life), or stay
>real discreet about it (translation: never ever even let God know you're
>pro-life for fear that He might tell mom & pop in a dream).

*IF* you are telling the truth about these people (given your track record,
a possibility I consider rather unlikely), then they have my profound
sympathies.  As Drew has said, poor parenting is poor parenting, regardless
of the cause being espoused.  (Threatening and harassing others into being
pro-*choice* also seems a little counter to definitions, IMO.)

>>>Then he ain't Mark Kaufman or Patrick Humphrey.
>>
>>Fine.  Then don't paint all pro-choicers with the same brush.

>Tell that to Kaufman and Novak who paint all pro-lifers as bible-thumpers.

Oooooooh.  You find a few extreme opinions and somehow intimate it discredits
the entire pro-choice camp.

Very sharp.  (Er...check, please.)

Look, Steve.  I *know* not all pro-lifers are pro-life from a religious
motivation.  I have a friend who's pro-life and an atheist (so far as I
know, at least).  However, I think based on the evidence even you *might* be
able to admit that the vast majority of pro-life rhetoric and of pro-life
activists ARE doing so from an extremely religious POV.  I have no objection
to people acting on their own religious beliefs wrt _their personal behavior_;
it's when they extend it to everybody else that I tend to be upset.

Does that make sense to you?

>>>It still holds in this household that black Republicans are
>>>sick-minded Uncle Tom's (well, at least my mother didn't believe Anita
>>>Hill),
>>
>>Then they're just as racist as they claim not to be.

>How's about the show "Roc" on Sunday, August 16, 1992, in which it was
>deemed okay for a TV actor to say, "I play a game when I watch the
>Republican convention. It's called 'Find the Black delegate.'"?

Fine.  Find some.  Like it or not, the vast, *vast* majority of both delegates
and speakers at the RNC this week are white males.  (Is there *any* black
person who's speaking at the convention, for that matter?  I'm not up on
the scheduling, since I plan to stay far away from most of the coverage.)

Now, let's *try* to keep this civil, okay?

Tim Lynch