NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34736

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-03 | 8.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!att-out!cbnewsj!decay
From: [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:51:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 151

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
> >Mr Nyikos wallows in speculation to no clear purpose unless it is to
> >somehow imply that clinics that provide abortion services have been
> >bombed by their own staff for insurance purposes.  This flies in
> >the face of the facts, which include convictions in court of some
> >of the bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life."
>
> Just how deeply held are these pro-life beliefs?  Children playing
> at "cops and robbers" almost never go into the harm the robbers have
> caused.  The "robbers" are simply "the bad guys" and the ones playing
> cops get a big adrenaline surge from going after them and even have
> the "moral" satisfaction of being "the good guys" even though someone
> watching their play usually can't tell the good guys from the bad guys
> without a scorecard.

What are you talking about?  This is all red herring and nonsense
from you.  Okay, so I said "pro-life" as a courtesy.  Actually,
the people in question, like all of the "pro-life" movement, are
better described as "anti-abortion."  You make no response to
the fact that the people in these convictions admitted their
part in the bombings.  Susan Garvin recently published a quote
from one of them who said it's okay to kill doctors if the
doctors provide abortion services.  Are you now going to tell
us that maybe these doctors are really trying to commit suicide
by firing guns through their own houses from a distance of fifty
yrads, pausing only once to reload?

> Now what little I have read of "The Lambs of God" [you never do identify
> these "pro-lifers"] leads me to believe their motivation is of this
> juvenile sort.

We were talking about your remarks that clinic staff were
burning down or bombing their own clinics.  This last bit of
yours is a nice try at misdirection to take the heat off the
fact that you are posting fantasies yet again in an effort to
smear.  I think your tactics, lies and innuendoes, are as
reprehensible and indicative of a lack of character as the
behavior of these juvenile "Lambs of God" you so disdain.

Is it good to lie to further a cause?  Is it proper to slander
with unfounded speculation to further a cause?  That's what
you've been doing, Peter.  Don't criticize the "Lambs of
God" till you've removed that lumber yard.

> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> >> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan King) writes:
> >> >> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how
> >> >> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
> >> >> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
> >> >> pro-life movement.
> >> >That is not at all accurate.  The "doctor" in question is a sick
> >> >man, if the charges are true, and very harmful, but there is nothing
> >> >to indicate that his foul behavior is an outgrowth, by-product, or
> >> >in any way connected to the fact that he performed abortions.
> Well, in the absence of further information, one can make educated guesses.
>
> 1. Being an abortionist can be a dehumanizing experience.  Don't take my
> word for it, read what Magda Denes, a pro-choicer, writes about some
> of them in _In Necessity and Sorrow_.  As one comes to see the bodily
> autonomy of unborn children as violable unto death, one can easily see
> the bodily autonomy of four-year-old children as violable unto carnal
> knowledge.  [My dose of medieval English for the day.]

In other words, you have no facts, and just want to construct
a speculative support structure for your sleaze tactics.
>
> 2. Abortion is part and parcel of the quality-of-life ethic, which sees
> the worth of human beings according to how much they are wanted, or
> appreciated, or loved by others.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the pro-choice position,
and as such does not even deserve a response.  You can kick all
the strawmen down that you please.  I can easily say that,
rather than having real concerns, the anti-abortion movement
is simply part and parcel of the anti-woman, control-freak
attitude that wants to enslave all people to one ideology and
one point of view and prohibit human freedom.

See, strawmen are lots of fun, Peter.  Would you like to address
a real issue for a change, or are you just incapable of doing so?

> >> If the clinics had been torched instead of bombed, would you be so
> >> quick to conclude any of this?  Or would you entertain the possibility
> >> that
> >> (1) the torching was an inside job to collect insurance and try to
> >> discredit the pro-lifers by blaming them?
> >If you have any evidence that this has occured, please post it.
> >If you have anything beyond some bizarre speculation about events
> >that have not occurred, please post it.  Otherwise, what the hell
> >are you talking about?  "Pro-life" advocates have admitted to
> >bombing clinics that provide abortion services, and been convicted
> >and jailed for their activities.  Can you provide anything but
> >idle, and slanderous, speculation?
>
> You say A.  I say it's possible B happened.  You say A happened sometimes.
> That does not rule out the possibility that B happened sometimes.
> Speculation it may be, but it is not bizarre; if it were, you would not
> have known what I meant by the word "torched".

Yes, I am familiar with the term for arson.  You have no facts at
all and when I ask you if you have any, you just repeat your sleaze.
Why should anyone credit anything you say when you have all this
sleazy innuendo to offer and no substantiation except that
"It could have happened."

Do you know that people have been arrested for having sex with
animals?  I think it is entirely possible that you, Peter
Nyikos, have done time for having sex with sheep.  Okay, I don't
have any factual substantiation for this, but I say it could
have happened.  Do you see why your remarks are sleazy, cheap,
and useless yet?  Actually, I think you knew that all along,
but you just don't have the character to engage in a better
form of discussion, or you lack the ammunition.

> >> (2) the torching was the work of a pyromaniac who had never said
> >> a pro-life sentence in his life and therefore would never be suspected
> >> of the act.
>
> >See above.
>
> See well above.  A pyromaniac can also, if caught, start spouting pro-life
> rhetoric in the hopes that this will lead to a mitigating of the sentence.

Gee, here we have you speculating again.  The facts are that he
was spouting anti-abortion rhetoric.  You counter with yet another
unsubstantiated fantasy.  I see a pattern here.

> >> Here in Columbia there is a clinic, Southern Women's Services, which
> >> seems ripe for a torching of the (1) variety.  It looks like a seedy
> >> old motel that AAA would not even think of listing.  If they have
> >> enough insurance, they must be awfully tempted to go the (1) route
> >> and replace it with a clinic that looks like a health center instead
> >> of a roach motel.
> >I can't think what you are trying to say here.  Has the clinic
> >been the target of arson?
>
> No, otherwise I might have put (2) instead of (1) above.

Ah, more sleaze.  More innuendo and hints of arson on the part
of the staff at a clinic.  And yet it never happened.  But you
talk about it anyway.

Here's a quarter, Peter.  Go by some character.  A quarter's worth
would put you two bits ahead of what you have.

Dean Kaflowitz