Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:04:52 +0100
From: Erik <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net>
Subject: Re: This Whole Abortion Debate...)


At 13:58 +0000 24-10-1999, Dave Coull wrote:
>Erik wrote
>
>>If you want to debate like this there is no point arguing anymore.
>
>I thought I was debating perfectly reasonably. Erik had said that
>
>>>i never met a person in favour of abortion
>
>and I cited examples (including the government of China).
>I wasn't unpleasant about it, I didn't "flame" Erik, I just
>disagreed.

How can you disagree with ME saying "I never met a person in favour of
abortion". You haven't lead my life. I didn't write that there are no
people in favour of abortion. I don't consider either Tatcher or the
Chinese government to be my personal acquaintances (spelling?). I accept
the story you tell about the Anarchist Workers Association, it only
confirms my dislike for groups.

The problems there seem to be between us on this is that i stand very
clearly on this pro-choice because i believe in the personal freedom of the
woman involved. You seem to see in pro-choice lots of other things which
aren't related to free choice. You have personal experiences, and i have
other. I tried to keep things clear and simple so nobody would
misunderstood what i mean with pro-choice. It seems i failed, even after
numerous posts on where i stand: hence the "i give up".


>
>Also, since Erik had implied that I had said something
>"authoritarian" in this discussion, I asked him to cite
>exactly what that was. He has not come up with any
>such quote from me. As I pointed out, the authoritarians
>are those who seek to stifle discussion.

I wrote: "But the place where i come from the division between pro-choicers and
pro-lifers is mostly a religious one. So i tend to get a bit confused when
people i otherwise respect suddenly become very authoritarian on the
abortion issue by dictating what a woman is allowed to do or not with her
own body."

You wrote:
>"People you otherwise respect" ? Could that include myself ?
>If so, of course I recognise that I can be very authoritarian
>sometimes. But I challenge you to cite one single authoritarian
>thing I have written in this present discussion on the -AT--list.
>I have not advocated the state passing any laws. I have not
>advocated holding a gun to anybody's head. I have merely
>statedan opinion. The true authoritarians are the ones who
>say that I should not be  ALLOWED  to state my opinion.
>We have seen some indication of this tendency in our
>present discussion ; and when the Anarchist Workers
>Association EXPELLED dissenting members of the organisation
>in 1978, that was authoritarian. But these things were
>done by people who were "pro-choice".

Dave,
You seem to think this was directed to you personaly. Not really (but hey
it is not up to me to decide how you perceive things). What i meant is that
i suspect people attacking my pro-choice opinion on this must be against
choice, meaning also against women having the right to decide themselves
about these things. And that is authoritarian in my book.
BTW, what do you want to imply with the last two sentences ? Do you have a
problem with "pro-choice" because of that ? Do you mean that any (ANY)
person pronouncing a pro-choice opinion has to be the same as these
authoritarian types who EXPELL people from anarchist organsisations ?

Don't you think it's normal people are not really anxious to debate then ?
How can i ever be taken serious if you see ghosts of the past instead of me
?

Say f.i. you say you're an anarchist. Now KB said he was an anarchist too:
does this make you a rat like KB. No ofcourse not. You are yourself and
nobody can change that. It is not because people misuse terms like
anarchism or pro-choice or euthanesia [ i got some funny opinions on this
one too ;-) ] that when i use those terms i should be equated with the bad
guys and gals.

>
>But okay, if Erik has had enough of this debate,
>fair enough. Since he has not commented
>on my arguments, I will return the favour
>by ignoring his.
>

It is not because i want to end a debate that it's over ;-) although Unka
Bart summed it up rather nicely.

Erik