NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/33029

Text File | 1992-08-23 | 8.0 KB | 196 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:03:36 GMT
Lines: 183

In <[e-mail]> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In a recent follow-up to "Another good reason not to vote for Bush",
>>Ms. Regard harped on a theme she hammered away at a little over a month
>>ago.  Back then she posted a statement which went about like this.
>>
>>"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to occupy a woman's
>>body against her will, yet you would give fetuses that right?  I think
>>that's bogus."

>>Compare that to the following statement:
>>
>>"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to have a fetus occupy
>>his/her body, yet you would give women and girls...

>Or, "women".

Tell that to the pro-choice networkers who say FOCA only applies
to ADULT women, despite not using that adjective.

>>...past puberty that right?  I think that's bogus."

>Sounds redundant.  What's your point?

Are both my statement and Ms. Regard's valid?  neither? one but not
the other?

>[...]
>>[I decided not to mention the will of the fetus.  When last I checked,
>>Ms. Regard seemed to have the opinion that fetuses cannot will anything.]

>Her opinion is accurate.  You're making no sense so far.  ("Will of the
>fetus"???  Thorazine time for Pete.)

This is pure *ipse dixit* [favorite expression of Justice Blackmun] on
your part.  Are you saying none of the thumbsuckings and other acts of
the fetus are willed?  Your saying so don't make it so.

>>[By the way, Ms. Regard, in case you are reading this: should a woman have
>>the right to use *LETHAL* force, if necessary, to prevent a Norplant
>>from being implanted in her body against her will?]

>I doubt if Regard would answer differently than I:  Of *course* she has
>that right.

"Has"? my question said "should...have" and there is a difference.
This was a point I hit Regard on last month, with respect to marital
rape.  Maybe a woman should have the right to blow away her husband
for forcing sex on her [how about it, readers? should
she have that right?] but under the present legal system, marital rape
isn't even a crime in most states unless the husband and wife are
at least living apart, and on top of that, I seriously doubt that a woman
who killed her husband for non-consensual sex would
be exonerated unless there was a long prior history of spousal abuse.

Now you may not like the present system, but if you argue that it
SHOULD be a right, then you are on the same level playing field as those
who say a fetus should have the right to life.

Similar arguments apply to using lethal force to resist the embedding
of Norplant.

>>Also, a father can legally compel a daughter, in some cases, to submit
>>to an abortion of a pregnancy due to incest at his hands.

>(Um, what daughter _wouldn't_ want an abortion from a pregnancy due to
>incest?)

Well, for starters, there was a case in Buffalo, not long before the
confrontation there, of a daughter who was just going to go to the
clinic for her fifth [5th] abortion for this very reason, when she
learned from some pro-lifers that she could  1. Have her father arrested
for continually getting her pregnant; 2. Get food, clothes, etc. from a
crisis pregnancy center, gratis; and 3. Get all the help she needed to have
her baby put up for adoption.  All of which came to pass, plus the
pro-lifers even helped her to get a job and an apartment.

Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest
was going on but did nothing to stop it.  They knew which side their bread
was buttered on.

>That's why Parental Notification is such bullshit; thanks for proving that
>point.  My stance is that only the woman has the right to decide.

And the only thing that saves you from self-contradiction is that you
have not taken seriously the possibility that a daughter would
NOT want an abortion as a result of incest.

>  I do
>not agree with forced abortion of any kind.

Tell that to the Buffalo abortionists, and the abortionist I wrote
about in my COERCED ABORTION post.  I'll be writing about other
cases, and new developments in the case of that Columbia abortionist,
before long.

>>In my
>>COERCED ABORTION post last month, I mentioned a South Carolina state
>>law governing 3rd trimester abortions, which stated that unless an
>>incest victim is deemed competent [and who does the "deeming"? the
>>abortionist?], her consent to an abortion performed on her
>>"must be waived."

>Please expand.  If an incest victim is mentally incompetent,

You are taking the word "competent" at face value.
But an abortionist might unilaterally decide that "immature minors" are
by definition legally incompetent to give consent.  That's one possibility,
which I intend to pursue in the upcoming months.

> Where's your outrage that she
>was made pregnant by some shithead who should be in jail?

It's there, believe me.  I fully approve of what the pro-lifers did in
the Buffalo case, including having the father put in jail.
[Anybody want to flame me for that last item?  You'll have to flame
Mr. Novak too.]

>>A final note.  In Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_, humans are raised
>>in artificial wombs, contraception is mandatory, and pregnancy is
>>punished by banishment.

>In "A Handmaid's Tale", all fertile women are enslaved,

An outrage.  There is a sadomasochistic "science fiction" author with a
name like "Norman" who has a series of over 10 books on a "counter-earth"
on the other side of the sun, where all women are slaves and supposedly
loving it.  Misogyny, especially such blatant kind, is abhorrent to me.

> raped,

Worse yet.  It was not for nothing that I signed up for the Sexual Assault
Task Force.

> and forced
>to give birth when impregnated.

I have already gone on record in talk.abortion as not wishing to
impose a law prohibiting
abortion prior to the 6th week [not month, but it still allows plenty of
time after a skipped period] after fertilization.  The only reason I might
possibly reconsider this is if the consequences for the WOMAN are
unacceptable.

> Abortion is punishable by torture and/or death.

I trust it is the abortionist who is punished, not the woman.  Despite
arduous research, nobody has ever found a case, not even in what
NARAL calls the dark ages, where a woman was prosecuted for procuring
an abortion on her.  [If this info is out of date, please correct me.]

>>Huxley's novel is set 6 centuries in the future.  At the rate we have
>>been going this century, we'll get there ahead of schedule, if the
>>pro-choice myrmydons keep having their way.

>(Possibly you meant "mymidons"

Yes, I caught my typo too late.  I corrected it before I made a personal
copy for Ms. Regard.  [And I will address her responses soon, hopefully
today or tomorrow.]

>We're a hell of a lot closer to "A Handmaid's Tale" (like, 1 or 2 more Supreme
>Court misogynists like Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia) then we are to your
>bullshit.

So Huxley wrote bullshit, did he?  Anyway, there are laws in place against
all the things you mention in the handmaid's tale except the last, and
even those laws target the abortionists, as will any in the foreseeable
future, even should Roe be overturned.

As for your charge of misogyny against Thomas et. al.: before too many days
elapse, I'll post, WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE
STAND UP?  [Hint: look at the Buffalo case again.]

[BTW I have not made up my mind about who is guilty in Thomas-Hill.  If
Thomas is, the charge sticks to him, even though his offense is less
than that of the Buffalo dad, and much less than that of the Columbia
abortionist of whom I wrote.]

Peter Ny.