NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35262

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-07 | 7.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35262 soc.men:16018 alt.abortion.inequity:3562
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!kcochran
From: [e-mail] (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Don isn't just PC-Challenged, he's a stupid idiot.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: idiot, asshole, shit-for-brains, moron.  Did I leave out anything?
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 22:17:14 GMT
Lines: 151

[Note:  Deletia not indicated...]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>Mr. "Wacker the K,"

"We're sorry.  Wacker The K is unavalable to take calls from idiotic assholes
such as yourself at the moment.  If you'll leave your name, address, and a
brief message, he'll get back to you after he gets done ensuring that his
wife knows he loves her, regardless of the circumstances.  This is a
recording."

>
>I quoted your article in its entirety, to avoid any "dishonest" editing.

And I hacked it all out.  So there.

>
>First, let me state that killing someone is unacceptable.

Then why do you feel you can compel a woman to risk death via pregnancy?

>You conveniently seem to have omitted part of what Mr. Steeves said:

What?  The part where he said, "...probably kill...", or the part where he was
blathering on about "respect"?

>
>|You *might* even be angry enough
>|to be driven to violence as well, especially if the delay had been long, so
>|before condemning me for making such a strong and unambiguous statement, please
>|consider the context within which I made it.

Let's see the context here...

Steeves Spousal Equivelant has an abortion.
She doesn't tell him for a year.
Steeves "probably would" kill her.

*NICE* context.  Are you sure this didn't come from good old warm,
compassionate, Suxanne?

>
>I understood his statement to have two points:
>
>1.  To demonstrate that the disrespect shown by a woman who fails to
>notify her husband that she destroyed their offspring is an outrage.

What the hell is this "disrespect shown by a woman" crap that you folks keep
slinging about?  How about the disrepect shown by a man who has a one night
stand while on a business trip out of town, and doesn't bother to tell his wife
until a year later?  Should she "probably kill" him?

>
>2.  To use an outrageous but not necessarily literal statement
>to express his anger.

This kind of sickness is what keeps women (and men) in battered relationships.
The old "but honey, I didn't *REALLY* mean it, please come back to me" thought
is nice, until they *DO* mean it, and we have another women dead, courtesy of
"domestic volence".

Look at it this way, Don.  I'm Gay.  When I'm in a group of people, and one of
them says, "I hate queers.  I think we should just shoot them all", I take it
_very_ seriously.  It might be that he's only talking about "probably" shooting
me, and it might be that he's going to pull a gun on me in the next 5 minutes.
>
>If someone threw your child in a Department of Public Works tree shredder,
>would you think it surprising to say, "I'll rip his throat out?"

Maybe you wouldn't.  I would find it suprising.

>"Strong and unambiguous" may argue for the literality of the statement,
>but it isn't necessarily more than a strong and unambiguous statement
>of anger.

Sorry, but I don't think the facts bear this one out.  Witness all the women
who obtain restraining orders against their (former) husbands because he said,
"If you leave me, I'll kill you".  Witness also how many of them are assaulted,
etc. by said former husbands.

>
>I wouldn't be surprised at such a reaction, but I also wouldn't accept
>vigilante behavior.  The fact that I wouldn't be surprised doesn't
>mean I accept violence.

No, it just means that you believe people can make threats.  If they don't
carry out those threats in your presence, it's no skin off your teeth, right?
>
>>I can't beLIEVE you didn't give Steeve' shit for HIS anti-women comment.
>>Speaks volumes on what you think is important.
>
>Mr. Steeves' statement was not so much anti-women as
>anti-outrageous-disrespect, unless +you+ assume it is typical
>and decent for a woman to abort and not to tell her husband.

If by some misfortune of fate I found myself to be Steeve's Spousal Equivelant,
and I got an abortion, you can be damm sure I wouldn't breath a word of it to
him.  I think the life of a woman is just a _wee_ bit more important then the
"disrepect" she shows.

>It is a popular but sexist attitude to assume that any statement
>made against a woman represents an anti-women stance.

Not at all.  However, any statement made condoning violence against women is
an anti-woman stance.

>
>I believe respect is important, but it is not to be legislated.
>I also believe the legal nature of marriage requires full information
>for its participants.  If the woman doesn't want to inform her husband,
>let her break her contract and get a divorce (thereby avoiding any
>"walking time bombs").  You might even think it would be a better thing,
>if such gross fears existed.

Well, gee, and what is Steeve's hypothetical "Spousal Equivelant" supposed to
do if Steeve's has also said, "I would _probably_ kill any woman who filed for
divorce against me"??? Hmm????

>
>The part that prompted your personal attack was, I presume:
>
>[steeves]
>|And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
>|situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
>|but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
>|or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
>|stood.
>
>Whether this is literal or not, you and I don't know; we'd have to
>ask Mr. Steeves how he meant it.  If it is literal, and it says
>Mr. Steeves is a "walking time bomb," then it is probably better
>to correct the system that pushed him into that position and to
>provide some avenue of help for him (eg. therapy) than to resort
>to such intelligent repartee as insulting him personally.

General rule of thumb for interpeting things on Internet:

What they type is what they mean.

Besides, how in the world would you suggest that I get somebody that I've
never met, have no idea where he lives, and have only one sentence that I
find disgusting into therapy?  Call the ThoughtPolice?

--
=[e-mail] | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =