From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 13:24:54 GMT

When I posted the original article along this thread, it was before I
realized that talk.rape had the sign "Cross-posting not allowed."  If I
violated any USENET rules thereby, I apologize.

Ever since I noticed it, I have been editing out the talk.rape portion
of the "topmatter" in my follow-ups, so that some of the follow-ups along
this thread have not appeared here.  This one, to which I am following up,
was an oversight.

However, I do believe the whole thread is relevant to talk.rape.  Like
rape, forced abortion is a violent intrusion into the victim's genital 
opening, and South Carolina law now subsumes rape under the heading of
such intrusions.  Right in talk.rape there is a thread, "Rape without
a penis (Was: men's issues newbie)" in which "Nosy" has a follow-up
citing a New Mexico law of a similar nature, written to deal with such
atrocities as shoving a metal pipe up a vagina.  Not a bad description
of some dilators used in abortion, and then there are objects that
penetrate a good bit deeper, otherwise there would be no abortion.

I also believe that much of what appears in the post to which I am
following up is relevant to talk.rape.  I have added some comments
to bring this out.

An apology to the folks in talk.abortion:  failing to notify you in 
the text that talk.rape appears in the Newsgroups line was a breach
of etiquette on my part, and I apologize for it. 

In <nyikos.715471179@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep1.115604.23197@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.715287558@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> In <f2dng-=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> >What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
>>> >that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
>>> >while the doctor performs the abortion?

A scenario reminiscent of some rapes.  I believe it is generally the case
that the woman has the right to change her mind at any point before
intercourse, and that if the man does not comply, it is rape.

>>> That is something only the abortionists know, and they aren't about 
>>> to tell you or me or any of the "million women" you talk about below.

>>In other words, you have nothing to go by and are just
>>constructing bizarre scenarios in the dimly lit theater
>>of your mind. 

>And after I posted the case of the Fort Lauderdale doctor,

A case analogous to marital rape, and in fact IT WAS PRECEDED BY A 
MARITAL RAPE, although I do not know whether this rape was against
Florida law at that time.

This I only posted in talk.abortion, in the thread, "WILL THE REAL
MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? (Case 1)"

> you conveniently
>forgot having said this, and ripped into me about the pointlessness of
>my post.  Can't I at least defend myself against accusations of living
>in a fantasy world?

>> As with other postings you've given us,
>>you prefer to make outrageous, unfounded claims and
>>speculations that cast doctors who provide abortions in
>>the role of some sort of Jason With a Degree.

>>You're a weird bird, Peter.  I just wonder how many
>>ultra-religious anti-abortion advocates are out there
>>forcibly artificially inseminating women and then keeping
>>them prisoner for nine months because of the biblical
>>injunction to "be fruitful and multiply?"  What?  You mean
>>I have no reason to believe this occurs?

>Well, you certainly have no reason to believe that I am one
>of these birds.  Which I am not.  

>>  You mean it
>>is simply a baseless speculation?  Gee, I wonder where I
>>learned how to do that?

>Maybe you read _A Handmaid's Tale_?

An off-the-wall novel set in the future USA, in which women
are enslaved, RAPED, made to bear children, and if they procure
an abortion, they are executed.  

This last is something that has
never happened in the history of the countries whose legal systems
are rooted in the English common law, except perhaps in the days
of legalized slavery.  

In fact it appears that the only case of a woman prosecuted
as a consequence of procuring an abortion in the USA was a Florida
case where the woman was sentenced to two years' PROBATION for
refusing to divulge the identity of the abortionist who did a
salt-poisoning abortion on her.  

[BTW salt-poisoning abortions are
supposedly a thing of the past in the USA, but (1) I am skeptical
of the source where I read this and (2) if so, it is because of the
danger of serious poisoning and even death for the MOTHER.]

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion