From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:38:01 GMT

In <1992Aug27.184937.26265@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.714855156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug24.054408.26192@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>
>> >In  <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>> >(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> >Have you never heard of the suckling reflex?
>>
>> Of course I have, but my point is, the claim that NONE of the acts of
>> the fetus is willed is completely unwarranted.

>Why is it unwarranted?  You mentioned "thumbsuckings and other acts".
>Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex; it's not willed.  So what acts
>of the fetus are you claiming are willed?  ("Your saying so don't make
>it so.")

Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex only from the point where the thumb
touches the cheek.  As to how it got there, or whether it went straight
to the mouth without touching the cheek, that could be a willed action.
Also, the fetus may have some conscious control over how long the
thumbsucking is continued.

>> >> Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest
>> >> was going on but did nothing to stop it.
>>
>> >Is there any proof that they knew that incest was occurring?  Have they
>> >been charged with anything?
>>
>> You want court-of-law proof, I doubt if you could get it, hence the
>> answer to the second question is no.  Most probably the incest victim
>> herself told them it was going on, but with no one else on her side
>> present, what can you do?

>So first you slander the doctors by claiming that they *knew* the incest
>was going on, now you've backed off to ""most probably she told them".

Well, I was just making a reasonable guess.  My source, an newsletter, did
not go into how it was known that the incest was going on.  If you're 
curious, I can write away for the information, but don't expect any
overnight answers.
>>
>> Read what I wrote again.  The only reason I might consider prohibiting
>> abortion prior to the sixth week is if the consequences for the woman
>> of allowing it are unacceptable.  If they are unacceptable to the woman,
>> then of course I will defend her right not to be aborted against her
>> will.  [actually this last sentence is redundant, but never mind...]

>Ahh - I thought "the only reason I might possibly reconsider this" was
>referring to imposing a law in the first place.  Now that you've
>explained what you meant - it makes no sense at all.  If she doesn't
>want one, she won't get one - what does this have to do with your
>prohibiting them? 

She might want one, not realizing how dangerous it is.  Like those
infamous "coathanger" abortions; of which, BTW, Dr. Willke claims he has 
never heard an authenticated example of.  Can any of you networkers
enlighten him?

> Do you somehow believe that the existance of a
>choice will force the woman to take a choice that she finds unacceptable?
>It's *taking away* choice that tries to force people to do things that they
>find unacceptable.

Like taking away the choice to go to a back alley butcher?  Would you
make what they do legal?  [Actually, it is legal, and happens even today.]

Newsgroups: talk.abortion