From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Response to Gordon on Trumped-up Case #4 
Keywords: self-induced, abortion
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:41:08 GMT

Back in December I tried to post this response to Gordon Storga in re
his trumped-up charges against Suzanne Forgach, but it seems not to
have made it, so I try again now.

> From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
> Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne: Cases #4,5,6
> Message-ID: <1992Oct29.095925.27510@netcom.com>
> Keywords: snitch, punish, abortion, book, throw
> Organization: Stay Awake Software
> References: <nyikos.719785206@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 09:59:25 GMT
> Lines: 155
> 
> <nyikos.719785206@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >Gordon Storga has brought a number of charges, some serious, others trivial,
> >against Suzanne Forgach.  Here I deal with three serious ones.
> 
> Peter, take a pill.  This isn't a courtroom.  This isn't L.A. Law.  You
> are not a public defender.  Suzanne is not on trial here.

Just having a little fun.  Besides, the legal format helps me to focus
my thoughts.  If it hadn't been for that, I might never have realized
that self-induced abortion is ILLEGAL in many states, including South
Carolina, violating as it does the law that only a licensed physician
may perform abortions.

And yet these laws are NEVER enforced, giving the lie to all the doomsayers
who say that women will be prosecuted for abortion if Roe v. Wade ceases
to be the law of the land.

> >The three charges:
> >Case #4: Punishing women for abortion.

> >    To avoid an indefinitely long hung jury, I
> >    propose that we substitute the charge:
> >
> >	"Punishing women to an unreasonable extent for abortion."
> >
> >The plea: Not Guilty
> 
> Too bad.  That's not what I "charged" her with.  Stop making strawmen (or
> women) so you can pooh-pooh them away.

OK, have it your way.  The plea is still Not Guilty.  Suzanne would not 
*personally* punish women for abortion, nor even turn them in, she would
just support laws that make it illegal (usual life-of-woman exception)
and the officials that choose to enforce it.

Note, she has an unblemished record in this regard where self-induced
abortions are concerned (see shocking revelation of illegality above).

> >** wrt punishing women for abortion:
> ><1991Jan29.005205.11371@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >><NAN.91Jan27174435@ertou.ucsc.edu>, by nan@ertou.ucsc.edu (Nancy Ellman):
> >>> <1991Jan27.162703.4074@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> >>>    I've stated point blank when asked what "penalty" should be 
> >>>    bestowed on
> >>>    the woman for aborting a fetus, "financial fine".
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> What if don't have money to pay the fine? 
> >>Then Probation with the requirement to hold a job and pay off the fine.
> >>That's how Probation works as it is, in this state, anyway.
> >
> >Since this seems to refer to self-induced abortion, it could come under
> >"practicing medicine without a license."  A very mild punishment, as these
> >things go.
> 
> It doesn't refer to self-induced abortion.  It refers to abortion.

As your ex-girlfriend *honoris causa* Beth might say:

Proof, please.

Your assertion is at odds with the words I highlighted above.

> >Of course, from a pro-life perspective,
> > it seems heartless to punish a women under such a cold,
> >impersonal charge, without reference to the life within her that she
> >has destroyed.  But that's the way the law works sometimes.  
> 
> Well, you should stop advocating these "cold impersonal" laws then.

*I* have no problem with laws against practicing medicine (in this case,
a highly invasive surgery) without a license.  Do you?  I personally
would *not* want women to be punished under such laws for self-induced
abortion before the 6th week, nor would I advocate anything more than
community service for self-induced abortions after that point, except
in case of a viable fetus.  If she injures herself, I'd be inclined to
let her off without any punishment, on the principle that she has already
punished herself enough.

> >Of course, charge #4 COULD refer to procuring an abortion, but that
> >is not clear from the evidence Storga has presented.   So I'd rather
> >deal with this possibility under the remaining charge.
 
> Tough.  It refered to getting an abortion.  I was there when it was
> posted.  As you can see from #5, *AN* abortion is what we were discussing,
> not specifically "self-induced". 

Where #5 is concerned, I agree, but this has yet to be established in re
case #4.  Besides, with your permission, I would like to make the following
division for administrative purposes:

Charge #4: Punishing women for self-induced abortion, while exempting her
daughter.

Charge #5: Snitching on women who either self-induce or procure abortion
while exempting her daughter.

Charge #6: Punishing women for procuring abortion, while exempting her
daughter.

I am amenable to a different wording, and a different division, but I
would like to, as they say in Robert's Rules of Order, "Divide the
question" so that these posts don't get too long.  As it is, I have
to postpone Cases #5 and 6 for later this week; I'm in the midst of
final exams.

Peter Nyikos

PS The above was over a month ago; I am now in the midst of the second
week of classes, playing catch-up on a lot of things, including this
newsgroup.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58043 alt.abortion.inequity:6741