From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:34:34 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <nyikos.715884967@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|>In <7w1yh2d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|>
         ["not part of her body!"
          "IN her body!"
          "doesn't matter!"]

|>>My "inflammatory" paragraph was in response to your contention that
|>>the "location" of fetuses is not the issue.
|>
|>>Now think about this.  When you say that the fact that a fetus is
|>>inside a woman is "not the issue", what are you implying?
|>
|>I was implying that the fact that a fetus is inside a woman does
|>not make it a part of her body.  That's all.  The issue between
|>Galen and me was whether the fetus was a part of the woman's body,
|>and the fact that it is located there was not the issue.

Fine.  If you want to be excessively picky on exactly what nuance was
present in every word you typed, go for it.  Many people have made 
their debut in this group by screaming "The only issue is murdering
babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", implying that all these women have no problem
at all being pregnant, they just want a legal way to kill babies.
When you refer to the fact that the fetus is located INSIDE a woman,
you tread dangerously close to this line.  Not to mention that you've
made a large number of posts here that were "not the issue".  (So
someone claims to have been forced into an abortion.  What did you
expect pro-choicers to say? That she deserved it?)

|>>  I'd say
|>>you're implying that all pro-choicers REALLY want is the right to
|>>kill.
|>
|>You're reading way way too much into my words.

I was extrapolating.

|>>  Doesn't matter where or what they're killing, they just want
|>>to kill.
|>
|>More of the same.

Come on, think about this, Nyikos.  If someone came to you and
said that they were going to rip out your liver, and they thought
it was ok because they didn't think it was part of your body, don't
you think you might get the teensy-weensiest bit upset?  Well, trust
me on this, LOTS of women get just as upset when you tell us that
yes, you realize the fetus is a parasite and yes, you realize it has
the potential for causing real long-term harm but hey, it's not part
of our body so we can't take it out.  Written in these terms, don't
you find your contentions just very slightly nonsensical?

Did you see Alien?  Did you see anyone quibbling about the morality
of removing the alien-baby from the guy's face?  Well, hell, it was
NOT part of his body and if he only donated some bodily resources,
it would grow up to be sentient!

Your argument will have to go farther than this.

|>> (to prevent the excessive picking of nits 
|>>here, I'm referring to the vast majority of pro-choicers)  For
|>>most pro-choicers, the ONLY issue is whether a woman will be
|>>forced to remain pregnant against her will. 
|>
|>Even if the reason for that "will" is the fact that she is carrying
|>what will become a "baby woman" and she wants a "baby man" instead?

Nyikos, I've answered this one about a zillion times here on this
forum.  Big letters this time.....

HER REASONS ARE NONE OF MY BUSINESS.  I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO PASS
JUDGEMENT ON THEM.  I DON'T FEEL SHE SHOULD GET MY APPROVAL BEFORE
DECIDING TO HAVE AN ABORTION.  I JUST FIGURE SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE NEEDS
BETTER THAN I DO.

I also have seen NO evidence that this is happening.  With all due
respect to Dr. Howard, all the articles in the bibliography he posted
had abstracts suggesting they were of the "what if" variety.  I saw
no reports on any actual epidemic of ss abortion.

Frankly, I think that the sex selection abortion makes the perfect
pro-"life" strawman.  Since no woman is required to give reasons 
before getting an abortion, then hey, who's to say they're NOT
occuring?  And the only article I ever read that said they WERE
occuring, and an article which may be the source of the "4000 in
India, and 3999 were females" (which manages to sneer at both women,
men, AND the entire population of India in a single factoid) was 
an unsupported article in _The Watchtower_.  There's been a lot
of talk about what makes an unbiased source lately, I think we can
pretty much ALL agree that _The Watchtower_ is likely to be biased.

|>Do most pro-choicers really support that choice, even at 17 or more
|>weeks, about the earliest that abortions for gender selection are
|>feasible? 

I'm really confused about what you think the alternative is here.  I
take it you would be just thrilled to prevent the abortion and promptly
hand the woman a helpless newborn of a gender the woman hates?  Do you
believe that some magical hormone is released at birth that makes women
suddenly love everything they used to hate?  What about the father?

|>  Or are you referring only to pro-choicers on talk.abortion, 
|>who are generally more radical than the pro-choice public at large?

Oh, I HAVE to laugh at this.  (I'll forego the standard 'bwa..')

Honey, you clearly don't KNOW radical pro-choicers!  

I take it you've never heard of NWROC.  I've had some contact with
their members, and I know their platform.  I've seen the people that
make up the organization, and Nyikos, these people are young, they're
outspoken, but most of all, THEY'RE MAD AS HELL AND THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Most clinic defenses are based on a strategy of absolute nonviolence.
When the pro-"life"rs scream slurs and swear at you, you ignore them.
When they physically attack you, you inform the nearest police officer.
Because in most clinic defenses, the concern is for the patients, not
abortion rights in general.

This is not so with NWROC.  I saw an NWROC member make a speech in
which she said "If they elbow you, kick them!  If they punch you,
knock their f___ing teeth out!!"  She was cheered.  You heard about
Buffalo?  The word before the blockade began was that the "mainstream"
pro-choice organizations were not going to mount a defense, hoping that
if they ignored the pro-"life"rs it wouldn't turn into a giant media
event.  NWROC didn't like that idea, and they organized.  I think we 
all know what kind of violence occurred in Buffalo.

So if you had some inkling that I was some kind of radical, you're
going to get a rude awakening some day.  Nyikos honey, Garvin, keegan,
Birmingham and I are some of the least radical pro-choicers you're
likely to run into.  As the Girl Scouts say:  Be prepared.

|>> If pregnancy could
|>>be ended without the death of the fetus then hey, happy day.
|>
|>A pity 5 Supreme Court justices disagreed with you in _Colautti_...

As has been pointed out here ad nauseum, Colautti made no judgements
whatsoever on the _intent_ of the law, only on the _semantics_.

|>and _Thornburgh_...

I have no idea what the Thornburgh  decision involved.

|>  In this respect THEY were much more radical
|>than, say 90% of all pro-choicers in this country.  

Again I say:  You haven't a clue as to what kind of pro-choicers
are out there.  Or are you just classifying "pro-choice" as anyone
who "isn't actively fighting to get anti-abortion legislation 
passed"?

|>>MY position, for one, would not change one bit.  (Although I
|>>DO think that if society was forced to deal with the upkeep of
|>>1.3 million unwanted fetuses each year, society at large would
|>>quickly return to current methods.)
|>
|>No such thing would happen, not even if abortion became illegal
|>except in the "hard cases": threat to mother's life, rape, incest...
|>People would simply be more careful about using contraception.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it's pretty clear you
didn't understand me.  By "alive" I meant "alive at any stage".
As in live 8-week embryoes being removed.  Many pro-"life"rs say
this would satisfy them, I just think that when faced with the
actual physical (if they could be transplanted) or financial
(especially if they couldn't be) cost, most people in this country
would be _demanding_ a return to abortion methods which killed the
fetus.

As for "people being more careful about contraception", you're
trying to make youself feel better by saying to yourself "It 
really _wouldn't_ cause all the problems they say it would...."

|>>Would YOU be opposed to abortion if abortions (almost) always
|>>resulted in live fetuses? 
|>
|>No, and I've already made that clear in a number of earlier posts.
|>
|>>Which is one of the things that leads to the belief that those
|>>people are motivated by misogyny.

Are you taking deleting lessons from Holtsinger?  This is about
the third time you've quoted me without enough context to make
my meaning clear and failed to note that you have deleted.

What I said was that there are those who would not allow abortion
EVEN IF it resulted in a live fetus.  What would your guess be
as to what would motivate a position like that?

|>Have you lumped me with them because of a misconception of what
|>I stand for? 

Have I lumped you in with them?

|> Well, with Adrienne and others distorting my position,
|>I am not surprised.

Garbage.  Don't imply that I form _my_ opinion of you based
on _others'_ opinions of you.  As highly as I regard Ms. Regard,
I am certainly capable of forming conclusions without her help.
And I would venture to guess that that makes her happy.

|>>>>>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
|>
|>>>>>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?
|>
|>>>>Is his hang gliding harness using his body?
|>
|>>>No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
|>>>a simple analogy?
|>
|>>Condescension does not suit you, Nyikos.  In fact, I was heading
|>>off any attempt to MAKE an analogy to pregnancy.  Because had
|>>you attempted to make that analogy, it would have been incredibly
|>>lame.
|>
|>You don't know Galen Hekhuis like I do, apparently.

Yes, I would venture to guess that we know Galen in VERY different 
contexts.  After all, I'm assuming that you and Galen never...well 
hmmmm, that WOULD explain a lot, wouldn't it?

But I do know you.  And I know how eager you are to prove to all the
mothers out here how wrong we are about pregnancy.  Stop and think a
minute what kind of gall it takes to tell a mother about pregnancy.
While you're doing that, stop and think how likely we are to listen 
to a pregnancy analogy from someone who has no medical training, and
has never BEEN pregnant.

|>Peter Ny.

                            -rocker                                     
Newsgroups: talk.abortion