From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: ``...no woman can have babies without the kindness of a man.''
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

# stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
### stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

### The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that
### no woman can have babies without the kindness of a man.

[...]

>> It's been my experience that women are completely capable of giving
>> birth, not only in the absence of masculine kindness, but in the
>> presence of masculine opposition as well.
# 
# Unhunh.  Are you implying that virgin birth is not only physically possible,
# but the NORM?!

What does virgin birth have to do with all this?  And where the hell
did you get this attitude that conception and impregnation can only
happen as a result of the `kindness' of a man?

[...]

### Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
### at all?
>> 
>> It doesn't?  None at all?  You mean rape never results in pregnancy
>> and subsequent birth in the complete absence of `the kindness of a
>> man?'
# 
# You are attempting to add words to what I wrote.  If you are going to
# try to put words into my mouth, you should at least delete the sentence
# that I wrote, so that you can cover your lies more easily.

What? Are you denying that you wrote, ``The best I can hope for is
that you will someday realize that no woman can have babies without
the kindness of a man.''

>> What could I have been thinking?
# 
# DID you think?  Or did you just react?  You see, most people assume that
# if you didn't say anything about an issue YOU WEREN'T DISCUSSING IT!
# 
# If I wanted to talk about pregnancy resulting from rape, I would have
# used the word rape somewhere in my sentence.
# 
# Now look, REAL HARD, and show me where in that sentence I used the word
# rape.  Go on, we'll wait.
# 
# Couldn't do it, could you?

I didn't have to.  You wrote, ``...no woman can have babies without
the kindness of a man.''  The human reproductive cycle simply does not
require even the *presence* of a man, let alone the `kindness' of a
man -- even in the absence of 20th century medical technology.

With rare exception, though, conception (which should not be confused
with birth) occurs as a result of sexual intercourse -- which requires
the involvement of a man.  It does not, however, require the
`kindness' of a man.  Once a woman is pregnant, she simply does not
need the presence of a man to give birth -- in fact, a man would
likely have to take direct action to prevent her from giving birth.

If you were to define male involvement in sexual intercourse as being
inherently an act of kindness, EVEN WHEN IT IS AGAINST THE WILL OF THE
WOMAN INVOLVED, then your bald-faced statement -- ``...no woman can
have babies without the kindness of a man'' -- would be `true' by
extension (as long as we were willing to assume for rhetorical
purposes that sexual intercourse is a requirement for conception).
Otherwise, rape would provide an exception to the rule, and you could
not amend your statement so as to allow for that and still let it
carry the same meaning.

Evidently, I am only an egg.  You're going to have make yourself plain
because my puny brain is incapable of following your clearly superior
intellect.  I can't for the life of me see how you have not CLEARLY
implied that rape is an act of kindness.  How have I misunderstood
what you wrote?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity