From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:11:47 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


 Oh dear, Peter--time to correct your reading comprehension again!

In <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>A final note.  In Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_, humans are raised
>>>in artificial wombs, contraception is mandatory, and pregnancy is 
>>>punished by banishment.  

>>In "A Handmaid's Tale", all fertile women are enslaved,

>An outrage.  There is a sadomasochistic "science fiction" author with a
>name like "Norman" who has a series of over 10 books on a "counter-earth"
>on the other side of the sun, where all women are slaves and supposedly
>loving it.  Misogyny, especially such blatant kind, is abhorrent to me.

     "The Handmaid's Tale" no more perpetuates misogyny than "1984"
perpetuates totalitarianism. They are to be taken as warnings--horrific,
frightening, stomach-churning warnings.

>> raped,

>Worse yet.  It was not for nothing that I signed up for the Sexual Assault
>Task Force.

     I'm assuming this is designed to prevent sexual assault (I would
accompany this by a wry smiley if my keyboard would permit it--I know
sexual assault isn't particularly amusing)

>> and forced
>>to give birth when impregnated. 

>I have already gone on record in talk.abortion as not wishing to 
>impose a law prohibiting
>abortion prior to the 6th week [not month, but it still allows plenty of
>time after a skipped period] after fertilization.  The only reason I might
>possibly reconsider this is if the consequences for the WOMAN are 
>unacceptable.

     Having to go through am unwanted pregnancy seems to me an
unacceptable consequence. Does this make you pro-choice?


>> Abortion is punishable by torture and/or death.

>I trust it is the abortionist who is punished, not the woman.  Despite
>arduous research, nobody has ever found a case, not even in what 
>NARAL calls the dark ages, where a woman was prosecuted for procuring
>an abortion on her.  [If this info is out of date, please correct me.]

     You trust wrong. Why not read the book?
>>>Huxley's novel is set 6 centuries in the future.  At the rate we have
>>>been going this century, we'll get there ahead of schedule, if the
>>>pro-choice myrmydons keep having their way.

>>We're a hell of a lot closer to "A Handmaid's Tale" (like, 1 or 2 more Supreme
>>Court misogynists like Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia) then we are to your
>>bullshit.  

>So Huxley wrote bullshit, did he?

     No--your misinterpretation is bullshit. Interesting that "bullshit"
is the exact term I chose to describe your reading of _BNW_ in an
earlier post.

  Anyway, there are laws in place against
>all the things you mention in the handmaid's tale except the last, and
>even those laws target the abortionists, as will any in the foreseeable
>future, even should Roe be overturned.  

     Oh, and there's no law, apparently, against banishing a pregnant
woman, as your misreading of _BNW_ would have it
>As for your charge of misogyny against Thomas et. al.: before too many days
>elapse, I'll post, WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE
>STAND UP?  [Hint: look at the Buffalo case again.]

     Can't wait!

>[BTW I have not made up my mind about who is guilty in Thomas-Hill.  If
>Thomas is, the charge sticks to him, even though his offense is less
>than that of the Buffalo dad, and much less than that of the Columbia
>abortionist of whom I wrote.]

     Whaddaya mean, "the charge sticks to him"? He seems to me to be on
the highest court in the land, with no chance of his little
indiscretions being punished.

>Peter Ny

                                     MP
.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion