From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:49:15 GMT

In <1992Oct14.123748.29558@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct13.205823.9740@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Oct10.025716.16695@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>
In article <1992Oct9.135348.12154@acd4.acd.com>> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <1asimvINNj53@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com 
   (C.J. Silverio) writes: >>>>>
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com>, 
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes: >>>>>>
In <unknown id>
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
> 
>>>>>> Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>>>> crusade.  
>
>>>>> Malicious?  You're despicable.  
> 
>>>> Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
>>>> last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
>>>> terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
>>>> laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.
>
>>> Now I am very confused.  Are you arguing, Bill, that parental
>>> consent laws are not the product of the pro-life movement and
>>> its agenda?
> 
>> Certainly they comprise the primary source of *advocacy* for such 
>> laws, but my point had more to do with the Bell's ostensible need
>> for revenge.  I'm in favor of such laws for the sake of my family,
>> my daughter's health and safety, and my rights as a parent.
>
>Making judgements as to their psychological condition, Bill?
>Did you have them on the couch for any considerable period of
>time?

Again, Dean, I have no difficulty recognizing blatant malice
when it's directed at me.  Perhaps it's based on some other
criteria (vs. revenge) but I qualified my comment with "osten-
sible need".  Am I not allowed to make such inferences?  Has
Keegan come up with another rule that I don't know about?

>>>The Bells clearly believe that their daughter would be alive
>>>today were it now for laws that left her believing she had no
>>>choice (ah, but leaving women without an option is what pro-life
>>>is about) but to attempt to perform an abortion on herself.
>>>Certain I am that if their daughter was unable to discuss the
>>>situation with them, then there was some problem within the
>>>family as well.  And that is certainly sad.  And that is something
>>>that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.  But
>>>if someone versed in psychology can lack understanding for these
>>>people, well, that leaves me confused.   I don't have a degree
>>>in psychology and only a few courses and maybe half a dozen
>>>books under my belt, but I can understand their feelings
>>>with or without the training to do so.  And I can certainly see
>>>why they would feel bitter and angry towards the pro-life
>>>contingent that worked to create laws that handed their daughter
>>>death.
> 
>> I can acknowledge the possibility of such a response, though
>> I don't see it as particularly healthy or accurate.  Were I
>> in their place, I'd blame myself for not being someone my 
>> daughter could come to.  Hence, I don't accept the blame for
>> their tragedy.
>
>Pro-lie legislation has resulted in and will result in the
>deaths of women.  

IYO.

>But you just feel comfy and cozy and make
>sure not to blame yourself.  

Ok.

>I have to agree with Susan's
>point.  You do have a responsibility, when you actively
>support legislation that results in the deaths of people,
>to take some share in the blame for those deaths.

I remain unconvinced that it is the legislation that causes
such deaths, but I understand your point.

>> I wanted to blame the driver (turns out my son ran into the *side*
>> of the car, removing the rear view mirror with his head), but I
>> had to admit, the fault was ours.  I didn't hear Bill or Karen
>> Bell say anything about their personal responsibility - they
>> apparently think it's all "our" fault.
>
>I think that would be wrong of them if that's the case.
>I certainly thinkthat a home environment in which their
>daughter was unable to discuss her pregnancy with them
>is a good deal their own fault.  But were they at this
>speaking engagement to discuss parental consent laws, or
>their own faults.  Again, I can understand how awful an
>admission this would be for them.  And their own burden
>of guilt must be terrible.  That does not, however, absolve
>anyone else from their contribution to the death of their
>daughter, 

I respect your opinion, as stated.

>and it certainly doesn't justify the foul and
>malicious slander perpetrated against Becky Bell after her
>death by the pro-lie supporters, slander which no doubt
>contributes to Becky Bell's parents' bitterness and anger..

*That* I agree with.

[...]

>>>Didn't you just post, in mock Kaflowitz tradition,
>>>A man sees what he wants to see
>>>And disregards the rest
> 
>> I hope I'm not that shallow.
>
>Neither is CJ.
>
>And if you weren't seeing what you wanted to see, how come
>you recognized their malice but refused to recognize any of
>their motivation or your own responsibility for it?

Very loaded question.  I can only guess at their motivation,
especially if my inference differs from their stated intent.
But I won't be responsible for Becky's death, however tragic.

Bill 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion