From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:49:37 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.714855156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug24.054408.26192@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >In  <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> >(Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>
> >> This is pure *ipse dixit* [favorite expression of Justice Blackmun] on
> >> your part.  Are you saying none of the thumbsuckings and other acts of
> >> the fetus are willed?  Your saying so don't make it so.
>
> >Have you never heard of the suckling reflex?
>
> Of course I have, but my point is, the claim that NONE of the acts of
> the fetus is willed is completely unwarranted.

Why is it unwarranted?  You mentioned "thumbsuckings and other acts".
Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex; it's not willed.  So what acts
of the fetus are you claiming are willed?  ("Your saying so don't make
it so.")

> >> Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest
> >> was going on but did nothing to stop it.
>
> >Is there any proof that they knew that incest was occurring?  Have they
> >been charged with anything?
>
> You want court-of-law proof, I doubt if you could get it, hence the
> answer to the second question is no.  Most probably the incest victim
> herself told them it was going on, but with no one else on her side
> present, what can you do?

So first you slander the doctors by claiming that they *knew* the incest
was going on, now you've backed off to ""most probably she told them".
I'll repeat my question:  is there any proof that they knew the incest
was occurring?  Do you have *any* reason at all for saying this, or are
you simply assuming that since they're "evil abortionists", they must
have known?

> >> Misogyny, especially such blatant kind, is abhorrent to me.
>
> >Then why aren't you pro-choice?  :-)
>
> Do you automatically lump all pro-lifers into the misogynist category?

No, only the ones that would force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy
to term; the ones that would give *more* rights to a fetus than to any
(born) person, and remove rights from the woman to do so.  I tend to
classify people who don't want to *legislate* their beliefs about
abortion as pro-choice.

> >> 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.
>
> >This sounds reasonable - as long as you mean unacceptable *to the woman*.
> >Or do you think that every woman wanting an abortion has to come before
> >Peter Nyikos to determine if the consequences in her case are acceptable
> >to You?
>
> Read what I wrote again.  The only reason I might consider prohibiting
> abortion prior to the sixth week is if the consequences for the woman
> of allowing it are unacceptable.  If they are unacceptable to the woman,
> then of course I will defend her right not to be aborted against her
> will.  [actually this last sentence is redundant, but never mind...]

Ahh - I thought "the only reason I might possibly reconsider this" was
referring to imposing a law in the first place.  Now that you've
explained what you meant - it makes no sense at all.  If she doesn't
want one, she won't get one - what does this have to do with your
prohibiting them?  Do you somehow believe that the existance of a
choice will force the woman to take a choice that she finds unacceptable?
It's *taking away* choice that tries to force people to do things that they
find unacceptable.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity