From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 19:02:10 GMT

In <1992Oct30.201252.18997@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <BwtFGz.38t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
>In article <1992Oct27.205630.964@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>In <92299.121706ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
>   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >>>
>In article <1992Oct24.163029.2192@ncsu.edu> 
>   Doug Holtsinger says: >>>>
>In article <92295.213806ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
>   Linda Birmingham writes: >>>>

Ouch! there are just as many >>>> after Doug's attribution as there
are after Ms. Birmingham's.  

I will assume, until corrected, that the *dramatis personae* go like this
in the lines below:

>>>>>> Birmingham
>>>>>  Holtsinger
>>>>   Birmingham
>>> Overpeck
>> Garvin
> Overpeck

>>>>>> Mr. Overpeck lobbies for the removal of a woman's right to
>>>>>> make decisions over her body.  I personally don't care if he
>>>>>> is given sainthood tomorrow or takes in stray kittens.  To
>>>>>> me he is an enemy to women, as are all like him who attempt
>>>>>> to make women pawns in their own morality play.
>>
>>>>>What about the vast majority of women who support restrictions
>>>>>on abortion?  Are they "enemies to women"?
>>
>>>>I take it Mr. Holtsinger you missed the word "all".
>>>>Unlike you, dear boy, I do not see that word as
>>>>gender specific. 

Holtsinger was merely trying to clarify the meaning of certain
things you said, just as I have been trying to clarify your 
meaning of the term "You cannot...", with zero success so far.

>>>> Perhaps you should acquaint yourself
>>>>with its meaning, then you would be less apt to
>>>>misunderstand when it is used and when it is not and
>>>>as a result look less a fool.

Since you did NOT use "all" in a gender specific term, it would
seem reasonable to conclude that you do, indeed, consider
"the vast majority of women" [Doug's words] to be "enem(ies) to
women" [your words].  Please correct me if I am wrong.  I do not
want to look like a fool.

Of course, you can always exempt any people you please by saying that
*they* do NOT
>>>>>> attempt
>>>>>> to make women pawns in their own morality play.

So I really am curious to see just how all inclusive your 
"enemy to women" term is.  Could it be that you ARE gender 
specific after all, only you wanted to score debating points
agains Doug and hence ducked his question through the use of
a Garvinesque stream of insults?

>I didn't adopt my views because I'm unconcerned with the 
>lives of women.  I adopted them because I think pre-born
>human life is intrinsically valuable.

>  Such a philosophy should not, imo, warrant the
>type of hateful characterizations and attacks so common
>in this newsgroup.  I've always been told that one of the
>cornerstones of the pro-choice position involves respect
>for the autonomy and equality of women.  But that respect 
>is apparently not extended to men *or* women unless they 
>happen to be pro-choice, too.  I don't think you're a
>"baby killer", Susan.  Nor Linda, either.  We simply do
>not agree about the nature and value of unborn humans.

Bill's words are so well put, I decided to keep these.

Peter Ny.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion