From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Adrienne's use of "asshole" is unwarranted
Summary: And "PH" claiming to be "intelligent" is hilarious... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:13:45 GMT

In article <nyikos.718309756@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>From the "I had an abortion two days ago" thread.  I think Adrienne ought to
>apologize to Karen for not moving the post to which I am following up off
>this thread.  [Having said this, though, I'm not going to bring it up again
>in talk.abortion unless Adrienne starts insulting me for saying it.]

Better watch out, Adrienne!  Peter's about to threaten to put you into
his "de facto" killfile!

>
>In <1ad6r3INNfc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>>
>>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>
>>Where, asshole?
>
>>(a) there is no 'right to life'.  Take a fucking look at the fucking
>>constitution.
>
>Nor is this right enshrined in the constitution:
>
>[from the same post of Adrienne that gave you "zip nada nothing":]
>
>#  We do not currently require a woman to suffer a rapist who refuses to vacate
>#  her vagina on request.  We do allow her to use force UP TO AND INCLUDING
>#  LETHAL FORCE to get him to vacate her vagina.

Right.  So there is no "right to life".  There is a "right" to legally
kill somebody who is trying to rape you.

>
>But not in cases of marital rape, to the best of my knowledge, unless 
>perhaps there is a long prior history of spousal abuse.

This sentence could almost be taken as consent to spousal rape, Peter.

Did you mean it as such?

>
>[from the same post:]
>
># Giving the fetus the right to inhabit a woman's body against her will is
># giving it a right over and above ANY rights any other humanbeing on this
># planet has.  NO OTHER HUMAN BEING has the right to inhabit a woman's body
># against her will,  yet you would suggest the fetus should have that
># right?  I think that's bogus.
>
>Martin, you may have missed all this, so I should point out that Adrienne
>uses the word "inhabit" here just the same way as she used "vacate" up
>there.  This is a point I "missed" intentionally
> in my "Mirror for Adrienne's NO OTHER
>HUMAN BEING" post; I suspected Adrienne of using a nonstandard definition
>of "inhabit" but did not bother verifying it.

Do you generally talk about yourself this much?

>
>Anyway, to paraphrase what I said before, Adrienne, you and Martin are
>on the same level playing field as to what is and what is not a right.

Yep.  There is no right to life.  There is no right to inhabit a woman's
body if she doesn't want you there.  If you are inhabiting a woman's
body against her will, she can use lethal force to cause you to vacate.

>
>>(b) there is no 'child' until after birth.  Take a fucking look at the
>>fucking tax laws and about 200 years worth of the historical context of
>>life in this country.
>
>From a 1881 New Jersey State Supreme Court decision, ignored in bad
>faith by either Cyril Means or Justice Blackmun, who cites the decision
>in Roe v. Wade:
>
>"This law was further extended March 26, 1872...to protect the life
>of the child also, and inflict the same punishment, in case of its
>death, as if the mother should die." --State v. Gedicke, 43 N.J.L. 86, 90.

Care to give us some CONTEXT about this case, Dougie-wannabe?

>
>From Dougherty v. People, 1 Colo. 514, 522 (1872) also concerning a statute:
>"intended specifically to protect the mother and her unborn child from
>operations calculated and directed to the destruction of the one and the
>inevitable injury of the other."

Care to give us some CONTEXT about this case, Dougie-wannabe?

>
>>Well, Martin, let me just guarantee for you that there are some things
>>I value that you wouldn't much appreciate.  I think that my opinion should
>>optain upon your body.  How about it, bub?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I hope Keith Cochran does not get involved in this one.  Let's keep it
>between Adrienne and Martin, shall we?  {Now do you see why I changed
>threads?}

Don't you mean between Adrienne, Martin, and _yourself_?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion