From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Response to Gordon on Trumped-up Case #4 
Keywords: self-induced, abortion
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:58:45 GMT

<nyikos.727972868@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Back in December I tried to post this response to Gordon Storga in re
>his trumped-up charges against Suzanne Forgach, but it seems not to
>have made it, so I try again now.

I can hardly remember the context anymore.

>> From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 09:59:25 GMT
>> <nyikos.719785206@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >Gordon Storga has brought a number of charges, some serious, others trivial,
>> >against Suzanne Forgach.  Here I deal with three serious ones.
>> 
>> Peter, take a pill.  This isn't a courtroom.  This isn't L.A. Law.  You
>> are not a public defender.  Suzanne is not on trial here.
>
>Just having a little fun.  Besides, the legal format helps me to focus
>my thoughts.  If it hadn't been for that, I might never have realized
>that self-induced abortion is ILLEGAL in many states, including South
>Carolina, violating as it does the law that only a licensed physician
>may perform abortions.

Yes, practicing medicine without a license is illegal in most places.  You
can't legally remove your own appendix (on purpose).  Heck, suicide is
even illegal in some places.

>And yet these laws are NEVER enforced, giving the lie to all the doomsayers
>who say that women will be prosecuted for abortion if Roe v. Wade ceases
>to be the law of the land.

Many people believe they would have been enforced, especially if the
Religious Right had won the election.

>> >The three charges:
>> >Case #4: Punishing women for abortion.
>> >    To avoid an indefinitely long hung jury, I
>> >    propose that we substitute the charge:
>> >
>> >	"Punishing women to an unreasonable extent for abortion."
>> >
>> >The plea: Not Guilty
>> 
>> Too bad.  That's not what I "charged" her with.  Stop making strawmen (or
>> women) so you can pooh-pooh them away.
>
>OK, have it your way.  The plea is still Not Guilty.  Suzanne would not 
>*personally* punish women for abortion, nor even turn them in, she would
>just support laws that make it illegal (usual life-of-woman exception)
>and the officials that choose to enforce it.

Suzanne has stated that she would like to see fines and community service
*punishments* given to women who have an abortion, except in the case of
her daughter.  I have no doubt that Suzanne would not personally punish
anyone capable of fighting back.  She doesn't seem to want to get
personally involved with the effects of many of her "opinions".

>Note, she has an unblemished record in this regard where self-induced
>abortions are concerned (see shocking revelation of illegality above).

But, we weren't talking about self-induced abortions so your attempt to
cloud the issue doesn't work.

>> >** wrt punishing women for abortion:
>> ><1991Jan29.005205.11371@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> >><NAN.91Jan27174435@ertou.ucsc.edu>, by nan@ertou.ucsc.edu (Nancy Ellman):
>> >>> <1991Jan27.162703.4074@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> >>>    I've stated point blank when asked what "penalty" should be 
>> >>>    bestowed on
>> >>>    the woman for aborting a fetus, "financial fine".
>		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>> What if don't have money to pay the fine? 
>> >>Then Probation with the requirement to hold a job and pay off the fine.
>> >>That's how Probation works as it is, in this state, anyway.
>> >
>> >Since this seems to refer to self-induced abortion, it could come under
>> >"practicing medicine without a license."  A very mild punishment, as these
>> >things go.
>> 
>> It doesn't refer to self-induced abortion.  It refers to abortion.
>
>As your ex-girlfriend *honoris causa* Beth might say:
>
>Proof, please.

You need the proof.  I don't see anyone else here asking for proof.  I've
got over 40 Megs of archives (not all news stuff) and I don't feel
inclined at this time to run errands for you.  I've stated what I know to
be a fact and anyone else out there who was a witness to the original
conversation is welcome to join in.

>Your assertion is at odds with the words I highlighted above.

Gee, I don't see any words "highlighted" above.  I see some words that
have circumflexes beneath them.  What's that?  You say that "everyone
knows that that's what you are talking about when you say 'highlighted'??"

Proof please.

See what I mean?  Anyone who was around at that time was fully aware of
what was being discussed.  The fact that we have to explain it to you
notwithstanding.

>> >Of course, from a pro-life perspective,
>> > it seems heartless to punish a women under such a cold,
>> >impersonal charge, without reference to the life within her that she
>> >has destroyed.  But that's the way the law works sometimes.  
>> 
>> Well, you should stop advocating these "cold impersonal" laws then.
>
>*I* have no problem with laws against practicing medicine (in this case,
>a highly invasive surgery) without a license.  Do you?  

Yes, as long as you practice that surgery on yourself then there should be
no law involved.

>                                                        I personally
>would *not* want women to be punished under such laws for self-induced
>abortion before the 6th week, nor would I advocate anything more than
>community service for self-induced abortions after that point, except
>in case of a viable fetus.  

Your law would be unenforcable without police state tactics.  How will you
know when a woman performs an abortion on herself at 6 weeks 1 day?

>                            If she injures herself, I'd be inclined to
>let her off without any punishment, on the principle that she has already
>punished herself enough.

How do you propose coding that into law?  Chances are you won't be ruling
on any case like this.  Someone else would be.  Someone who might not
share your views on "leniency".

Of course, a woman who performs a 7th week abortion on herself because she
already has 3 kids she can't support is just out of luck.  Now she'll have
a fine and community service (plus a criminal record) added to her misery.
All because you feel bad about an insentient inch long piece of tissue, that
is incapable of a conscious thought, being destroyed.  Will her additional
suffering make you feel so much better?

>> >Of course, charge #4 COULD refer to procuring an abortion, but that
>> >is not clear from the evidence Storga has presented.   So I'd rather
>> >deal with this possibility under the remaining charge.
> 
>> Tough.  It refered to getting an abortion.  I was there when it was
>> posted.  As you can see from #5, *AN* abortion is what we were discussing,
>> not specifically "self-induced". 
>
>Where #5 is concerned, I agree, but this has yet to be established in re
>case #4.  

You seem to forget that this was all basically one conversation under the
same topic.  Do you really think that we changed back and forth between
self-induced and procured abortion without ever noting it specifically?
Do you really think that Suzanne wouldn't have noticed our confusion and
corrected us at the time?

The term "preponderance of the evidence" comes to mind.

>          Besides, with your permission, I would like to make the following
>division for administrative purposes:
>
>Charge #4: Punishing women for self-induced abortion, while exempting her
>daughter.
>
>Charge #5: Snitching on women who either self-induce or procure abortion
>while exempting her daughter.
>
>Charge #6: Punishing women for procuring abortion, while exempting her
>daughter.
>
>I am amenable to a different wording, and a different division, but I
>would like to, as they say in Robert's Rules of Order, "Divide the
>question" so that these posts don't get too long.  As it is, I have
>to postpone Cases #5 and 6 for later this week; I'm in the midst of
>final exams.

I don't see any need for subdividing her statements any more than this.
I still don't understand why you feel so outraged that Suzanne would be
accused of saying something malicious, stupid, or hypocritical.  After her
recent denial of ever saying that gays hate women, then my repost of her
exact words, her saying that "indifference is the worst form of hatred",
her again avoiding an offer to adopt children after beggin for them...

I guess you are just a sucker for a lost cause.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion