From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 22:25:54 GMT

In <1992Aug29.135528.22372@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>Mr Nyikos wallows in speculation to no clear purpose unless it is to
>somehow imply that clinics that provide abortion services have been
>bombed by their own staff for insurance purposes.  This flies in
>the face of the facts, which include convictions in court of some
>of the bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life."

Just how deeply held are these pro-life beliefs?  Children playing
at "cops and robbers" almost never go into the harm the robbers have
caused.  The "robbers" are simply "the bad guys" and the ones playing
cops get a big adrenaline surge from going after them and even have
the "moral" satisfaction of being "the good guys" even though someone
watching their play usually can't tell the good guys from the bad guys
without a scorecard.

Now what little I have read of "The Lambs of God" [you never do identify
these "pro-lifers"] leads me to believe their motivation is of this 
juvenile sort.  

>In article <nyikos.715043061@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug27.120315.9416@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> >> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
>> >> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
>> >> 
>> >> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
>> >> pro-life movement.
>> 
>> >That is not at all accurate.  The "doctor" in question is a sick
>> >man, if the charges are true, and very harmful, but there is nothing
>> >to indicate that his foul behavior is an outgrowth, by-product, or
>> >in any way connected to the fact that he performed abortions.

Well, in the absence of further information, one can make educated guesses.

1. Being an abortionist can be a dehumanizing experience.  Don't take my
word for it, read what Magda Denes, a pro-choicer, writes about some
of them in _In Necessity and Sorrow_.  As one comes to see the bodily
autonomy of unborn children as violable unto death, one can easily see
the bodily autonomy of four-year-old children as violable unto carnal
knowledge.  [My dose of medieval English for the day.]

2. Abortion is part and parcel of the quality-of-life ethic, which sees
the worth of human beings according to how much they are wanted, or 
appreciated, or loved by others.  The four-year olds gave pleasure to
the doctor, the people who had sex with them, and the unknown number of
voyeurs who bought the tapes.  And maybe the doctor could even rationalize
that he was doing the kids a favor, as in: "Sex before eight or else
it's too late."

>> 
>> If the clinics had been torched instead of bombed, would you be so
>> quick to conclude any of this?  Or would you entertain the possibility
>> that 
>> (1) the torching was an inside job to collect insurance and try to 
>> discredit the pro-lifers by blaming them?

>If you have any evidence that this has occured, please post it.
>If you have anything beyond some bizarre speculation about events
>that have not occurred, please post it.  Otherwise, what the hell
>are you talking about?  "Pro-life" advocates have admitted to
>bombing clinics that provide abortion services, and been convicted
>and jailed for their activities.  Can you provide anything but
>idle, and slanderous, speculation?

You say A.  I say it's possible B happened.  You say A happened sometimes.
That does not rule out the possibility that B happened sometimes.
Speculation it may be, but it is not bizarre; if it were, you would not
have known what I meant by the word "torched".

>> (2) the torching was the work of a pyromaniac who had never said
>> a pro-life sentence in his life and therefore would never be suspected
>> of the act.

>See above.

See well above.  A pyromaniac can also, if caught, start spouting pro-life
rhetoric in the hopes that this will lead to a mitigating of the sentence.

>> Here in Columbia there is a clinic, Southern Women's Services, which
>> seems ripe for a torching of the (1) variety.  It looks like a seedy
>> old motel that AAA would not even think of listing.  If they have
>> enough insurance, they must be awfully tempted to go the (1) route
>> and replace it with a clinic that looks like a health center instead
>> of a roach motel.
>> 

>I can't think what you are trying to say here.  Has the clinic
>been the target of arson?

No, otherwise I might have put (2) instead of (1) above.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion