From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:21:29 GMT

In <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>I sense, Adrienne, that you dehumanize the unborn and that abortion, is
>>indeed, justified.  

>I think abortion is indeed justified when a woman decides for herself that
>abortion is indeed justified.  What that does with your speculation about
>my impressions of the humanity or lack thereof of fetuses escapes me.

The impression, I believe, is that it counts for zip nada nothing in
your eyes.  And this from a woman who keeps repeating like a broken
record: "Think of the woman, Jim.  It's that simple."

>>But why do our children have to suffer?  Yes, I know you would say: "But
>>that child will suffer if he/she is made to live on this earth."

>Yours don't have to, unless you provide them cause.  I don't know of anybody
>who is stepping into *your* life and attempting to make decisions for *you*,
>though, please, correct me if I'm off base here.

But your kind stepped into his life before he was born, as in the
Opinion of the Court in RvW.  And if he is too old to have been 
directly affected by that, other decisions were made potentially
affecting his prenatal life long before RvW.

>Further, you don't know what I would say.  Since I haven't had the slightest
>problem in the last 7 years in saying things for myself, I would appreciate 
>it if you would refrain from making up stupid, pointless text and attributing
>it to me, thank you.

>>We assume too much when we think that abortion would save that child
>>from suffering and misery.

>Who's "we", white man?

Actually he was using the military "we" like Sgt. Snorkel saying to 
Beetle Bailey, "We're going to dig a trench here,"  and when Beetle
Bailey asks, "Do you really mean it when you say `we'?"  

Sgt Snorkel
looks at him with narrowed eyes and gritted teeth and says, "Sure.
And we're going to do a good job of it or we'll get our teeth knocked
out."  The last panel shows shows Beetle and Plato busy digging, 
Snorkel lounging against a tree, and Plato telling Beetle,
"That was the military `we'."

>(I'm getting awfully tired of that particular phrase......)

So, I've given you a new substitute. :-)

>>>To say no to one now is not to forever say no.  To say no to one now may
>>>be to pave the way for a better life for more than one later.
>>Why will the next child be any more special than the one today?  Why do
>>some of our children live while others, well...   

>The fact of the matter is that MANY people have some idea of how many
>kids they will have.  Some have that many, some have more and some have
>fewer.  That one fetus was aborted, while another fetus spontaneously
>aborted doesn't seem all that terribly tragic to me:  it's the way hte
>human animal works. 

Does it make a difference to Adrienne whether she dies a natural death
or someone kills her?  Of course it does, and she extends this courtesy
to those already born.  But for those not, she seems to give far, far,
far less of a damn than even some of the pro-choicers on this net,
like Elizabeth Bartley.

> Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.

Behold what Martin meant by dehumanization.

Fetuses are no more interchangeable than you and I.  (I said that once
before, but that was over two months ago when no one knew me.)

>Karen was expressing her dismay at aborting this particular fetus.  I
>merely pointed out that there are other perspectives.  She could greive
>for this one -- and have another one later on -- or she could have had
>this one -- and NOT had another one later on.  In *either* case, she would
>only have known and loved one child.  Why is one considered a tragedy by
>people, but the other is not?  *I* believe it is because the first case
>isn't a tragedy, either.

Again it would seem that to you the one aborted was zip nada nothing.

The last three words are an allusion to a July post of Adrienne's.
In part:

#From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
#Newsgroups: talk.abortion
#Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
#Message-ID: <13hpc1INNmss@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
#Date: 9 Jul 92 16:26:41 GMT

#{Deletions}

#One day we will have the technology to remove fetuses intact, and 'allow'
#them to 'continue living' if they can.  Come that day, I'm sure we will do
#that for a awhile.  But the survival of the fetus after the fact has zip
#nada nothing to do with the woman's right to remove it from her body.  We
#currently kill it and remove it because we can't save it anyhow.

>But you just decided it was worth *more* than her other children!!!! How
>insensitive (and just plain foolish!) can you get?!?!?

It is you who are being insensitive, Adrienne.  Seven years on the 
net should have taught you that.

>I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive than 
>fail.

And if it looks like they will fail...

[But I forget: Adrienne does not think of the unborn as children.  Perhaps
not even those further developed than the prematurely born.]

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc