From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:01:09 GMT

In <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>After sex, even if the man has never wanted to become a parent
>>and used a condom and spermicide, he has no right to make decisions
>>about his "personal or family privacy."  He cannot abort the child;

Actually, he can, if he is strong enough.  

From _Beyond Abortion_, by Suzanne Rini, p. 117:

"In 1981 a man who wanted his wife to abort became incensed when
she wouldn't.  He thrust his hand into her vagina and pushed
upward, severing the uterine wall, causing the baby [sic] to 
pass into her abdominal cavity.  The baby [sic] died, and Robert
Hollis was indcted for first-degree assault against his wife and
first-degree murder of the fetus.  The state attorney sought the
death penalty.

"The state attorney general actually used _Roe v. Wade_ in his attempt
to convict Hollis, begging to the decision's idea of state interest
in the life of a fetus approaching viability.  Although the judge
sympathized, he ruled for Hollis on the grounds that the existence
of laws permitting abortions meant that fetuses not born were not
`persons' and therefore Hollis had killed `no one'.  However, an
appeals court reinstated the case and this judge reasoned that because
science can now diagnose and treat the fetus in the womb, even before 
being close to viability, the traditional requirement that a fetal
homicide victim be proven viable was now outmoded....

"Eventually the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's
conviction of Hollis for murder of the fetus and upheld only the
conviction for first-degree assault on his wife."


>Since a woman's right to terminate pregnancy is based upon the fact that
>a pregnancy resides within her body,

Newspeak.  A pregnancy is a property of the woman's body ("a pregnant
woman") and not something contained in the body.

What was it Holtsinger said about pro-choicers reducing women to
containers?

>Adrienne regard

Peter Nyikos

---

Here's where the trouble began. Peter made massive quote and attribution 
deletions here, since he wanted to start his article by addressing the single
phrase "He cannot abort the child", which in Adrienne's article was buried
about a page and about half a dozen different quotes into the body of the 
article, some of the quotes nested 3 levels deep. In his haste, he neglected 
to delete the <1bfgu1INNpie@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> attribution. This is not fatal 
in and of itself, of course, since anyone could see that the quoted text 
beginning "After sex", which has a >> leader, does not match the attribution, 
which has the same leader. Attribution lines have one less > than the quoted 
text to which they refer. And if anyone really wanted to see who the text 
belonged to, they could look up one line and see the correct attribution, the 
one citing the <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> message-id (author: Don Beaver).

Next followed Adrienne's response:

---