From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Adrienne's use of "asshole" is unwarranted
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:29:16 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

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.]

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.

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

[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.

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.

>(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.

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."

>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?}

Peter Nyikos