From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:16:20 GMT

In <22DEC92.16592843@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>In <17DEC92.14415107@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> 
>>I don't know about Loren, but my answer would be no.  On the other hand, 
>>I am glad DES and the Dalkon Shield have been banned, and I hope RU-486,
>>which endangers the health and even lives of women, like the French smoker 
>>whose death was linked to the chemical, will not gain wide entry into the
>>USA. 

>Do you think that non-smokers who understand the risks involved should not 
>be allowed to make their own decision and choose to use RU-486?

Your question has a counterfactual assumption in it, which renders it
purely rhetorical.

**************From a follow-up to a post of Susan Garvin********************

>RU-486 has an excellent safety record, but Nyikos has not
>stated his support for its use.  

The second statement is true, and the reason is that the first statement
is false.  See _RU 486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals_ by three pro-choice
feminists: Renate Klein, Janice Raymond, and Lynette Dumble.  Published
in Australia, 1991, Spinifex Press.

BTW I met Prof. Raymond earlier this year.  She said some eye-opening
things about how women are being exploited worldwide by the technocrats
of reproduction, with RU-486 only one of many ingredients.

Look on pp. 98-99 of that book to see how feminists were silenced and
ignored on the dangers of Prostaglandins.  The same is true of RU-486.
One of the authors wanted to tell people about the dangers of RU-486
for women at a conference of pharmacologists, and the moderator said,
"Will someone take that microphone away from that woman?" before she
could even begin on her long list.

BTW these pro-choice feminists are very supportive of menstrual
extraction.
**********************End of excerpt**************************************

>>>Do you still think rape victims should be forced to give birth to their 
>>>rapist's child just because you want them to?
>>		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>The marked words are either redundant or unwarranted, depending on how
>>Heather uses words like "just because."

>Loren never gave any good reasons why rape victims should be forced to suffer 
>further, other than saying that was what he wanted them to do.  That's why I 
>used those words.

>>Clue: the rapist's child is wanted by lots of people who would be glad
>>to adopt it.  Heather is not only leaving the child out of her "just
>>because," she is also leaving out the men and women who are desperate
>>for children to adopt.

>First of all, if a woman aborts there is no "child".  Second, 
>I see no reason why rape victims should be forced to produce healthy white 
>babies for these "desperate" people.  Are these people who are so anxious to 
>adopt aware of the number of older and handicapped children in foster care 
>that would love to be adopted?

Some of them sure are.  There are organizations just for people wishing
to adopt children with Down's Syndrome and spina bifida.

>  Have they looked into adopting any of the 
>150,000-200,000 orphaned and abandons BORN children from Romania?

Funny, some of them went over there and for some unknown reason paid
good money to adopt children who were living with their natural parents.

Could it be that those figures you just gave are almost as inflated
as the 60,000 dead that Ceausescu was charged with when the kangaroo
court convicted him of genocide and had him executed?  [I believe
the final figure was in the low hundreds.]

BTW having the Maximum Leader executed was the second most
reprehensible thing they could have done, IMO, next to restoring him
to his former glory.  I would charge them with utter stupidity [They 
could have had a trial that would have gone down in history alongside
the Nurnberg trials] except that they were covering their own asses
by killing him.  And the Romanians are suffering from this dumb-as-a-fox
decision ever since.

>>>Are you still insisting that women's bodies be used against their will while 
>>>you yourself are unwilling to let your body be used to save the life of a 
>>>fetus?
>> 
>>Uh-oh.  Did Keith make his usual offer while I was "flying blind"?  Before
>>long, I'll post "What did Keith tell you about me, Mark?"

>Keith didn't make the offer.  I offer to carry to term if Loren would agree to 
>be fisted for nine months.  If Keith wasn't interested I was going to ask my 
>brother, but of course it never got that far, Loren was not interested in 
>having HIS body used to keep a fetus alive.  He only wanted to force women to 
>do things like that.

>[ramblings about Susan and Keith deleted]

A truly Garvinesque deletion.

I used to think Heather was a cut above the talk.abortion inner
circle of women (no pro-lifer need apply) headed by Ms. Regard and
including such notables as Garvin, Mills, McCabe, Birmingham, and Adolf,
but I see I was wrong.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion