From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 07:26:18 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715045081@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug27.184937.26265@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >In  <nyikos.714855156@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> In <1992Aug24.054408.26192@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
> >>
> >> >In  <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> >> >(Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> This is pure *ipse dixit* [favorite expression of Justice Blackmun] on
> >> >> your part.  Are you saying none of the thumbsuckings and other acts of
> >> >> the fetus are willed?  Your saying so don't make it so.
> >>
> >> >Have you never heard of the suckling reflex?
> >>
> >> Of course I have, but my point is, the claim that NONE of the acts of
> >> the fetus is willed is completely unwarranted.
>
> >Why is it unwarranted?  You mentioned "thumbsuckings and other acts".
> >Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex; it's not willed.  So what acts
> >of the fetus are you claiming are willed?  ("Your saying so don't make
> >it so.")
>
> Thumbsucking is the suckling reflex only from the point where the thumb
> touches the cheek.  As to how it got there, or whether it went straight
> to the mouth without touching the cheek, that could be a willed action.
> Also, the fetus may have some conscious control over how long the
> thumbsucking is continued.

And it *could* be sublimating a desire for a cigarette.  But there's no
reason to believe that it's anything more than reflex.

> >> >> Contrast that with the "pro-choice" abortionists, who knew the incest
> >> >> was going on but did nothing to stop it.
> >>
> >> >Is there any proof that they knew that incest was occurring?  Have they
> >> >been charged with anything?
> >>
> >> You want court-of-law proof, I doubt if you could get it, hence the
> >> answer to the second question is no.  Most probably the incest victim
> >> herself told them it was going on, but with no one else on her side
> >> present, what can you do?
>
> >So first you slander the doctors by claiming that they *knew* the incest
> >was going on, now you've backed off to ""most probably she told them".
>
> Well, I was just making a reasonable guess.  My source, an newsletter, did
> not go into how it was known that the incest was going on.  If you're
> curious, I can write away for the information, but don't expect any
> overnight answers.

Curious?  A better word would be dubious.

> >> Read what I wrote again.  The only reason I might consider prohibiting
> >> abortion prior to the sixth week is if the consequences for the woman
> >> of allowing it are unacceptable.  If they are unacceptable to the woman,
> >> then of course I will defend her right not to be aborted against her
> >> will.  [actually this last sentence is redundant, but never mind...]
>
> >Ahh - I thought "the only reason I might possibly reconsider this" was
> >referring to imposing a law in the first place.  Now that you've
> >explained what you meant - it makes no sense at all.  If she doesn't
> >want one, she won't get one - what does this have to do with your
> >prohibiting them?
>
> She might want one, not realizing how dangerous it is.

Or, she might want to give birth, not realizing how even more dangerous it is.
Better outlaw that, too.

> Like those
> infamous "coathanger" abortions; of which, BTW, Dr. Willke claims he has
> never heard an authenticated example of.  Can any of you networkers
> enlighten him?

Did you miss the recent repost of Stella's self-abortion?

> > Do you somehow believe that the existance of a
> >choice will force the woman to take a choice that she finds unacceptable?
> >It's *taking away* choice that tries to force people to do things that they
> >find unacceptable.
>
> Like taking away the choice to go to a back alley butcher?  Would you
> make what they do legal?  [Actually, it is legal, and happens even today.]

It's legal?  I was under the impression that abortions had to be performed
by a doctor.  Can you tell me where it's legal for a "back alley butcher"
to perform an abortion?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)