From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT

> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>> = Bill Overpeck writes:
>>>> = Susan Garvin writes: 

[re: Becky Bell's parents outspoken opposition to the parental
notification law that killed Becky...]

>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>> about a dead young woman?  

>>>Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>crusade.  

>> Perhaps those parents miss their daughter, who died for no reason 
>> *other than* malicious RTLers?  

>I'm sure they do miss her.  And I'm sure they're in pain.  But I
>didn't cause it, Steve, and I don't accept the blame for it.  

You support the law, right?  If so, you are accepting such possibilities
as the Becky Bell case.  If you choose to pretend there's no blame due
to you, that's your problem.  IMO, you're partly to blame.  You refuse
to accept real-life, and are shooting for some misguided ideal of
parent-child relationships.

>> And, thanks for noting your penchant 
>> for dishonesty as long as it serves your cause.

>You obviously have me confused me with those who "repeat[] vile, 
>unsubstantiated rumor[s]".  

No, Susan Garvin quite appropriately noticed that tendency concerning
you and the revisionism being attempted on Becky Bell.

*I* accurately noted your tendency to accept obvious lies from the
pro-"life" extreme.

See?  Beeg deeferance.

>>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  

>>>I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...

>>Kee-RIST.  What do you expect when the majority of pro-"life" is based
>>on (a variant of) christianity, and the result of anti-abortionism
>>IS...FORCED...BIRTH?  That *is* misogynic, whether you can face the fact
>>or not.

>KeeRAPPola.  

Heh.

>Christianity is not based on "hatred of women", 
>nor does opposition to abortion inherently imply a "hatred of 
>women".  Denigrating the character of people you disagree with 
>by labeling them "misogynists" is just so much useless name-
>calling.

I disagree.  Your bible is plainly loaded with examples of women
subjugated, demeaned and treated like chattel.  The pro-life position is
essentially forcing women to accept a christian position of subservience
to "their men", and de facto enslavement of pregnant women.  

This is not "useless name-calling"; this is Steve Novak (moi!) calling
it like he sees it.

>>>> ("It can't have happened the way that her family and best friends 
>>>> described it, that would ruin our argument that women don't resort 
>>>> to desperate measures.  I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut 
>>>> and hire a teenager and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  
>>>> The suckers will believe us.  They believe everything.")

>>>I don't know what happened with Becky Bell.  She may epitomize the 
>>>kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  

>>She does.  No doubt.  What exactly are you having trouble with here?

>What are your sources?

Everything written about Becky, the fact that she couldn't get a safe,
legal, and safe abortion because of that crappy law - little things like
that are my "sources".

Now - what are YOUR sources for, as Garvin put it, your
"unsubstantiated, vile rumors" of this girl whose predicament is
obviously embarrassing to you pro-lifers?  Are you such arrogant
moralists you can't admit the DOWNSIDE to this parental notification
crap?  I'm so sick of such dishonest obfuscation.

>>>I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
>>>seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  

>>Misguided??  If their daughter died because of some dumbfuck law
>>callously passed by fanatics,... 

>Is is just possible, Steve, that parents have *some* little bit of
>responsibility for the health and safety of their children? 

Um, they were unaware of Becky's problem until it was too late.  Exactly
what "responsibility" are you referring to?  (Gads - I hope this isn't a
veiled attack on her parents for not preventing her getting PREGNANT.
On the contrary, it proves that parents can only set an example, not
imprison their children until they reach majority age.)

>>...then there's something insidious about outspoken rebellion against 
>>said law?  

>So, what do you recommend?  Should my political philosophy be
>examined and approved before I'm allowed to vote?

Huh?  Whatever are you talking about?  

I recommend, since you asked, that you live your own morality and quit
trying to force them on everyone else.

>>Man...at least you've quit faking that civilized veneer you used to
>>smugly project, Overpeck, and are more honestly showing your real
>>dislike of anyone not virulently anti-choice.

>You don't know me.  You don't know who I like or dislike and you
>sure don't know enough about me to figure out whether I'm being
>"real" or not.  But you sure aren't afraid to make wild guesses.

I've heard this type of statement before, and it's so much horseshit.
When you post on the net, you ARE introducing your personality and some
of your beliefs to everyone that reads your stuff regularly.  So, cut 
that fake outrage.  Based on your own statements, I have indeed reached
certain conclusions about YOU, as have you about me.  That ain't wild
guessing.

>>>Maybe if they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
>>>on the right to life movement,... 

>>You mean, like that pack of raving buffoons touring the country for
>>clinic "blockades".      

>Yep.  Exactly.

>>>...no one would bother looking into the circumstances surrounding that
>>>death.

>>Yeah, geez...maybe it was a Septic Abortion Tank with Toilet Pneumonia,
>>like your pal Suzanne suggests?

>I don't really read Suzanne's posts.

OK.  I seem to remember some rather impassioned defenses of her by you.
If I'm mistaken, then I withdraw the remark.

>>>But that's not really their fault.

>>You're goddamned right it isn't.  It wasn't Becky's, either.  It was
>>that extremely short-sighted law sticking its nose where it doesn't
>>belong.

>That's right, Steve.  Her parents shouldn't be left with any blame
>here, especially when they can transfer it to the pro-life movement
>with such ease.

Exactly what would you blame on her parents?  I'd really like a clear
answer from you on this; it should be interesting, and would probably
generate more of this Fine Unbridled Debate we all know and love.

>>>Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
>>>proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
>>>relive the pain of losing their daughter.  

>>Oh, that terrible Ms. Smeal! <Sniff!>  Actually using a real-life 
>>victim of stupid laws to....*fight against that law*!  Oh, the SHAME!!

>You're right about her "using" real-life victims.

Ye-e-e-ess...I am.  So?

>>>I'm sure they don't see themselvs as the victims of political
>>>expediency, but that's how I see it.

>>I'm sure they could give a damn about politics, as long as the result is
>>the death of a repressive law.  

>Ha!  If I were in the market for a good .sig quote, this would be
>a good candidate.

Hey, it's in the public domain.  Glad you liked it.

My point, Mr. Purposefully Obtuse, is that of *course* they would avail
themselves of a political group sympathetic to the cause of eliminating
stupid laws like parental notification in order to get their message
out, and educate people that blindly agree to such laws without
thinking.

>>And they sure as hell don't care what *you* think about it....

>Which is good, because not only do I not accept any blame for what
>happened to their daughter, I will continue to vote for candidates
>who support such consent laws.

Then my opinion is, your lack of recognizing bad results of such
unthought-out laws and your lack of any of that bullshit "christian"
compassion speaks volumes on the danger of the Religious Right.

>>...- a guy who equates feminists with some kind of monsters.

>Only some of them.

Which ones?  Don't be shy!  You mean, maybe those feminists that stand
up for other women?  Boy, that _is_ horrid, Bill!  Enlighten me
otherwise, if you'd like to.

>>>> You're disgusting, Nyikos.  

>>>Save some of your disgust for Eleanor et al.

>>How about if we save it for you, hypocrite?

>Ah.  Where is my hypocrisy, Steve?  

It's in professing strong "christian" beliefs that is countered by your lack
of compassion.  You're another fake using selective religious tenets to
further a quite non-American agenda.

>Or are you just running out of names?

You *must* be kidding.  I've gotten kindler and gentler with names,
believe me.  Maybe you could persuade me to show my skill in that 
area :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com