From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:53:32 GMT

In <Bw1p2H.AtC.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes> > 
In article <1992Oct12.215528.3631@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <7188@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu  
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>
In article <1992Oct9.135348.12154@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>

>>>>Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
>>>>last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
>>>>terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
>>>>laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.
>
>>> Who supports parental involvement laws, Overpeck?  Who lobbies 
>>> their legislators to introduce them and vote for them?  Who spreads 
>>> misinformation about the legality of piercing a minor's ears and 
>>> draws analogies to abortion in an attempt to sway public opinion?
>
>>What do these questions have to do with my observation?
>
> I guess you're conceding your stupidity, Overpeck.  The connection
> was fairly obvious to most people.  Ask one of your many
> supporting correspondents to explain it to you.

The proponents of consent and/or notification laws did not kill
Becky Bell.  Some of us (proponents) have daughters of our own
whose health and safety we are responsible for.  It is within
that context of responsibility that I choose to support such
laws.  It is my right to do so.  That you don't like my choice
says little for your advocacy of that concept.

>>> The Bells are trying to prevent the passage of such laws
>>> in states that don't already have them.  People like you
>>> are trying to put more young women at risk.
>
>>Don't tell me what I'm "trying to" do; you obviously don't 
>>really know.   Does people have to share your values in order 
>>to avoid being denigrated?
>
> You're defending teen endangerment laws in another thread,
> Overpeck.  

And I will happily defend them here also.  Obviously, I am
not "trying" to put *anyone* at risk, as a rather a large
part of my time is allocated to reduce the risk element in
the lives of people.  Your interpretation of what I'm doing
is subjective.  Please don't present it as fact. 
 
[...]

>>> The two cases are not remotely comparable.  
>
>>Ok.  Based on your incisive analysis, it probably wasn't a good 
>>analogy.  How about this:  When a drug user buys and ingests a
>>substance cut with rat poison and subsequently dies, are the
>>anti-drug laws to blame? 
>
>Equally stupid.  

I don't the extent to which you actually consider the values and
feelings of those you argue with, but such inane comments look
like nothing more than knee-jerk reactions.  

>How about if a diabetic buys spoiled insulin
>on the street because control freaks have made it illegal to
>buy insulin elsewhere?

Are you referring to the FDA as "control freaks"?  Regardless,
it sounds like you *do* blame drug laws on the deaths of many
users.  True?

>>> I don't think that you know what "mailicious" means.
>
>>You're right.  I don't.  What does "mailicious" mean?
>
>It was a typo, idiot.  I think you do know what "malicious"
>means, though.  You embody it.

It's always helpful to paint your opponent as the epitome
of hate or some such nonsense.  It simplifies the whole
process, doesn't it?  No difficult ethical issues to deal
with - only idiots.

>>> I blame you for their daughter's death.  I blame you for
>>> the deaths of every woman in this country who dies trying
>>> to self-abort or through the offices of a butcher.
>
>>I am wounded to the soul.  (BTW, I also kidnapped the Lindburgh 
>>baby).
>
>Nice try at belittling the Bell's loss.  You're the one who
>has to live with the results of your hatefullness.

I'm not belittling their loss.  They can lay it at my doorstep
if they like, but nothing is changed.  Becky is still dead and
I will still support Indiana's consent law.  Ironic that you
blame me personally for "the [abortion related] deaths of every 
woman in this country", and follow up by calling me hateful.  
Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?

>>> I have met Bill and Karen Bell.  I know grief and anger when
>>> I see it.  
>
>>I saw those emotions in them, as well.
>
>You did neglect to mention it.  I guess you're a lot like
>Will Steeves - you say something disgusting and then try
>to explain it away.

Their malice seemed to overshadow their grief.

>>> I see a remark made to one man, not to all men, Overpeck.  You
>>> overestimate your importance.  
>
>>Perhaps, you think everyone who disagrees with your agenda should 
>>die?  
>
>Again, Overpeck, you seem unable to recognize a comment made
>to you alone as just that.  Get some help.

Ah.  "Our opponents are also crazy, which further justifies our
agenda and our contempt for them".

>>> I agree with CJ.
>
>>What a surprise.
>
>Really.  I guess you think that I should admire your malice.

No, I think you should reread this exchange and then tell me
who's dishing out the malice (but perhaps yours is justified
because I'm a "bad guy"?).

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy