From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 21:54:32 GMT

I'm still not up on all the little aspects of posting.  When it says
"Distribution: na "  what does that mean?  I am accustomed to "na" 
standing for "not applicable", but if that's what it means, I'm still
in the dark as to what happens when one posts with that distribution.

Anyway, I deleted "na" and substituted "world".

In <92303.214624ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Oct27.201913.29786@acd4.acd.com> Bill Overpeck says:
>>In <92295.213806ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:


>>The capabilities of women have nothing to do with my position
>>as there are, from my perspective, competing interests at stake
>>in the abortion debate.  As capable as women are, I do not see
>>how they (or any member of another gender, for that matter) can
>>adequately represent both sets of competing interests at the same
>>time.

>Are men not judging competing interests in war or in
>the judicial system?  Your position implies that women are
>incapable of doing so over the jurisdiction of their own
>bodies.  By supporting governments that pass laws that
>affect people's lives, you support the ability of someone
>to represent the competing interests do you not?  So why
>can't you afford this ability to the woman whose body is
>affected?
 
I think the situation is more analogous to slaveowners deciding what
is best for their slaves.  Only the fetus is far more helpless
than any slaves were.  This state of helplessness counts as a strike
against it in talk.abortion, where it is called "dependency".

>> And where, if you don't mind, have I ever mentioned "the
>>paternal aid of men..."?

>I never said you did mention it Mr. Overpeck.  Please
>read what I wrote.  To help you, consider the following:
>Who drafts laws.  Who holds the majority of votes in
>your congress, senate or supreme court.

"Pro-choicers" is the obvious answer to all parts of the last 
sentence.  And now, alas, the answer also holds if you say
"White House", at least as of mid-January 1993.

>>>Mr. Overpeck lobbies for the removal of a woman's right to
>>>make decisions over her body.

Another "phantom universal" by Ms. Birmingham. 

>>Untrue.  However, I do "lobby" for the interests of the owner
>>of the other body involved.

>That other "body" resides within a woman.  Whether you care
>to ignore it or not, doesn't make it not so.

Don't be silly.  How could Overpeck be ignoring it?  He does not think,
however, that this fact is any more relevant than the fact that slaves
resided on their owners' properties.

>  If you wish
>to lobby for the preservation of that entity, I suggest
>you support fetology and research into ways of preserving
>fetal life outside of the womb.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why doesn't Keith Cochran ever notice it when pro-choicers use
this kind of "oxymoron"?

By the way, Suzanne Rini, in _Beyond Abortion_, talks about ways of
doing just that, only the pro-choice lobby is just as uninterested
in fetology, etc. as it is in other "restrictions" on a woman's "right
to choose."

>>The dramatic loading of your vernacular is sadly
>>narrow.

>Perhaps to you it is Mr. Overpeck, but then it is not your
>body that is being lobbied against.

And it is not your body that is most in danger of being destroyed either,
Ms. Birmingham.  Remember the other body Mr. Overpeck spoke of?

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion