From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:37:19 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <lost id> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
->  (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->in a post supporting e.e's anti-choice stance,
->   pro-lifer wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
->In <92311.065313ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
->   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >>>
->>>>>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
->>>>>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
->>>>>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.  
->>
->>>>imo, your demand to criminalize a medical procedure places 
->>>>an undue psychological burden on those women who must obtain
->>>>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their abortion 
->>>>should not be viewed as murder and ultimately requiring women 
->>>>to literally plead for their lives.
->>
->>>Oh, nonsense.  Beth is very clearly discussing the decision
->>>to abort *viable*, third trimester humans.  At the risk of
->>>focusing on *them* for a moment, these would be fetuses that
->>>have an excellent chance of survival when disconnected from
->>>the woman *intact*.  Requiring women to make the big "choice" 
->>>within four or five months of discovering they are pregnant
->>>in no way represents an "undue psychological burden". 
->>
->>is that your professional opinion? or was this just a
->>cute way of making the point that you and ms. bartley
->>wish to force women to remain pregnant when those
->>women wish otherwise?

->This was just my way of noting that viable infants should
->not be aborted simply because someone has difficulty making
->up her mind.  So yes, I would gladly "force" some poor un-
->certain woman to remain pregnant in the third trimester in
->the absence of medical advice to the contrary.

i didn't ask you about "poor" and/or "uncertain" women.
i asked you about women. assuming your reply meant
women, not just the poor and/or uncertain ones, i
appreciate your honesty in admitting that you'd "gladly"
force women to remain pregnant against their will. i
also appreciate your confirmation of my description of
ms. bartley's position as anti-choice.

->>>>You my dear are trying to use a sledge
->>>>hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
->>>>create additional disadvantages for women.
->>
->>>It disadvantages women to require that they make their
->>>decision within four or five months?  
->>
->>i think it does. obviously you and ms. bartley don't
->>mind imposing your beliefs/morality on those who don't
->>share those beliefs/morality.

->I'm sorry (though not surprised) to hear that your be-
->liefs/morality would favor the wishes of a given woman 
->over the life of a viable infant.  

what's next for you overpeck, shrieking "baby killer?"
you anti-choicers always grasp at the emotion-laden
labels when you try to justify forcing women to remain
pregnant against their will. there is no "infant,"
involved in an abortion overpeck. as to my
beliefs/morality, they tell me that a woman's decision
to terminate a pregnancy (that's what an abortion is,
btw) is hers in consultation with her medical
providers.

->>>>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.
->>
->>>While such an assertion is probably just coincidental, some 
->>>might wonder if this doesn't represent a bit of anti-male 
->>>sentiment...
->>
->>i wonder if your comment doesn't display a bit of
->>misogyny. 

->I think Linda's comment was far more indicative of 
->bias than my own.  

i'll just bet you do.

->Set aside your own prejudices for 
->a minute and consider:  If a male poster had written 
->"Oh btw, the only heros I have are men", I am confident 
->that he'd be maligned unmercifully for his "misogyny".  

i am equally confident that's not the case. nor is it
the issue. set aside your prejudices and take a peek at
the text ms. birmingham replied to from ms. bartley. i
think you'll find that ms. bartley, like sometimes-
feminist ms. silverio, seems to think that women can't
have opinions without being somehow controlled by men
(this seems to mysteriously occur when women disagree
with ms. silverio or ms. bartley).

->Should Linda be exempt from similar criticism because
->of her gender?

we haven't agreed that "similar criticism" is valid.

i read your remark to ms birmingham as a petty shot.
was i mistaken?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion