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 20:58:23 GMT

In <1992Oct10.025716.16695@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct9.135348.12154@acd4.acd.com>> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1asimvINNj53@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com 
   (C.J. Silverio) writes: >>>
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com>, 
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes: >>>>
In <unknown id>
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>

>>>>> 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.  
>
>>> Malicious?  You're despicable.  
> 
>> 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.
>
> Now I am very confused.  Are you arguing, Bill, that parental
> consent laws are not the product of the pro-life movement and
> its agenda?

Certainly they comprise the primary source of *advocacy* for such 
laws, but my point had more to do with the Bell's ostensible need
for revenge.  I'm in favor of such laws for the sake of my family,
my daughter's health and safety, and my rights as a parent.

>The Bells clearly believe that their daughter would be alive
>today were it now for laws that left her believing she had no
>choice (ah, but leaving women without an option is what pro-life
>is about) but to attempt to perform an abortion on herself.
>Certain I am that if their daughter was unable to discuss the
>situation with them, then there was some problem within the
>family as well.  And that is certainly sad.  And that is something
>that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.  But
>if someone versed in psychology can lack understanding for these
>people, well, that leaves me confused.   I don't have a degree
>in psychology and only a few courses and maybe half a dozen
>books under my belt, but I can understand their feelings
>with or without the training to do so.  And I can certainly see
>why they would feel bitter and angry towards the pro-life
>contingent that worked to create laws that handed their daughter
>death.

I can acknowledge the possibility of such a response, though
I don't see it as particularly healthy or accurate.  Were I
in their place, I'd blame myself for not being someone my 
daughter could come to.  Hence, I don't accept the blame for
their tragedy.

>>> This family lost their daughter because of a parental consent 
>>> law.  
> 
>> Right.  And when my son was nearly killed by an automobile at 
>> age 7, it was those awful traffic laws that did it.  It had
>> nothing to do with the fact that we should have been watching
>> him more closely.
>
>That's just stupid.  I don't know the details of your son's accident,
>but the traffic laws don't, for example, require that children run
>in front of cars, or that cars exceed the speed limit.  WHat the
>parental consent laws did was make a desperate young girl more
>desperate.

It's a bad analogy, but the feelings may be relevant.  Initially,
I wanted to blame the driver (turns out my son ran into the *side*
of the car, removing the rear view mirror with his head), but I
had to admit, the fault was ours.  I didn't hear Bill or Karen
Bell say anything about their personal responsibility - they
apparently think it's all "our" fault.

>>> They were devastated, and they don't want other parents to 
>>> suffer the way they did.  They campaign against the law that 
>>> killed their daughter, and you call them malicious.  You dis-
>>> agree, so you dismiss their work as "political expediency".  
>> 
>> Sorry, CJ.  I was there.  I heard them.  There were (perhaps)
>> five pro-lifers in a room of ~200, sitting quietly in the back.  
>> We made no noise, we made no rude gestures, we made no faces.  
>> We just sat there listening.  But someone apparently identified 
>> us to Karen Bell who, for at least five minutes, treated us to 
>> a hateful discourse that blamed *us* for her daughter's death.
>
> That is not at all responsive to what CJ said.

I thought it was.  

>>>> You know no compassion.
> 
>>> And apparently you know no Bells.  But I know malice when I 
>>> see it.
>
> And do you at least understand why?  How about pain and suffering
> when it is felt by others like, for instance, the Bells?  You saw
> their malice, but did you notice by any chance their hurt?

You bet I did.  Anyone would hurt for someone in their situation.
But I can't accept the blame for their daughter's death.  Their
malice is, I think, unwarranted.

>Didn't you just post, in mock Kaflowitz tradition,
>A man sees what he wants to see
>And disregards the rest

I hope I'm not that shallow.

>>> Fuck off & die, Overpeck.
> 
>> Hmm.  I guess your objections to needless deaths don't extend
>> to men, huh?
>
>Aw, now, she didn't say "Fuck off and die, all men."

Oh...you're right...I could have sworn....

>CJ, would y'all want little old me to fuck off and die needlessly?
>
>I think, and I apologize if I got this wrong, she was talking
>to you, Bill.

Bless her compassionate little heart.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion