From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Janus I: HERE I STAND, Part 1
Keywords: viability, double standards, party line
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:55:49 GMT

In <1993Jan18.194537.8025@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>(2)  I am taking advantage of the hiatus in the posting, and the new 
>>year, to attempt some new beginnings.

>I think that's a good idea, and I appreciate the civil tone which you
>used in your posting.  I also appreciate that you explicitly spelt out
>your position on abortion; I wish more people here would do that.

Thank you.  I feel the same way.

>>The problem is, you see, that I have gotten next to no indication that
>>the pro-choice regulars (with a few notable exceptions such as Elizabeth
>>Bartley) are willing to discuss this matter seriously. 

>I have tried; if my attempts have not been enough, then I apologize,
>and I'd like to know where I'm lacking.

My time has been lacking.  I'll devote more to you in the future, and
less to the bozos who keep repeating the same flames over and over.

>> On the one hand,
>>they talk over and over about how kidney donations are not mandated by
>>law, even to next of kin who would die without the donations; but, on
>>the other hand, they keep balancing the right of a fetus to live against
>>much less momentous rights of the mother.  Most of them simply leave
>>any possible rights a fetus could be given by law out of the equation
>>altogether.

>There are several angles to this argument, most obviously that you're
>now balancing the rights of someone who needs a kidney to live against
>the much less momentous rights of someone else who could live without
>one.  I don't beat around the bush when it comes to this: I feel that
>no human being should have the right to use somebody else's body
>against the other person's will, no matter whether the human being is
>a fetus or an adult, even if death be the result.

I'd like to see the rationale for this.  If it is in the post you
mention below, please e-mail me a copy.

>I understand that by being in favor of allowing abortion to be a
>choice, I'm implicitly consenting to the death of many fetuses.  I
>understand that this is a violation of their rights.  But, as I
>explained in a recent (and long) post, I honestly feel that the right
>to control my own body goes deeper than the right to my life, and I am
>willing to explain my reasoning if you are interested.

>>I have stifled my pro-choice side in this newsgroup, with few exceptions
>>such as this menstrual extraction issue,
>>because so many pro-choice regulars seem to lack even the most elementary
>>sense of fair play, and because they are so preponderant in this newsgroup
>>that one more pro-choice voice is like a drop in the bucket.

>If you have pro-choice opinions, don't be afraid to voice them! 

It's not a matter of fear, but of budgeting efforts to where they seem
to be most needed.  I thought I could improve my credibility by refuting
slanderous accusations against me, but I now am ready to move on to
less of a King Canute project.

> I
>openly admit that I am against abortion, and I would have a long talk
>with any woman I knew who sought one -- but I am in favor of keeping
>the government's nose out of the issue.

Good.  I miss Frank O'Dwyer.  Maybe you can be a reasonable surrogate.

>>It is because of the unfairness of so many pro-choice regulars to
>>pro-lifers that I am more than just an occasional visitor to this
>>newsgroup.

>It is difficult, I admit, to deal with many pro-lifers I find here.
>On the one hand there have been people such as Eric Gorr, clifton,
>Simon, and Jeff Price, who come up with outlandish redefinitions of
>reality to support their views; on the other hand, we have people like
>Suzanne, who is spiteful and nasty and goes for cheap shots, and Doug
>H., who picks at details without ever acknowledging the big picture.
>There are some pro-choicers on this newsgroup whose tactics I don't
>especially like, true, but honestly I haven't been as disappointed in
>my camp as I have been in in your camp, although I'm of course biased.

Maybe you expect more of my camp.  I can show you lots of things by
pro-choicers, especially Mark Cochran, Humphrey, and Novak that beat
anything I've seen from any of the above.

Can you show something worse than Humphrey threatening to hit Suzanne
with a baseball bat?

Can you show something worse than Cochran holding "mucus brain" Suzanne
responsible for the death of four children?

Can you show something worse than Novak calling me a "bigoted piece of
shit" for mentioning that the author of an article on a Roman Catholic,
Mario Cuomo, was Jewish?

[Funny how mentioning that Mario Cuomo was Catholic did not elicit
any such response.]

Additional examples on request, but I would like to see some examples
you can display in answer to the above.

>>"Now if a pro-lifer dared to use ["Bitch"] on talk.abortion, especially
>>in such a context, he'd be called a misogynist, sexist, and lots of even
>>more derogatory names, and there'd be no end to how many denunciations like
>>that would follow, nor for how long they would go on, and half a dozen
>>women and a number of men would say, `Your credibility no longer exists.'"

>If it had been in response to a post like Suzanne's, I would have
>applauded it. 

In the post, there was a somewhat personal question directed at Suzanne,
who declined to answer it.  That was all.

Care to retract what you have just said?  I'm hoping, as I said, for
an O'Dwyer surrogate, not a Brian McBean clone.

>A case in point was the flap over the SAT scores.  You were baited,
>you fell for it; you had understandable reasons for falling for it,
>but you fell for it anyway then you spent an inordinate amount of time
>trying to explain yourself in threads I didn't bother to read.  You
>probably should have laughed with the joke when you saw it,

I did.

> and it
>would have been quickly forgotten (thank goodness it's over now!).

Far from it.  There is a thread on the subject right now.

>I look forward to discussing abortion with you in the future,
>especially if you've turned over a new leaf and will be writing
>"kinder gentler" posts from now on.  ;-)

I'll try.  Meanwhile, there are a few delicate issues I have
introduced above, and am waiting for your reaction to them.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame