From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:37:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205823.9740@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> 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.

Making judgements as to their psychological condition, Bill?
Did you have them on the couch for any considerable period of
time?
> 
> >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.

Pro-lie legislation has resulted in and will result in the
deaths of women.  But you just feel comfy and cozy and make
sure not to blame yourself.  I have to agree with Susan's
point.  You do have a responsibility, when you actively
support legislation that results in the deaths of people,
to take some share in the blame for those deaths.

> 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.

I think that would be wrong of them if that's the case.
I certainly thinkthat a home environment in which their
daughter was unable to discuss her pregnancy with them
is a good deal their own fault.  But were they at this
speaking engagement to discuss parental consent laws, or
their own faults.  Again, I can understand how awful an
admission this would be for them.  And their own burden
of guilt must be terrible.  That does not, however, absolve
anyone else from their contribution to the death of their
daughter, and it certainly doesn't justify the foul and
malicious slander perpetrated against Becky Bell after her
death by the pro-lie supporters, slander which no doubt
contributes to Becky Bell's parents' bitterness and anger..
> 
> >>> 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.

See above
> 
> >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.

Neither is CJ.

And if you weren't seeing what you wanted to see, how come
you recognized their malice but refused to recognize any of
their motivation or your own responsibility for it?

> >>> 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....

No, I'm pretty certain that Overpeck is not in the dictionary
as "all men."
> 
> >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.

Amen.

And we atheists don't dole out blessings lightly.


Dean Kaflowitz