From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:07:25 GMT

In <1992Oct6.184309.12361@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes 
   (Steve Novak) writes: >
Bill Overpeck: >>
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.  
>
> Perhaps those parents miss their daughter, who died for no reason 
> *other than* malicious RTLers?  

I'm sure they do miss her.  And I'm sure they're in pain.  But I
didn't cause it, Steve, and I don't accept the blame for it.  

> And, thanks for noting your penchant 
> for dishonesty as long as it serves your cause.

You obviously have me confused me with those who "repeat[] vile, 
unsubstantiated rumor[s]".  
 
>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
>
>>I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
>Kee-RIST.  What do you expect when the majority of pro-"life" is based
>on (a variant of) christianity, and the result of anti-abortionism
>IS...FORCED...BIRTH?  That *is* misogynic, whether you can face the fact
>or not.

KeeRAPPola.  Christianity is not based on "hatred of women", 
nor does opposition to abortion inherently imply a "hatred of 
women".  Denigrating the character of people you disagree with 
by labeling them "misogynists" is just so much useless name-
calling.

>>> ("It can't have happened the way that her family and best friends 
>>> described it, that would ruin our argument that women don't resort 
>>> to desperate measures.  I know, let's call her a drug-addicted slut 
>>> and hire a teenager and a few pet doctors to make some more innuendos.  
>>> The suckers will believe us.  They believe everything.")
>
>>I don't know what happened with Becky Bell.  She may epitomize the 
>>kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
>
>She does.  No doubt.  What exactly are you having trouble with here?

What are your sources?

>>I do have an idea of what her parent's agenda is, though, and it 
>>seems to be based on some misguided sense of revenge.  
>
>Misguided??  If their daughter died because of some dumbfuck law
>callously passed by fanatics, 

Is is just possible, Steve, that parents have *some* little bit of
responsibility for the health and safety of their children? 

>then there's something insidious about outspoken rebellion against 
>said law?  

So, what do you recommend?  Should my political philosophy be
examined and approved before I'm allowed to vote?

>Man...at least you've quit faking that civilized veneer you used to
>smugly project, Overpeck, and are more honestly showing your real
>dislike of anyone not virulently anti-choice.

You don't know me.  You don't know who I like or dislike and you
sure don't know enough about me to figure out whether I'm being
"real" or not.  But you sure aren't afraid to make wild guesses.

>>Maybe if they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
>>on the right to life movement,... 
>
>You mean, like that pack of raving buffoons touring the country for
>clinic "blockades".      

Yep.  Exactly.

>>...no one would bother looking into the circumstances surrounding that
>>death.
>
>Yeah, geez...maybe it was a Septic Abortion Tank with Toilet Pneumonia,
>like your pal Suzanne suggests?

I don't really read Suzanne's posts.

>>But that's not really their fault.
>
>You're goddamned right it isn't.  It wasn't Becky's, either.  It was
>that extremely short-sighted law sticking its nose where it doesn't
>belong.

That's right, Steve.  Her parents shouldn't be left with any blame
here, especially when they can transfer it to the pro-life movement
with such ease.

>>Eleanor Smeal and the Fund for the Feminist Majority
>>proudly trot the Bells out in front of audience after audience to 
>>relive the pain of losing their daughter.  
>
>Oh, that terrible Ms. Smeal! <Sniff!>  Actually using a real-life 
>victim of stupid laws to....*fight against that law*!  Oh, the SHAME!!

You're right about her "using" real-life victims.

>>I'm sure they don't see themselvs as the victims of political
>>expediency, but that's how I see it.
>
>I'm sure they could give a damn about politics, as long as the result is
>the death of a repressive law.  

Ha!  If I were in the market for a good .sig quote, this would be
a good candidate.

>And they sure as hell don't care what
>*you* think about it 

Which is good, because not only do I not accept any blame for what
happened to their daughter, I will continue to vote for candidates
who support such consent laws.

>- a guy who equates feminists with some kind of
>monsters.

Only some of them.

>>> You're disgusting, Nyikos.  
>
>>Save some of your disgust for Eleanor et al.
>
>How about if we save it for you, hypocrite?

Ah.  Where is my hypocrisy, Steve?  Or are you just running out
of names?

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42418 talk.religion.misc:18195 alt.atheism:18971