From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Peter Nyikos has been an "intellectual pro-lifer" to 20 years?
Summary: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 16:55:39 GMT

In article <nyikos.718566335@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct1.180147.14031@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>be dead?)
>
>>There are two weaknesses to your argument.
>
>>One is that your 'right' to life can be waived by other people.
>
>No weakness there.  I think even Martin would make a threat-to-the-life-
>of-the-mother exception, and I would make a lot more exceptions.

Oh?  So far the only "exception" I've seen you make is your
"GoldenGodGivenFiveWeekRule".

>
>>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>>involved. 		  ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Come off it, Brian!  are you blind, or are you such a toady of Adrienne
>that you cannot bear to disagree with her?

Martin is completely neglecting to consider the woman involved.

>
>> I've posted a list of some situations in which I feel a
>>woman would have a very good reason not to have a child she doesn't
>>want (she was raped, or she needs to take medication that could
>>severely damage the fetus, or she would be required to quit her job
>>and go onto welfare, and so on).
>
>I can't speak for Martin, but it is precisely for such reasons that
>I would keep abortion legal for the first 5 weeks.  

Petey Honey, do you have any kids?  Ask your wife if she knew she was pregnant
within the first five weeks, ok?

>
>Can you give an instance where a woman NEEDS, in the sense of severe
>physical impairment resulting from ANY other remedy, to take a medi-
>cation that would SEVERELY damage the fetus, and I don't mean even
>the kind of damage that "thalidomide babies" endured, since some of
>them have grown up to be quite happy and productive citizens of their
>respective countries, and I have never heard of one saying he/she
>wished he/she had never been born.

1) I'm not a doctor, but I believe that Lithium, Dilantin, and Tegretol all
cause changes in both sperm production, and will damage the z/e/f beyond
repair, causing an abortion sometime during the pregnancy.  I know that
women taking drugs such as Valium, Prozac, Haldol, or Halcyion will have
z/e/f with effects ranging from severe body malformation and something
similar to severe fetal alcohol syndrome to spontanous abortion during
the pregnancy.  All of the above drugs, plus anti-depressents such as
Ritalin also can cause the z/e/f to be born with malformed or non-
functioning internal organs, including the heart, lungs, kidneys,
eyes, autonomic nervous system, gall bladder, etc.  Seldane, a drug
given to people with sever allergy/histamine problems, has been contra
indicated for pregnant women, but I don't remember why.

2) How many "thalidomide babies" have you talked to?

>
>>  If you solve the abortion problem by
>>flatly outlawing it, then women will use sympathetic doctors or
>>coat-hangars, worsening the problem.
>
>No.  Sympathetic doctors are a big improvement on unsympathetic legal
>abortionists, like several right here in Columbia.  As for 

You do have documentation for this accusation, don't you?

>coathangers, see the chapter "Specious Arguments in Favor of Abortion,"
>in _Aborting America_.

Bernard Nathanson again, right?

>
>>  If you pass legislation that
>>will only allow abortions in some cases but not others, then women
>>will struggle to slip through the loophole in that law, and women with
>>a legitimate reason for needing an abortion will be hindered by it.
>
>The hindering will not be a major problem if the reason really is
>legitimate.  As to loopholes, sure, some will slip through, but there
>would still be a major reduction in the number of abortions if the
>loopholes are at all intelligently designed.  Or don't you give a 
>damn about reducing the number of abortions, Brian?

How much time and effort will a woman have to spend to show that she
has a "legimate need" for an abortion?

Or don't you give a damm about the lives of women, Peter?

>
>>How do you propose to solve this problem?  More to the point, why is
>>it up to _you_ to 'solve' it?
>
>We're all in on this together.  Martin is just pitching in and doing
>his share, and so far what he has written makes a lot more sense than
>what you have written.

If we're "all in on this together", then the obvious solution is to make
motherhood/childbearing such a viable solution that the only women who
would want to obtain an abortion would be those who neede them to preserve
their life, or in cases of rape or incest.

But that's not what you want to do, is it Peter?  You just want to make
sure that those sluts who _dared_ to have sex without the comfort zone
of a SugarDaddy to take care of them are punished by nine months of hard
labor.

>
>Peter Nyikos
Who is so arrogant as to think that "we are all in on this together".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion