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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:52:40 GMT

In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >#
In <6693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu 
   (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.  
>
> I'm somehow not surprised to see that Overpeck subscribes
> to Chaney/Hall's "two wrongs make a right" tenet.  

Not hardly.  When one is attacked, one often pays attention.
One might even be inclined to examine the reasons for that
attack.

> sure that Overpeck can now prove that the Bell's are involved
> in a "malicious anti-RTL crusade."

Their personal demonstration was quite adequate.

>## I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
>#
>#I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
> See Dean's reply.
>
> (Referring to public figures by their first names if they're
> female and their last names if they're male is revealing, 
> Overpeck.)

Is it?  What does it reveal, Susan?  Are you a psychology major?

>## ("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.  
>
> That's a refreshing admission.
>
>#She may epitomize the 
>#kind of tragedy many pro-choicers want to avoid, and she may not.  
>#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.  
>
> I believe that their agenda is to prevent any more needless
> deaths of teenagers.  

If it is, they have an odd way of expressing it...

> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
> motive.

Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
share your particular set of values?

>#Maybe if 
>#they weren't touring the country blaming their daughter's death 
>#on the right to life movement, no one would bother looking into 
>#the circumstances surrounding that death.  But that's not really
>#their fault.  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.  I'm sure they don't see
>#themselves as the victims of political expediency, but that's how
>#I see it. 
>
> I've met Bill and Karen Bell, and they're no one's fools.  

I didn't call them fools.

> You may need to believe that they, like the women you seek to 
> "protect", are incapable of making their own decisions, but 
> that's your problem.    

Which women are you referring to here?

> (How do you feel about the anti-abortion movement's use of 
> Gianna Jessup?)

I'm unfamiliar with her, so I can't comment unless you'd like
to catch me up. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion