From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:44:21 GMT

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In a recent follow-up to "Another good reason not to vote for Bush", 
>Ms. Regard harped on a theme she hammered away at a little over a month
>ago.  Back then she posted a statement which went about like this.
>
>"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to occupy a woman's
>body against her will, yet you would give fetuses that right?  I think
>that's bogus."

>Compare that to the following statement:
>
>"NO OTHER HUMAN BEING on this planet has the right to have a fetus occupy
>his/her body, yet you would give women and girls...

Or, "women".

>...past puberty that right?  I think that's bogus."

Sounds redundant.  What's your point?

[...]
>[I decided not to mention the will of the fetus.  When last I checked, 
>Ms. Regard seemed to have the opinion that fetuses cannot will anything.]

Her opinion is accurate.  You're making no sense so far.  ("Will of the
fetus"???  Thorazine time for Pete.)  

>[By the way, Ms. Regard, in case you are reading this: should a woman have
>the right to use *LETHAL* force, if necessary, to prevent a Norplant 
>from being implanted in her body against her will?]

I doubt if Regard would answer differently than I:  Of *course* she has
that right.

>Also, a father can legally compel a daughter, in some cases, to submit
>to an abortion of a pregnancy due to incest at his hands. 

(Um, what daughter _wouldn't_ want an abortion from a pregnancy due to
incest?)

That's why Parental Notification is such bullshit; thanks for proving that
point.  My stance is that only the woman has the right to decide.  I do
not agree with forced abortion of any kind.  You, on the other hand,
apparently support forced birth.  Who's the jerk here?

>In my
>COERCED ABORTION post last month, I mentioned a South Carolina state
>law governing 3rd trimester abortions, which stated that unless an
>incest victim is deemed competent [and who does the "deeming"? the
>abortionist?], her consent to an abortion performed on her 
>"must be waived."

Please expand.  If an incest victim is mentally incompetent, exactly why
would you want the victim to give birth?  Where's your outrage that she
was made pregnant by some shithead who should be in jail?

>I am currently trying to find out whether this applies to incest abortions
>all through pregnancy.  It makes a macabre sort of sense: what with the
>added risks of late abortions, even an abortionist should want to get
>things over early, and not wait for the 3rd trimester to bring such a
>"consent must be waived" clause into play.

Yes, it'd be nice to have all the facts about this.  Anyone from South
Carolina that's knowledgeable about this alleged law?  

>A final note.  In Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_, humans are raised
>in artificial wombs, contraception is mandatory, and pregnancy is 
>punished by banishment.  

In "A Handmaid's Tale", all fertile women are enslaved, raped, and forced
to give birth when impregnated.  Abortion is punishable by torture and/or death.

>Huxley's novel is set 6 centuries in the future.  At the rate we have
>been going this century, we'll get there ahead of schedule, if the
>pro-choice myrmydons keep having their way.

(Possibly you meant "mymidons" - a perfect description of pro-life
religious nuts.)  

We're a hell of a lot closer to "A Handmaid's Tale" (like, 1 or 2 more Supreme
Court misogynists like Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia) then we are to your
bullshit.  

Look in that mirror yourself.  Do you see a fascist?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com