From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:10:56 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.719010316@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Oct12.184025.97821@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >In  <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
> >> >In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
> >> >>
> >> >> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
> >> >> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
> >> >> on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
> >> >> description intended to emphasize her point.
>
> >> First, several people chose to interpret Mr. Steeves' posting literally;
> >> would these same people grant the benefit of the doubt only to women
> >> who make violent statements?
>
> >I *did* interpret that she'd kill the attacker literally.
>
> >> Second, it seems quite reasonable from his posting that he objected to
> >> far more than "not showing the proper respect"
>
> >It's clear that he also objected to the abortion, but the difference in
> >the two scenarios was waiting a year before telling him, *not* getting
> >or not getting the abortion.
>
> That just adds frosting to the cake.  The two situations are quite
> similar, only you refuse to see it because you dehumanize the unborn
> child.

I was referring to the two scenarios in Mr. Steeves' post, which are not
only quite similar, but are in fact *identical* except for the difference
of a year in telling him.  She tells him before or right afterwards, she
lives.  She waits a year to tell him, he snaps and kills her.  With God as
his witness.  (Except not really.)

> >> Since those persons who complained seem to have an outspoken agenda,
> >> it is no great surprise that they concluded only "respect" was at issue
>
> >No great surprise, considering that his words were:
>
> These are only the words relevant to "respect".

They're also the only words I had; I hadn't saved the original post, and
only saved Dan King's (partial) quote of it later, when in article
<1992Sep4.003132.16198@nas.nasa.gov> Dan said:
# It would be tough to come up with a more convincing argument for spousal
# notification than this one here.  I'll be archiving this post just so I
# can remember this argument um... was that FOR spousal notification.

That sounded like a good idea, so I saved Dan's post.

> It is typical of Larry to selectively delete in this way

It is typical of Peter to lie about people in this way.

> and duck the *real* issue ("only") completely.

Actually, I believe the *real* issue is not about Will Steeves at all;
it is that there *are* sick people out there who feel it's their
god-given right to control "their" woman, and who *would* actually
hurt or kill the woman if they found out that she had had an abortion.

> >#And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
> >#situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
> >            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >#but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
> >#or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
> >#stood.
>
> Here are the earlier words:
>
> #>However, I agree with Don Beaver that such notification *should* be after the
> #>fact, although I believe this VERY grudgingly, because it is bad enough that
> #>the man feels totally powerless in a situation where he is expected to be
> #>responsible, but to tell him *afterwards* seems only like throwing salt in
> #>the wounds.  Even so, I grant the possibility of abuse in cases where the
> #>notification is before the fact.

Aha - so *that's* where "salt in the wounds" came from.  Sorry, Don - I *had*
checked my archives, but that part wasn't in Dan's post.  (Could someone
send me a copy of Steeves' original post?)

> Note the use of the words "situation" and "before the fact."  Without
> the situation, the very use of "respect" becomes meaningless.
>
> #>BUT, I do not believe that this rare possibility totally abrogates his right
> #>to *know*. Thus,I would say that notification should be VERY soon afterwards,
> #>although I think that the woman should at least have the decency, respect and
> #>trust to tell him beforehand!  (Note my words carefully : I am stating that I
> #>believe that it is advisable to tell beforehand, but that I would *require*
> #>it to be told afterwards).
>
> >> considering why she might have waited a year to "throw salt in the wounds,"
>
> >Since you seem to have an outspoken agenda, it's no great surprise that
> >you assume she waited a year in order to throw salt in the wounds,
>  ^^^ ^^^^^^
> Will said "salt in the wounds" himself, as anyone can see from
> the restored passage which
> Larry conveniently omitted,

As I explained above, I didn't "conveniently omit" it.  I didn't have it.

> To make matters worse, Larry Margolis slanders Beaver with the
> words "you assume".

Nope.  Even seeing that Will said that it *seems* like throwing salt in
the wounds, it's still a leap on Mr. Beaver's part to assume that the
reason she waited a year was *in order* to throw salt in the wounds,
and that she did it for reasons of "manipulation or mental cruelty".

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women