From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 21:18:17 GMT

In <1992Sep3.165119.21400@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715472754@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Aug29.135528.22372@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> 
>> >Mr Nyikos wallows in speculation to no clear purpose unless it is to
>> >somehow imply that clinics that provide abortion services have been
>> >bombed by their own staff for insurance purposes.  This flies in
>> >the face of the facts, which include convictions in court of some
>> >of the bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life."
>> 
>> Just how deeply held are these pro-life beliefs?  Children playing
>> at "cops and robbers" almost never go into the harm the robbers have
>> caused.  The "robbers" are simply "the bad guys" and the ones playing
>> cops get a big adrenaline surge from going after them and even have
>> the "moral" satisfaction of being "the good guys" even though someone
>> watching their play usually can't tell the good guys from the bad guys
>> without a scorecard.

>You make no response to
>the fact that the people in these convictions admitted their
>part in the bombings.  Susan Garvin recently published a quote
>from one of them who said it's okay to kill doctors if the
>doctors provide abortion services.  Are you now going to tell
>us that maybe these doctors are really trying to commit suicide
>by firing guns through their own houses from a distance of fifty
>yrads, pausing only once to reload?

First you talk about bombings, then you speak of firing guns.  Just
what did these people admit to doing?

>> Now what little I have read of "The Lambs of God" [you never do identify
>> these "pro-lifers"] leads me to believe their motivation is of this 
>> juvenile sort.  

>We were talking about your remarks that clinic staff were
>burning down or bombing their own clinics.

I never said they were, I just brought it up as a possibility.

>  I think your tactics, lies and innuendoes, are as
>reprehensible and indicative of a lack of character as the
>behavior of these juvenile "Lambs of God" you so disdain.

Gee, now I am being charged with doing things every bit as
reprehensible as bombing clinics and (perhaps) shooting guns
at them.  If your moral code is this bad at making distinctions,
perhaps you are a moral nihilist at heart.

>> >> >In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >> >> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> >> >> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
>> >> >> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
>> >> >> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
>> >> >> pro-life movement.

I'm glad this quote is still on the net.  Lots of people have been 
claiming I am trying to discredit the whole pro-choice movement by
posting what the doctor did.  Some even accuse me of posting lies.

>> Well, in the absence of further information, one can make educated guesses.
>> 
>> 1. Being an abortionist can be a dehumanizing experience.  Don't take my
>> word for it, read what Magda Denes, a pro-choicer, writes about some
>> of them in _In Necessity and Sorrow_.  As one comes to see the bodily
>> autonomy of unborn children as violable unto death, one can easily see
>> the bodily autonomy of four-year-old children as violable unto carnal
>> knowledge.  [My dose of medieval English for the day.]

>In other words, you have no facts, and just want to construct
>a speculative support structure for your sleaze tactics.

No more speculative than most of the stuff I read on talk.abortion.

>> 2. Abortion is part and parcel of the quality-of-life ethic, which sees
>> the worth of human beings according to how much they are wanted, or 
>> appreciated, or loved by others.

>This is a complete misrepresentation of the pro-choice position,

Of your pro-choice position, maybe.  Pro-choice is a much bigger tent
than most people in talk.abortion seem to realize.  Ditto for pro-life.

>and as such does not even deserve a response.  You can kick all
>the strawmen down that you please.  I can easily say that,
>rather than having real concerns, the anti-abortion movement
>is simply part and parcel of the anti-woman, control-freak
>attitude that wants to enslave all people to one ideology and
>one point of view and prohibit human freedom.

This is NARAL propaganda.  Item 2. is based on lots of things lots
of pro-choicers have said.  Stay tuned.

Peter Nyikos