NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57308

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 9.4 KB | 211 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!quads!eeb1
From: [e-mail] (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Call for a moratorium on fisting offers (Beth take note)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:54:46 GMT
Lines: 198

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>[I used to totally disbelieve it about Beth, but after seeing
>>>her favorable comments about fisting offers, I am beginning to be wary
>>>even of her.  Sad, isn't it?]

>><shrug> I do recognize a philosophical distinction between things
>>which are inherently necessary for the survival of a fetus and things
>>which are necessary because they are imposed conditions.

>I dispute your claim that "they are necessary because they are imposed
>conditions," because I think you are naive at best, and disingenuous at
>worst, for taking these offers at face value.

1) Given how little information we have about each other, I really
don't see a better way of taking offers.

2) Even if one responds to these offers at a deeper level, one should
respond to the "face value" (aka what the person actually *wrote*) as
well.

>Assumptions:

>1.  The woman making the offer is either planning to become pregnant
>or is already pregnant, or is at least putting herself at risk for being
>pregnant.

All of the fisting offers I've ever seen fit in the third category;
the form is *if* I get pregnant, I won't have an abortion if you agree
to be fisted for nine months.

>    1c.  If the third, then she should be phrasing the offer
>    differently from the ones I have seen.  Adrienne has said that
>    if *both* partners use birth control, the chance of pregnancy
>    is "infinitesimal" (or did she say "vanishingly small"?--anyway,
>    she used words to that effect) which would indicate that the
>    person being made the offer probably won't have to ever make
>    good on it.

Birth control sometimes fails; that's a simple fact.  Peter, since
*when* did you accept Adrienne as an authority?

>2.  It assumes that the woman finds pregnancy far *more* of a burden
>than she does abortion AND premenstrual syndrome AND menstrual cramping,
>etc.

Yep.  Why do you find this so surprising?

>    Were it merely *childbirth* the woman is so afraid of, she
Afraid of?                                          ^^^^^^^^^

The fisting offers I've seen weren't in fear but in anger -- in anger
at having sacrifices demanded of them that did not apply to people who
made the demands.  I thought the anger came through very clearly....

>    would not phrase the offer in terms of "nine months".

The pregnancy is nine months, they want nine months from the person
demanding they undergo pregnancy.  I'll grant you the detail below.

What's your point?

>3. [Getting nitpicky] It assumes the woman begins to suffer from the
>pregnancy almost immediately, unlike some women who do not even *know*
>they are pregnant until well into the third month or even much later.
>Even if this were true, the fisting should not commence until shortly
>after the earliest time the woman could reasonably be expected to have
>an abortion--8th week LMP, according to you.

Granted.

>4. [Not nearly so nitpicky]  It assumes the fisting victim will recover
>physically from all that abuse [BTW I have never seen it spelled out how
>often the fisting would occur--once a week, once a day,...] at about
>the same rate as the woman would recover from childbirth, and to the
>same extent.  I can easily imagine someone having to put up with ghastly
>hemorrhoids for a lifetime as a result of naively accepting such an offer,
>while the woman making the offer enjoys roaring good health within a few
>months after giving birth.

Peter, please reread what you said above.  This attitude is *exactly*
why people make the fisting offers in the first place -- the
assumption that pregnacy is something trivial.  She could recover
faster than he did.  She could also die!

The intention of the fisting offers, which has been spelled out
explicitly on many occasions, is to get from the pro-lifer as close to
exactly what he is demanding of the woman by demanding she undergo
pregnancy.

>5.  Not to mention the risk of STD's, including AIDS, if the fisting is
>done by the wrong person, with the wrong attitude towards the poor schmuck
>who accepted the offer.

See above.

>6.  Finally, I have yet to see the woman offer to give the baby to the
>fisting victim as a compensation for all the suffering and indignity
>he has undergone.  One is reminded of yet another Dr. Seuss book,
>_Horton Hatches the Egg_, where the lazy bird gets her comeuppance as
>"her" child chooses Horton as his papa and leaves her empty-handed.

Peter.  Read carefully.  Pregnancy is not something trivial.  A
pregnant woman cannot reasonably be equated with a bird leaving the
nest.  Simply because she is attempting to demand that person x
undergo what he is trying to demand that she undergo does not mean
that she doesn't undergo it.

>>  However, I
>>get irritated when people won't recognize that *to the fetus* there is
>>no practical difference.  One may be ethically obliged not to ransom
>>hostages, but that doesn't make the hostages any less dead, and that
>>doesn't mean you have no responsibility for their deaths.

>Please read carefully all I have written, and let me know whether you
>still believe this last paragraph of yours is valid.

If the offer is made in good faith, absolutely.  I'll grant that the
offers in question may not be made in good faith -- but that's never
the sole reason given for declining them.

>>I'll grant you that the fisting scenarios are distasteful.  However, I
>>believe they serve a useful function: if a person has no concern for
>>the woman who is to be prevented having an abortion after they've been
>>graphically presented with a representation of pregnancy at its worst
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Not quite.  There are those who would be willing to put up with almost
>any kind of suffering if it is imposed on them "by nature", so to speak,
>yet cannot stomach the idea of submitting to such a degrading thing
>as fisting.  Would you submit to being raped even once a month for nine
>months, if the rapist said his wife will kill their baby daughter unless
>you so submit?  To a pro-lifer, there is little or no difference between
>the two scenarios, assuming the rapist uses contraception and lets you
>use it too.

Of course not; I'd call the cops.  Killing a born baby is illegal,
after all.  But if the child died, I wouldn't kid myself that I
couldn't have saved it; I'd feel pretty damned guilty.

>I am sorry to be speaking in such terms to you, Beth, but you hardly
>leave me with any other choice.

<Beth restrains herself from searching for a flamethrower>

Peter.  Look at what you said above.  Compare that with any fisting
offer.  You are more apologetic, but the logic is the same as "I'm
saying this so you can understand what pregnancy is like" included in
the fisting offers.

>>with a personal application to him (can't recall a case in which a
>>woman was given the fisting scenario), I consider this fairly
>>convincing (though not complete) evidence that he doesn't care about
>>the pregnant woman.

>You used the words "has no concern for the woman".  This assumes the
>recipients of these fisting offers have already demonstrated no concern
>for the woman.  As a former recipient of such an offer, I beg to differ.

>Can you give me even one instance of a person CONTINUING a previously
>expressed lack of concern for the woman after such an offer?  And if not,
>don't you think these offers are unnecessarily drastic?

Most recipients of fisting offers go away afterwards, but Keith had a
valid point wrt Kevin Welch....  CJ, if you read this, could you
insert your Kevin sig?  You know, the time when he said to me
(paraphrased, which is why I wanted CJ's exact quote in her sig):
"Elizabeth, none of us men know what pregnancy is like first-hand.  We
do know that it is often painful and unpleasant.  It is like a
harmless slavery of sorts."

>I would like to see a moratorium on these offers, at least until the
>people making them come clean to us about what exactly their offers
>entail.

I would like people to realize that pregnancy is not some walk in the
park which the woman automatically recovers from.  I thought you knew
better, Peter.

I consider fisting offers distasteful; I've never initiated one.  I
consider most responses to them hypocritical, and I'll respond to
those when I see a grave lapse in logic, which is usually.

Remember, Peter -- you did *exactly* the same thing asking me if I'd
be willing to be raped as the fister offerers do when they ask if
someone would be willing to be fisted.  If you can't restrain yourself
from that kind of behavior, what grounds do you have for calling for a
moratorium?

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.