NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28370

Text File | 1992-07-22 | 11.1 KB | 237 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 22 Jul 1992 08:36:43 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhad1.admin.uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:48:26 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
Lines: 222

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >Jim...
> >>  I'm not making their decision for them.  If after hearing me speak my
> >>peace,

  I think this line right here has become our bone of contention.  Adreinne,
you seem to have taken it to mean I intend to knock on people's doors or other-
wise get into their face to expound my viewpoint.  Well, quite franky I hate
it when people knock on my door to expound their viewpoint, even when I agree
with it.  And I don't much care for those folks standing in front of the
clinics.  Their hearts are in the right place (maybe--sometimes I have to
wonder), but as a general rule, I care little for their methods.  I'm not into
fear and intimidation.

  The whole meaning I intended was I'm only here to persuade and not to
legislate.  I'll talk to a willing listener.  Doing otherwise is not only
rude, but IMO pointless.  I doubt it'll accomplish much.

  The upshot is I don't do those things.  But let's move on down.

> >>they choose to otherwise than I have proposed, there is little I can do to
> >>stop them in my own good conscience.  I may not like it, but I will not condemn
> >>after the fact.
> >Adreinne...
> >But you do, don't you, see how your desire to persuade is an implicit
> >denial that they have already considered their opinion?
[deletion]
> >But as to the second questions, I think it might be more interesting to ask,
> >"why do they need to have considered it all?"  Let's say someone decides to
> >abort and does NOT take your views into account.  Then let's say someone
> >decides to have kids and does NOT take your views into account.  Why is the
> >taking-of-your-views-into-account the important issue?
> >(substituted 'all' for 'your' if you like.  Same thing.)
> >********************************************************
> >Begin my rebuttal:
> >
> >  For someone who loves to say things about "informed choice" this is
> >brilliant.  The whole thrust of this argument is that I have no right, or
> >I am wrong, to attempt to persuade someone to my point of view.  In short,
> >the thing reads to me like: "If you don't agree with someone, SHUT UP."
>
> I don't think so.  And frankly, I'm never too happy when someone who is
> argued into a corner interprets it as me saying "SHUT UP".  I don't believe
> (though I may be wrong, having occasionally lost my temper) that in 7 years
> on the net I've ever told anyone to shut up.

  Well, for one thing, I'm not in any corner.  And it sure read to me like
"You have no business talking about this.  Be silent."  But I think this
whole thing and the paragraphs following it are all the result of a mis-
understanding.  I think you are actually implying that I haven't a right, or
maybe it isn't right (a slight difference) to get "in someone's face" if
you will, and give'em my views on some matter.  Well, actually I don't, nor
do I think it is right, either.

  Here's when I give my opinions:

  1. when asked.
  2. when it comes up in a general discussion (and so is fair game).
  3. In a public forum (like here).
  4. If the person is a friend of mine.

  The last two are the unsolicited ones--and people are quite free to not
read/listen, and the friend can tell me to shut up and I will.

[deletions]

> See, if you look closely, and objectively, at it, you will notice that
> YOU got miffed when I implied that you weren't sympathetic.  I'm merely
> pointing out that arguing with someone who had made a decision *you* don't
> like is possibly going to be interpreted in PRECISELY THE SAME WAY YOU
> interpreted what I said -- i.e., if *you* got miffed, you might consider
> the idea that *they* are going to get miffed.

  Then they can tell me so.  And if we were to quit putting forth ideas because
they might offend someone, nothing would ever get done.

> And, the only real reason I'm discussing this with you is to take the question
> to the *WHY* stage (after all, I happen to think you are entitled to your
> personal opinion, and I'm not out to make you "hear my piece" before I'm
> willing to let you go on your way).
>
> Why abortion, Jim?

  I think I covered this above.  Or are you asking why I don't approve of
abortion again?  Or why I speak out against it?

 I speak against it because I feel its wrong.  Just like you speak out against
those who would attempt to make it illegal, because you feel THAT'S wrong.  I
don't force my opinion on others.  I don't force them to listen.  I don't even
feel they SHOULD listen.  I'd like it if they did, but...

> >  Would you attempt to stop someone from committing suicide?  Say they have
>
> Sort of depends.  Do I *know* this person?  Am I in a job where such is my
> avowed intent (assuming, of course, that the suicide candidate called *me*
> for help, and I'm not just polling around for the hell of it...)

  Let me be more specific.  Assume said person also has no health problems,
is not likely to in the forseeable future.  They're just hurting emotionally.
And let's also say that you just happened to stumble upon them--You were
walking on a bridge or something...

> >  You seem to assume that I would only attempt to convince someone who has
> >already decided on an abortion--do you mean I should let them alone, and its
> >okay to persuade others?  Just the undecided?  Or should I not try to persuade
> >anybody?
>
> One question, Jim.  Are you planning on persuading women who have decided
> to bear children?  That's more risky and more expensive, both.

  Persuade them to do what?  To give up for adoption?  To raise it themselves?
To consider an abortion instead?

> What it gets down to is this:  What's so damned important about *your*
> opinion, Jim?  Each and every single person out there who is making a decision
> about their life _has_ an opinion.  THEIR opinion.
>
> What's so special about yours?

  Well, its special to me because its MINE.  I like it.  I think its a good
one (my ego 8^) talking).  But, again, I'm not forcing it on anyone.

> >  They may well be angry at the implication of being wrong.  I get angry when
> >someone implies I'm wrong (you implied that I was uncaring, which IMO is
> >worse).
>
> Oh, I get it. You'll chide me for 'implying' about you, but you don't much
> care if they get pissed at you.  Interesting.

  If we (all of us) say nothing for fear of offending, then we get whatever
we deserve, be it bad government, laws, censorship, science, or what have you.
They have every right to chide right back if I imply wrongly about them--but I
see that really doesn't matter around here.  I can't say something is wrong
because it implies that someone else is wrong about something important, but
it's perfectly okay for you to tell me I'm wrong without worrying about said
implications.

> >I resented being called wrong--but eventually I changed my mind.
>
> I think this is really the crux of the matter.
> It's about *your* ego, not about *their* decison.

  I'm not sure how you read this into my statements...well actually I do, it
stems from that line way back up at the top of this post.  I see an impasse.
If its egotistical to call a decision you see as wrong, "wrong"--then we're
all of us here guilty many times over and I don't see the point.

  I feel abortion is wrong and I say so.  That makes me egotistical?
  You feel oulawing it is wrong and you say so.  Does that do the same to
you?

> >  I would be violating my beliefs if I didn't try to do *something*.  I try to
> >put my money where my mouth is.  Sometimes I do that better than other times...
>
> 1.  What 'belief' is that?  And why are you not violating that belief when
> you choose _not_ to talk to each and every single person you have contact
> with about alcoholism?

  I think I've pretty much covered this ground.

> 2.  I don't think you are talking about money, Jim.

  Oh, please.  All I meant was I *try* to practice what I preach.

> >  And that last paragraph.  If you say someone has a right to choose, then
> >that would imply there is a choice, which implies that there are different
> >viewpoints, which implies that proponents of those points have a right to
> >air them.
>
> Everybody here has the right to speak freely.  *YOU* are the one who has
> turned your losing argument into "shut up", not me.

  I'm not losing (not winning either), but then I think we're not really in
disagreement over what you think I'm losing.  But your argument seems to be
just that--or something very near, if not quite.  If it walks like a duck...

> I haven't said, and won't in the context of this discussion, "SHUT UP" to
> anybody.  I've said, repeatedly, "WHY".  WHY is it so important to you
> on this ONE ISSUE to have people listen to you?  WHY is it likely to be
> met with resistance?

  I suspect because its a very important issue.  I doubt many folks get
as worked up over over the proper way to thread a needle.

> Because, Jim, you have an emotional response to this issue, and because,
> Jim, people are perfectly capable of running their lives without you.

  That they are.  Never said otherwise.  Never meant to imply otherwise.
Suggestions from me (or you, or anyone) may be cheerfully ignored.

> If I were you, I'd be trying to figure out a realistic approach: that after
> actually understanding the basis of the emotional response.

  Actually I have done so.  I have put that into practice.  I do not go where
I'm not wanted, don't air my opinions in inappropriate ways or places, and
consisently call for lots of neat stuff like better contraception and sex ed.
I say it in public spots like this.  It may offend, but you need not read it.

>  It isn't likely
> that strangers who have decided on abortion, in our embattled culture, are
> going to be polite about listening to you.
> Adrienne Regard

  I wouldn't expect them to be.  But then, if they get my opinions, it's only
because they have asked me for them, or have come somewhere like this, where
they should expect them.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.                       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!               *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************               *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph                        *
********************************************************************************