NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31804

Text File | 1992-08-14 | 7.8 KB | 173 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 14 Aug 1992 18:16:26 -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]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:10:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
Lines: 158

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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> Jim says two things.  1:
> >> >> >  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to heel.  Unwanted (or even
> >> >> >wanted,for that matter) pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the
> >> >> >effect of "ruin."  But it is NOT a certainty.  Or highly likley.
>
> 2:
> >  But if I am to believe it, I *must* see it, or hear it from someone I trust.
> >I don't know either one of you, and if I were just to throw out some numbers
> >wouldn't *you* want the source?
>
> Hmm.  First you were 'bringing Gordon's statement to heel" *and* making a
> statement yourself that *you* left unsupported.  Then you say you don't
> really know.
>
> Now, if Gordon DOES know, but doesn't give you sources you can use, then
> you CAN say, "Gordon didn't give me useful sources", but it isn't necessarily
> true to say "Gordon doesn't know."

  Did not say that Gordon didn't know--just that he had overstated his
case.  Which hauls us back to my original point.

> Particularly when *you* don't know, yourself, and have just made an un-
> supported claim of your own.

  Supported by only my own observations, true.

> I don't expect, and I doubt that Gordon expects, you to simply roll over
> and die because he made an unsupported claim.  HOWEVER, I do think it's
> a little silly of you to demand support, then make your OWN unsupported
> claim.  Spare us all, please!

  Then I rather guess we all have some work to do.

> Or, better yet, do your own research and *inform* us, Jim.  If you
> *really*
>           *truly*
>                    *want*
>                            to be persuasive to people who are obviously
> considering the topic of abortion, just *think* how persuasive it would
> be for you to actually FIND OUT what it is you claim we all need to know!

  I've been looking.  And in fact, now that it is the weekend, I can try
again.  Why don't YOU join me in this search,  from wherever you are.  Seems
the onus of proof IS on both sides.

> >  For someone who was so ticked at my inferring things from your words, you
> >seem quite content to do it to me.  How many times, here on the net, and in
> >e-mail, have I said "I will present all the facts I've got, (along with any
> >attempts at persuasion) even if they are damaging to my case."?  Have you
> >forgotten these?
>
> Forgotten that you said this, or forgotten that you yourself JUST MADE AN
> UNSUPPORTED contention after taking Gordon to task for making an unsupported
> contention?

  To be technical, I attacked you for defending an unsupported contention.
But...

  It is true.  There's no denying it.  I let my mockingbird mouth overload
my hummingbird ass.  And did what I very often bitch about.  Sigh.  Let
that be a lesson, boys and girls.  Don't let let yourself respond too
fast, especially when you've got a mad on. (or when the scheduling
program burps and gives everybody twice as many labs as they should have--
and thus twice the fees)

> >"Ruin."  What does it mean?  You let Gordon get away with the word, meaning
> >only Gordon knows what,  but hey, that's okay.  They'll know what he meant.
> >Yeah, right.  I dunno about you, but "ruin" has some very negative connotations
> >to me, and to everybody I know.
>
> To me, too.  But I don't bother defining it for other people. Nor does Gordon.
> He points out that 'ruin' may very well be what the woman suffering an un-
> wanted pregnancy is facing.  But I very much doubt (please correct me if I'm
> wrong, Gordon) that he's going to define 'ruin' FOR her, then talk her into
> some action based on HIS INTERPRETATION.

  Semantics, Adreinne.  Pure semantics.  Gordon said, "can ruin her life."
I'm afraid he didn't describe the effects and then let us all decide if they
constituted ruin from all our respective POV's.  Gordon has some sort of
idea of what he meant by "ruin", I'm sure--but he neglected to include it.
I'm not knocking him for that; I'm guessing that our definitions are close
enough not to matter.

  Now here's the killer:  Someone says, "ruin your life."  What do you think
of?  Your version of ruin.  I think of mine.  Gordon thinks of his.  What
if one of these versions cannot happen, or is unlikely to happen?  Well, then
somebody's just gotten the wrong idea of what might happen BASED ON THIER
OWN INTERPRETATION OF "RUIN".

  Sometimes, leaving someone to make their own interpretation of your words is
not the wonderful thing you seem to feel it is.

> > "Pregnancy can ruin your life."  A true statement, but it begs the question:
> >How often?
>
> "How often" is hardly the only question gone begging.

  And unanswered.

> >  I base my assertion on the simple observation that every mother I've ever
> >met does not seem to have had her life "ruined"--physically, emotionally, or
> >otherwise.  Including my single cousin.  Its anecodotal, I admit--but I see it
> >all the time everyday.
>
> Well, I've seen a hell of a lot of women who have aborted fetuses, and they
> are quite happy, too, thanks.

  Your statement has no bearing on the issue at hand.

> >  I have made several trips to the university library.  Information on normal
> >changes is quite handy.  Data on long-term "ruinous" effects has been hiding
> >from me.
>
> By which we gather that 'normal' changes don't ever fit the definition of
> 'ruinous' to you so you don't *bother* sharing that information.

  Well, you already seem to know.  Why bother with repitition?

> And women are supposed to talk to you when you filter the facts through
> your definition of 'ruin'?  I don't think so.

  Well, at least they'll know what my definition is.  They won't have to
guess.

> Why don't you share the panorama of 'normal' changes with us all so that
> we can decide for ourselves what is 'ruinous' or not?  Or should we just
> take *your* word for it?
> Adrienne Regard

  Well, well.  It finally occurs to you that the word alone is insufficient.
That the EFFECTS are needed to decide what is ruinous.  Very good.  I'm glad
you realize that inerpreting from the word to the effect, as opposed to going
from the effect to the word, is a dangerous thing.

  As for the request, sure thing.  Just not tonight.  it's late and I'm
tired.  But I will post them--although, having had two children, you must
know them by heart.  Why don't you post them as well.  I should have mine up
on Sunday sometime.

  In the meantime, I suggest decaff.

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                        *
********************************************************************************