NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/32877

Text File | 1992-08-21 | 20.1 KB | 510 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!noao!forgach
From: [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
References: <+shys6=@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:51:07 GMT
Lines: 496

From article <+shys6=@rpi.edu>, by [e-mail] (rocker):
> [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
> Fine, Forgach.  I am glad that you have shown me the depths to which
> you'll sink, the hatefulness you'll spew to further your own agenda.

Yeah right.  I post an article simply questioning your interpretation
of an event years ago, and you get all bent out of shape.


> Never once have I given you a single indication to think I was a
> liar.

Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
what abortion actually IS.


> We have exchanged civil email in the past.  Never once have
> you questioned me on a matter of fact, only opinion.

But I have always recognized that you had your facts wrong when it comes
to your denying the fact that abortion, plain and simple, kills children.


> But when I point out an ugly truth to you (that many pro-"life"rs are
> interested in NOTHING BUT stopping abortions, they couldn't care less
> what happens to the baby that will be born) instead of facing it,
> you smugly assert that I am either a liar or a blithering fool.

Cathi, I don't KNOW any pro-lifers who are not intersted in helping mothers
and their babies.   All the ones I know are VERY interested in helping them!
I was debating this with LINDA BIRMINGHAM when you jumped in and asserted I
thought YOU were a liar.   I thought it was a little weird, because I wasn't
even addressing you, much less calling you a liar, so I studied your story,
found some holes, and simply said "could be".   Don't get bent out of shape
when you brought it on yourself.   I thought "could be" was particularly
civil.


> I
> saw you rise up in anger when someone hinted that Marilyn Quayle didn't
> have a mind of her own, yet in MY case, when you CLEARLY know that I am
> no babe-in-the-woods, you glibly assert that I hadn't the slightest
> clue about reality, that I was being led by the nose, and that I continue
> to be blissfully ignorant of what happened to this very day.

Cathi, I simply don't remember how old you are.  I recognized that it was
possible that your story could have a totally different interpretation,
one that would be plain to anyone not predisposed against pro-lifers, so
I pointed it out.


> When your "loving" beliefs cause you to do such spiteful and nasty
> things, I'd say it's clearly time to reexamine some aspect of the
> situation.

I did nothing spiteful and nasty.  I did in fact, exercise restraint because
I have liked you.


> Your article here says far more about your lack of concern for
> other women in difficult situations than _I_ ever could.

Posting about The Nurturing Network, and inviting anyone having trouble
finding help to write to me so I could help them find it is "lack of
concern"???  Cathi, recognize what a HUGE chip you DO have on your shoulder.


>>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (rocker):
>>> [e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>>No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
>>>>walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
>>>>organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
>>>>them.  It always has been and always will be the pro-lifers who provide any
>>>>non-abortive help to pregnant women in trouble.
>>>
>>> Then you are calling me a liar, Ms. Forgach.
>
>>Could be.
>
> Really, this is all I needed to hear.  It gives me no great satisfaction
> that I anticipated this response.

No Cathi.  You specifically ASKED for this response.


> I had hoped that, since we have
> spoken of things other than abortion and respected each others'
> opinion, you would perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt.

Why?  You didn't give it to me!  We have been e-mail friends in the past,
yet you specifically initiated a hostile exchange by accusing me that I think
you're a liar.  I wasn't even TALKING to you, I was talking to Linda!
You are very confused, and you will not be allowed to keep that luxury.


> But
> you are no better than Chaney in your assumption that this is a war,
> and any hateful and vicious thing you do is OK, because you have a
> Higher Calling.

Cathi, daring me to call you a liar sounds like YOU made the opening
shot to me!


> But I will respond to the rest of this article for the benefit of
> others out there.
>
>>In your entire story below, you neglected to give any indication
>>of even what YEAR it takes place.
>
> Garbage, Suzanne.  This was posted TO YOU, and you KNOW what year
> it was.

No, I'm sorry I don't.  I simply DON'T remember how old your child is,
or even how many you have.  And certainly the rest of the net, whom you
were posturing your story for, had no idea.


>>Makes a big difference.  Movements mature.
>
> I see.  So you are saying that the people who have been protesting
> abrtions for twenty years only RECENTLY got the idea to actually
> help women with their babies.  Pretty bad reflection on your
> movement, wouldn't you say?

Cathi, I GUARANTEE that Catholic Social Services would have provided you
help when you needed it.   It is a sad statement of fact that although
Catholics have been providing pro-life prenatal help for 3 decades now with
agencies like Reachout, Birthright, and Merrilac Lodge, the Protestants and
Evangelicals are Johnie-come-VERY-latelies to the pro-life movement.   We
are very glad for their help now, but they dropped the ball, for a VERY long
time, when the game started.    This situation is exactly what I meant by
"Movements mature."   I was being kind to the non-Catholic, but Christian
anyway, pro-lifers out there who are providing so much needed help now.



>>So tell me, was it a simple oversight, or a lie by ommission?
>
> Difficult as it is for you to choke on, Forgach, my story is the
> truth.

You left out the year it happened, and the fact that you never actually
asked an abortion alternative organization for help.  You ALSO left out the
fact that you even looked for one.   So you misguided both pro-"choicers"
_and_ pro-lifers with your story.


>>You also make it
>>clear that you _never_ actually asked an abortion alternative agency for help!
>>You simply got into one 10 minute discussion with some Right-To-Life debators
>>at a campus abortion debate.
>
> I couldn't FIND an "abortion alternative agency", Suzanne.  THAT'S WHY
> I ASKED THE RIGHT-TO-LIFERS IF THEY KNEW OF ONE.  They didn't.  Not
> one of them.  No one even offered to make a phone call for me to get
> more information.  So much for their much-vaunted concern for the
> woman involved.

I can't explain their negligence, but I can assert that there were pro-lifers
in that town ready, willing and able to help.   I don't think much of
college debators myself, much as Steve Chaney really gets into it, and
got most of his training debating FOR the pro-CHOICE side!    But had you
called the Right-To-Life office in your town (or state), or Catholic
Social Services, I GUARANTEE you would have found the help you needed.


>>Hardly the way to seriously seek prenatal aid, Cathi.
>
> Forgach, you don't have a festering clue what I did to "seriously
> seek prenatal aid".

Only because you didn't tell us.


> I was on the phone every day for months looking
> for help.

So did you call any churches, just as the campus debators suggested?
(much less CSS?)   Or did you turn your nose up at them simply because
they were churches?


> Much as you've convinced yourself that pro-choice people
> hate their children and desire only pain and suffering for them,
> the truth is that I am a better person for having the opportunity
> to say "I choose this child."

No, I'd say your not.   You STILL think it would have been ok to say
"I choose to abort this child".   Get it through your head Cathi, the
appropriate statements one makes in life are, "I chose to conceive this
child" and "I choose not to conceive a child at this time".

THEN you would really be the better person.


> Once the choice was made, I did
> everything possible to ensure that my child would have the best
> that we could provide for it, a goal that continues to this day.

The choice was made the day you conceived.  I find it bizarre that you
think you made the choice at some later time.


>>> I have posted many
>>> times that when _I_ was facing a crisis pregnancy, I went to a debate
>>> that featured the president of the local RTL chapter in a large city.
>>> I approached him, and other pro-"life" people after the debate, asking
>>> about where I might obtain pregnancy help.  Since I had identified
>>> myself as pro-choice, they were all quite eager to do their Good Deed
>>> for the day and "talk me out of getting an abortion".  Fairly
>>> ridiculous, as I was about five months at the time and showing quite
>>> a bit.  When I told them I had no intention of having an abortion,
>>> they eagerly began telling me about adoption agencies in the area.
>>> When I informed them that I was most certainly NOT considering adoption,
>>> they completely lost interest, to the point of wandering away.  When
>>> I asked again about pregnancy help (after following them), the most
>>> concrete answer I received was "Well, you might try your church."
>>> They didn't bother to ask if I attended church, and they ignored me
>>> thereafter.
>
>
>>You might have tried the yellow pages for the local abortion altnerative
>>agencies.
>
> My yellow pages didn't HAVE an abortion alternative agency category.
> Everything was lumped together under "clinics".  There were no ads
> making it clear that all the place wanted to do was help women continue
> their pregnancies.

So did you call and ask them which were which?   I sure as hell would have!
Even NOW that the yellow pages DO have an "abortion alternatives" section,
you have to call and find out, because (lying) abortion clinics advertise
under that heading too!  Simply because they give the girls a pamphlet on
adoption at the same time they're scheduling their abortion!  It's disgusting!


>>Surely you use yellow pages all the time.
>
> You're so cute when you're being snide and condescending.

Hey you were the one who implied that an assumption that you had a church
was wrong.   Certainly an assumption that you can use the yellow pages
is more likely to be right.


>>Debators at a campus debate is weird place to look for prenatal help.
>
> I had already looked everywhere else I could think of.  Your (possibly
> not yet founded at the time) crisis pregnancy centers were hardly
> advertising in the campus paper or handing out leaflets.

The (Evangelical) CPC chain was possibly not yet founded, but (Catholic)
Reachout sure as hell was, and they were advertising in MY college campus
newspaper at least 12 years ago when I arrived on campus, not to mention
advertizing on Tucson public transportation.   So HOW old IS your child?


> And, silly me, I had figured that the group MOST likely to know where
> help was would be pro-"life"rs.

Well, silly you, you asked a bunch of college kids hanging round after
a debate, instead of calling the local Right-To-Life office which keeps
all that information centralized.


> I know better now.

Not at all.


>>I think you went with a
>>chip on your shoulder already.   Looking for a fight.
>
> You simply don't think, Forgach.  If you see something that doesn't
> fit into your well-crafted worldview, you attack with all the compassion
> and thought of a rabid vampire bat.


You oughta know rabid vampire bats.



>>> I must say, I was a bit stricken by this.  A member of NOW noticed
>>> me standing by myself,
>
>>Obviously Cathi, she'd already eavesdropped on your entire conversation.
>
> Why Forgach, don't you have the guts to come right out and say you
> think I'm an idiot?  Or blind?  Or hysterical?

Because I wanted to still like you.


> These people had no knowledge of my conversation with the pro-"life"rs.
> As hard as it is for you to stomach, Forgach, they were JUST BEING
> NICE.  Something you apparently don't have a lot of experience with.

I'm not the one screaming "lunatic", "liar", etc.   I'm the nicest person
you'll _ever_ have the opportunity to meet.


>>She approached you entirely aware of what had just gone on and decided to
>>turn the situation to her advantage - recruiting you into activism.
>
> Well gosh, Forgach, you were THERE?  IN THE ROOM?
>
> AND YOU DIDN'T HELP ME EITHER????????????????

You didn't ask me!   I certainly would have!


>>She played you like a fiddle, Cathi.
>
> Your implication that I am an idiot grows no more amusing on subsequent
> repetition.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but I still think she manipulated you.


>>> and walked up and congratulated me on my
>>> pregnancy.  I began confiding in her about the trouble I was having,
>>> and was soon surrounded by a sympathetic crowd of feminists.  One
>>> quickly offered baby furniture and clothes, others began telling me
>>> about medical care available.  They offered phone numbers and advice.
>>> One NOW member even bent the rules of a local congressman's phone
>>> bank to allow me to make the calls from home after my child was born,
>>> thus providing me with a crucial source of income at a time when I
>>> was unable to work elsewhere.  All the local NOW members I met, from
>>> grandmothers to lesbians, were a constant source of support to me
>>> at a difficult time.  Not a single one ever questioned my decision
>>> to give birth.
>
>>Not to your face, of course not, but many of them had aborted their own
>>children under even less difficult circumstances.
>
> Again, you were there?  You know this group?  You know for a fact that
> women in this group had, themselves, had abortions?

Statistics prove that unless you specifically surround yourself with
pro-lifers, at least some women in a large group have had abortions.



> You are a hateful little liar, Forgach.  Again, I think this article says
> more about your concern for other women than _I_ ever could.

I repeat my offer to any woman needing help to call 1-800-TNN-4MOM, or
e-mail me for the names of agencies near you.   That's sure "hateful",
Cathi.


>>> I have questioned Bill Overpeck and others who say they are associated
>>> with crisis-type pregnancy centers, none of them address the common
>>> problems that I and many other women face during our pregnancies.
>
>>The Nurturing Network addresses ALL of them.  All of the common problems
>>and all of the unique problems.  Other agencies do as well.  Write to me
>>and I will give you agencies that do.
>
> I am no longer pregnant, Forgach.  And you have no credibility with
> me.

That is your problem Cathi.   I offer to point you to help, those debators
offered to point you to help by suggesting starting with churches, but
because you didn't like the source, possibly because the providers might be
(horrors) religious people, you reject it out of hand.   Cathi, I don't think
you would have been happy unless one of those debators handed you his wallet
and credit cards and said, "Your baby's on me, little lady."


> Even Mr. Overpeck admitted that the group he was associated
> with (I believe it was "Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Inc." or somesuch)
> did not directly address the problem of adequate prenatal care.

I find that a ridiculous assertion, even for Overpeck, about an agency
that is specifically GEARED for providing prenatal care.


>>> The number one problem is the exorbitant cost of prenatal care and
>>> giving birth.  (One local hospital told me on the phone "We require a
>>> deposit of $2300. cash before you enter the ninth month, or we will
>>> be unable to admit you."  In an irritable mood that day, I replied
>>> "So if I don't cough up the cash, I can have the baby on the sidewalk
>>> for all you care."  She answered "Oh, we don't say THAT....".  Yes
>>> you do, you just use nicer words.)  The main "services" these places
>>> seem to offer is a place to stay during pregnancy and adoption
>>> referrals.  I would hazard a guess that this is not what most women
>>> want or need.
>
>>The Nurturing Network will provide you all this, Cathi, for your prenatal
>>care AND your delivery.   That was _why_ I posted about them.  1-800-TNN-4MOM
>>will put you in touch with a local doctor, in YOUR TOWN, who regularly donates
>>his services to such women.
>
> Is there an income limit?  If so, what sort of documentation is
> required as proof?  Are the medical services available to married
> women?  Women who have other children?  Will they provide a place
> to stay for mom, dad, and the kids, or only the pregnant woman?
> What provisions are made for previous children if the woman becomes
> ill?  Do they provide employment help after birth, if the woman
> requires it?  How long AFTER delivery do they help the family?  Are
> all their services provided internally, or do they refer women to
> government agencies for help?  Does the doctor who "donates" require
> the woman to be a Medicaid recipient?  (Medicaid is extremely easy
> for pregnant women to get, as I learned from local NOW members)
> Does the service pay the hospital bill, or do they simply sign the
> woman up for Medicaid?

TNN will provide you with WHATEVER you need.  And if the mother is
entitled to Medicaid, why the hell SHOULDN'T she sign up for it as well?
Is it just because you want a pro-lifer to hand you his/her wallet so
you can be smug and say "Now there's _my_ kind of pro-lifer?"   What the
hell is WRONG with informing pregnant women what government services
they're entitled to?


> These are questions I have had great difficulty getting answers for
> in the past.  Some groups have told me outright that there is NO
> provision made for the woman's family, and in fact many seemed
> confused at the thought that a married woman might NEED help with
> bringing a pregnancy to term.  (One gentleman actually said "Well,
> why won't her husband pay for it?", a stunning example of cultural
> myopia.)


Hey, I am not _about_ to defend some anonymous individual's confusion.
I am clearly telling you you simply asked the wrong people.



>>> I had always been pro-choice, _this_ experience made me an activist.
>
>>So that more women would be able to kill their babies that YOUR OWN baby was
>>too precious to kill.
>
> No Forgach, I have never helped any woman kill her baby.  I help give
> women the choice whether they will HAVE babies.


The choice is always made before conception.  After conception, she HAS
a baby.  This couldn't be a plainer example of that lying-to-self, denial
of what abortion is, that I spoke of above.



>>Mighty big of you, Cathi.
>
> Thank you Forgach, that's the only nice thing you said in the entire
> article.

It was Sarcasm with a capital "S", Cathi.


>>Why don't you just work
>>for an abortion alternative center instead, filling in any gaps where you
>>see them lacking instead.
>
> Once again, Forgach, because I never FOUND any.  And I don't have the
> spare time or the money to get one started.

If you're not willing to get involved and help fix the problem, I don't
see that you're entitled to complain so much.


>>>>> The
>>>>> main difference is that the feminist groups want
>>>>> to see this provided to all women in society, not
>>>>> just those able to meet the requirements of
>>>>> organizations that may or may not be operating
>>>>> in their area.
>>>
>>> Amen.
>
>>Being simply a woman in need does not appear to be too stringent a requirement
>>at all.
>
> I guess that would depend on how the particular organization defines
> "need", and what they have to offer.

Certainly, campus debators offer a good rousing debate.  That's what you
sought, and that's what you got.


>                           -rocker
>                            who has lost any lingering bit of respect she
>                            may have had for Ms. Forgach


I think you've had  a chip on your shoulder for years.
Much as I've wanted to like you.


Suzanne Forgach