NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/33714

Text File | 1992-08-27 | 8.1 KB | 171 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: FOCA: And I quote.....
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 26 Aug 1992 12:55:20 -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: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:16:22 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
Lines: 156

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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >
> >> We are not really talking about whether or not women had 'accurate' information.
> >> We are talking about whether or not the comment from one man that millions
> >> of women make uninformed decisions was an accurate reflection of reality.
> >
> >  Wrong.  I did not bring up "inculturated", YOU did.  And now you're
> >hiding from your claim.  What makes your claim any more or less valid?  You
>
> Bullshit.  I entered this string to point out the ludicrousness of Ray's
> analysis.  That you want to go off on a tangent is *your* business, but it
> has zip to do with the subject of this discussion.

  Uh-huh.  And I pointed out the ludicrousness of some of yours.  You still
haven't come to grips with "inculturated" yet.

> >(I say regardless of how I feel about the truth of Roy's statement.  I think
> >he goes too far.)
>
> Well, great.  Funny how it took how many exchanges to wring that from you,
> and in parentheses yet.

  It seemed appropriate to mention it now.  After all, I was attacking your
statements, not his (I can't do all the work around here).

> In one respect, our claims are quite similar, sure.  He offers the example
> of women-he-knows-who-have-aborted.  I offer the example of women-I-know-who-
> have-aborted,
>               AND the general availability of pregnancy and abortion infor-
> mation,
>         AND the knowledge-base of the general population of women who choose
> abortion (you *do* recall the study that shows only 7% of women in the US
> who are NOT using birth control, don't you?),

  I recall it well.  And another study by Elise Jones and Darroch Forrest of
the Guttmacher Institute (in Family Planning Perspectives, January 1992; pg 12)
"suggesting the extent to which failure results from improper and irregular use
rather than from the inherent limitations of the method."  I can post some of
this if there is interest.


> >> Bullshit.  I've answered your question directly.  The information is
> >> freely available in our society.  It isn't hard for any random woman (or man
> >> for that matter) anywhere to get useful information by which to make her
> >> decision.
> >
> >  Mayhap.  But do they?  I say we keep it in one place, under one cover, and
> >simplify the whole shebang.
>
> Heck, Jim, you can't even define what 'it' all is.

  Lessee, risks of pregancy, both mortality and injury, same for abortion,
costs of both, mental trauma for both, an enumeration of the responsibilities
of pregant women who intend to carry to term (and what physical changes to
expect), what adoption is and will mean to the woman and the child should she
choose to carry it, the costs of raising a child, the legal implications of
same...you get the drift.  Why don't you help?  I certainly don't expect you
to completely trust my own judgement.

> Do they *need* to?  WHY?  WHY should a woman seeking an abortion be required
> by law to be MORE informed than a woman seeking to buy a car, or seeking to
> enter a college, or seeking to go to work, or seeking just about anything you
> can imagine?

  Required by law only that it be there.  Not that it MUST be read, which would
be silly in the extreme.  Don't confuse what I think an *individual* should do
as opposed to what the law tells them to do.

> >>  I don't give a damn what information she uses.
> >  Then you are a fool.  It should be complete and accurate.
>
> "should".  Boy, I hope your 'shoulds' help you sleep better at night.
> You can count 'em like sheep, because that's about the extent of their
> usefulness.

  You are still a fool to not care if someone makes a choice based on in-
complete or inaccurate information.  No, worse than a fool, you're bloody
callous towards these these women you're trying to defend.

> >>  I *do* give a
> >> damn that some bunch of jokers figures they can ram some propaganda down
> >> her throat.
> >  Actually, I do too.  I abhor the scare tactics used by both sides.
>
> Glad to hear it.  One wonders why it took 4 exchanges to wring it out of you.

  You're way behind.  I said it when I first posted to this group, and many
times since.  It was the first time "propaganda" came up in this exchange.

> >> For example, you want to INSURE that any random pregnant woman KNOWS that
> >> the fetus is xy or z at thus point in time (whatever it may be you want her
> >> to know).
> >  The sex of the fetus has no bearing on the issue.
>
> Now, this is funny!  Read it again, carefully, Jim.  Maybe I should have
> dashed it x-y-or-z.

  Actually I thought you were being silly.  I was silly back.  All I want to
inusre is that it's easy to find.

> >>  Do you ALSO insist that she know she is 8 times more likely to
> >> die bringing the child to term than having an abortion prior to 12 weeks?
> >> If not, why not?
> >  How short your memory is.  I have posted that very datum (or one close to
> >it) upon a number of occasions.  You never believe me when I say I want all the
> >information, even if it hurts my case.  And despite the fact I've sometimes
> >presented it myself.
>
> Well, we are talking about legally imposed 'education' here, Jim.

  NO WE ARE NOT!  How many times must I say this?  Whether the person reads
it or not cannot be coerced.  Of course since you speak to the world and not
to me, why should I be surprised?  It also makes it easier to make it look
like I support things and hold attitudes which I do not.

>  Go right
> ahead and enlighten us.  What would you *require* by law that a woman be
> forced to know?  And what test methodology would you use?  ("I'm sorry,
> Ms. Person, but you flunked your test, so you can't get an abortion AND
> you can't have a child.    Hmmmmm.........")

  "Forced"  You love that word, despite the fact it doesn't apply to me.  STOP
using it in reference to me.  It is not correct, and only used to brand me with
a label I have disavowed and even abhor.  Or do you make a habit of talking to
world in the second person while others are present?

> >  This "message" is not a "message" at all.  This is a desire to see to it that
> >ALL the relevant data is EASILY available to those who need it.  This is not
> >about compulsing someone to read it, but ensuring that it is THERE.  You
> >would take this for granted.  I do not.
>
>
> Well, bully.  Go ahead and set up the library according to Jim.  I think

  You may but you don't read well.  Any information must be compiled with
a neutral attitude (just the facts, ma'am).  While I like to think I could do
a much better job than most, I wouldn't dare do anything of the sort without
some criticism available.  How about the library according to Adreienne and
Jim?  More likely to be balanced, you think?


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