From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 5 Sep 1992 14:55:25 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:

>You seem to be saying that your abortion is not "over and done with".  
>Presumably, every other time, you think of the "fetus" as a child you 
>might have had, since it is no *less* real than this speculative
>family of yours.

This is *precious*, downright *precious*, Frank.  First you say you want
one honest woman to say her abortion didn't cause her any problem.  Then
you speculate darkly that she _probably_ wouldn't really know if it did or
not, then you decide that any woman who would tell you anything about her
abortion is *FIXATED* on said abortion and, therefore, by definition cannot
consider it 'over and done with'.

Neat little no-win proposition, huh, folks?

Frank, tell me *FOR REAL* what is it you would like to hear from a woman,
WITHOUT second guessing her, and I'll see what I can do for ya.

But, frankly, Frank, (having a name like 'Regard', I've suffered my fair
share of name puns, so I couldn't pass this up) if you just like putting these
little circular connundrums together to amuse yourself, don't bother the
net with it, OK?  We might come to consider you dishonest or something....

>: >only  an automaton would not have at least a nagging 
>: >doubt about having an abortion.
>: I do not have any nagging doubt.  And I am not an automaton.  This crap
>: is merely your prejudice and reflects (rather badly) upon you.
>You may not be an automaton, but you sure sound like one.  Most people
>are not as cock-sure of their *clothes* decisions as you seem to be
>about your *moral* decision.   Are you ever wrong?

Now, I wonder if the defender of clinical psychology is going to pop his
head in here and chide Frank for diagnosing my writing pattern as an
automaton.  I won't hold my breath.

I'm quite sure of my clothing decisions, Frank.  I'm quite sure of my 
moral decisions, Frank.  I have occasionally been wrong in my life, but
I'm also quite sure of the scope of my responsibility, Frank.  I do not
have a single doubt that having an abortion for my third pregnancy was
the 'best' thing for me to do.  None.

You really don't *need* to second guess my response for me.  You will
be wrong.

>Most people have nagging doubts about any important, irrevocable, 
>decision, especially moral ones where the stakes *may be* human 
>life. 

I'm not sure where you come to this conclusion, either.   Most *young*
people, without much practice, probably have more doubts than older
people who have had some experience in making decisions, but a hell of
a whole lot of us are able to get up in the morning, make decisions about
our lives, and get on with it without the crippling doubt you seem to
think is such an important part of life.

Now, I don't happen to believe that the stakes in an abortion are any
different than the stakes in contraception -- or, for that matter, the
stakes in miscarriage and/or a desired pregnancy.  So maybe I've just
excluded yourself from some exclusive club, which would be fine by me,
but I'd continue to question your use of 'most'.  I don't think theres
any indication that "most" people have nagging doubts about important, et
al, decisions.

>If you do *not* have any nagging doubt, why do you take such offence
>at any discussion of that possibility?

Because I don't need other people second guessing me.  I don't want other
people second-guessing my sisters, my mother, my daughters.  I don't think
other people and their nagging doubts and interminable guilt and their
double binds have any business messing up the lives of most other NORMAL
people who aren't so handicapped.  Being the mother of 2 females, and the
sister of 4 and the daughter of 1, I fight for their rights as well as for
my own.

>Why gives you the right to be so *goddam angry* then? 

Diagnosing again?  What gives you the idea that I'm angry?

>if it is, I humbly suggest that you owe it to other women to say so.  If 
>it isn't, lighten up.

Ah -- double standard time:  If it is a big deal, I owe it to other women
to say so, but if it's NOT a big deal, I apparently don't owe them that
information.  Why is that, Frank?

>: >Suppose that someone up there was mighty pissed off about 
>: >all this pro-choicing.  Where would that leave us?
>: Oh come on.  "Suppose".  Suppose that someone up there was mighty
>: pissed off that you stuck your nose into other people's business.  Where
>: would *that* leave you!
>The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
>seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
>"pro-life" argument being wrong.

Well, that kinda depends on the attitude of the 'someone up there', doesn't
it?  Maybe 'someone up there' considers sticking your nose into a lot of
other people's business much more criminal.  I sure do.

And, of course, by speculating on what the 'someone up there' thinks, es-
pecially in the negative (What if they are mighty pissed off?) you are
admitting you haven't a *clue* what someone-up-there thinks.

Be worried.  Be very worried.

>Why does society ever intervene in anything?  Why don't we leave each 
>and every decision to the people involved?  

Best suggestion I've heard all week, then you go and spoil it with the:

>Often, it's because the 
>weak need protection from the strong.

That is, of course, where the notion of civil rights came from:  The same
set of guidelines that tell us that the business of homosexuals is not any
of our business.  That the business of Jews is not any of our business.
That the business of a pregnant woman is not any of our business.  Glad to
see you've got it figured out.

>: ...  As former
>: Surgeon General C. Everett Koop testified before Congress regarding
>: his review of research on spychological effects of abortion, such
>: responses can be overwhelming to a given individual, BUT the development
>: of significant psychological problems related to abortion is "miniscule
>: from a public health perspective".  (emphasis mine.)          ^^^^^^^^^

>The highly regarded science of psychology meets the highly regarded science 
>of statistics.   This is *very* convincing.


Hmm.  Well, folks of the net, what would you recommend as a useful approach
here.  First he wanted the opinion of one honest woman, and three were so
kind as to volunteer, from which he decided we must be fixated upon our
histories.  Second, he rejects the findings of the former Surgeon General,
who, under considerable pressure, didn't buckle to politics, but upheld
is high level of integrity, and is subsequently summarily dismissed by
Frank, entirely.

>Call me old-fashioned, but *I* can't help thinking that studies
>based on psychology and statistics can't help but be complete bullshit.  

But you *do* subscribe, where it is convenient for you to do so, to the
notion (the PSYCHOLOGICAL notion) that denial is at work in the minds of
women who will respond to you by saying, "I had no trouble with my abortion,
thank you very much."

Let us know which side of your mouth you are going to be talking out of 
in the next installment.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion