From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doug on the Sig (formerly: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:02:49 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <ls#vx_@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
> The casusal remark that birth is an event, number 1, serves to trivialize
> the fact that it can often be as long as days, is usually extremely
> painful, and sometimes results in death.  

I never denied any of this. Stop twisting the meaning of my remarks. 

> The word "event" brings up
> mental images of something that "just happens".  

That's your interpretation, not mine. 

> Birth does not "just
> happen" by any stretch of the imagination.  It almost always _requires_
> a great deal of physical activity on the part of the mother to bring
> it about.  

I wasn't referring to the mother's actions before or after birth has 
been initiated. Do you want me to describe the woman's pregnancy in 
one sentence? You're beating a dead horse here.

> In times past when there were few methods available to help,
> women often died in the process when they reached the point where they
> were no longer able to take such actions.

I never denied any of this. I can't describe every possible outcome of
birth in one sentence. You're very hard to please.  

> Secondly, your contention that it is "not an action taken by the 
> mother" is simply wrong.  

I said that it was an event that she cannot initiate (normally). 

> Even if you are referring to the onset of
> labor, as I believe you said in another post, 

OF COURSE I was referring to the onset of labor. And yet STILL you
want to twist my meaning. I can't win here. Why don't you beat me
over the head with a hammer to put me out of my misery. That'd be
infinitely preferable to your continued harassment.  

> there are many actions
> that a pregnant woman can take to bring about the onset of labor.
> Many handbooks on "natural childbirth" will refer to some of these
> methods.  My mother-in-law says she brought on labor in each of her
> threee pregnancies, all born early.  And if you were in fact referring
> to the birth process, I have already covered that.

Fine, I wasn't aware of that fact. I was referring to women
who simply "wait" for the onset of labor. It's not insulting
to say that they do not initiate labor (i.e. birth) by waiting
for it to happen to them. I would guess that most women wait
for the onset of labor. 

>> I do not wish to be grouped together with Mr. Welch or Mr. Gaylord
>> in your sig, nor do I wish to be quoted out of context. Can you  
>> please extend to me the same courtesy that I give to you by not quoting 
>> me out of context? 

> As I recall, the sentence was originally alone in your post, and not
> further explained.  Even though it was a response to something else,
> I have great difficulty in seeing how you claim you were quoted out
> of context.

It's inappropriate to quote somebody without including at least some
of the original post. Is that standard pro-choice tactics? I've seen 
this happen to so many pro-lifers, I'm beginning to wonder whether
these pro-choicers actually enjoy engaging in smear tactics. 

Also, why didn't you respond to the argument in my original post?
Was it easier for you to simply avoid it and post this meaningless
attack?