From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 12:59:38 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

(Jimmy an' me)
>> >>  I'm not making their decision for them.  If after hearing me speak my 
>> >>peace,
>  I think this line right here has become our bone of contention.  Adreinne,
>you seem to have taken it to mean I intend to knock on people's doors or other-
>wise get into their face to expound my viewpoint.

Then what are you talking about?

1.  You are posting to the net -- a very *small* subset of the US population.
2.  You are talking about your beliefs, which is fine by everybody and what
the net is for.
3.  In what context is "after" appropriate above?
	a.  If you are only speaking of your participation in the net,
	then fine.  You've spoken, we've enjoyed it, done deal.
	b.  Nobody has a quarrel with (a.)
	c.  So,                                                 
		1.  if that *isn't* what you are talking about, what is?
		2.  if that *is* what you are talking about, there isn't
		any contention.  Nobody is saying you shouldn't post here.

>[deletion]
>> >But as to the second questions, I think it might be more interesting to ask,
>> >"why do they need to have considered it all?"  Let's say someone decides to
>> >abort and does NOT take your views into account.  Then let's say someone
>> >decides to have kids and does NOT take your views into account.  Why is the
>> >taking-of-your-views-into-account the important issue?
>> >(substituted 'all' for 'your' if you like.  Same thing.)
>> >Begin my rebuttal:
>> >  For someone who loves to say things about "informed choice" this is 
>> >brilliant.  The whole thrust of this argument is that I have no right, or
>> >I am wrong, to attempt to persuade someone to my point of view.  In short,
>> >the thing reads to me like: "If you don't agree with someone, SHUT UP."
>> I don't think so.  And frankly, I'm never too happy when someone who is
>> argued into a corner interprets it as me saying "SHUT UP".  I don't believe
>> (though I may be wrong, having occasionally lost my temper) that in 7 years
>> on the net I've ever told anyone to shut up.
>  Well, for one thing, I'm not in any corner.  And it sure read to me like
>"You have no business talking about this.  Be silent."  But I think this
>whole thing and the paragraphs following it are all the result of a mis-
>understanding.  I think you are actually implying that I haven't a right, or
>maybe it isn't right (a slight difference) to get "in someone's face" if
>you will, and give'em my views on some matter.  Well, actually I don't, nor
>do I think it is right, either.

Jimmy, I think you have a reading comprehension problem.  I have not discussed
what you do or do not have a RIGHT to do except insofar as we all know that
you have a perfect right to say whatever you feel like saying on this subject.
How you can turn *that* into "implying that I haven't a right..." is beyond
me.  How bout you try this:  don't put words in my mouth -- deal with the
ones that I actually sent to the net.  Don't 'read into' them, don't infer
from them, just take 'em how they stand.  That should avoid any "misunder-
standings" in the future.

Now, if you go back to the original paragraph of mine, above, you will note
that I asked you two questions, both beginning with "why".  I don't see 
any language anywhere discussing your rights to speak or lack thereof.  If
you don't consider the questions interesting, hey, you aren't compelled to
answer.  But I'd sincerely advise against presuming someone means something
slimey and nasty on the basis of a couple questions that you may not care to
answer.

>> And, the only real reason I'm discussing this with you is to take the question
>> to the *WHY* stage (after all, I happen to think you are entitled to your
>> personal opinion, and I'm not out to make you "hear my piece" before I'm
>> willing to let you go on your way).
>> 
>> Why abortion, Jim?
>
>  I think I covered this above.  Or are you asking why I don't approve of
>abortion again?  Or why I speak out against it?

Here's another question, Jim.  No discussion of rights or anything else.
Here, specifically, I'm asking why you would feel like you were forsaking
your beliefs by not speaking about abortion (say in the four frameworks you
mentioned, but I deleted for space.  Perfectly good frameworks.) but you would
NOT be forsaking your beliefs by NOT speaking about, say, alcoholism, AIDS,
sexual gratification, the economy, you name it.

I'm still for digging in to why you figure abortion is 'bad'.  Particularly
when speaking of abortion as it relates to someone *else*.

(now, it frankly is astounding to me, that when I'm here soliciting more
input via questions, that you have some how figured that means "SHUT UP".
I have a hunch that this sometimes happens to people who can't answer the
questions to their own satisfaction -- they feel cornered by the question
and get angry that they have been cornered -- and thus you see the rhetorical
florishes about you being cornered, or whatever.  BUT, if you go ahead and
see what I've actually written to you, and note clearly what I have actually
NOT said (i.e., 'shut up' or any form thereof), maybe you can take the time
to explain to us what is really going on in your mind where my solitication
of your opinion, via questions, is interpreted to be roughly the same thing
as forcing silence upon you.)

(about someone commiting suicide: would I try to talk 'em out of it.)
>  Let me be more specific.  Assume said person also has no health problems,
>is not likely to in the forseeable future.  They're just hurting emotionally.
>And let's also say that you just happened to stumble upon them--You were
>walking on a bridge or something...

I think it would be a fascinating conversation, and I'd probably say some
things that could be interpreted a number of different ways, but frankly, it
would be none of my business....  I might even grab 'em by the ankle, but it
would STILL be none of my business....

>> One question, Jim.  Are you planning on persuading women who have decided
>> to bear children?  That's more risky and more expensive, both.
>
>  Persuade them to do what?  To give up for adoption?  To raise it themselves?
>To consider an abortion instead?

To have an abortion, of course.  It's FAR more risky to bear a child.  It's
FAR more expensive to bear a child.  Arguably, we have more than enough
children as it is.

See, I want to know which ax you are grinding, and why.  If abortion is
*safer* than childbearing, I'd expect you to be out there stumping for the
safer alternative, were 'safety' the goal, that is.     

You talked earlier of how magical life was, and I asked you some further
questions about that, but I didn't see much analysis.  Of course, if it's
private, or you don't want to answer, I'll remind you that once again you
are free to speak as you see fit.

(geez, are all these disclaimers necessary?)

>> >  They may well be angry at the implication of being wrong.  I get angry when
>> >someone implies I'm wrong (you implied that I was uncaring, which IMO is 
>> >worse). 
>> 
>> Oh, I get it. You'll chide me for 'implying' about you, but you don't much
>> care if they get pissed at you.  Interesting.
>
>  If we (all of us) say nothing for fear of offending, then we get whatever 
>we deserve, be it bad government, laws, censorship, science, or what have you.

Oh, so what it really is You get to chide me and they get to chide you.  Sounds
'peaceful', don't it?  Sounds like we'd really get somewhere...  But, heck,
if you are only speaking in the context of the 4 frameworks you mentioned, I'll
go back to my original recommendation that you not read so much into what
people post.  Then you don't have to worry about chiding on implications, which
would be a complete waste of time.

>see that really doesn't matter around here.  I can't say something is wrong
>because it implies that someone else is wrong about something important, but
>it's perfectly okay for you to tell me I'm wrong without worrying about said
>implications.

Scuse me, Jim.  Did I *do* that?  Did I actually *do* that?  Where?
I noticed that you've mentioned a couple of times things I 'implied'.  Can
you conceive the thought that *your* interpretation may be wrong?

I'm certainly, absolutely, questioning you, Jim.  I'd suggest that if you
CANNOT read questions without providing in them a level of Jim-generated
disapproval, that you quit reading my posts.  The 'wrongness' you
are concerned about, above, is entirely a figment of your imagination.

>> >I resented being called wrong--but eventually I changed my mind.
>> I think this is really the crux of the matter.  
>> It's about *your* ego, not about *their* decison.
>  I'm not sure how you read this into my statements...well actually I do, it
>stems from that line way back up at the top of this post.  I see an impasse.
>If its egotistical to call a decision you see as wrong, "wrong"--then we're
>all of us here guilty many times over and I don't see the point.

I happen to believe it is egotistical to figure that random people on this
planet are interested in my opinions at all.  I also happen to believe, in
the context of your four frameworks, that folks may or may not be interested,
and in the context of the net specifically, that most folks know how to use
their 'n' key.  So, if *that's* all you are talking about, heck, we're done.

>  I feel abortion is wrong and I say so.  That makes me egotistical?
>  You feel oulawing it is wrong and you say so.  Does that do the same to
>you?

Why?  Why do you feel abortion is wrong, Jim?  Take that paragraph you wrote
about two weeks ago, and insert a why after every sentence.  Then try to answer
them.  That would make more interesting reading.

Adrienne Regard