From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 1992 09:27:30 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug26.134412.1919@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <17ef7iINNhte@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>> >  Which world do YOU live in?  You cannot have it both ways; either most of our
>> >young people know whats going on or they don't.  Quit hopping around.
>> 
>> Oh, come on, Jimmy.  How many young men say, age 16 do you know who know as
>> much about pregnancy as young women, say age 16?
>> 
>> Do you *really* think there ISN'T an information differential by sex, on the
>> subject of pregnancy?
>
>  But that's not what we were talking about, was it?  It was how women were
>"inculturated" with accurate information on pregnancy.  ARE they?  One second
>you said they were, the next you seem to feel they weren't.  Which is it?
>You're disappointing me.

Boy, I'm *bummed* to hear that, really *bummed*.

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.

And extrapolating from that into the question of how 'informed' need they
be, and how that information will or will not be disseminated (and with what
kind of *enforcement*).

The original claim was that women had some kind of hysterical reaction that
clouded their judgment about their pregnancy.  I think that statement is a     
little 'wrong'.

Did you agree with the original statement?

>> >  So selective reading of information is indeed okay.  Not the whole story,
>> >not even an accurate story, just whatever they feel like.  Defending this
>> >sort of intellectual dishonesty in unbecoming of you.
>> Let me also ask this, while I'm asking questions.  How many pro-lifers are
>> pushing for 'full disclosure' about carrying to term?
>  Haven't the foggiest.  And you are not answering my implied question.

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.  I don't give a damn what information she uses.  I *do* give a 
damn that some bunch of jokers figures they can ram some propaganda down
her throat.

Whereas, you speak of the 'whole story' the 'accurate story', and yet haven't
the foggiest about what full disclosure would be included wrt pregnancy
itself.  There's consistency.

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).  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?

>  Ahem.  As a basically pro-lifer (though there are those who would disagree
>with that label) I have ALWAYS insisted on FULL and COMPLETE information, good,
>bad, and indifferent.

Ok, fair enough.  Now, do you think this position is the same as your
basic pro-life compatriots who are pushing for 'full disclosure'(WRT abortion
only)?

>Come on Adreinne, is it okay for people to
>selectively look at the data when making a major choice?

Absolutely.

Come on, Jim, grow up.  Everybody ALWAYS looks selectively at data.  NOONE
has perfect information.  And people use their biases to make choices ALL
THE TIME.  You just pop out of the egg yesterday or something?

>  Full and complete is just what it says.  The good, the bad, and the ugly.  
>Risks and all.  For pregnancy, abortion, and the traffic next Tuesday.  So
>tell me, do you support providing full and complete information, or just what
>the person involved wants to see/hear?


Full and complete information is available, insofar as we can provide it
(which we can't.  Risk is always unknown in specific situtations, medicine
is changing all the time, and there are too many factors to control with
any certainty.)  I'd certainly oppose anyone's efforts to *hide* information.
but we don't have this problem in this country.  I likewise will oppose
any effort to FORCE information on other people, because of the abuses
represented by such an imposition.

You have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we need to provide you
with an audience.  If your message isn't compelling, you have to work on
the message, not the compulsion.

Adrienne Regard
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA