From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:16:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <16h3sfINNohp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
> In article@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <16e9bfINNijc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
> >> In article HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >> >My real issue was with the words "ruin
> >> >a person's life".  This implies that pregnancy will almost certainly 
> >> >"ruin" your life physically, emotionally and financially.  
> >>[deletion]
> >> >  I was merely bringing Gordon's statement to heel.  Unwanted (or even 
> >> >wanted,for that matter) pregnancies CAN do all these things--with the 
> >> >effect of "ruin."  But it is NOT a certainty.  Or highly likley.
> >> 
> >> How can you tell?
> >
> >  How can you?  Got any hard data?  I've been looking (obviously in the wrong
> >places) to no avail.  And you've deleted a lot--including my questions.
> 
> Hmmm.  Do I have to tell?  I don't think there's a problem with someones
> interpretation of their likelihood of ruin, so I'm not trying to talk them
> out of anything.  Do I need to justify minding my own business?

  I think you do.  Since Gordon made the first asserttion, I'd like to see
it backed up.

And:
  Kinda depends on just what effects "minding your own business" will have.

[deletions] 
> So, I've
> read on the subject, Jim, but I don't have recent references for you because
> it isn't a currently important topic in my life today.

  Unfortunate, but at least you're honest.

> >> How can you, Jimmy, who have never sat through an unwanted pregnancy, tell
> >> what is 'highly likely' with any certainty?  If I had to figure who would have
> >> a better picture about this, you or a pregnant woman, I'd vote for the
> >> pregnant woman.
> >
> >  Gordon Storga is not a pregnant woman.  I note you had no trouble with his
> >assertion, which, by the above logic, is just as flawed as mine.  Shall we
> >trot out the standard double-standard arguments for both sides at this point?
> 
> Gordon Storga is also a long-time poster to talk.abortion, and was around
> during the period that statistics and information about the costs of pregnancy
> were posted.  Just because *you* haven't seen them doesn't mean that others
> haven't.

  But if I am to believe it, I *must* see it, or hear it from someone I trust.
I don't know either one of you, and if I were just to throw out some numbers
wouldn't *you* want the source?

  "Well, he said it.  He must know."  Uh-huh.  And everything you read is true.
Yup.  This is a VERY dissappointing defense.  Try again.
 
> I don't consider it a 'double standard' to point out where one person's lack
> of information is not necessarily binding upon another person.

  So basically its okay to make an assertion as long as they agree with YOU.
 
> However, let me also point out that we are talking about "likely" "ruin",
> weren't we?  Let me also point out that Gordon spoke of 'ruin' (which is
> a subjective judgement) while you brought up 'likelihood' (which is a
> statistical measure).  These two things are not the same.
> 
> The question of likeliness may be answered by some review of
> pregnancy experiences, BUT the question of 'ruin' is a value judgement and
> is relative to the individual.  Gordon is willing to let individual women
> determine the likelihood of 'ruin', and so am I.  You would talk them out
> of it, based on your notion of likelihood.

  For someone who was so ticked at my inferring things from your words, you 
seem quite content to do it to me.  How many times, here on the net, and in 
e-mail, have I said "I will present all the facts I've got, (along with any
attempts at persuasion) even if they are damaging to my case."?  Have you 
forgotten these?  For all your piousness about "letting the woman choose"
you forget a crucial fact:  She must know what she's choosing.  She has to
find out from someone, somewhere, be that the PP counselor, her friends, or
you or I.  Hell and blood! Does talking to me preclude talking to someone else?

"Ruin."  What does it mean?  You let Gordon get away with the word, meaning
only Gordon knows what,  but hey, that's okay.  They'll know what he meant.
Yeah, right.  I dunno about you, but "ruin" has some very negative connotations
to me, and to everybody I know.

 "Pregnancy can ruin your life."  A true statement, but it begs the question:
How often?  Pregnancy can kill you, too.  Another tru statement, but here at
least we know what the numbers are, and they're pretty small, though higher
than for abortion.  As you see, an assertion of this nature, without something
to back it, is useless as a guide to action.

  I base my assertion on the simple observation that every mother I've ever
met does not seem to have had her life "ruined"--physically, emotionally, or
otherwise.  Including my single cousin.  Its anecodotal, I admit--but I see it
all the time everyday.  Now maybe there's a social worker out there who can 
give us the whole story if I can't find it.  And I'll be happy to shake my
head and say: "You were right.  I was wrong."

  Would you do the same if the reverse were true?

>  Who is it who needs to do research
> here?

  I am trying, periodically.  I haven't had the chance since this topic
came up again.
 
> From what I've read on the subject, I believe:
> It is quite likely that women will suffer physical, emotional, psychological
> and economic changes as the result of a pregnancy.
> 
> Whether an individual woman sees these changes as 'ruin' will depend upon
> the woman.  The number of incidences is hardly as important as the individual
> interpretation.   Since your interpretation of 'ruin' isn't being tested in
> an abortion, why is your interpretation of 'likelihood of ruin' important?

  If Gordon had said: "Pregnant women go thorugh many changes in carrying a
fetus to term, many of which are troublesome, and some can even cause severe
problems (including death) in some cases", I wouldn't have been able to say 
much.

  But he didn't.  He said "ruin".  Like most people, I look upon the word ruin 
as implying serious, long-term (maybe permenant) harm.  When Gordon says,
"this could ruin your life" it is in fact VERY important what his interp-
relation is to anybody who might want to make some sort of decision based
on his words.  Don't you agree?

> I'm surprised you are having such a hard time finding this data.  Try a
> phone call to your doctor.  Ask how much he charges for pre-natal care.
> Ask what physical changes a pregnant woman goes through when bearing a
> child to term.  Ask what other affects pregnancy and birth may have on the
> emotional and psychological well being of a woman.  
> 
> When I was pregnant, I went to the library and carried home about 9 books
> on the subject, most of which had some mention of the costs to the woman.
> Do you live near a library?
> Adrienne Regard

  I have made several trips to the university library.  Information on normal
changes is quite handy.  Data on long-term "ruinous" effects has been hiding
from me.

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