From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 08:36:43 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul13.133410.8067@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>Editor's note:  Adrienne is gone for the week,

I'm baaack.

>Adrienne:
>Jim...
>>  I'm not making their decision for them.  If after hearing me speak my peace,
>>they choose to otherwise than I have proposed, there is little I can do to
>>stop them in my own good conscience.  I may not like it, but I will not condemn
>>after the fact.
>Adreinne...
>But you do, don't you, see how your desire to persuade is an implicit 
>denial that they have already considered their opinion? 
>But you got miffed when I "implied" you would not be sympathetic.  Don't
>you think people hearing you speak your peace are going to be miffed that
>you are implying...?
>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.

I *have* pointed out that most folks on this planet don't give a damn what
your opinion is, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?  A little too
defensive, don't you think?

See, if you look closely, and objectively, at it, you will notice that
YOU got miffed when I implied that you weren't sympathetic.  I'm merely
pointing out that arguing with someone who had made a decision *you* don't
like is possibly going to be interpreted in PRECISELY THE SAME WAY YOU 
interpreted what I said -- i.e., if *you* got miffed, you might consider
the idea that *they* are going to get miffed.

The next step is to consider *WHY*.  Why would anybody get miffed that you
would want to 'say your piece' to them before they go about their business.
Can you think of any reasons?  I can.  

I for one don't invite a whole lot of strangers in to opine upon my life.
Now, I can't stop people from doing that, sure.  But I'm likely to walk
right over them rather than politely listening to arguments I've presumably
heard before......

I'm not the only person on this planet who may feel so.

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).

You probably have strong feelings about a lot of subjects.  I'd bet if you
thought about it, you had strong feelings about the war with Iraq. About
capital punishment, about ozone depletion, about the US economy.  I'd be
surprised if you spent a lot of your time outside voting booths in November
PERSONALLY explaining you PERSONAL position to any voter you could buttonhole
before they voted.  

I'll bet you have strong personal feelings about marriage, about homosexuality,
about corporal punishment.  But do you go knocking on people's doors in order
to "speak your piece" to them?

Why abortion, Jim?


>  Would you attempt to stop someone from committing suicide?  Say they have no

Sort of depends.  Do I *know* this person?  Am I in a job where such is my
avowed intent (assuming, of course, that the suicide candidate called *me*
for help, and I'm not just polling around for the hell of it...)

Or, is this person, like the two women Dr. Kavorkian assisted, people who have
considered their options and decided, as sensible and rational people, that
they didn't want to live any more?

I really think it would be the height of arrogance for me to tell the latter
two women that they had to hear _me_ speak _my_ piece.  How egotistical.

>  You seem to assume that I would only attempt to convince someone who has
>already decided on an abortion--do you mean I should let them alone, and its 
>okay to persuade others?  Just the undecided?  Or should I not try to persuade 
>anybody?

One question, Jim.  Are you planning on persuading women who have decided
to bear children?  That's more risky and more expensive, both.

What it gets down to is this:  What's so damned important about *your*
opinion, Jim?  Each and every single person out there who is making a decision
about their life _has_ an opinion.  THEIR opinion.

What's so special about yours?

>  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.

>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 would be violating my beliefs if I didn't try to do *something*.  I try to 
>put my money where my mouth is.  Sometimes I do that better than other times...

1.  What 'belief' is that?  And why are you not violating that belief when
you choose _not_ to talk to each and every single person you have contact
with about alcoholism?

2.  I don't think you are talking about money, Jim.

>  And that last paragraph.  If you say someone has a right to choose, then
>that would imply there is a choice, which implies that there are different
>viewpoints, which implies that proponents of those points have a right to
>air them. 

Everybody here has the right to speak freely.  *YOU* are the one who has
turned your losing argument into "shut up", not me.

>  You argue for choice, Adreinne.  I'm not trying to take it away.  But I have
>a right to argue for and support the choice I prefer.  So do you.  The rest of
>the world has a right to agree or disagree with both of us.

I don't believe this is a point of contention between us, Jim.  You do the
net a disservice by hiking off in this fabricated direction.

I haven't said, and won't in the context of this discussion, "SHUT UP" to
anybody.  I've said, repeatedly, "WHY".  WHY is it so important to you
on this ONE ISSUE to have people listen to you?  WHY is it likely to be
met with resistance?

Because, Jim, you have an emotional response to this issue, and because, 
Jim, people are perfectly capable of running their lives without you.

If I were you, I'd be trying to figure out a realistic approach: that after
actually understanding the basis of the emotional response.  It isn't likely
that strangers who have decided on abortion, in our embattled culture, are
going to be polite about listening to you.

Adrienne Regard