From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:00:56 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <17gbdiINNtc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> 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*.

  You should be.  Unless, you don't care about your credibility.

> 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.

  Wrong.  I did not bring up "inculturated", YOU did.  And now you're
hiding from your claim.  What makes your claim any more or less valid?  You 
have presented nothing beyond some self-contradictory statements with nothing
to back them up.  What makes his claim any less valid than that of one woman?
(I say regardless of how I feel about the truth of Roy's statement.  I think
he goes too far.)

> 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?

  I will say that it is possible.  I cannot comment upon how accurate it is.
But I have seen nothing from you that might serve as good evidence otherwise.
 
> >> >  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.

  Mayhap.  But do they?  I say we keep it in one place, under one cover, and
simplify the whole shebang.

>  I don't give a damn what information she uses.

  Then you are a fool.  It should be complete and accurate.

>  I *do* give a 
> damn that some bunch of jokers figures they can ram some propaganda down
> her throat.

  Actually, I do too.  I abhor the scare tactics used by both sides.

> 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.

  I have certain beliefs.  Among them is not lying to someone about something
this important, or leaving out unpleasant details I know about.  
 
> 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).

  The sex of the fetus has no bearing on the issue.

>  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?

  How short your memory is.  I have posted that very datum (or one close to
it) upon a number of occasions.  You never believe me when I say I want all the
information, even if it hurts my case.  And despite the fact I've sometimes
presented it myself.
 
> >  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)?

  Don't be silly.  It is not.  I've already said that.  Twice in the last post
alone.  I would think you'd be happy with my desires wrt full disclosure.

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

  Then you are a fool.

> 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?

  Not the same thing.  No one can have perfect information.  True.  But there
is also looking only for what you want to see, isn't there?  You have observed
that people use these biases and such to make decisions.  That it happens
does not make it all okey-dokey.  I do not expect that we can ever stop it.
But we should make it harder for people to hide from the facts, whatever they
may be.

> >  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.)

  Perfect information problem.  And a dodge.  There's *perfect* info, and
*very good* info.  Your "8 times more likely to die" is not perfect info,
(incomplete too) but it serves the discussion well enough, don't you think?

>  I'd certainly oppose anyone's efforts to *hide* information.
> but we don't have this problem in this country.

  *I'm* naive?

>  I likewise will oppose
> any effort to FORCE information on other people, because of the abuses
> represented by such an imposition.

  Very good.  We agree.

> 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

  This "message" is not a "message" at all.  This is a desire to see to it that
ALL the relevant data is EASILY available to those who need it.  This is not
about compulsing someone to read it, but ensuring that it is THERE.  You
would take this for granted.  I do not.

  I already know how to get an audience.  Remember the four frameworks?