From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 11:49:10 GMT

Ahem, we seem to talking at cross-purposes....

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: In article <1992Sep4.141259.440@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
: This is *precious*, downright *precious*, Frank.  First you say you want
: one honest woman to say her abortion didn't cause her any problem.  Then

Yep.  

: you speculate darkly that she _probably_ wouldn't really know if it did or
: not, 

I hope that I did not write "probable".  I thought I wrote "possible".  I 
think it is possible, in an *individual* case, that a person would deny
their conscience.  I gave my reasons for that in other posts.  I think
you have to acknowledge this possibility if you want to make this 
*anti*"abortion-is-always-murder" case honestly.  

I think that if you have a large number of people telling you
that their conscience is fine, then it's highly *improbable* that
*all* of them are denying their conscience in some way.   Of
course, this fact alone does not show that "abortion-is-never-murder"
and you have to acknowledge that too.

: then you decide that any woman who would tell you anything about her
: abortion is *FIXATED* on said abortion and, therefore, by definition cannot
: consider it 'over and done with'.

"not over and done with"  != immoral

"over and done with" == forgotten == incredible == !convincing 

: Ah -- double standard time:  If it is a big deal, I owe it to other women
: to say so, but if it's NOT a big deal, I apparently don't owe them that
: information.  Why is that, Frank?

If jumping to conclusions and talking at cross-purposes were 
olympic events, no-one could take those medals from you Adrienne :-)   

What I said was "if not's a big deal, lighten up", or words to
that effect.   By all means say it's "over and done with", or
whatever words you care to choose yourself, but I would suggest
saying it calmly.  It would sound (read?) more convincing if you 
said it that way.

: >The consequences of the so-called "pro-choice" argument being wrong 
: >seem rather more damaging than the consequences of the so called
: >"pro-life" argument being wrong.
: 
: Well, that kinda depends on the attitude of the 'someone up there', doesn't
: it?  Maybe 'someone up there' considers sticking your nose into a lot of
: other people's business much more criminal.  I sure do.

More criminal than what? 

: 
: And, of course, by speculating on what the 'someone up there' thinks, es-
: pecially in the negative (What if they are mighty pissed off?) you are
: admitting you haven't a *clue* what someone-up-there thinks.
: 
: Be worried.  Be very worried.

I'm terrified.   If the "pro-choicer"s are wrong, I count more dead
people than if the other lot are wrong.  But the problem doesn't arise,
since *neither* side ever, ever, gets it wrong.

: >Why does society ever intervene in anything?  Why don't we leave each 
: >and every decision to the people involved?  
: 
: Best suggestion I've heard all week, then you go and spoil it with the:
: 
: >Often, it's because the 
: >weak need protection from the strong.
: 
: That is, of course, where the notion of civil rights came from:  The same
: set of guidelines that tell us that the business of homosexuals is not any
: of our business.  That the business of Jews is not any of our business.
: That the business of a pregnant woman is not any of our business.  Glad to
: see you've got it figured out.

I'm curious.  If a man breaks into your daughters apartment and threatens 
your daughters life - do you want society to intervene or not (assume that
there is something they can do)?   According to you, it's between him and 
her.  It's certainly none of anybody elses business, is it?  

: Hmm.  Well, folks of the net, what would you recommend as a useful approach
: here.  First he wanted the opinion of one honest woman, and three were so
: kind as to volunteer, from which he decided we must be fixated upon our
: histories.  

No, *you* decided that I decided that.  One woman didn't sound at
all fixated, mainly because she didn't jump to conclusions and rant
at me.

: Second, he rejects the findings of the former Surgeon General,
: who, under considerable pressure, didn't buckle to politics, but upheld
: is high level of integrity, and is subsequently summarily dismissed by
: Frank, entirely.

This is the guy who said there was no public health problem, is it?.  
That was an answer to a different question!   I see no reason
why conscience would ever become a public health problem.  Some
people who have never troubled an "analyst" have bawled for a priest 
on their death bed, but I doubt that even this happens on a large
enough scale to challenge the former S.G's formidable integrity :-).

Plus I have to admit that I have an inbuilt negative reaction to
the use of the word "congress" in any sentence concerning itself
with issues of conscience :-)

: >Call me old-fashioned, but *I* can't help thinking that studies
: >based on psychology and statistics can't help but be complete bullshit.  
: 
: But you *do* subscribe, where it is convenient for you to do so, to the
: notion (the PSYCHOLOGICAL notion) that denial is at work in the minds of
: women who will respond to you by saying, "I had no trouble with my abortion,
: thank you very much."

I'm not saying anything for "convenience".  I'm simply acknowledging the 
other side of the argument, something which is so rare in this
group apparently, that your pigeonholing mechanism (which works
on a binary pro/anti principle) has failed to operate correctly.
Do you have a cute slogan or label for "trying to be open minded" - 
seems unlikely, when would you get to use it?

A minor point, but is conscience really "psychological", or is 
"psychological" just the label which atheists and agnostics give 
to things which other people explain with religion.  Seems to be 
blind faith either way, doesn't it?

: Let us know which side of your mouth you are going to be talking out of 
: in the next installment.

And do let me know which of your ears it will enter, and which it will leave:-)

: 
: Adrienne Regard
: 
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA