From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:55:20 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug26.180056.16768@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <17gbdiINNtc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>
>> 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 

Bullshit.  I entered this string to point out the ludicrousness of Ray's
analysis.  That you want to go off on a tangent is *your* business, but it
has zip to do with the subject of this discussion.

>(I say regardless of how I feel about the truth of Roy's statement.  I think
>he goes too far.)

Well, great.  Funny how it took how many exchanges to wring that from you,
and in parentheses yet.  

Ray's premise is that women who choose abortion are stupid or blind.  My
premise is that anybody who believes women who choose abortion are stupid or
blind, as a class, is stupid or blind.

In one respect, our claims are quite similar, sure.  He offers the example
of women-he-knows-who-have-aborted.  I offer the example of women-I-know-who-
have-aborted, 
              AND the general availability of pregnancy and abortion infor-
mation,
        AND the knowledge-base of the general population of women who choose
abortion (you *do* recall the study that shows only 7% of women in the US
who are NOT using birth control, don't you?),
                                              AND the standards of testing and
practice all medical doctors are held to, be they abortionists or plastic     
surgeons.
          IN addition to my usual rhetoric on the subject.
        
>> 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.

Heck, Jim, you can't even define what 'it' all is.

Do they *need* to?  WHY?  WHY should a woman seeking an abortion be required
by law to be MORE informed than a woman seeking to buy a car, or seeking to
enter a college, or seeking to go to work, or seeking just about anything you
can imagine?

I insert the words, "by law" because THAT's what your talking about, in case
you didn't get it.  That's what title X is about.  That's what the 'informed 
consent' bills are about.  Now if you, Jim, as usual, aren't talking 
about enforcing something by law, then let me point out that the information
IS available in 'one place', and that's the library, enforced by the Dewey
Decimal system!  (I'm dating myself.  I don't know the name of the new system,
but I wanted to go for the joke.....)

>>  I don't give a damn what information she uses.
>  Then you are a fool.  It should be complete and accurate.

"should".  Boy, I hope your 'shoulds' help you sleep better at night.
You can count 'em like sheep, because that's about the extent of their
usefulness.

>>  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.

Glad to hear it.  One wonders why it took 4 exchanges to wring it out of you.

>> 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.

Now, this is funny!  Read it again, carefully, Jim.  Maybe I should have
dashed it x-y-or-z.

>>  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.

Well, we are talking about legally imposed 'education' here, Jim.  Go right
ahead and enlighten us.  What would you *require* by law that a woman be
forced to know?  And what test methodology would you use?  ("I'm sorry,
Ms. Person, but you flunked your test, so you can't get an abortion AND
you can't have a child.    Hmmmmm.........")

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

No, but I'm tempted to call you a fool simply for retaliation (-:.  WHERE 
is the information "hidden", Jim?  By whom, and by what method?
And why do so many people find out so much if it is indeed hidden?

>  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.


Well, bully.  Go ahead and set up the library according to Jim.  I think
that's great.  And the women who use the library according to Jim will
probably appreciate it.  And the women who don't will probably not.  But
I someone don't think that makes them the mindless automatons that Ray
would have us believe they are.

Now, aren't we silly to be arguing about this?  I think so.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion