From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 14 Aug 1992 18:16:26 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug14.211600.26270@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <16h3sfINNohp@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

Jim says two things.  1:
>> >> >  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.

2:
>  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?

Hmm.  First you were 'bringing Gordon's statement to heel" *and* making a
statement yourself that *you* left unsupported.  Then you say you don't 
really know.

Now, if Gordon DOES know, but doesn't give you sources you can use, then
you CAN say, "Gordon didn't give me useful sources", but it isn't necessarily
true to say "Gordon doesn't know."

Particularly when *you* don't know, yourself, and have just made an un-
supported claim of your own.

I don't expect, and I doubt that Gordon expects, you to simply roll over
and die because he made an unsupported claim.  HOWEVER, I do think it's
a little silly of you to demand support, then make your OWN unsupported
claim.  Spare us all, please!

Or, better yet, do your own research and *inform* us, Jim.  If you
*really*
          *truly*
                   *want*
                           to be persuasive to people who are obviously
considering the topic of abortion, just *think* how persuasive it would
be for you to actually FIND OUT what it is you claim we all need to know!


>  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? 

Forgotten that you said this, or forgotten that you yourself JUST MADE AN
UNSUPPORTED contention after taking Gordon to task for making an unsupported
contention?

>Hell and blood! Does talking to me preclude talking to someone else?

One *sincerely* hopes not (-:.

>"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.

To me, too.  But I don't bother defining it for other people. Nor does Gordon.
He points out that 'ruin' may very well be what the woman suffering an un-
wanted pregnancy is facing.  But I very much doubt (please correct me if I'm
wrong, Gordon) that he's going to define 'ruin' FOR her, then talk her into
some action based on HIS INTERPRETATION.
 
> "Pregnancy can ruin your life."  A true statement, but it begs the question:
>How often?

"How often" is hardly the only question gone begging.

>  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.

Well, I've seen a hell of a lot of women who have aborted fetuses, and they
are quite happy, too, thanks.

>  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.

By which we gather that 'normal' changes don't ever fit the definition of
'ruinous' to you so you don't *bother* sharing that information.

And women are supposed to talk to you when you filter the facts through
your definition of 'ruin'?  I don't think so.

Why don't you share the panorama of 'normal' changes with us all so that
we can decide for ourselves what is 'ruinous' or not?  Or should we just
take *your* word for it?

Adrienne Regard