From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:20:05 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <17duanINNcvl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.155443.23622@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>>In <17dgvmINN82m@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

>Not in a vacuum, no, it doesn't.  In the *real* *world*, however, where a
>puritanical society has dodged simple information to young teens, and 
>where prejudice and misinformation about 'the opposite sex' abounds, I
>think it does.

This is vintage Planned Parenthood propaganda, designed to garner public
support for school-based sex clinics which haven't made a dime's bit
of difference in pregnancy rates.

>Where do you live?  In the vacuum, or the real world?

The latter, and NOT the make-believe world of Planned Parenthood.

> In the *real* *world*, however, where 
>girls are the 'automatic' choice of babysitter,

Here, for once, I think Adrienne is right.  For what it's worth: when I
was 16 years old 
(thirty years ago: birthyear '46, birth-age 46, that's me!) 
I baby sat once for a kid who did not want a girl baby-sitter,
because he did not want to be thought of as being baby-sat, and
I agreed to do it for forty (40) cents an hour because I had no idea
what the going rate was, and because that's what I was offered, and 
because I was told the parents would be back by 11 PM.  I was even
conscientious about not touching the refrigerator, and they left no
snacks out for me.  The parents arrived somewhere between 1 and 2 AM.
If enough young men get rooked the way I was, it's no wonder...

> where parents and society
>regularly speak of 'getting in trouble' with their female children and 
>stupidly ignore discussing it with their male children,

More vintage Planned Parenthood Propaganda.  I wonder how long ago this
really was an accurate reflection of our society.

>HOWEVER, it's true that female children are enculturated with the notions that
>sex is bad, motherhood is wonderful, and bearing a child is a duty to be 
>borne proudly, by and large.  The messages have altered 
>somewhat over the years,
>but they remain in force.

More vintage PPP.

>  I state quite clearly that any
>pregnant woman *can* find out what she needs to know, and is the only one
>in a position to decide how much SHE needs to know and is the only one in
>a position to determine how high the COST is to her.

I've already addressed this in an earlier follow-up today, and there'll be
more immediately below:

>These women have been determined by one man on this net to be uninformed,
>as "inflating"  the trauma,

Speak for yourself, Adrienne.  The end of one exchange between us went
about like this (Not exact quotes, except for the last.)

|||- Ms. Birmingham
||- Dr. Nyikos
|- Ms. Regard

||| You cannot fit a baby's head through a birth canal without some
||| tearing.

|| I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the first.

|  You're wrong.

I'm right.  Our second and third children came out with no tearing
whatsoever.  And one of my wife's sisters had only one child, and he
came out with no tearing whatsoever.

I can easily see where Adrienne could have been disinformed.  Before
I double-checked with my wife on this, I looked through Derek
Llewellyn-Jones' multimillion copy bestseller _Everywoman_, which 
I already knew to be loaded with pro-abortion propaganda in the 
parts where abortion is dealt with, and it is full of dark hints that
an episiotomy will probably be the best way to go, and nowhere could
I see any acknowledgement of the fact that at least a few women in the
long history of our world have actually given childbirth without tearing.

Now I see that this book, which has probably been mindlessly followed
by goodness knows how many authors who did not bother even to name their
source, is the most cunning piece of pro-abortion propaganda I have yet
come across. 

It also has some heterophobe comments in the section on lesbianism.

>>  They (the women) may well have better knowledge.  But I find Adreinne's 
>>faith in that understanding surprisingly naive.  As if to say, "well, they 
>>HAVE to find out, so they will."

>I say that the women who are faced with the choice *MAKE* a choice, and it
>is a choice based upon the knowledge that THEY CARE to obtain and it is
>a choice they make via an examination that is as thorough as THEY CARE for
>it to be.  

Useful definition:

EQUIVOCATION: the art of using an expression with two or more different 
meanings so that you cannot be pinned down on any one of them.  
Example:  THEY CARE:   Could mean they have it, could mean they want to 
have it, could mean they think they have it but they don't.

>>  Do they?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Is it important that they do? I know I think so.
>>Sometimes I wonder about Adreinne.

So do I.

>I don't think it is important that THEY make a decision based upon YOUR 
>criteria, damned straight.  Or the original poster's, either, whose name
>I've lost in deletions.

Now Adrienne's own criteria, that's a whole other topic.

>And I think it's damned strange that you figure I'm being patronizing in
>acknowledging that people who have to make decisions may become informed
>upon those decisions, but it apparently isn't patronizing for some joe
>blow to decide 1.5 million women per year have their heads up their asses.

This kind of waffling (...acknowledging that ... may become informed)
is vintage Justice Blackmun.  Look for a post, 

REWRITING HISTORY: Adulterated versions of RvW: FAQ, recent post,...

later on today.

Peter Nyikos