From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:37:42 GMT
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <+shys6=@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> Fine, Forgach.  I am glad that you have shown me the depths to which
>> you'll sink, the hatefulness you'll spew to further your own agenda.

>Yeah right.  I post an article simply questioning your interpretation
>of an event years ago, and you get all bent out of shape.

Were you there?  She certainly was.  I think that alone gives her
interpretation more validity than yours.

>> Never once have I given you a single indication to think I was a
>> liar.  

>Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
>what abortion actually IS.

Abortion is the removal of a zygote, embryo, or fetus (z/e/f) from its
mother without subsequent re-implantation in the same or another mother.
This removal may be naturally or artificially induced.  Clear 'nuff?

>> We have exchanged civil email in the past.  Never once have
>> you questioned me on a matter of fact, only opinion.

>But I have always recognized that you had your facts wrong when it comes
>to your denying the fact that abortion, plain and simple, kills children.

No, it kills zygotic, embryonic, or fetal cells.  I do not consider an
eight-celled organism a child in any sense of the word.  For what it's
worth, Suzanne, here is my view:  Babies are born, not made.
 
>> But when I point out an ugly truth to you (that many pro-"life"rs are
>> interested in NOTHING BUT stopping abortions, they couldn't care less
>> what happens to the baby that will be born) instead of facing it,
>> you smugly assert that I am either a liar or a blithering fool.  

>Cathi, I don't KNOW any pro-lifers who are not intersted in helping mothers
>and their babies.   All the ones I know are VERY interested in helping them!

I can think of a couple without trying hard.  Now, if you want a pro-lifer
who isn't willing to subjugate the mother to a parasitic tumor in her
uterus, I'll have to try a bit harder.

>Cathi, I GUARANTEE that Catholic Social Services would have provided you
>help when you needed it.   

Frankly, the Catholic Church would not be the first place I would think
of if I needed advice or help concerning ANYTHING sex-related; the stated
policy is one of the most regressive, primitive things I have heard this
side of...give me time, I'll think of something. (The temptation to say
"the Republican Party" is overwhelming, but I'm sure I'll resist.)

>"Movements mature."   I was being kind to the non-Catholic, but Christian
>anyway, pro-lifers out there who are providing so much needed help now.

I'm sure they're infinitely grateful for your kindness.

>> I couldn't FIND an "abortion alternative agency", Suzanne.  THAT'S WHY
>> I ASKED THE RIGHT-TO-LIFERS IF THEY KNEW OF ONE.  They didn't.  Not
>> one of them.  No one even offered to make a phone call for me to get
>> more information.  So much for their much-vaunted concern for the
>> woman involved.

>I can't explain their negligence, but I can assert that there were pro-lifers
>in that town ready, willing and able to help.   

How?  Were you there?  Your assertion doesn't make the statement true.
(I'm not saying I doubt it; in fact, I'm relatively certain that there
*were*, in fact, several pro-lifers who would have been willing to
help Ms. Cook.  The fact is, however, she found NONE at a large
gathering of them--a gathering, I remind you, she attended and you did
not.)

>But had you called the Right-To-Life office in your town (or state), or 
>Catholic Social Services, I GUARANTEE you would have found the help you 
>needed.

I'm sorry, but neither of these strikes me as the typical abortion
alternative agency.

>>>Hardly the way to seriously seek prenatal aid, Cathi.
 
>> Forgach, you don't have a festering clue what I did to "seriously
>> seek prenatal aid".  

>Only because you didn't tell us.

So you, of course, assume she did nothing.  REAL charitable.

>> I was on the phone every day for months looking for help.  

>So did you call any churches, just as the campus debators suggested?
>(much less CSS?)   Or did you turn your nose up at them simply because
>they were churches?

Probably she did, why?  I consider myself somewhere between agnostic 
and atheistic, and quite frankly would be extremely uncomfortable going
to a church for any sort of help, especially when I doubted that church
could give me the sort of help I needed.

>> Much as you've convinced yourself that pro-choice people hate their 
>> children and desire only pain and suffering for them, the truth is that I 
>> am a better person for having the opportunity to say "I choose this child."  

>No, I'd say your not.   You STILL think it would have been ok to say
>"I choose to abort this child".   

"I choose to abort this child."

[pause]

Funny, nothing seems to have happened.  What's your point?

>Get it through your head Cathi, the [only]
>appropriate statements one makes in life are, "I chose to conceive this
>child" and "I choose not to conceive a child at this time".

Not true.  To borrow from the rest of the net, consent to sex does not
imply consent to a pregnancy.  Someone who is doing everything in her
power to avoid a pregnancy is not consenting to it.

If I drive quickly, with my windows up and doors locked, through a known
high-crime neighborhood, and someone breaks my window and forces me at
risk of my life to take him somewhere, does this mean I consented to
being hijacked by getting in my car?

>THEN you would really be the better person.

Who are you to judge her?

>> Once the choice was made, 

>The choice was made the day you conceived.  I find it bizarre that you
>think you made the choice at some later time.

I find it bizarre that you claim it is wrong to counteract the effects
of an accident which occurred despite all efforts to prevent it.
 
>> My yellow pages didn't HAVE an abortion alternative agency category.
>> Everything was lumped together under "clinics".  

>So did you call and ask them which were which?   I sure as hell would have!

Perhaps she was daunted just a bit at calling every clinic which listed
itself in the phone book.  Perhaps she had other, IHO more important,
things to do with her time.  Perhaps she wasn't thinking as clearly as
you would have under the circumstances; I think a little confusion is
understandable.

>Even NOW that the yellow pages DO have an "abortion alternatives" section,
>you have to call and find out, because (lying) abortion clinics advertise
>under that heading too!  Simply because they give the girls a pamphlet on
>adoption at the same time they're scheduling their abortion!  It's disgusting!

Suzanne, have you ever been to one?  If not, then how can you claim this
for any clinic, and if so, how can you claim it for ALL clinics?

>>>Surely you use yellow pages all the time.   
 
>> You're so cute when you're being snide and condescending.

>Hey you were the one who implied that an assumption that you had a church
>was wrong.   Certainly an assumption that you can use the yellow pages
>is more likely to be right.

The assumption that anyone has a church is not one I think should be
made--it presumes things about a person's lifestyle that shouldn't be
presumed.

>>>I think you went with a chip on your shoulder already.  Looking for a fight.
 
>> You simply don't think, Forgach.  If you see something that doesn't 
>> fit into your well-crafted worldview, you attack with all the compassion
>> and thought of a rabid vampire bat.

>You oughta know rabid vampire bats.

Oh, please give this up.  It's counterproductive.

>>>> I must say, I was a bit stricken by this.  A member of NOW noticed
>>>> me standing by myself, 
 
>>>Obviously Cathi, she'd already eavesdropped on your entire conversation.
 
>> Why Forgach, don't you have the guts to come right out and say you
>> think I'm an idiot?  Or blind?  Or hysterical?

>Because I wanted to still like you.

Translation: I think you're too stupid/unobservant/out-of-control too
notice your surroundings, but I'm not going to say so because I still
want to believe otherwise.

>> These people had no knowledge of my conversation with the pro-"life"rs.
>> As hard as it is for you to stomach, Forgach, they were JUST BEING
>> NICE.  Something you apparently don't have a lot of experience with.

>I'm not the one screaming "lunatic", "liar", etc.   I'm the nicest person
>you'll _ever_ have the opportunity to meet.

Ha.  You're trying to force women to continue pregnancies without even
asking them what they want.  You've just insulted Ms. Cook (unless being
called a "rabid vampire bat" is a term of endearment).  You've repeatedly
shown utter disdain for the concept that there are SOME women who simply
cannot afford a pregnancy at some given time, for monetary or other 
reasons.  This isn't nice at all, IMO.
 
>>>She approached you entirely aware of what had just gone on and decided to
>>>turn the situation to her advantage - recruiting you into activism.
 
>> Well gosh, Forgach, you were THERE?  IN THE ROOM?
 
>> AND YOU DIDN'T HELP ME EITHER????????????????

>You didn't ask me!   I certainly would have!

"If I'd been there, that is.  But even though I wasn't, I'll keep right
on judging your actions as though I were, OK?"
 
>>>She played you like a fiddle, Cathi.
 
>> Your implication that I am an idiot grows no more amusing on subsequent
>> repetition.

>I'm sorry you don't like it, but I still think she manipulated you.

That's your opinion, at least here labelled as such.

>> Again, you were there?  You know this group?  You know for a fact that
>> women in this group had, themselves, had abortions?

>Statistics prove that unless you specifically surround yourself with
>pro-lifers, at least some women in a large group have had abortions.

If you give me a sufficiently large group of pro-lifers, I'm sure I
can find some in that group who have had abortions.

Hypocrites are everywhere.

>> I am no longer pregnant, Forgach.  And you have no credibility with me.  

>That is your problem Cathi.   I offer to point you to help, those debators
>offered to point you to help by suggesting starting with churches, but
>because you didn't like the source, possibly because the providers might be
>(horrors) religious people, you reject it out of hand.   

Well, yes.  I prefer my aid and comfort with a little less sermonizing.

>Cathi, I don't think
>you would have been happy unless one of those debators handed you his wallet
>and credit cards and said, "Your baby's on me, little lady."

Where did you get this idea, Suzanne?  Still thinking women can't fend for
themselves, are we?

>> Even Mr. Overpeck admitted that the group he was associated
>> with (I believe it was "Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Inc." or somesuch)
>> did not directly address the problem of adequate prenatal care.

>I find that a ridiculous assertion, even for Overpeck, about an agency
>that is specifically GEARED for providing prenatal care.

I find YOUR assertion ridiculous; if Mr. Overpeck is associated with
them, clearly he knows more about them than someone who is not.

>> (One gentleman actually said "Well, why won't her husband pay for it?", 
>> a stunning example of cultural myopia.)

>Hey, I am not _about_ to defend some anonymous individual's confusion.
>I am clearly telling you you simply asked the wrong people.

Fine--but she had no way of knowing that at the time.  She merely was
offered help and took it.  Is that your problem--that the help she
finally did take was from a group with whose political views you
disagree?

>> No Forgach, I have never helped any woman kill her baby.  I help give
>> women the choice whether they will HAVE babies.

>The choice is always made before conception.  

I'm sorry, that's simply not possible.  Unless you know conception will
occur, you cannot make a choice about the result of that possible
conception.  Once the conception HAS occurred, you must then choose
whether or not to do something about it.  Conception is not a choice,
but an outside event.

>After conception, she HAS a baby.  This couldn't be a plainer example 
>of that lying-to-self, denial of what abortion is, that I spoke of above.

I disagree.  After conception, she has a potential baby.  After birth,
she has a baby.

>>>Why don't you just work for an abortion alternative center instead, 
>>>filling in any gaps where you see them lacking instead.
 
>> Once again, Forgach, because I never FOUND any.  And I don't have the
>> spare time or the money to get one started.

>If you're not willing to get involved and help fix the problem, I don't
>see that you're entitled to complain so much.

Look--people cannot always do something, and their will may be irrelevant.
I would LOVE to quit school and write best-selling novels; the fact is that
I cannot because I cannot afford to.  Ms. Cook may have the desire to "get
involved and help fix the problem" without having the means.  Any claim
otherwise is unadulterated bullshit, and I care not what anyone says.

The world has limits, Ms. Forgach, and you either respect them or you live
miserably.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion