From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Convenience: what do it mean?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:02:09 GMT

nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>>>>> OK, it is a human that you want to kill because it is not convenient.

(Please note - Petey deleted the above statement to make it appear as though
I was bringing up the issue of convenience.)

>>>> Is aborting a pregnancy because one does not have the resources to care
>>>> for another child a matter of convenience? 

>>> Yes, in the USA, where there is a serious shortage of infants (as opposed
>>> to older kids who have been shuttled in and out of foster care) up for 
>>> adoption.

> [claim not mentioning adoption deleted]

You mean this one, Petey?

>> 1. I would have to dispute that, because for a working woman who has no
>>    health insurance and already has enough mouths to feed, terminating a
>>    new pregnancy is not a matter of convenience.  I would further suggest
>>    that a woman facing such circumstances has a duty to her already 
>>    existing children not to strain the family's resources by having
>>    another child.

You can delete this again if no response comes to mind, Petey.

>> 2. It has been repeatedly shown that the people on waiting lists to adopt
>>    are looking for healthy, white babies.

> This is an instance of what I call "the Linda Birmingham Phantom 
> Universal".  "the people," without qualifying aduectives.

"On Waiting Lists to Adopt" certainly is a qualifying adjective, or rather,
adjective phrase.  And you have the chutzpah to tell Muriel Nelson how she
should write her articles.

>> There are plenty of babies of color and/or with disabilities waiting
>> to be adopted.

> Well, in Minnesota, I am told, the "people of color" were successful in
> making it illegal for whites to adopt babies of color.  Can you either
> confirm or deny this?  and back up the confirmation or denial with
> documentation?

> [Sorry, that first question was rhetorical.  Please concentrate most
> of your widdle bwain on the second, Chwis.]

Baby talk fwames!  How pwecious!

To answer _both_ questions, Petey, yes I _can_ confirm or deny it, and yes
I _can_ back up the confirmation or denial with documentation.

>>>> Is aborting a pregnancy because the conception was the product of rape
>>>> a matter of convenience?

>>> No.

>>>> Please define convenience.

>>> How about doing the same, since you ask such loaded questions?  My 
>>> definition: something not more than three times as bad as having an 
>>> abortion and putting up with PMS and menstrual cramps, bleeding, etc.

>> Tut, tut, Petey, it's pro-lifers like Mr. McMillan who say over and over
>> that most abortions are for 'convenience.'  If I were to attempt to define
>> what 'convenience' meant in the context of this discussion, pro-lifers
>> like Mr. McMillan would rightly accuse me of setting up a strawman.

> I answered the question, as you can see.  Were I of the same mentality
> as Adrienne Regard, I would say you lack the *balls* to answer it 
> yourself.

Well, you said it anyway, didn't you?  I guess that means that it doesn't
require _any_ particular mentality to tell someone they lack the balls to
do something.  In your case, perhaps a playground mentality:

"What'samatter, you chicken?" or "I double-dog dare you!"

Furthermore, your answer made no sense.  How do you quantify a woman's
health and circumstances and then divide by three to determine if that's
greater to, equal to, or less than having an abortion and putting up with
PMS and menstrual cramps, bleeding, etc., hmmm, Math Whiz?

> Since I am not of the same mentality, I respectfully ask you to please
> answer it.

Perhaps you could explain to me why my obligation to define convenience
is conditioned by:

1. whether or not I ask loaded questions.  

2. your mentality.

I gave a perfectly valid reason elsewhere for not defining convenience,
Perfesser.  When pro-lifers like Mr. McMillan introduce that word into
the discussion, I believe they have the burden of sharing with the rest
of us what the hell they are talking about.  Do they know something the
rest of us don't, or are they parroting empty rhetoric?  Is it not fair
to submit people's word choices to closer examination if there is a
potential for misunderstanding?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57828 talk.politics.misc:69650 talk.religion.misc:27499 alt.politics.homosexuality:10249