--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:50 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > It's right there in front of both our noses, Sal. > > It's in the third paragraph of your quote from > > Barry's post, as we'll see. > > He does mention the word, Judy, in reference to the trips > he felt that MS was attempting to lay on the women who chose > abortion.
No, in reference to what Barry suggests the women he consoled were feeling--not using the word explicitly, but obviously implying it. Did you not read the last two paragraphs of my post? I left them in below. > >> And then there could be physical aftermaths as well. > >> Maybe "painful" is too loaded a word, but all sorts > >> of things could make it a not-so-wonderful experience. > >> One thing is near-certain in most cases, and that it > >> is not a walk in the park, as you would like everyone to > >> believe so you can once again dump on someone. > > > > Nowhere did I suggest it was a "walk in the park" or > > a "wonderful" experience. You made those up. > > > > What I said in my earlier post (did you read it?) was > > that there was no basis for its being a *traumatic* > > experience unless the woman had really wanted to bring > > the fetus to term. > > > > If the father is "AWOL" and that's emotionally > > distressing to the woman, that's a problem with the > > relationship, not with the abortion. > > Never said it was a problem with the abortion itself, but it most > definitely can be a problem with the whole experience, of which the > abortion is only a part, especially if she has no $$ to pay for it. But that doesn't seem to have been what Barry was talking about in these cases. > > My point is that in most cases, what makes having > > an abortion emotionally difficult is the guilt-and- > > shame factor, which has, IMHO, *no* rational basis > > whatsoever. It's something that's been imposed and > > encouraged by the antichoice folks. > > I agree. But it's also nice, I would think, to have some > support from *someone* at the time. Sure, just as it would be nice to have some support from someone if you were having, say, a tooth pulled. And whatever distressing factors play into the > whole thing couldn't be terribly powerful, seeing as how > over a million women a year in this country alone somehow > manage to counteract them and have abortions. And quite possibly suffer from debilitating guilt afterward as well as beforehand. So whatever the rightwingnuts have been trying to > impose has not been very successful, hence their > constant threats to try and dismantle it. How many more women would have them if there were no shame and guilt attached? (I'm in favor of fewer rather than more abortions, just for the record, but only by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.) > > To counter the "wanton disregard for the fetus" canard > > by invoking the emotional distress caused by abortion, > > as Barry did, is to cite *one* spurious reason for > > opposing abortion against the *other* spurious > > reason for opposing abortion, putting the woman right > > between a rock and a hard place and handing the > > argument to the antichoicers. > > YEah, if that's what he was doing. But it wasn't, IMO. Not consciously; he just didn't think it through. He was more interested in beating up on mainstream and exalting his own "compassion," and in the process exploiting the women's victimization. Here's where the "guilt" comes in with regard to Barry's consolees: > because it's *inherently* difficult, it's because > > the antichoicers have *made* it difficult. Barry > > tacitly acknowledges this in the case of the women > > he consoled by claiming that one of the ways he > > could be helpful was not to "judge" the women. > > > > What is there to judge other than "wanton disregard > > for the fetus," on the one hand, or guilt on the > > other? Barry insists it wasn't the first, so it > > could only have been the second.
