On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:22 AM, authfriend wrote:
OK. I'd be happy to try to explain further if you
can say where you got lost. ("Your thoughts go around
in so many circles" *sounds* as if you're saying I
use circular reasoning, or am just babbling without
getting anywhere.)
I don't believe in reading into what people say, so it's
difficult for me to respond when you do.
I don't think that's what I was doing.
There's a difference between mind-reading to
divine what someone is implying, and analyzing
what their words imply logically.
Barry said he refrained from judging the women,
which logically implies there was something to
be judged.
Okay...
He accused mainstream of being
judgmental about "wanton disregard for the
fetus," but Barry's whole argument was that
the women he consoled were torn up about what
they were doing or had done.
OK, so Barry wasn't refraining from judging them
about "wanton disregard" because he didn't think
there was any such disregard. That means he must
have refrained from judging *something else*.
What could that have been? I don't see what else
it could have been other than something they were
feeling guilty about. Note that he did *not* say
he told them there was no basis for feeling
guilty. He didn't make a *positive* judgment, in
other words. But that, in effect, *validates* the
idea that it was reasonable for them to feel
guilty. And that's what I was objecting to.
Don't know if that makes it any clearer, but I
thought I'd take a shot.
Yeah, that's kind of where I felt you were going with this, and it may
very well be a valid interpretation. However, telling them there was
no basis for feeling guilty may have been out of place at the time,
depending on how well he did or didn't know them, which isn't really
clear. It could have been seen as the height of arrogance.
It just seems to me that in a time in which they needed someone, for
whatever reason, and Barry was there--he was doing some good. Maybe he
didn't say all the "right" things, or have the most PC attitude then or
now--but he was there, which, the fathers, presumably, were not.
Without any evidence, or withe highly suspect evidence, it
doesn't mean much.
They cite lots of evidence, all kinds of published
studies about risk of depression and anxiety and
suicide, even breast cancer. It may be suspect, but
you'd need to have some expertise in evaluating
scientific studies to know how valid it was, and
most women--most people--don't have that. Folks
with an agenda trade on that fact all the time.
I don't think you'd need much expertise at all--just talk to or get to
know a few women who'd had one. Not only are most not depressed, I
would guess they're mostly relieved, as I said, or else it wouldn't be
happening with such frequency. Whether or not it would be happening
more without the Religious Wrong I have no idea. The emphasis, anyway,
needs to be on birth control and safe sex, with abortion as a last
resort. Of course, they oppose that too, but that just shows how
insane they are.
Sal
