--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:22 AM, authfriend wrote: <snip> > > 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.
Quite possibly. My point, though--and I guess I didn't make it clear enough--was that he didn't mention it *here*. In his account, he appeared to accept their distress as perfectly natural, using it as a refutation of the "wanton disregard" canard. He exploited their victimization to bash mainstream, in other words. (Not that mainstream didn't deserve bashing.) > 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. Oh, I agree. I wasn't criticizing what he did; I wasn't there to see it. In principle, I'd approve. I *hope* he tried to explain that feeling guilty made no sense. But what I was objecting to, again, was how he used the situation here. <snip> > 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. Well, but that's anecdotal; these studies are statistical, apparently. (And they don't say that *all* women suffer psychological damage, just that the risk is fairly high, something like 30 percent.) > 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. That, I'm not so sure about. In most cases the women don't have much choice; there just aren't any better alternatives. Abortion is the least-bad way to go. And they may not start feeling guilty until after the deed is done. But certainly there are plenty of women who never do feel guilt, just relief. Maybe a bit of regret, but that's of a different order. 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. Total agreement. Of course, they oppose that too, but that just shows how > insane they are. Yup. I just read that the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which religious groups (Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Orthodox Jewish) wanted to quash a New York law requiring insurance plans to cover birth control. Good for the Supremes, but that the case was brought in the first place is just mind-boggling. Thanks for keeping this cordial, Sal.
