[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:58 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
  wrote:
 
  On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  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.
 
  Yes I did, and your thoughts go around in so many circles
  it becomes nearly impossible to follow, IMO.
 
  Translation: Judy's logic is airtight.
 
 (Sigh) Well, it may be, Judy, but as I said, I couldn't quite
 follow your train of thought--I'm not refuting it, just couldn't
 follow it.

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. 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.

snip
  If sufficient numbers of women were really
  feeling that way, those idiots would be shrieking it from the
  rooftops.
 
  They've been shrieking it for years. Abortion
  Hurts Women is one of the major antichoice slogans.
 
 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.

snip
 Did Barry ever use the word compassion to describe his 
 actions?  It seems it was MS pinning the word on him.

Barry said, I tried to help the women through a
painful experience because they were in pain and
I wanted to help, in any way I could.

Seems to me compassion describes what Barry saw
himself as doing quite well. And he's always
touting compassion as a sign of evolution,
frequently claiming it for himself--although
usually as a putdown (do a search of his posts for
the word and you'll see what I mean).

  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.
 
  Mind-reading isn't my thing.
 
  Translation: I can't think of any way to get
  around Judy's logic.
 
 You know, Judy, you have so much fun talking to yourself, and 
 giving answers you want to hear, that it's not really worth it
 to debate at this point.
 
 Translation: Judy's mad as hell that someone is bowing out of an 
 argument, so she's going to try baiting and see if that works.

No, Sal, if you want to bow out (after having
started this discussion), that's fine with me. I
was commenting on how off base it was to suggest
that my logical analysis was mind-reading.

Words have meanings. It's certainly possible for
a person to use words in a way that logically
implies something other than what they had in mind,
but if so, it's up to them to explain what they
*meant* to suggest. If you or I were to say, Well,
I don't think he meant what his words logically 
imply, *that* would be mind-reading.

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[MDixon6569]

And it just goes on and on and on... Who is going to be big enough  
to drop it and who is so small that they have to have the last  word?



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- 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.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
 
 And yes, I can empathize with some of the things
 you mention, but my honest experience is that often
 I get along better with younger women than with women
 my own age because the younger ones have more of the 
 things we both consider important than the older ones
 do.
 
 I never had kids. I never played by the rules. At my
 age I'm still interested in travel, in adventure, in
 doing new things and learning new things. And who do
 I meet who is like that? Younger women. In contrast,
 many of the older women I meet are thinking about
 settling down, possibly not for the first time in
 their lives. 
 
 Bottom line is that I often find that I have more
 interesting conversations with some of the younger
 women. 

Thats been my experience. Its not universal by any means. Some women
my age, or older, are fascinating. But by the averages, there does
seem to be a strong, though not perfect, inverse correlation with 
age and interesting conversations. I was talking with a woman about
this. She is a therapist and sees / counsels many women 40 - 60 +. She
volunteered that a majority of women that she sees in that age range
may not seem or be so interesting because they threw all of their
emotional and intellectual energy into a long-term relationship,
figuring it would last forever, though most or many also had a career.
When the long term relationship went south, as more than 50% do, they
had no Plan B. They are starting over, an their whole focus was on
being with someone, instead of being themselves. 

While the above short description may not do justice to the
phenomenon, it struck me a plausible explanation for what I have
found: women over 40 (not all) who are primarily interested in
dining, wine tasting, walks on the beach and a long term
relationship. That is, sort of, picking up where they left off, in
their cushy, soft, comfort zone. Nothing wrong with that if that is
what they want -- but they don't make for interesting or exciting
conversation -- of ideas, the world, technology, politics, films,
books, spiritual themes, etc.   

And the same appear to be true of men. This is not a women phenomenon,
its just that I see more women in this context. The guys my age, at
work, or socially, even 10-20 years younger, seem like deadheads,
not the good kind. But numb above the shoulders. Baseball, vacations,
trucks is about the extent of their interests an conversational
comfort zone. An interesting idea brings dead silence in a convo.

This weekend, I had five hour conversations each day with a 25ish year
old. Not a dull moment. She is into karma and quite passionate about
the environment -- and excited about so many things. Similar to other
20 -30 women I know or meet. Fun and interesting convo. Maybe not
thedeepest one I have ever had, but more so, and fascinating, than
ones I have had with 40+ women in recent months.

I like Turq's friend's phrase, Getting old without being old. I feel
25-35 inside, and act that way. Meeting people of all ages who are
like that spontaneously combust into great conversations and relations. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:37 AM, authfriend wrote:

 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.)

OK, got your point.


 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.)

Right, and there's also the phantom breast cancer connection as well.  
It's interesting how the Religious Wrong supposedly looks down on 
science, except when they can use it to manipulate people.  I still 
don't think it has much influence, although there's really no way to 
tell.

What I would agree they have been very successful at, is demonizing the 
discussion of it, and making it an issue at all.


 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.

Exactly.

   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.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[TurquoiseB]

Oh, goodie.  :-)

It's not every morning that I get a chance to
start my day off with a good rant, but here I
have two idiots offering me an opportunity to
do so, on a silver platter. 

I simply cannot resist.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
  mainstream20016@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 snip
You have NOTHING to say about it.

It's not your body.

It's not your decision.
   
   You pose your declaration as though I were blocking the 
   entrance to an abortiion clinic in protest. How dare you 
   suggest I refrain from expressing my thinking that abortion 
   is cruel!
 snip

[ the rest of mainstream's post, so carefully 
snipped by Judy, hereby reinserted ]

   Regarding your compassionate support to so many women 
   tormented by their decision to abort - I think you 
   had alot more involvement in their basic predicament, 
   and that you lobbied for the eventual decision that 
   caused them so much pain.

[ my response to mainstream ] 

  Wow.
  
  This is so insane that I'm a little afraid.
  
  Now you know why I don't discuss abortion;
  it brings out the inner fanatic in people.

[ Judy, being...uh...herself ]
 
 Actually, he's right on target in the part I quoted.
 
 Whether what men have to say, pro or con, about
 abortion *counts* is one thing; it's quite another
 to tell them they have no right to express an
 opinion.
 
 Just imagine the fireworks if someone told Barry
 he had nothing to say about something upon
 which he'd made one of his pronouncements!


Ok, you guys started this. Now sit back and
take what's comin' to ya.

There is NOT ONE WORD in my original post in
which I suggested that mainstream should not
express his opinion on this subject. I did NOT
tell him that he had nothing to say ON THE
SUBJECT. I told him he had nothing to say about
the *decision* any woman makes on this subject.

And he doesn't.

Mainstream, whether he believes it or not, really
IS (at heart) one of those guys who *would* stand
in the doorway of a doctor's office (which he
would demonize by calling it an abortion clinic)
and try to stop some woman from having an abortion.

But he doesn't have the balls to do that.

So instead he tries to make the woman feel GUILTY
about her decision. That's the form of punishment
he metes out for her type of sin.

And when I stood up for the women and pointed out
that he was trying to characterize them unfairly, 
he decided to try to mete out some of the same 
punishment to me.

He made up a story in his head (which says a great
deal more about him than about me) that I was the
father of these poor, aborted fetuses, and that I
was there at the women's side, urging them to kill
these poor human beings without a care.

I NEVER EVEN HAD SEX WITH ANY OF THESE
WOMEN. THEY WERE MY FRIENDS.

I can see how mainstream might have a problem with
this concept. For him it must be difficult to imagine
a man just being friends with a woman and trying to
help her through a tough time. He'd much rather try
to make her feel bad -- and GUILTY -- about having
come to a decision about what to do with an unplanned
and unwanted pregnancy. In his mind, that makes him
some kind of moral giant, a man protecting the poor,
helpless fetuses of the world against those callous
women who would murder them.

To me it just makes him JUST ANOTHER GUY, trying
to impose his will on women whose will and whose
rights he doesn't understand and doesn't respect.

And when another guy comes along and busts him for
being such a male chauvinist pig, he lashes out and
calls me a liar, and makes up a whole story that some-
how implicates me in the murder, and allows him to
try to make ME feel guilty, too.

Didn't work.

All it did was inspire in me an enormous sense of pity
for someone this insane, whose fanaticism has blinded
him to the fact that what he's trying to do by expres-
sing his opinion on a subject that doesn't concern him
personally is make the women whom it *does* concern
feel GUILTY about their decisions.

I'm sorry, but pity is *all* I can feel for him. I did
NOT say that he should speak about this subject -- he
imagined that, and so did Judy (in his case because he's
blinded by hatred for those he considers murderers, and
he wanted to consider me an accomplice; in her case 
because she's just blinded by hatred, period), and they
made up stuff in my post THAT WASN'T THERE, and then
turned it into an excuse to dump on me.

Mainstream has nothing to say about whether a woman has
an abortion. Even if he succeeded in getting laws passed
to make it illegal he'd have nothing to say about it. 
He just hated being reminded of his powerlessness, and
wanted to consider himself a big, powerful, moral MAN
whose word had some authority over these women he con-
siders murderers. 

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  From Turquoise B, age 62, an original, complete post, 
  #149707, Sept. 23, 2007,  titled:
   I don't care what you call it -
  ...and I'm sorry, given whatever Hindu or Newage
  stuff you wish to project upon it, there is nothing
  quite like meeting someone *far* too young and *far*
  too beautiful for you in a bar -- in this case, the
  Corner Bar in Sitges...pool tables in the bar, good,
  cheap, single-malt Scotches at the bar itself -- and
  who speaks as little English as you speak Spanish or
  Catalan, and hitting it off *anyway*, no matter
  how inept your Spanish was.
  
  Suffice it to say that if you hear the name Sonia
  around here in the future, my seeing on this evening
  will have been correct. If you don't, well, so it goes.
  The world is full of wonderful women...
 
 Mainstream says:
 TurquoiseB claims that he never had sex with any ot the 
 women who came to him to seek his counsel to abort an 
 unwanted pregnancy. He even shouts it in caps:
  I NEVER EVEN HAD SEX WITH ANY OF THESE WOMEN. 
  THEY WERE MY FRIENDS.
 How's Sonia, Turquoise ? A few days late ?
 I know, wearing a rubber takes away some of the fun, but 
 it prevents alot of difficulty for everyone. Have a good time.

Jealous much?  :-)

Listen, idiot...someday you have to stop projecting
things into posts that aren't there.

First you claimed that I told you that you didn't
have any right to speak your opinion about abortion.
That wasn't there in the post you were replying to.

Now you've made two more claims that aren't in
the posts you're citing. 

First, at no point in the post that seems to offend
you so much do I state or even imply that I had sex
with Sonia. I didn't. We had a really smashing set
of flirtations. 

The second thing you projected that wasn't really
there in any of my posts is that you imagine the
women I helped through an abortion coming to me 
for counsel. 

Never happened, and I never said it. You *imagined* 
it, because you want to demonize me as some kind of
bad guy so that you can think of me as a baby 
murderer. That's YOUR hangup, buddy, not mine. The
women had already made their decision long before
I got involved. Had they decided to not have an
abortion I would have been just as supportive of
them. 

Read my lips: I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE COUNSELED
SOMEONE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

You're trying to think of me that way because you're
a judgmental asshole who likes to think of yourself
as superior to the women who make their own decisions
about their own bodies. And now you're trying to
position me as some kind of abortion counselor so
that you can feel superior to me.

It's YOUR hangup, dude. Not mine. I've never SAID
any of the things you attribute to me, and I've
never DONE any of the things you imagine about me.

But the fact that you DO imagine them says a great
deal about you. 

Leave well enough alone and bow out of this grace-
fully now. Go preach your Women who have abortions
are murderers crap to someone who will buy it. 

YOU are the one who is out of place here, not me.
I live in countries where abortion is legal. So do
you. I allow women to make their own decisions about
such matters, and try not to judge them, whatever
they decide.

But YOU are judgmentalism personified. You consider
these women murderers. You've made up a bunch of
stuff in your head so that you can consider ME a
murderer. 

What a putz.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From Turquoise B, age 62, an original, complete post, 
 #149707, Sept. 23, 2007,  titled:

Oh, one more thing, putz. I'm only 61. Won't
be 62 for a couple more months. 

And yes, even though I didn't wind up having
sex with Sonia, I will with other women, some
of them much younger than I am. And THAT is
what you're really pissed off about. 

And everyone here knows it.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh, goodie.  :-)
 
 It's not every morning that I get a chance to
 start my day off with a good rant, but here I
 have two idiots offering me an opportunity to
 do so, on a silver platter. 
 
 I simply cannot resist.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
   mainstream20016@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  snip
 You have NOTHING to say about it.
 
 It's not your body.
 
 It's not your decision.

You pose your declaration as though I were blocking the 
entrance to an abortiion clinic in protest. How dare you 
suggest I refrain from expressing my thinking that abortion 
is cruel!
  snip
 
 [ the rest of mainstream's post, so carefully 
 snipped by Judy, hereby reinserted ]

Snipped because I *agree* with Barry's take
on the part I didn't quote, so carefully
unacknowledged by Barry. Reinserted by him
to obscure this point and make readers think
that somehow I was excusing mainstream's
accusation about Barry's complicity.

Regarding your compassionate support to so many women 
tormented by their decision to abort - I think you 
had alot more involvement in their basic predicament, 
and that you lobbied for the eventual decision that 
caused them so much pain.
 
 [ my response to mainstream ] 
 
   Wow.
   
   This is so insane that I'm a little afraid.
   
   Now you know why I don't discuss abortion;
   it brings out the inner fanatic in people.
 
 [ Judy, being...uh...herself ]
  
  Actually, he's right on target in the part I quoted.
  
  Whether what men have to say, pro or con, about
  abortion *counts* is one thing; it's quite another
  to tell them they have no right to express an
  opinion.
  
  Just imagine the fireworks if someone told Barry
  he had nothing to say about something upon
  which he'd made one of his pronouncements!
 
 Ok, you guys started this. Now sit back and
 take what's comin' to ya.

In other words, zero, in my case.

 There is NOT ONE WORD in my original post in
 which I suggested that mainstream should not
 express his opinion on this subject. I did NOT
 tell him that he had nothing to say ON THE
 SUBJECT. I told him he had nothing to say about
 the *decision* any woman makes on this subject.

LOL!! What an astonishing bit of sophistry, as if
there was any distinction, as if it would make any
difference what a woman decided if mainstream's
view ON THE SUBJECT carried any weight.

Just imagine the fireworks if someone else had
attempted to wiggle out of having told Barry he
had nothing to say about something using this
tortured excuse.

And this after he's already handed the antichoice
side a huge win by *accepting* the role that the
guilt imposed by the antichoice folks plays for
many women in making the decision to abort so
difficult, as I pointed out in another post that
Barry conveniently ignored.

With friends like Barry, women don't need any
enemies. Barry can take his vaunted compassion
and shove it up his nose.

As Florynce Kennedy said so memorably, If men
could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

As I said, whether what men have to say, pro or
con, concerning abortion *counts* is another
issue. Using Barry's very own formulation, in my
opinion they have NOTHING TO SAY whatsoever.

rest of Barry's idiotic rant snipped

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 9:45 AM, authfriend wrote:


And this after he's already handed the antichoice
side a huge win by *accepting* the role that the
guilt imposed by the antichoice folks plays for
many women in making the decision to abort so
difficult, as I pointed out in another post that
Barry conveniently ignored.


Um, Judy, maybe I missed something, but nowhere in Barry's post that I 
could see did he mention guilt, and nowhere did he say he thought they 
felt guilty about it.  Here is the part I think you were referring to:


Mainstream, have you ever been the guy
helping a woman to get through an abortion?

From the way you speak, I have to imagine
that you have not. I have, several times. And
none of the fetuses in question had the slight-
est DNA link to my own. I tried to help the
women through a painful experience because
they were in pain and I wanted to help, in
any way I could.

One of the only ways in which I found that I
*could* be helpful was just not to judge.

I'm sorry, but there is just one enormous load
of judgment in your statement above. It's in
the second and third words of the sentence.

'Wanton disregard' of the fetus?

How about wanton disregard of the carrier of
the fetus?

It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.

I'm sorry, but if you had been the shoulder to
cry on for as many women who have made the
decision to have an abortion as I have, I don't
think you'd talk the way you did above.

I don't see guilt there--do you?

What he says, and what I would agree with, is that the experience is 
painful, and that the decision is not easy.  I would disagree with 
the latter and say that in many cases the decision probably is easier 
than one might think, but that's just my surmise--I wasn't there with 
the women Barry was lending his support to.


But the entire experience no doubt is frequently painful, having little 
to do with the actual decision, which presumably had been made days or 
weeks before.  Why did Barry need to be there at all, for one thing?  
Where were the fathers?  Presumably not there with the women, 
supporting them.  And maybe not helping to pay for it either.  IOW, 
AWOL.  That alone could make it a very painful experience, all other 
things aside.


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.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

(Note that Barry will almost certainly read Sal's
post but not my response, and will use Sal's post
to try to further demonize me.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Oct 1, 2007, at 9:45 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  And this after he's already handed the antichoice
  side a huge win by *accepting* the role that the
  guilt imposed by the antichoice folks plays for
  many women in making the decision to abort so
  difficult, as I pointed out in another post that
  Barry conveniently ignored.
 
 Um, Judy, maybe I missed something, but nowhere in Barry's
 post that I could see did he mention guilt, and nowhere did
 he say he thought they felt guilty about it.  Here is the
 part I think you were referring to:

[quoting Barry:]
 Mainstream, have you ever been the guy
 helping a woman to get through an abortion?
 
  From the way you speak, I have to imagine
 that you have not. I have, several times. And
 none of the fetuses in question had the slight-
 est DNA link to my own. I tried to help the
 women through a painful experience because
 they were in pain and I wanted to help, in
 any way I could.
 
 One of the only ways in which I found that I
 *could* be helpful was just not to judge.
 
 I'm sorry, but there is just one enormous load
 of judgment in your statement above. It's in
 the second and third words of the sentence.
 
 'Wanton disregard' of the fetus?
 
 How about wanton disregard of the carrier of
 the fetus?
 
 It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
 You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.
 
 I'm sorry, but if you had been the shoulder to
 cry on for as many women who have made the
 decision to have an abortion as I have, I don't
 think you'd talk the way you did above.
[end Barry quote]
 
 I don't see guilt there--do you?

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.

 What he says, and what I would agree with, is that the
 experience is painful, and that the decision is not easy.
 I would disagree with the latter and say that in many cases
 the decision probably is easier than one might think, but
 that's just my surmise--I wasn't there with the women Barry
 was lending his support to.
 
 But the entire experience no doubt is frequently painful, having 
 little to do with the actual decision, which presumably had been 
 made days or weeks before.  Why did Barry need to be there at all, 
 for one thing? Where were the fathers?  Presumably not there with 
 the women, supporting them.  And maybe not helping to pay for it 
 either. IOW, AWOL.  That alone could make it a very painful 
 experience, all other things aside.
 
 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.

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.

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.

The reason abortion is a difficult decision is not
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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

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.



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.



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.  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.  So whatever the rightwingnuts have been trying to 
impose has not been very successful, hence their constant threats to 
try and dismantle it.



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.

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.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:38 PM, authfriend wrote:



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.


Yes I did, and your thoughts go around in so many circles it becomes 
nearly impossible to follow, IMO.





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.


Exactly.


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.


All million of them, every year?  I haven't taken any kind of poll, but 
it seems highly unlikely.  And I have a feeling the Religious Wrong 
finds it unlikely as well, which probably explains why they don't take 
their own polls.  If sufficient numbers of women were really feeling 
that way, those idiots would be shrieking it from the rooftops.  Most, 
I would guess, feel relief.



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?


Probably not many more, I would say.  What keeps most women from having 
them at this point, if anything, is lack of availability and/or cost.   
A few might also have religious convictions, which I suppose could be 
dressed-up shame and guilt.



(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.


Yeah, you obviously think Barry is going into some kind of savior 
mode with all this, when all I see is that he's relating his own 
experience of what it was like for those women at that time.  My guess 
is, if it were anyone but Barry, you'd see it that way too.




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.


Mind-reading isn't my thing.




Sal

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 And yes, I can empathize with some of the things
 you mention, but my honest experience is that often
 I get along better with younger women than with women
 my own age because the younger ones have more of the 
 things we both consider important than the older ones
 do.
 
 I never had kids. I never played by the rules. At my
 age I'm still interested in travel, in adventure, in
 doing new things and learning new things. And who do
 I meet who is like that? Younger women. In contrast,
 many of the older women I meet are thinking about
 settling down, possibly not for the first time in
 their lives.

Or, maybe some of these older women are
thinking about embarking on one of life's
greatest adventures, doing a huge new series
of things from which they will learn more
than they have from all the other activities
of their lives put together: bringing new
life into the world and raising a family.

snip
 ( That, by the way, is the most important thing that
 attracts me to some younger women -- they're still
 young enough to LAUGH, and to ENJOY laughing. Sadly,
 that doesn't seem to be as true about many of the
 older women I've met in recent years. )

Didja ever wonder if maybe they LAUGH a whole
lot and ENJOY laughing, but not at the same
things you still find humorous?

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:23 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:


 It seems that the domesticity and procreative drives are intense,


There is no inherant procreative or baby-drive, MS--that's just 
misogynistic crap.   If there were, there wouldn't be so much social 
pressure to have kids.  Whenever that relaxes, the amount of children 
in each family goes down dramatically--nearly always--from the 10-12 
each woman could theoretically have, to 1, 2 or 0.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  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.
 
 Yes I did, and your thoughts go around in so many circles
 it becomes nearly impossible to follow, IMO.

Translation: Judy's logic is airtight.

snip
  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.
 
 All million of them, every year?

*None* of them should have to.

  I haven't taken any kind of poll, but 
 it seems highly unlikely.  And I have a feeling the Religious Wrong 
 finds it unlikely as well, which probably explains why they don't
 take their own polls.  If sufficient numbers of women were really 
 feeling that way, those idiots would be shrieking it from the 
 rooftops.

They've been shrieking it for years. Abortion
Hurts Women is one of the major antichoice slogans.

Put abortion hurts women into a search engine
and have a look at some of the hits (22,600 on
Yahoo).

Or just read this:

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/abortiondangers/p/hurts.htm

snip
  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.
 
 Yeah, you obviously think Barry is going into some kind of
 savior mode with all this, when all I see is that he's
 relating his own experience of what it was like for those
 women at that time.  My guess is, if it were anyone but Barry,
 you'd see it that way too.

His tendency to exalt himself is so dependable,
it's hard to see it any other way with him. He's
long since used up any benefit of the doubt.

A man who was genuinely on the side of women on
this issue would have expressed outrage *both*
at the idea of wanton disregard of the fetus
*and* the fact that these women were having
trouble dealing with their decision, rather than
exploiting the women's pain to refute the wanton
disregard notion and exalt his own great
compassion, thereby *validating* the antichoice
abortion hurts women theme.

  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.
 
 Mind-reading isn't my thing.

Translation: I can't think of any way to get
around Judy's logic.

Here's what Barry said, just for the record: One
of the only ways in which I found that I *could*
be helpful was just not to judge.

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:58 PM, authfriend wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

 On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:38 PM, authfriend wrote:

 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.

 Yes I did, and your thoughts go around in so many circles
 it becomes nearly impossible to follow, IMO.

 Translation: Judy's logic is airtight.

(Sigh) Well, it may be, Judy, but as I said, I couldn't quite follow 
your train of thought--I'm not refuting it, just couldn't follow it.
I don't believe in reading into what people say, so it's difficult for 
me to respond when you do.


 snipAnd 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.

 All million of them, every year?

 *None* of them should have to.

Of course none should, and I believe fewer do all the time.

  I haven't taken any kind of poll, but
 it seems highly unlikely.  And I have a feeling the Religious Wrong
 finds it unlikely as well, which probably explains why they don't
 take their own polls.  If sufficient numbers of women were really
 feeling that way, those idiots would be shrieking it from the
 rooftops.

 They've been shrieking it for years. Abortion
 Hurts Women is one of the major antichoice slogans.

Without any evidence, or withe highly suspect evidence, it doesn't mean 
much.

 Put abortion hurts women into a search engine
 and have a look at some of the hits (22,600 on
 Yahoo).

 Or just read this:

 http://usconservatives.about.com/od/abortiondangers/p/hurts.htm



 snip
 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.

 Yeah, you obviously think Barry is going into some kind of
 savior mode with all this, when all I see is that he's
 relating his own experience of what it was like for those
 women at that time.  My guess is, if it were anyone but Barry,
 you'd see it that way too.

 His tendency to exalt himself is so dependable,
 it's hard to see it any other way with him. He's
 long since used up any benefit of the doubt.

 A man who was genuinely on the side of women on
 this issue would have expressed outrage *both*
 at the idea of wanton disregard of the fetus
 *and* the fact that these women were having
 trouble dealing with their decision, rather than
 exploiting the women's pain to refute the wanton
 disregard notion and exalt his own great
 compassion, thereby *validating* the antichoice
 abortion hurts women theme.

Did Barry ever use the word compassion to describe his actions?  I t 
seems it was MS pinning the word on him.


 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.

 Mind-reading isn't my thing.

 Translation: I can't think of any way to get
 around Judy's logic.

You know, Judy, you have so much fun talking to yourself, and giving 
answers you want to hear, that it's not really worth it to debate at 
this point.

Translation: Judy's mad as hell that someone is bowing out of an 
argument, so she's going to try baiting and see if that works.

 Here's what Barry said, just for the record: One
 of the only ways in which I found that I *could*
 be helpful was just not to judge.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:23 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
 
   It seems that the domesticity and procreative drives are intense,
 
 There is no inherant procreative or baby-drive, MS--that's just 
 misogynistic crap.   If there were, there wouldn't be so much social 
 pressure to have kids.  Whenever that relaxes, the amount of children 
 in each family goes down dramatically--nearly always--from the 10-12 
 each woman could theoretically have, to 1, 2 or 0.
 
 Sal

You seem to be saying that 'so much social pressure to have kids' is an 
artificial construct 
- and when 'that' relaxes, family size would naturally decrease significantly. 
I contend that 'social pressure' reinforces the consensus collective experience 
over many 
millinia of how things work best and most effectively for the species. In other 
words,  
'social pressure '  reflects biology.
Which historical periods reinforce your statement that  --'nearly always'-- the 
number of 
children in each family goes down dramatically when 'social pressure' for large 
families 
relaxes? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Sal Sunshine]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 8:44 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:

You seem to be saying that 'so much social pressure to have kids' is 
an artificial construct


You're sharp today, MS.

- and when 'that' relaxes, family size would naturally decrease 
significantly.


Again, chalk up another point.

I contend that 'social pressure' reinforces the consensus collective 
experience over many
millinia of how things work best and most effectively for the species. 
In other words,

'social pressure '  reflects biology.


IOW, you're full of crapola.  If biology mandated lots of kids, there 
would be no *need* for social pressure.  How many societies can you 
think of have mandated that people had to have sex?  None, because it's 
clearly unnecessary.


And where exactly have you gotten the idea that huge amounts of 
children work best and most effectively for the species?  Been 
channeling Darwin lately?


And for a look at modern societies that encourage obscene amounts of 
children with little support in place once those kids are born, one 
only has to look at most of the Muslim countries.  Seems to be working 
out real well for them, doesn't it?  Oases of peace and prosperity, I 
tell ya.


JOOC, how many kids you got, MS?  Feel the need to procreate endlessly, 
do you?


Which historical periods reinforce your statement that  --'nearly 
always'-- the number of
children in each family goes down dramatically when 'social pressure' 
for large families

relaxes?


*This* one, genius.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I have been carefully staying out of this,
 partly because, on the few non-argument-
 driven forums I hang out in on the Net,
 abortion is a banned issue.
 
 The reason is that, as someone said earlier,
 one is either pregnant or one isn't. It's
 that kinda issue.
 
 You're either for or against. Like
 pregnancy itself, it's tough to find a 
 middle ground amongst all the rhetoric.
 
 So, just for something fun to do on a 
 sunny afternoon in Sitges after a rain,
 with the environment washed clean and my
 self feeling similarly so, I think I'll
 actually violate a personal rule and
 weigh in on the subject. Just this once.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
 mainstream20016@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing
 oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
  
   Mainstream: The wanton disregard of the fetus in determining 
   to abort is incredibly cruel.
 
 Mainstream, have you ever been the guy 
 helping a woman to get through an abortion?
 
 From the way you speak, I have to imagine
 that you have not. I have, several times. And
 none of the fetuses in question had the slight-
 est DNA link to my own. I tried to help the 
 women through a painful experience because 
 they were in pain and I wanted to help, in 
 any way I could.
 
 One of the only ways in which I found that I
 *could* be helpful was just not to judge.
 
 I'm sorry, but there is just one enormous load
 of judgment in your statement above. It's in 
 the second and third words of the sentence.
 
 'Wanton disregard' of the fetus? 
 
 How about wanton disregard of the carrier of
 the fetus? 
 
 It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
 You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.
 
 I'm sorry, but if you had been the shoulder to
 cry on for as many women who have made the 
 decision to have an abortion as I have, I don't 
 think you'd talk the way you did above.
 
   DS: I believe it's more cruel for a religion or government 
   to abduct the bodily rights of a living individual and 
   force them to reproduce against their will.
 
 The bottom line is actually more sinister than
 that. When abortion is banned, the religion or
 government in question has abducted the woman's
 right to *have* a will.
 
 It's a power game. They're trying to impose 
 *their* will on the will of all the women whom
 they mistakenly think they govern. Whether it's
 a priest or a state governor, it's almost always
 a man. And that man is saying to the women he is
 supposed to *represent* within a democracy, So
 I understand that you think you have a will. I'm 
 here to tell you that you don't have one. No matter
 what *you* decide about this fetus dwelling within
 you, I am here to say -- definitively -- that your
 ideas on this matter Just Don't Count. *I* am the
 one who gets to decide what is right and what is 
 wrong in such matters, not you. Live with it. And
 if you don't *like* living with it, please remem-
 ber that I have the right [in the near past and,
 if some people get their way, in one possible 
 future] to throw you in jail / excommunicate you. 
 But you do what you think is right. I'll wait.
 
  If one doesn't want to reproduce, one should prevent pregnancy. 
  There are many convenient ways of preventing pregnancy.
 
 There are many convenient ways of trying. Not 
 one of them is foolproof.
 
 Every one of the women I helped get through an
 abortion was practicing -- and regularly, without
 a single exception -- some purportedly effective 
 means of birth control. 
 
 I'm sorry, Mainstream, but you're talkin' like a 
 priest or a politician -- and above all, like a 
 GUY -- trying your best to make women feel really, 
 really, really, really BAD about contemplating an 
 abortion, or having had one in the past. And in 
 my book, that puts you on a very, very, very, very 
 different plane of attention than the women I held 
 while they sobbed their way through the experience 
 you so blithely call wanton disregard of the fetus.
 
 You have NOTHING to say about it.
 
 It's not your body.
 
 It's not your decision.

You pose your declaration as though I were blocking the entrance to an 
abortiion clinic in 
protest.  How dare you suggest I refrain from expressing my thinking that 
abortion is 
cruel!  Regarding your compassionate support to so many women tormented by 
their 
decision to abort -  I think you had alot more involvement in their basic 
predicament, and 
that you lobbied for the eventual  decision that caused them so much pain.   
   

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  I have been carefully staying out of this,
  partly because, on the few non-argument-
  driven forums I hang out in on the Net,
  abortion is a banned issue.
  
  The reason is that, as someone said earlier,
  one is either pregnant or one isn't. It's
  that kinda issue.
  
  You're either for or against. Like
  pregnancy itself, it's tough to find a 
  middle ground amongst all the rhetoric.
  
  So, just for something fun to do on a 
  sunny afternoon in Sitges after a rain,
  with the environment washed clean and my
  self feeling similarly so, I think I'll
  actually violate a personal rule and
  weigh in on the subject. Just this once.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
  mainstream20016@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing
  oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
   
Mainstream: The wanton disregard of the fetus in determining 
to abort is incredibly cruel.
  
  Mainstream, have you ever been the guy 
  helping a woman to get through an abortion?
  
  From the way you speak, I have to imagine
  that you have not. I have, several times. And
  none of the fetuses in question had the slight-
  est DNA link to my own. I tried to help the 
  women through a painful experience because 
  they were in pain and I wanted to help, in 
  any way I could.
  
  One of the only ways in which I found that I
  *could* be helpful was just not to judge.
  
  I'm sorry, but there is just one enormous load
  of judgment in your statement above. It's in 
  the second and third words of the sentence.
  
  'Wanton disregard' of the fetus? 
  
  How about wanton disregard of the carrier of
  the fetus? 
  
  It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
  You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.
  
  I'm sorry, but if you had been the shoulder to
  cry on for as many women who have made the 
  decision to have an abortion as I have, I don't 
  think you'd talk the way you did above.
  
DS: I believe it's more cruel for a religion or government 
to abduct the bodily rights of a living individual and 
force them to reproduce against their will.
  
  The bottom line is actually more sinister than
  that. When abortion is banned, the religion or
  government in question has abducted the woman's
  right to *have* a will.
  
  It's a power game. They're trying to impose 
  *their* will on the will of all the women whom
  they mistakenly think they govern. Whether it's
  a priest or a state governor, it's almost always
  a man. And that man is saying to the women he is
  supposed to *represent* within a democracy, So
  I understand that you think you have a will. I'm 
  here to tell you that you don't have one. No matter
  what *you* decide about this fetus dwelling within
  you, I am here to say -- definitively -- that your
  ideas on this matter Just Don't Count. *I* am the
  one who gets to decide what is right and what is 
  wrong in such matters, not you. Live with it. And
  if you don't *like* living with it, please remem-
  ber that I have the right [in the near past and,
  if some people get their way, in one possible 
  future] to throw you in jail / excommunicate you. 
  But you do what you think is right. I'll wait.
  
   If one doesn't want to reproduce, one should prevent pregnancy. 
   There are many convenient ways of preventing pregnancy.
  
  There are many convenient ways of trying. Not 
  one of them is foolproof.
  
  Every one of the women I helped get through an
  abortion was practicing -- and regularly, without
  a single exception -- some purportedly effective 
  means of birth control. 
  
  I'm sorry, Mainstream, but you're talkin' like a 
  priest or a politician -- and above all, like a 
  GUY -- trying your best to make women feel really, 
  really, really, really BAD about contemplating an 
  abortion, or having had one in the past. And in 
  my book, that puts you on a very, very, very, very 
  different plane of attention than the women I held 
  while they sobbed their way through the experience 
  you so blithely call wanton disregard of the fetus.
  
  You have NOTHING to say about it.
  
  It's not your body.
  
  It's not your decision.
 
 You pose your declaration as though I were blocking the 
 entrance to an abortiion clinic in protest. How dare you 
 suggest I refrain from expressing my thinking that abortion 
 is cruel!  Regarding your compassionate support to so 
 many women tormented by their decision to abort -  I think 
 you had alot more involvement in their basic predicament, 
 and that you lobbied for the eventual decision that caused 
 them so much pain.

Wow.

This is so insane that I'm a little afraid.

Now you know why I don't discuss abortion;
it brings out the inner fanatic in people.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
 mainstream20016@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
snip
   You have NOTHING to say about it.
   
   It's not your body.
   
   It's not your decision.
  
  You pose your declaration as though I were blocking the 
  entrance to an abortiion clinic in protest. How dare you 
  suggest I refrain from expressing my thinking that abortion 
  is cruel!

snip

 Wow.
 
 This is so insane that I'm a little afraid.
 
 Now you know why I don't discuss abortion;
 it brings out the inner fanatic in people.

Actually, he's right on target in the part I quoted.

Whether what men have to say, pro or con, about
abortion *counts* is one thing; it's quite another
to tell them they have no right to express an
opinion.

Just imagine the fireworks if someone told Barry
he had nothing to say about something upon
which he'd made one of his pronouncements!

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ 
wrote:
 snip
Therefore advocating anti-abortion laws merely helps abortion to 
  continue. You are COMPLETELY complicit in abortion if you 
advocate 
  anti-abortion as a law because IT WILL NEVER WORK.
  
  Here's how it works:
  Me...and 2 billion other men on the planet will not commit 
violence 
  against women. If you try to stop a woman from having an 
abortion, 
  you are committing violence against her, holding her against her 
will 
  and putting your filthy hands on our women. We will not allow you 
to 
  commit that violence. You will get FUCKING CRUSHED by the 2 
billion 
  or more men on this planet that will not let you, or anyone, put 
your 
  filthy hands upon our women to stop them from having their will. 
  SO WHAT THE FUCK are you going to do about it?
  

 You inflame the argument with your threats. I have no intention of 
physically preventing 
 anyone from doing anything, so back off !  


Good, so now you have stated categorically that you would not make a 
law against abortion, because it cannot be enforced. Period.

That was the purpose of my post. You are now on my side.

Now, people can put the idea of making laws against abortion out of 
the way, and get to the real work on methods that WILL ACTUALLY WORK !


  Women will ALWAYS have the choice, and that is the way it will 
  remain. This is not an option, it cannot be changed. Therefore, 
stop 
  being an accomplice to abortion by trying to enact laws. 
  
 
 What can be changed is how people think. Regarding threats against 
me - I'm just a 
 messenger.  

There were no threats against you. There are threats against anyone 
who unlawfully puts their hands on free women to arrest them. That is 
what you are proposing and it is ugly and shameful. Free women will 
never have the hands of the ignorant put upon them. That is the law 
of the universe. Jai Mahalakshmi.

 
  It is education and a support that will minimize abortion. You 
  contribute to the deaths of the fetuses everday with your 
arguments 
  for laws against it. You are a baby killer because of your 
ignorance 
  of how the world works. Ignorance is no excuse.
  
  
  OffWorld 
  (of Keltic origin, where women were always equal to men, long 
before 
  your ignorant desert tribal cults came out of the middle-east. 
And 
  we, the Kelts will be here long after you drift back into the 
sands.) 

 Equality with men who advocate violence against the innocent is not 
virtuous.  Both 
 women and Kelts have been degraded by your argument.

You are advocating violence against women. You are a baby killer by 
going down this path of legislation, because it will never be 
accepted on this planet...and you know it. This is why I am 
passionate about the issue, because you abortion criminalisers are 
helping to increase the number of abotions by not understanding that 
you WILL NEVER be able to create a law about it that works.

You should admit that, that a law will not work, and then move on and 
talk about other solutions. 

I am advocating education and support and discussion in the situation 
of abortion, so that more babies can be saved. 
Shouting about making it illegal which will NEVER work, only helps 
kill more babies. Anti-abortionists are a baby killers and you are 
advocating violence against women. There are other ways, rather than 
laws, to help minimize abotion in society, but you don't want to take 
that road because you do not care about the fetuses, you only care 
about your ego and your argument. You don't care about the babies. 
That is shameful.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Killing is bad. Advocates of abortion encourage abortion as
 an easy choice, devoid of any concern for the fetus. Yes, the 
 abortion perspective is selfish. Killing for selfish reasons
 is toxic to society.

Are you a pacifist? And do you oppose capital
punishment? How about in vitro fertilization?

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[TurquoiseB]

I have been carefully staying out of this,
partly because, on the few non-argument-
driven forums I hang out in on the Net,
abortion is a banned issue.

The reason is that, as someone said earlier,
one is either pregnant or one isn't. It's
that kinda issue.

You're either for or against. Like
pregnancy itself, it's tough to find a 
middle ground amongst all the rhetoric.

So, just for something fun to do on a 
sunny afternoon in Sitges after a rain,
with the environment washed clean and my
self feeling similarly so, I think I'll
actually violate a personal rule and
weigh in on the subject. Just this once.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oneradiantbeing
oneradiantbeing@ wrote:
 
  Mainstream: The wanton disregard of the fetus in determining 
  to abort is incredibly cruel.

Mainstream, have you ever been the guy 
helping a woman to get through an abortion?

From the way you speak, I have to imagine
that you have not. I have, several times. And
none of the fetuses in question had the slight-
est DNA link to my own. I tried to help the 
women through a painful experience because 
they were in pain and I wanted to help, in 
any way I could.

One of the only ways in which I found that I
*could* be helpful was just not to judge.

I'm sorry, but there is just one enormous load
of judgment in your statement above. It's in 
the second and third words of the sentence.

'Wanton disregard' of the fetus? 

How about wanton disregard of the carrier of
the fetus? 

It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.

I'm sorry, but if you had been the shoulder to
cry on for as many women who have made the 
decision to have an abortion as I have, I don't 
think you'd talk the way you did above.

  DS: I believe it's more cruel for a religion or government 
  to abduct the bodily rights of a living individual and 
  force them to reproduce against their will.

The bottom line is actually more sinister than
that. When abortion is banned, the religion or
government in question has abducted the woman's
right to *have* a will.

It's a power game. They're trying to impose 
*their* will on the will of all the women whom
they mistakenly think they govern. Whether it's
a priest or a state governor, it's almost always
a man. And that man is saying to the women he is
supposed to *represent* within a democracy, So
I understand that you think you have a will. I'm 
here to tell you that you don't have one. No matter
what *you* decide about this fetus dwelling within
you, I am here to say -- definitively -- that your
ideas on this matter Just Don't Count. *I* am the
one who gets to decide what is right and what is 
wrong in such matters, not you. Live with it. And
if you don't *like* living with it, please remem-
ber that I have the right [in the near past and,
if some people get their way, in one possible 
future] to throw you in jail / excommunicate you. 
But you do what you think is right. I'll wait.

 If one doesn't want to reproduce, one should prevent pregnancy. 
 There are many convenient ways of preventing pregnancy.

There are many convenient ways of trying. Not 
one of them is foolproof.

Every one of the women I helped get through an
abortion was practicing -- and regularly, without
a single exception -- some purportedly effective 
means of birth control. 

I'm sorry, Mainstream, but you're talkin' like a 
priest or a politician -- and above all, like a 
GUY -- trying your best to make women feel really, 
really, really, really BAD about contemplating an 
abortion, or having had one in the past. And in 
my book, that puts you on a very, very, very, very 
different plane of attention than the women I held 
while they sobbed their way through the experience 
you so blithely call wanton disregard of the fetus.

You have NOTHING to say about it.

It's not your body.

It's not your decision.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 It is *not* as if abortion is an easy decision.
 You're trying to make it sound as if it is one.

Actually, it should be a lot easier than it
often is. A woman shouldn't have to feel
shame and guilt in addition to personal regret,
if indeed she has any (not all women do by any
means).

By emphasizing emotional trauma, you play right
into the hands of the very people who have
done their damndest to *make* it an emotional
trauma.

mainstream has taken the wanton disregard for
the fetus approach, but he could just as easily
have taken the approach that abortion should be
prohibited because it damages women
psychologically.

(Some even claim, falsely, that it increases the
likelihood of breast cancer, which just adds to
the woman's unnecessary emotional distress.)

Abortion isn't a trivial decision by any means,
but it *should not* be emotionally damaging in
any lasting sense. The only reason for it to be
traumatic is if the woman genuinely wanted to
bring the fetus to term.

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Equality with men who advocate violence against the innocent is not 
virtuous.  Both 
 women and Kelts have been degraded by your argument.

If abortions were the only so called violence against life, and 
killing on this planet, I'd agree with you 100%. But there's a few 
things I can't get past:

Those that advocate preventing abortion are often the same ones a-ok 
with war. All I can say is, wtf? That's just crazy talk on their part.

Also many women having abortions feel like crap about it, not like 
scoop me out doc, let's go have a latte. Its their bodies and their 
responsibility. What about all those million or so innocent sperm that 
die every time a man ejaculates? which brings me to my final point: 

If someone is advocating not to take the loss of so called innocent 
life, but restricts it to human life or quasi human life, then what 
hypocrisy. Where is the vegan diet, vinyl shoes and belt, and Jain 
face mask to avoid inhaling insects?

Anyway that is the gist of my thinking.:-)

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[Duveyoung]

Right on, Jimmy!

Thou shall not kill.

Pretty simple to understand, almost impossible to be perfect at.

I'm going to get a half a coconut shell, a diaper and a walking staff.
 Can you imagine the first-person-I-went-up-to's response as I begged
for my daily ration of rice?

It seems just about impossible to be a good person if there's a car in
the garage, an article of clothing in the closet, or even eggs for
breakfast.

I keep searching for the words to turn my life around when I need a
good dose of seeing just one child die in a ditch in Dafur.

Who can claim integrity in today's world?  Only in the poorest places
 might we find such a person.

Who's looking?

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 
 mainstream20016@ wrote:
  Equality with men who advocate violence against the innocent is not 
 virtuous.  Both 
  women and Kelts have been degraded by your argument.
 
 If abortions were the only so called violence against life, and 
 killing on this planet, I'd agree with you 100%. But there's a few 
 things I can't get past:
 
 Those that advocate preventing abortion are often the same ones a-ok 
 with war. All I can say is, wtf? That's just crazy talk on their part.
 
 Also many women having abortions feel like crap about it, not like 
 scoop me out doc, let's go have a latte. Its their bodies and their 
 responsibility. What about all those million or so innocent sperm that 
 die every time a man ejaculates? which brings me to my final point: 
 
 If someone is advocating not to take the loss of so called innocent 
 life, but restricts it to human life or quasi human life, then what 
 hypocrisy. Where is the vegan diet, vinyl shoes and belt, and Jain 
 face mask to avoid inhaling insects?
 
 Anyway that is the gist of my thinking.:-)

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Right on, Jimmy!
 
 Thou shall not kill.
 
 Pretty simple to understand, almost impossible to be perfect at.
 
 I'm going to get a half a coconut shell, a diaper and a walking 
staff.
  Can you imagine the first-person-I-went-up-to's response as I 
begged
 for my daily ration of rice?
 
 It seems just about impossible to be a good person if there's a 
car in
 the garage, an article of clothing in the closet, or even eggs for
 breakfast.
 
 I keep searching for the words to turn my life around when I need a
 good dose of seeing just one child die in a ditch in Dafur.
 
 Who can claim integrity in today's world?  Only in the poorest 
places
  might we find such a person.
 
 Who's looking?
 
 Edg
 
Hi Edg, I find your writing most often evocative, but hard to 
respond to-- not a bad thing let me explain: You try to write the 
way you think and like all of us it is frequently non-linear. Which 
I like because it is as much art as exposition... 

Anyway, I read your post, and then about the third time around I had 
a reply: You often write about our (the population here on earth) 
inadequacy to deal with the so called horrors of this world, and I'm 
thinking, compared to what? I've found stuff inside me that 
initially appeared to equal or surpass the worst excesses of human 
thought and action. The reason I say initially, is that it is always 
very much the snake and string experience; once I look that scary 
stuff that makes me feel bad in the face, it goes all neutral and 
powerless, and becomes magically inconsequential.

So based on my thought experiments of late, my hypothesis is that 
the effect any negative event sustains in us is a direct reflection 
of some resonant energy, to that event, we are carrying around 
within ourselves. The reason I say sustains is because we are not 
dead-- we all have feelings and passion, but when we begin to over 
balance in the direction of a sustained negative feeling, you can 
bet that bell is ringing because of a similar emotion we are 
carrying around within.

This is how a recent experiment on me went. I would feel an emotion 
blooming, and as it did I would think the thought innocently, I 
forgive myself for feeling [for example, 
shame/guilt/inferior/superior] about [event/name/etc]. As an 
interesting aside, when I would name the emotion and it matched, I 
would get like a shiver in my solar plexus to confirm the matching 
vibe. Just to be clear, this was not some attempt to send up some  
ardent prayer, but rather to neutralize the crap that was blocking 
the free flow of energy through my system.

Something else I noticed recently, which could be called the proof 
of the x colored glasses: On Friday morning I had had not a lot of 
sleep the night before, so I called my wife on the way to work and 
began really whining about how long before retirement-- whine, 
whine, whine. It was weird-- I was in the grip of this exhaustion, 
and every time I tapped into it, I'd get very negative. It didn't 
take me long, maybe 10 minutes to see that whet I was doing was 
extrapolating my exhaustion into the future and uncomfortably 
surfing that wave. The point being when I shed that blanket or saw 
it for what it was, not only did I change, but the world changed 
along with me. Ended up having a good day. And I hope that you have 
one too. PS Its Saturday, how bad can it get?:-)

[FairfieldLife] DS responds to mainstream20016 Re: Abortion

[oneradiantbeing]

Mainstream: The wanton disregard of the fetus in determining to abort 
is incredibly cruel.

DS: I believe it's more cruel for a religion or government to abduct 
the bodily rights of a living individual and force them to reproduce 
against their will.

Mainstream: Abortion coarsens social interaction, results in death, 
and poisons the atmosphere. 

DS: Rampant conjecture, opinion,  speculation. 

Mainstream: Abortion is a very toxic - and encourages an excessively 
selfish perspective. 

DS: I fail to see the basis for your statement. It' mere opinion, 
based on some views you are not fully disclosing.

Mainstream: It's such a tragedy, and unfortunately, people confronted 
with an unwanted pregnancy far too often realize that they gave 
little consideration of the possible outcome of casual intercourse,...

DS: True, unawanted pregnancies are often the result of the 
carelessness (too little consderation) - not born of casual 
intercourse - but from the lack of intelligent use of birth control. 
Here it's transparent how anti-sexual views underlie anti-abortionist 
rhetoric.  The problem, I repeat, is not casual sex, (do you also 
mean pleasurable?) but unprotected, careless sexual practices.

Mainstream: ...and make the choice to abort when overwhelmed with the 
prospect of the responsibility of parenthood.

DS: ...and no one should be forced to accept a responsibility 
against their will, thrust upon them by a superstitious religious 
cult or a misognic governmental law. 

Mainstream: Abortion should be rare, rather than considered a right 
freely exercised to make a messy situation go away. 

DS: It must be both. Ideally, it should be rare, but it should also 
be allowed when chosen freely. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANYONE 
ELSE'S BODY TO DO THINGS IT DOES NOT WANT TO DO, ESPECIALLY BEAR A 
CHILD. 

So let's end this stupid war in Iraq, take some of those trillions of 
dollars and fund social programs for sex education and birth control. 
That way, we will dramatically reduce the ppssibility that a woman 
wil use abortion in lieu of or as a form of birth control.

Mainsteam: Anti-abortionists are not misogynists, but when considering
the cause of unwanted pregnancy, they do not agree with elevating 
personal sexual freedom and snuffing a life for convenience to be 
admirable behavior patterns. Who does?

I don't think we agree on the cause of unwanted pregnancies. I say 
they exist primarily because of not using birth control. You say it 
is because of sexual freedom (read casual, pleasurable sex here). I 
think it's primarily the puritanic male psychology, in man or woman, 
that criticizes a woman's right to choose her bodily reproductive 
destiny.

And, once again, please note (this is very important) the way in 
which you frame this problem - with inherently anti-sexual rhetoric. 
This anti-sexual talk is based on the assumption that pleasurable 
sexual activity causes abortions. Wrong. Careless (please don't 
read enjoyable!) sexual activity causes unwanted pregnancies. 

While I disgree with your points, I hold your feelings and intentions 
in the highest regard. I believe we both want the same thing, an end 
to suffering for both women and children. I failed to discuss the sad 
fate of many unwanted children in our nation and around the world, 
which is another topic altogether.

Thank you for caring enough to respond. Peace, DS