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