Open Letter to OB/GYN Medical Residents
Papa Jack
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020702/180/1s9z7.html
________________________________________________________________________________
Open Letter From Expectant Mother Care to the 150 New OB/GYN Medical
Residents Beginning Residencies This Week in NYC Public Hospitals
where Abortion Training is Now "Mandatory"
-- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
(3.5X)
in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
http://www.afterabortion.org\
-- Women who abort are significantly more likely to suffer clinical
depression compared to women who carry unintended pregnancies to
term.
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/151
-- Women who abort are significantly more likely to engage in
subsequent substance abuse and to attempt or complete
suicide.
http://www.afterabortion.org\drugs.html,
-- Women who abort are significantly more likely to be subsequently
involved in domestic violence.
(Russo & Denious, 2001).
-- Teens who abort are faced with significantly greater risks than
older women.
http://www.afterabortion.org\PAR\V9\n1\teens_vs_older.html
-- Abortion may be traumatic for a minority of women who may
subsequently suffer from abortion post-traumatic stress
disorder.
http://www.afterabortion.org\News\Bmajor.html
-- Abortion of a first pregnancy results in the loss of protective
effects of early childbirth.
http://www.afterabortion.org\PAR\V9\n2\childbirthprotection.html
-- Abortion is associated with higher rates of subsequent
miscarriage,
ectopic pregnancies, and premature deliveries which may result in
neonatal handicaps.
-- There is no published medical evidence that abortion helps to
save
troubled relationships, improves the mental, social, or physical
well being of women. In the absence of such evidence, the
attending physician has no medical evidence to support a
recommendation for
abortion. In regard to hoped for benefits, abortion is an
untested, experimental procedure.
If you now or in the future choose to opt out of the mandatory
abortion
training component of your OB/GYN residency program, the staff and
physicians affiliated with Expectant Mother Care Pregnancy Centers and
alternatives- -to-Abortion Medical Clinics in NYC will support you,
and make this special offer to you:
Free Use of New GE 4D Ultrasound Unit in NYC We will provide you
with some enhanced, supplementary and free training. This will
include training in the use of the new General Electric 4D Real
Time Imaging System in our offices in NYC, and ongoing seminars on
the true risks and side effects of abortion, and the medical
alternatives to abortion, especially in high risk pregnancies.
Working with both the 2,500 member American Association of ProLife
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a special interest group of the
American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the
special focus
group, Pro-Life Fetal Medicine, part of the Society of
Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Expectant Mother Care will assist you
in reaffirming the unique value and dignity of individual human
life in all stages of growth and development from conception
onward.
Be assured that there are many in your specialty who hold our view
of the great value of all human life, and of the physician's role
as a caregiver for both the mother and her unborn child, rather than
the potential terminator of that child.
________________________________________________________________________________
Craig Chilton
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
<disinformational rant snipped>
NOW for the relevant FACTS, so that you can see what you will be
doing FOR people when you provide safe and legal abortion services:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
M is for Malapert
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.02070...@posting.google.com...
> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
> (3.5X)
> in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
Yup, and women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die by
homicide and especially "by legal intervention" (shot by a cop) than women
who carry to term. Can you guess why?
> -- Women who abort
ed their unintended first pregnancies in the 1980s and were married in 1992
> are significantly more likely to suffer clinical
> depression
Actually, are significantly more likely to score high on variables that are
correlated with depression, such as being nonwhite or having a low income.
The research the author drew from did NOT assess clinical depression.
> compared to women who carry unintended pregnancies to
> term.
However, for women who were unmarried in 1992 there was no difference.
> http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/151
But guess who wrote this "short report"? Why, none other than David
Reardon, who falsely claimed to have no conflict of interest in the BMJ's
disclosure statement. Dallas Blanchard immediately noted, also in BMJ, that
"This article claims no conflict of interest. However, the principle author
(Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organization,
for which he works, has as its primary aim propagandizing against abortion.
Therefore, the sampling, the methods, the statistics, and the conclusions
should be rigorously evaluated."
Here were some other responses:
"Comments by Reardon and Cougle, in their article on depression and
unintended pregnancy, should be examined critically (1). They seem to
suggest first that married women are not well-advised to have abortions,
because those who continue unintended pregnancies to term are less likely to
be depressed than those who have abortions. This approach suggests that
correlation equals causation, and thus wrongly implies that the emotional
state of the women concerned is related only to the outcome of pregnancy. A
range of other factors may contribute however, for example relationship
difficulties, which this article appears to ignore entirely. Second, they
imply that the reason why women do not report having had an abortion, is
because they are experiencing 'shame', 'thought suppression' and may be at
risk of 'post-abortion depression', yet the data provides no evidence for
this.
"The terminology used here is characteristic of the representation of
abortion, by groups opposed to it, as an alleged 'stressor' capable of
leading to a form of PTSD, 'Post-Abortion Syndrome'. According to this claim
about abortion, non-reporting of abortion and women's reluctance to talk
about their feelings (or indeed their testimonies that they feel fine) are
evidence that women are denying the trauma of abortion. This argument is
best understood as an attempt to use the language of psychology, and relate
to a culture in which 'trauma' has become a ubiquitous term, in order to
discredit abortion, in a context where moral claims for the 'right to life'
are rejected by many. As Mr Reardon has argued elsewhere, 'post-abortion
issues are the key to converting hearts - the key to winning the battle for
life' (2). The fact that many thousands of British women have abortions each
year, yet our psychiatrists are not inundated with requests for assistance,
may suggest that Mr Reardon has a long way to go in his battle."
Dr Ellie Lee Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of
Southampton
"Reardon & Cougle starts out making unwarranted claims from an article by
Major, et al. That article makes conclusions opposite of the Reardon/Cougle
claim.
"The referenced article states that the women experiencing psychological
problems or regret after abortion are those with prior episodes of
depression.(1) Reardon & Cougle try to turn this on its head, attempting to
make it look like prior psychological state predicts depression associated
with a pregnancy, whether aborted or carried to term. Major, et al., of
course, claim no such thing.
"The study also finds that there is no difference in depression levels
between unmarried women who abort or carry to term (2), which seems to
negate the push to limit abortion access for teens. This might well be the
most significant finding in the study, as enormous effort is placed on
limiting teens' access to abortion in the US, where the Elliott Institute
resides and is active in that attempt,(3) raising doubt on the claim of 'no
conflict of interest.' Certainly, this study shows that depression/mental
health is not a factor in the issue of teens obtaining abortions.
"The study's authors seek to explain this away, but only with
unsubstantiated personal speculations. If they have so little faith in their
own result, why are they trying to present this as a factual study?"
Steen Goddik, M.D. Psychiatry Resident. USD School of Medicine
See more critical responses and dishonest claims from Reardon (including his
admission that he fudged his data) at
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850
The problem with this short report is blindingly obvious: women who have
abortions are not the same, as a group, as women who carry their pregnancies
to term. Before ever becoming pregnant, they feel less in control of their
lives, which Reardon incorrectly used as an indication of depression for
these women back in 1979, and are more likely to be nonwhite, poor, and less
educated etc. By 1992 the women who had had abortions were still, not
surprisingly, more likely to be nonwhite, poor, less educated and so forth,
while the women who had carried their first pregnancies to term were still
better off in all these ways.
In other words, and for the millionth time: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
In fact the causative factors for BOTH these women's abortions and for their
higher risk of depression are the same: Poverty. Racism. Injustice.
Alleviate these and you lower the rate of unintended pregnancy, of abortion,
and of women feeling not in control of their lives and at high risk of
depression all at the same time. Make abortion a crime (or scare women into
believing it's unthinkable) and all you do is add more unwanted children to
the situation.
The only way to test whether abortion, itself, is a risk factor for
depression would be to allow some women seeking abortions to have them, and
others not. Of course this won't happen. However, it might be possible to
find women who intended to abort their pregnancies but had miscarriages
instead.
> -- Women who abort are significantly more likely to engage in
> subsequent substance abuse and to attempt or complete
> suicide.
More Reardon "research" with exactly the same flaws: he relies on
self-reports of both abortion and substance abuse and doesn't control for
race, income, marital status, etc.
> -- Women who abort are significantly more likely to be subsequently
> involved in domestic violence.
> (Russo & Denious, 2001).
Gee, no duh? They're significantly more likely to be involved before as
well:
"The lifetime prevalence of abuse in the [group of women having abortions]
(27.3%) was significantly higher than the group [of women who were not]
(8.2%). ...Domestic violence is a significant problem among the gynecology
patients, particularly those seeking abortion. A single interview prior to
abortion is adequately effective for screening. However, the most effective
and acceptable way of helping these victims needs to be explored further."
(A comparison of the prevalence of domestic violence between patients
seeking termination of pregnancy and other general gynecology patients.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002 Apr;77(1):47-54)
"Several studies have associated domestic violence with risk of having an
induced-abortion. The following three cases indicate that domestic violence
may not cause unwanted pregnancy, but may be the reason that leads victims
to resort to abortion."
(Domestic violence and induced-abortion: report of three cases. East Afr Med
J 2001 Oct;78(10):555-6.)
"The prevalence of self-reported abuse in this population was 39.5%. ...The
prevalence of abuse reported by women in this population suggests that many
women seeking abortion services may have abuse histories."
(The prevalence of domestic violence among women seeking abortion.
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;91(6):1002-6.)
> -- Teens who abort are faced with significantly greater risks than
> older women.
Not true. Google for my past posts on this lie.
> -- Abortion of a first pregnancy results in the loss of protective
> effects of early childbirth.
Um, yeah. And if a women uses contraception or abstains from sex she loses
the protective effects of early childbirth too. Hey, let's forget about all
those virginity-until-marriage classes! If every American teen gave birth
by age 16 and then nursed for a couple of years, we could practically
eliminate breast cancer in an entire generation!
> -- Abortion is associated with higher rates of subsequent
> miscarriage,
> ectopic pregnancies, and premature deliveries which may result in
> neonatal handicaps.
Lie. Google for the facts.
Ray Fischer
>> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
>> (3.5X)
>> in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
>
>Yup, and women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die by
>homicide and especially "by legal intervention" (shot by a cop) than women
>who carry to term. Can you guess why?
What Jackass never mentions is that women who give birth are also much
more likely to die than those who never get pregnant.
--
Ray Fischer Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
rfis...@sonic.net Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about
their business as if nothing had happened. -- Churchill
M is for Malapert
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ag252e$l7k$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> M is for Malapert <som...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
>
> >> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
> >> (3.5X)
> >> in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
> >
> >Yup, and women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die by
> >homicide and especially "by legal intervention" (shot by a cop) than
women
> >who carry to term. Can you guess why?
>
> What Jackass never mentions is that women who give birth are also much
> more likely to die than those who never get pregnant.
That's true. Plus, Jackass never mentions that this statistic conveniently
ignores the percentage of women who didn't survive into the subsequent year
as a result of giving birth. It should read, "Women who have abortions are
more likely to die in the subsequent year than women WHO SURVIVE carrying to
term and giving birth."
Papa Jack
========================================================================
>> Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020702/180/1s9z7.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
>> Open Letter From Expectant Mother Care to the 150 New OB/GYN Medical
>> Residents Beginning Residencies This Week in NYC Public Hospitals
>> where Abortion Training is Now "Mandatory"
>> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
>> (3.5X)in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
========================================================================
[snip]
========================================================================
>> -- There is no published medical evidence that abortion helps to
>> save troubled relationships, improves the mental, social, or
>> physical well being of women. In the absence of such evidence,
>> the attending physician has no medical evidence to support a
>> recommendation for abortion. In regard to hoped for benefits,
>> abortion is an untested, experimental procedure.
========================================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I noted MINXS snipped this portion and refused to comment.
She can find and quote a few Pro-Death sources to seem to
attack Reardon's findings, but then she resorts to claiming
she's already provided arguments in question but not bothering
to give specific references or quotes (she says: "Google for
my past posts on this lie"). Since MINXS has posted thousands
of articles on abortion, that is a cheap and unimpressive way
to duck an issue -- typical of the "Ol' Girl" (cheap and
unimpressive).
Come on MINXS -- can't you provide:
"...published MEDICAL EVIDENCE that abortion
helps to save troubled relationships, improves
the mental, social, or physical well being of
women.... "
Craig Chilton
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Come on MINXS -- can't you provide:
>
> "...published MEDICAL EVIDENCE that abortion
> helps to save troubled relationships, improves
> the mental, social, or physical well being of
> women.... "
She probably CAN, PJ, but *here* is some good material for
openers, from a highly-prestigious and credible source, as is
documented at the bottom:
APA* News Release
*(The American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.)
Date: January 31, 1997
Contact: Doug Fizel
Public Affairs Office
Phone: (202) 336-5700
Email: public....@apa.org
Data From Long-Term Study Demonstrate That Even Highly
Religious Women are not at Significantly Greater Risk of
Psychological Distress Because They Had an Abortion
Even for Devout Catholic Women, The Best Predictor of
Well-Being After Abortion is the Woman's Well-Being Before Abortion
WASHINGTON -- Social scientists have known for years that
the availability of legal abortion is not associated with long-term
psychological distress in women who use it. An eight-year
longitudinal study involving nearly 5,300 young women published
in 1992 found that the best predictor of well-being in women over
the course of the study was their well-being at the start of the
study, not their income level, job status, level of education or
martial status or -- quite specifically -- whether they had had an
abortion. Now a new follow-up study, published in the current
edition of the American Psychological Association's (APA) journal
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice finds that the
same conclusion still applies regardless of religious or racial
differences.
The study, by psychologists Nancy Felipe Russo, Ph.D., of
Arizona State University and Amy J. Dabul, Ph.D., of Phoenix
College, is further analysis of data gathered from a national sample
of 5,295 women aged 14 to 24 (in 1979) who were interviewed
annually from 1979 to 1987. The women's well-being was assessed
using a reliable and valid measure of self-esteem in 1980 and again
in 1987. This time, in addition to looking at variables such as
income, employment and education, the researchers looked at
race and religious beliefs and practices to see if they had any effect
on women's well-being after having had an abortion.
They found that, overall, White women and Black women did
not differ statistically on measures of self-esteem. Approximately the
same proportion of Black women and White women reported
having had an abortion (14.6% and 14.9% respectively), but Black
women had more abortions than White women and Black women
who had abortions were more likely than White women to be
mothers (86% vs 57%). Nonetheless, having had an abortion (or
more than one) had no relation with self-esteem in either group: '
For both Black women and White women, prior self-esteem was
the biggest predictor of subsequent self-esteem,' the authors note.
The same held true when they compared Black and White women
who reported a religious affiliation and high or low church
attendance with those who were not religious.
Since the type of religion to which women who had an abortion
belonged also did not make a difference in their post-abortion
well-being, the researchers focused specifically on Catholic versus
non-Catholic women, given that the Catholic Church 'has a
consistent antiabortion position that is vigorously promoted.'
Their findings in this analysis were more complex: non- Catholic
women who had high church attendance and one abortion had
the highest self-esteem; non-Catholic women who had low church
attendance and repeat abortions had the lowest self-esteem. But
at the same time, high-church-attendance non-Catholic women
with one abortion had significantly higher self-esteem than did
low-church- attendance Catholic women with no abortions. 'Although
highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely to exhibit
postabortion psychological distress than other women,' the
researchers say, 'this fact is explained by lower pre-existing
well-being.'
Given these findings, the researchers ask: 'Do highly distressed
women who have had an abortion exist?' And, they answer: 'Yes.
But their distress is likely to be rooted in events and conditions
that existed before they became pregnant. Legal abortion per se
does not increase a woman's risk of negative well- being.'
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Article: 'The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being: Do Race
and Religion Make a Difference?' by Nancy Felipe Russo, Ph.D.,
Arizona State University, and Amy J. Dabul, Ph.D., Phoenix College,
in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 1.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,
DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization
representing psychology in the United States and is the world's
largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes
more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants
and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology
and affiliations with 58 state, territorial and Canadian provincial
associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science,
as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Matt Pillsbury
[...]
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020702/180/1s9z7.html
[...]
> >> -- There is no published medical evidence that abortion helps to
> >> save troubled relationships, improves the mental, social, or
> >> physical well being of women. In the absence of such evidence,
> >> the attending physician has no medical evidence to support a
> >> recommendation for abortion. In regard to hoped for benefits,
> >> abortion is an untested, experimental procedure.
> I noted MINXS snipped this portion and refused to comment.
There is also no published medical evidence that indicates that abor-
tion will stave off tooth decay, improve knowlege of the Spanish
language or reduce the national debt of Taiwan. Of course, only one of
David Reardon's idiotic lackeys...
> "...published MEDICAL EVIDENCE that abortion helps to save
> troubled relationships, improves the mental, social, or
> physical well being of women.... "
...would demand abortion to do any of this, since abortion is intended
to *end a pregnancy*. This may prevent the woman's well-being from
being further damaged by a pregnancy she's ill-equipped to deal with,
but Reardon was clever enough to phrase his "point" in a way that
sidesteps that nicety.
--
Matt Pillsbury "Fanatacism consists of redoubling your effort
pil...@mac.com when you have forgotten your aim."
--George Santayana
Krisbam
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020702/180/1s9z7.html
>>> Open Letter From Expectant Mother Care to the 150 New OB/GYN Medical
>>> Residents Beginning Residencies This Week in NYC Public Hospitals
>>> where Abortion Training is Now "Mandatory"
>>> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
>>> (3.5X)in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
>She can find and quote a few Pro-Death sources
You're full of shit.
M is for Malapert
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message >
news:<X_YU8.397164$352.51822@sccrnsc02>...
> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6f9e1b49.02070...@posting.google.com...
> >> -- Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die
> >> (3.5X)in the subsequent year compared to women who carry to term.
> [snip]
I notice your refusal to comment on what I said:
'Yup, and women who have abortions are significantly more likely to die by
homicide and especially "by legal intervention" (shot by a cop) than women
who carry to term. Can you guess why?'
Why do you think women who have abortions (in the US) are more likely to be
killed by the police than women who carry to term? Is it the result of
having had an abortion?
> >> -- There is no published medical evidence that abortion helps to
> >> save troubled relationships, improves the mental, social, or
> >> physical well being of women. In the absence of such evidence,
> >> the attending physician has no medical evidence to support a
> >> recommendation for abortion. In regard to hoped for benefits,
> >> abortion is an untested, experimental procedure.
> I noted MINXS snipped this portion and refused to comment.
You have stated YOUR opinion that abortion can save relationships and
improve the mental and social well being of women:
'First, we look at the woman and her personal rage at this assault...From
what I've read, some women are effected [sic] for years by the psychological
scars and are never again able to enjoy a normal sex life with their
husbands/lovers.
'Second, we look at the dynamics in the family...Many husbands/lovers have a
strong reaction to learning that the wife/girlfriend was raped. They want
to support and love her, but at the same time they feel strong
resentments -- and sometimes they misdirect these resentments at the
woman...There is a good chance that the woman will find it impossible to
respond sexually to her husband/lover in the normal way for some time --
perhaps for weeks or months...Both the woman and her husband/lover may feel
guilt, rage, and/or shame in the meantime.
'So, you ask why we should care how the husband feels -- he is a big boy.
He is very important in many cases because he may very well be the primary
source of emotional support the woman has in the whole world. If he fails
her and if her marriage breaks up, the damage caused by the rape will be
much, much greater.
'I can empathize with a raped woman who finds she is pregnant. The natural
rage would be amplified by the pregnancy. Thus, the very thought of
carrying a rapist's child for months and then going through the pain of
birth would quite naturally be terribly repugnant to a normal woman...I
think it is a fairly accepted fact that many marriages are seriously
strained in the months following a wife's rape...If the wife is pregnant
with another man's child, it may very well make it impossible for some
husbands to accept the circumstances and provide the loving support the
wife fully deserves.'
(quoting from 5/19/97 and 7/25/97 posts of yours)
Now, you do realize that you are in total disagreement with David Reardon
and most other prominent "pro-lifers" on this issue, don't you? Reardon et
al. argue against ALL abortions for ANY reason. According to Reardon, you
don't know what you are talking about: "most people assume that an abortion
will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with
her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an
unrealistic view of abortion...Will an abortion truly console her, or will
it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?...Rather than
easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds
to them...In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical
rape she is robbed of her maternity."
(http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V2/n1/RAPESUM.htm) According to Reardon,
the only way to deal with a pregnancy after rape is to accept Jesus as your
lord and personal savior.
So, would you care to give us some published medical evidence that abortion
following rape saves marriages or helps women deal with the scars of rape?
If not, do you agree that in the absence of such evidence, doctors have no
valid reason to perform abortions even in the case of rape, since it remains
an untested, experimental procedure?
Stephen Matheson
> On 3 Jul 2002 09:31:33 -0700,
> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> <disinformational rant snipped>
Papa Jack's rant was indeed little more than
disinformation. There were two major responses from
pro-choicers. The first, by Minx, was nothing but facts and
relevant analysis. Even if you don't need any convincing
at all that PJ is wrong, her post is worth reading.
The second, from Craig Chilton, is typical of Chilton's
voluminous reposting to this newsgroup. It comes from a man
who claims that all of pro-choice philosophy is built on
FACTS, yet it contains only a few actual facts and is
riddled with ludicrous claims, fluffy non sequiturs,
and one major falsehood that only a liar would repeat
upon reading my response.
> NOW for the relevant FACTS, so that you can see what you will be
> doing FOR people when you provide safe and legal abortion services:
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
> *(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
>
> Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
> fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
> of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
>
> -- Human
> -- Unique
> -- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
> -- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
> -- Alive
>
> ...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
> try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
False. While few pro-lifers around here are capable of making
any of this clear, the list omits the significant differences
(biological and philosophical) which distinguish sperm and ova
from z/e/fs. Whether or not you agree with the claim that an
individual human life begins at fertilization, the assertion
that abortion opponents are hypocritical in general, if it is
based on your claim that there is nothing that makes zygotes
special, is an obvious falsehood. The important differences
are clear, if not obvious, and as a result the assumption that
a human life begins at or around fertilization arises from
consideration of scientific facts. (Note that I am *not*
claiming that science establishes the point at which a human
life begins, and certainly not asserting that science has
anything direct to say about personhood.)
In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice
positions are based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not,
is a shameful lie, and the fact that none of your fellow
pro-choicers ever musters the guts to call you on it is
a disgrace. Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice
people on this newsgroup *know* that you're not telling
the truth.
> And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
> majority of Americans:
>
> -- In NO way condemns abortion
> -- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
False. It specifies a penalty for the causing of a miscarriage.
There is much that could be intelligently discussed about this,
including the fact that the offense is clearly not equated with
murder. But IMO this continuously-repeated claim is dishonest.
> -- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
> -- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
What do you mean by "defenses"? If you mean that the Bible
ascribes no moral significance to any of these stages of
human development, then IMO you're lying.
> -- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
False. See above.
> -- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
> made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
> of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
Non sequitur. This kind of highly derivative pseudo-theological
illogic is strongly reminiscent of creation-science biblical
interpretation.
> -- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
Thus, the Bible condones infanticide. Do you? Why did you
include this here? Did you spend any time *at all* in thought
before your composed this? Does the fact that the Bible, in
certain cases, condemned *men and women* to horrible deaths
have any relevance in your bizarre philosophical construction?
> -- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
> fertilization
Does the Bible ever mention conception? In any interesting or
important context? Mr. Chilton? Can it really be that no
other pro-choicer on Usenet sees this as patently dishonest?
> -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on
their own hypocrisy, and less time typing scores of little
posts every week accusing pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of
the very same, then at least one of them would make the simple
point that the preceding is an obvious, ludicrous, laughable
non sequitur.
> Abortion-on-request enables women to:
>
> -- Put their lives back on track immediately
As would infanticide.
> -- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
Really? How do you know? Not that it matters: infanticide, if it
could accomplish the same, would still be what it is.
> -- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
> -- Most women have no regrets
> -- Restore their full range of future opportunities
Not so. Like every decision made by any person, some opportunities
are gained and others are lost. For example, obviously, the
woman loses the opportunity to know the child and be his/her
parent.
> -- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
> -- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
> -- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
All true.
> -- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
Infanticide takes care of that "trauma" quite nicely.
> -- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
This one made me laugh.
> -- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
Really? Got data?
> -- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
How exactly does abortion accomplish that? How were these
data acquired?
> -- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
by re-wording the same basic claim.
> -- Wait until timing is better before having children
True.
> -- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
> -- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
Really? Is the correlation between "having baby at a good
time" and "loving, stable home" really that strong? I'm
skeptical; can you provide data? Or will you just post
vacuous ad hominem attacks in all caps?
> -- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
> -- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
> -- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
You would think that such obvious conclusions would be easily
documented, wouldn't you, Mr. Chilton?
> Legal abortion-on-request:
>
> -- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
Huh? What are the numbers here?
> -- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
> -- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
> -- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
> -- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
All fluff.
> Other related facts include:
> -- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
> when the timing is better
> -- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
> had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
> ova would not have matched up.
Shrug.
> -- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
> significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
> of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
> early 1990s.
> -- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
> continues into the early 20s.
> -- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
> LESS prone to criminal behavior.
> -- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
> workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
> every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
> the age where they could be getting quite successful.
> -- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
> has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
> lows in many categories.
> -- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
> the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
> any nation in the entire history of the world.
> Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
> probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
> all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
> is QUITE strong,
Actually, it's zero. I've demonstrated this by referring to
data posted here at least twice by Minx and to easily-
obtained crime statistics, including those that Mr. Chilton
refers to above. I'm reposting that article separately.
> despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
> on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits
> the entire world.
I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step
forward and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably
inaccurate speculations that all intelligent participants
know they are.
The really sad thing is this: Mr. Chilton claims to have
accumulated "FACTS" that support a pro-choice position,
but *nowhere* in the list is there any mention of the moral
implications of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted
pregnancy. His list is a combination of two kinds of
nonsense: blatant assertions, misrepresented as "FACTS",
used to devalue unborn humans, and mostly vacuous
(often plainly inaccurate) claims used to create utilitarian
rationalizations for abortion.
Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage
reminds me of the corrupt policemen in 'Serpico'
who were in collusion with a well-paying sleazeball
who happened to be a cop-killer.
Craig Chilton
Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
>> <disinformational rant snipped>
> Papa Jack's rant was indeed little more than disinformation.
> There were two major responses from pro-choicers. The first, by
> Minx, was nothing but facts and relevant analysis. Even if you
> don't need any convincing at all that PJ is wrong, her post is
> worth reading.
>
> The second, from Craig Chilton, is typical of Chilton's
> voluminous reposting to this newsgroup. It comes from a man
> who claims that all of pro-choice philosophy is built on
> FACTS, yet it contains only a few actual facts...
"FEW??!!? Hell, the facts that support the Pro-Choice stance not
only are *abundant*, but they also are the ONLY facts. I have yet to
EVER see an ANTI-Choicer present a valid FACT that supports their
stance.
> ...and is riddled with ludicrous claims, fluffy non sequiturs,
> and one major falsehood that only a liar would repeat upon reading
> my response.
THIS should prove interesting. :)
Well and good, but you have contradicted nothing that I have
said all along. I have NEVER denied that zygotes are different,
and even significantly so. But there is NOTHING that is "SPECIAL"
about the mere, mechanical act of sperm and ova zoming together
to form them. It's kinda rough trying to explain this to the minority
of Anti-Choicers for whom the Bible is meaningless. But for the
REST of them, it's a combination of THESE facts that not only
make sperm and ova EQUAL in "value" (or lack thereof) to the
next three stages of the reproductive process, but ALSO relegate
ALL stages of that process to a status of being indefensible,
vis-a-vis people... who have been BORN:
(1) The only indications that we have pertaining to the
existence of INTRINSIC value for human life are
those provided by the Bible. And EVERYTHING in
the Bible which could be interpreted in that manner
points to the possession of intrinsic value ONLY by
human entities that have been BORN.
(a) Every time that human life is DEFENDED in the
Bible, it is PEOPLE (i.e., already-born human entities)
that are being defended.
(b) Whenever reproductive-process (NOT born) human
entities are mentioned, their existence is alluded to, or
it is a rare instance wherein God chose to intervene at
that stage with a SPECIFIC person-to-be (which He
did, in the case of Jeremiah, and the perm and/or egg
stage, BEFORE they met, on the womb. And in one
case in Exodus, a fetus is defended merely as being
PROPERTY... in the same passage which defends
slavery! Reproductive-stage entities are NEVER
defended by the Bible. NOR is abortion ever even
criticizd, much less condemned -- even though it WAS
widely-practiced, via abortifacients, in biblical times.
(c) NEVER does the Bible accord any "specialness"
to fertilization.
(d) Sperm and ova are EQUALLY valuable to the other
stages in all the IMPORTANT ways: (1) Being Stage
One of the reproductive process, without which there
would BE no zygotes (or, later on, births!)... (2) they
are human (per the DNA that they contain)... (3) they
are alive (as we know, both from their being part of
the human life continuum, and by the fact that LIVING
zygotes cannot be produced from ANY form of NON-
living matter... (4) the are POTENTIAL people, just as
much as the other stages are. The ODDS of any
given gamete ever going on to reach birth are FAR
slimmer than for the later stages, but that's irrelevant.
They still are POTENTIAL people. (And the odds
of reaching birth improve for EVERY subsequent
stage, the closer they get to it.)
So -- it is LUDICROUS for Anti-Choicers to seek to defend entities
of the reproductive process at the EXPENSE of REAL people (who
have been born), their well-being, their rights, their livelihoods,
their aspirations, and their future opportunities.
And, for them NOT to include sperm and ova in their supposed
"defense" of human entities prior to birth, IS hypocritical, since ALL
of those entities are EQUAL, in all the ways that reasonably could
be regarded as important.
> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice
> positions are based on FACTS, ...
which they ARE...
> ...while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie, ...
Wrong. The Anti-Choice position is supported by NO facts.
unless you're about to become the first peron in my 40+ years of
activism for choice to actually PRESENT me with one.
> ...and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters
> the guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
Call me on WHAT? Everything I've said is TRUE. So wouldn't it be
STUPID for them to act in the manner that YOU are? It's bad enough
that YOU are doing so... and you haven't presented ONE fact in here
yet. Just whines about how "wrong" I supposedly am. A substanceless
rant. (Which, for Anti-Choicers, is typical. So you have company.)
> Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
> newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
Yeah. Right. You WISH!! (You're starting a fast ride down the
first hill of the credibility coaster!)
>> And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
>> majority of Americans:
>>
>> -- In NO way condemns abortion
>> -- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
> False. It specifies a penalty for the causing of a miscarriage.
> There is much that could be intelligently discussed about this,
> including the fact that the offense is clearly not equated with
> murder. But IMO this continuously-repeated claim is dishonest.
Really, now? Let's see.
First off, the person being DEFENDED by those verses clearly is
the WOMAN. (There's no suggestion that her FETUS be removed
and evaluated for injuries, so that the appropriate penalties of "an
eye for an eye" or "a tooth for a tooth" can properly be imposed.)
Next -- I LOVE it when Anti-Choicers draw upon that passage,
because it would be hard to come up with one that could be used
as a BETTER example of just how UNlikely is is that the Bible would
go to the extent of defending z/e/fs! (For the sake of brevity, I'll
use only the NIV in my responses.) Here's why. Turn to the verses
IMMEDIATELY *before* the ones you cited, in the SAME passage:
Ex. 21:20-21...
20 -- If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the
slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 -- but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a
day or two, since the slave is his property.
Here we see the Bible treating:
A. An already-human being as mere PROPERTY.
B. It can be either a MALE or a FEMALE
C. There is NO penalty to the assailant if death doesn't occur.
D. If death DOES occur, the penalty is UNSPECIFIED.
So let's consider THIS scenario: A 13-year-old girl (or it could
be a boy) suddenly and inexplicably provokes the wrath of her owner,
who takes a rod and violently THRASHES her mercilessly to within a
millimeter of her life, and leaves her lying in a senseless and
unconscious bloody heap in the middle of a dusty road. She lies there
in abject agony, mixed with periods of unconsciousness, for two days
and nights. Then, 47 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds after the
beating, she manages to struggle to her feet and struggle off,
crippled and maimed, teeth broken off, arm broken, and with an
eye put out. The penalty to her owner for having inflicted such
horrendous, unconscionable and cruel damage? NONE!!
Or she DIES. What is her owner's penalty THEN? It's unspecified.
For all we know, it could be 3 lashes on the back of his hand by a
fellow slave owner, wielding a wet noodle.
Given all of this, the notion that the Bible would be concerned
with mere z/e/fs becomes totally LUDICROUS.
Know something? You'd have been a WHOLE lot better off if
you hadn't made THAT attempt!
>> -- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
>> -- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
> What do you mean by "defenses"? If you mean that the Bible
> ascribes no moral significance to any of these stages of
> human development, then IMO you're lying.
The "IMO" part is significant. My point exactly. The Bible does
NOT ascribe moral significance to any of those stages. And if it did,
Anti-Choice would have it pasted on billboards from coast-to-coast!
And... LOL!!!!! You say that I am "LYING" by pointing that out?
Faster and faster, down that first hill!!
>> -- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
> False. See above.
See what *I* pointed out after you brought it up.
>> -- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
>> made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
>> of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
> Non sequitur. This kind of highly derivative pseudo-theological
> illogic is strongly reminiscent of creation-science biblical
> interpretation.
"Pseudo-theological illogic?" Obviously, you know NOTHING
about the immense significance in the Bible to birthrights!
>> -- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
> Thus, the Bible condones infanticide. Do you? Why did you
> include this here?
Isn't it OBVIOUS? If the Bible condones infanticide in ANY of its
passages, then HOW could the Anti-Choicers EVER think that it cares
about the FAR-less-important NON-born stages of the reproductive
process?
> Did you spend any time *at all* in thought before your composed
> this?
Sure. Did YOU spend any time *at all* in thought before
you started criticizing the FACTS that I've presented? So far,
it appears less and less like you did.
> Does the fact that the Bible, in certain cases, condemned *men
> and women* to horrible deaths have any relevance in your bizarre
> philosophical construction?
"Bizarre." LOL!!!! You mean, "bizarre" as in the way YOU are
trying to "debate" this? I remind you again... if the Bible condones
infanticide in ANY of its passages, then HOW could the Anti-Choicers
EVER think that it cares about the FAR-less-important NON-born
stages of the reproductive process? The same goes for "people,"
of any age.
>> -- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
>> fertilization
> Does the Bible ever mention conception? In any interesting or
> important context? Mr. Chilton? Can it really be that no
> other pro-choicer on Usenet sees this as patently dishonest?
The ONLY conception that could be regarded as significant in
the Bible is the UNIQUE way that JESUS was produced. The Bible
NEVER ascribes any "specialness" to routine fertilization.
>> -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
> If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on
> their own hypocrisy, ...
THAT would be a VERY good trick, since PRO-Choicers, quite
unlike Anti-Choicers, are not hypocrites (with the obvous exception of
individuals in ANY group of people). Thus, we get by just FINE by
simply presenting the relevant FACTS. ALL of which support the
PRO-Choice stance. NO facts support being ANTI-Choice.
> and less time typing scores of little posts every week accusing
> pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of the very same, ...
As long as Anti-Choicers think that POTENTIAL people outrank
REAL people, and then -- even MORE humorously -- EXCLUDE one
stage of the reproductive process from their supposed "defenses,"
they ARE hypocrites.
> ...then at least one of them would make the simple point that the
> preceding is an obvious, ludicrous, laughable non sequitur.
But since NONE of what you just said is true, NO sensible and
honest person would say that.
>> Abortion-on-request enables women to:
>>
>> -- Put their lives back on track immediately
> As would infanticide.
Except that PERSONHOON is accorded at BIRTH, both by society's
laws, and the Bible. So that is apples and oranges. A very SILLY way
for you to continue clutching at nebulous straws.
>> -- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
> Really? How do you know? Not that it matters: infanticide, if it
> could accomplish the same, would still be what it is.
See above. And the fact that it WOULD, in almost all cases,
restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels, is obvious
to most people possessing working brains.
>> -- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
>> -- Most women have no regrets
>> -- Restore their full range of future opportunities
> Not so. Like every decision made by any person, some opportunities
> are gained and others are lost. For example, obviously, the woman loses
> the opportunity to know the child and be his/her parent.
Something she didn't want in the FIRST place, so NO loss.
Everything is RESET back to the point just BEFORE the ill-timed
pregnancy started. (And MOST women go on to HAVE children later,
when their circumstances have improved and the timing is better. And
are QUITE happy with that.)
>> -- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
>> -- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
>> -- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
> All true.
Someone get me the smelling salts!!!
>> -- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
> Infanticide takes care of that "trauma" quite nicely.
Apples and oranges, again. You've just gotten back onto your
track of complete ludicrousness.
>> -- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
> This one made me laugh.
That's not at all funny. It can HAPPEN. The woman starts out
PLANNING to adopt-out when the time comes, so that she can
RETURN to her original lifestyle or aspirations after birth has taken
place. But statistically, only ONE PERCENT who start out with that
plan follow through with it when the time comes. The OTHER 99%, by
virtue of having changed their mind over the 9 months, end up having
their previous lifestyle, their future aspirations, or both, destroyed
or disrupted. Not at ALL funny. And th main reason (other than the
relative expense and safety) that I recommend that women who are
considering abortion make that decision EARLY, and be AWARE of
what is likely to happen if they START OUT by planning to adopt-out.
>> -- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
> Really? Got data?
Grow a brain.
>> -- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
> How exactly does abortion accomplish that? How were these
> data acquired?
Are you running for election as "Troll-of the month?" Are you
incapable of seeing the OBVIOUS?
>> -- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
> You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
> by re-wording the same basic claim.
Everything I've said is a different aspect.
>> -- Wait until timing is better before having children
> True.
>> -- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
>> -- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
> Really? Is the correlation between "having baby at a good
> time" and "loving, stable home" really that strong? I'm
> skeptical; can you provide data? Or will you just post
> vacuous ad hominem attacks in all caps?
You're getting VERY tiresome, and accomplishing nothing. You
keep questioning the very OBVIOUS. Do you really wish to appear
that ignorant?
>> -- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
>> -- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
>> -- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
> You would think that such obvious conclusions would be easily
> documented, wouldn't you, Mr. Chilton?
They probably are. The FBI reported on aspects of this,
recently, which i saw, and another person in here recently reported
having seen. But even IF that were *not* the case, it is OBVIOUS
that this would be true to SOME extent. And if it's true to ANY
extent, it's worth avoiding. Abortion makes it possible to reduce
the likelihood of such outcomes.
>> Legal abortion-on-request:
>>
>> -- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
> Huh? What are the numbers here?
Who needs numbers? Anyone who was a late teener or adult
pre-1973, as I was, are WELL aware of those aspects of the
Pre-roe-vs-Wade Dark Ages.
>> -- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
>> -- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
>> -- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
>> -- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
> All fluff.
Bullcrap. A bolstering of the IMPORTANCE that abortion-on-
request has had to America. Tens and tens of millions of people
having benefited! Try THINKING a little bit!
>> Other related facts include:
>> -- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
>> when the timing is better
>> -- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
>> had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
>> ova would not have matched up.
> Shrug.
You are a REALLY negative person, aren't you? Acting as though
something isn't important while the BACKGROUND for the point about to
be made is still being presented.
>> -- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
>> significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
>> of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
>> early 1990s.
>> -- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
>> continues into the early 20s.
>> -- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
>> LESS prone to criminal behavior.
>> -- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
>> workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
>> every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
>> the age where they could be getting quite successful.
>> -- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
>> has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
>> lows in many categories.
>> -- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
>> the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
>> any nation in the entire history of the world.
>>
>> Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
>> probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
>> all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
>> is QUITE strong, ...
> Actually, it's zero. I've demonstrated this by referring to data
> posted here at least twice by Minx and to easily-obtained crime
> statistics, including those that Mr. Chilton refers to above. I'm
> reposting that article separately.
See sig.
>> ...despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
>> on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits
>> the entire world.
> I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step
> forward and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably
> naccurate speculations that all intelligent participants
> know they are.
Then you'll probably grow a very LONG, gray beard while you're
waiting, since what you just said is complete hogwash, and everyone
can see that with no problem.
> The really sad thing is this: Mr. Chilton claims to have accumulated
> "FACTS" that support a pro-choice position, but *nowhere* in the
> list is there any mention of the moral implications of forcing a woman
> to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Since abortion is simply a HUGELY-beneficial REMEDY for the
unwanted medical condition of ill-timed pregnancy, and not a "moral"
issue at all, you just now hit upon the ONLY way that it COULD be.
It would be HIGHLY immoral to FORCE any woman to carry-to-term
by DENYING her access to the option of safe & legal abortion.
Oddly enough, by so doing, you just supported the PRO-Choice
position!
> His list is a combination of two kinds of nonsense: blatant
> assertions, misrepresented as "FACTS"...
That is either a blatant LIE, or evidence of profound IGNORANCE
on your part, as anyone can see by reading the above material.
> ...used to devalue unborn humans, ...
One cannot "devalue" that which has NO value in the first place.
S/o/z/e/fs have ASCRIBED value at most. Ascribed arbitrarily by
women carrying them, who WANT them.
> and mostly vacuous (often plainly inaccurate) claims used to
> create utilitarian rationalizations for abortion.
ROTFL!!!! That's too absurd to merit response.
Are you aware that you -- just like EVERY other Anti-Choicer i've
encountered during the last 40 years -- presented NOT ONE FACT
in this post that supports being Anti-Choice? Not even ONE!!
> Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage...
ROYFLMAO!!! Someone piled some bricks at the bottom of that first
hill, and your coaster just crashed right into it!
> ...reminds me of the corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in
> collusion with a well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
No kidding? Try the "collusion" between freedom-fighter Civil
Rights workers as they dismantled the agenda and bigotry of
segregation, in the late '50s and early '60s. THEN you would have an
ACCURATE parallel to today's Pro-Choicers. Same battle. The only
difference is that the mindless, bigoted, hateful and ignorant jerks
we oppose today have different TARGETS. The loons targeted blacks
back then. Today's Anti-Choicers seek to impose IMMENSE hardship
upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth
upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their
rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient developing
entities which are, in all important ways, equivalent to sperm and ova
(human, unique, NON-sentient, a stage of development without
which NO births would occur -- and alive); entities which the WOMEN
would very properly, under the circumstances, regard to be parasitic.
Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of
their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or
a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their
opportunities.
Thus, they are without excuse.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
PREFACE to This SIG -- The following 8/27/2000 ABC News story...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Record Drop in Violent Crime
W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 27 -- Violent crime dropped
for the sixth straight year in 1999, taking overall crime rates to
their lowest in 27 years, the U.S. Justice Department said today.
The Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics said the total
number of non-lethal violent crimes, which includes rape,
robbery and assault, fell by more than 10 percent in 1999 from
the year before, a record one-year drop, according to the
bureau’s National Crime Victimization Survey.
Today’s report confirmed the overall drop in crime
across the country has continued.
Property crime also fell 9 percent, led by a drop in
burglaries and household thefts, continuing its downward
trend from 1974.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ABORTION'S GREAT FRINGE BENEFIT!
WHY is America doing so fabulously well, lately, with an unheard-of
economy? There are MANY interacting factors. But one factor that
CAN'T HURT is THIS one: In tens of millions of cases over the last
27 years, children have NOT been born into hardship in such great
numbers as would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade, and a higher
percentage of children HAVE been born into loving, and stable homes.
That cannot have helped but to have been of HUGE benefit to society,
in terms of productivity and as a major contributor to the steeply-
declining crime rate, as more and more of those WANTED children (who
replaced the UNwanted ones who would otherwise have been born)
have been reaching adulthood and entering the workforce. Can I
PROVE that? No. I don't know how we could generate such
statistics. But common sense tells us that this MUST be so. To what
degree, we don't know. But ANY degree is worthwhile and beneficial.
God never gave the SLIGHTEST indication that abortion was wrong,
or that we couldn't make such reproductive decisions. He DID give us
brains, though, presumably with some expectation that we would use
them intelligently within the parameters that He DID establish for us.
We've been doing just that. And there's no reason to change it.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Matt Pillsbury
> xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
> news:<3d258446...@netnews.mchsi.com>...
[...]
> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
Mr Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
find his posts somewhat embarassing to read. More importantly, how-
ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily read USENET as a matter
of personal entertainment--why on Earth would I expose myself to more
tedium?
> Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
> newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
Given the sorts of things that the smart 'pro-life' people have let
pass unchallenged in the past, I think it's safest to conclude that
there is no particular onus to challenge everything that one disa-
grees with. This only makes sense when one discusses a medium where
people use automated tools in an attempt to separate wheat from chaff.
[--By the way, for the remainder of this post, if I'm snipping one of
your points, it's probably because I pretty much agree with it.--]
> > And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
> > majority of Americans:
> > -- In NO way condemns abortion
> > -- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
> False. It specifies a penalty for the causing of a miscarriage.
This, at least, Mr Chilton has right, or at least right enough that
I'm not going to bother disputing it.
There is a penalty when a third party causes a woman to miscarry
through recklessness. One can accept and support that while failing to
condemn abortion--indeed, many states in the US (where a woman does
have a right to have an abortion) provide stiffer penalties than the
Bible does. So even if you disagree with my interpretation...
> There is much that could be intelligently discussed about this,
> including the fact that the offense is clearly not equated with
> murder.
...which (hopefully) falls under the rubric of "intelligent discus-
sion"...
> But IMO this continuously-repeated claim is dishonest.
...I hardly understand how it could be dishonest. Stating something
without proof falls far short of dishonesty.
[...]
> > -- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
> > fertilization
> Does the Bible ever mention conception? In any interesting or
> important context?
Not so far as I know. So...
> Mr. Chilton? Can it really be that no other pro-choicer on Usenet
> sees this as patently dishonest?
...how can it be patently dishonest to conclude that the Bible doesn't
ascribe any importance to something it doesn't even mention?!
> > -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
> If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on their own
> hypocrisy, and less time typing scores of little posts every week
> accusing pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of the very same, then at
> least one of them would make the simple point that the preceding is
> an obvious, ludicrous, laughable non sequitur.
So now it's *hypocrisy* to be bored by Chilton's posts? That's truly
and deeply bizarre.
[...]
> > -- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
> You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
> by re-wording the same basic claim.
And it's damned hypocritical to not want to pick apart a fluffed-up,
vacuous list point-by-frickin'-point, isn't it?
[...]
> > despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack on Sept. 11,
> > 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire world.
> I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step forward
> and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably inaccurate
> speculations that all intelligent participants know they are.
Why? Who would benefit? The intelligent participants know it already,
and the unintelligent ones aren't all that likely to benefity.
[...]
> Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage reminds me of the
> corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in collusion with a
> well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
Yeah, except that cops have a duty to oppose corruption, and enforce
the law. They are, in fact, payed to do just that. I, despite the
occasional suggestion that I am a shill for Planned Parenthood, do not
get paid to post USENET. I feel I am no particular obligation to reply
to every lame, error-ridden post that should find its way to my
server.
--
Matt Pillsbury "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort
Stephen Matheson
> On 9 Jul 2002 19:55:32 -0700,
> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[newsgroups trimmed to *.abortion]
[massive deletion of material that I'll discuss elsewhere]
What follows is the context of my discussion with
Mr. Chilton, and then a repost of my demonstration that
his claims regarding Roe and crime rates in the U.S.
are plainly false. My post also includes a request
that more pro-choicers come forward to oppose
Mr. Chilton's various errors and abuses. I left this
part in because it explains why I believe Mr. Chilton's
hate speech and dishonesty do violence to pro-
choice thinking (and perceptions thereof), and
because it includes my official coming-out as
a "pro-choice" person.
What I just said is demonstrable fact and is necessarily
the position of at least one prominent and intelligent
pro-choice participant in this newsgroup. You will soon
see why.
> > The really sad thing is this: Mr. Chilton claims to have accumulated
> > "FACTS" that support a pro-choice position, but *nowhere* in the
> > list is there any mention of the moral implications of forcing a woman
> > to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
>
> Since abortion is simply a HUGELY-beneficial REMEDY for the
> unwanted medical condition of ill-timed pregnancy, and not a "moral"
> issue at all, you just now hit upon the ONLY way that it COULD be.
> It would be HIGHLY immoral to FORCE any woman to carry-to-term
> by DENYING her access to the option of safe & legal abortion.
These claims are meaningless inasmuch as they are based
in their entirety on the blatant assertion of the contested and
dubious claim that abortion is "not a "moral" issue at all".
> Oddly enough, by so doing, you just supported the PRO-Choice
> position!
That's because I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-choice, not because
I believe unborn children to lack moral significance, but because
I see the moral implications of forcing a woman to carry
an unwanted pregnancy to be *more significant*. I reject
your incoherent attempts to devalue unborn humans,
both because you are unable to muster anything resembling
an argument, and because *it is not necessary to devalue
the embryo or fetus in order to assert the primacy of the
woman's right not to be commandeered*. *That* is
a pro-choice position.
> > His list is a combination of two kinds of nonsense: blatant
> > assertions, misrepresented as "FACTS"...
>
> That is either a blatant LIE, or evidence of profound IGNORANCE
> on your part, as anyone can see by reading the above material.
Every factual statement that you have made is, as I say below,
used to create utilitarian rationalizations for abortion. None
of them advance the primacy of the woman's moral claims
to her own body. None of them establishes a biblical or
other moral case for abortion. None of them does any
harm to an anti-abortion or anti-choice position.
Other statements, such as your claims regarding the
importance of fertilization, are nothing more than
blatant assertions of your opinions.
> > ...used to devalue unborn humans, ...
>
> One cannot "devalue" that which has NO value in the first place.
I rest my case.
> S/o/z/e/fs have ASCRIBED value at most. Ascribed arbitrarily by
> women carrying them, who WANT them.
Blatant assertions of highly dubious opinions, irrelevant
to and, in many cases, unrepresentative of, pro-choice
opinion.
> > and mostly vacuous (often plainly inaccurate) claims used to
> > create utilitarian rationalizations for abortion.
>
> ROTFL!!!! That's too absurd to merit response.
I'm not fooled. I don't believe that you're ROTFL, and I know
why you didn't respond. It is a plain fact that your list is
almost completely an attempt to rationalize abortion by
appealing to utilitiarian concerns, real and imagined.
None of it makes any sense without first dispensing
with the moral value of z/e/fs, which you do with breath-
taking ignorance and hubris, using blatant assertions
that deliberately ignore the wholly philosophical
nature of your position.
> Are you aware that you -- just like EVERY other Anti-Choicer i've
> encountered during the last 40 years -- presented NOT ONE FACT
> in this post that supports being Anti-Choice? Not even ONE!!
This assertion calls into question your intelligence, your
ability to understand rational debate, your understanding
of the difference between axioms and the conclusions
that follow, your intellectual integrity and/or your personal
integrity. The post to which you're responding already
contains several facts to which anti-abortion (and/or
anti-choice) people might point while articulating
a position. In fact, some of them you typed yourself.
You seem to think that you can change a fact into
a non-fact by blatantly asserting that the relevant
fact is not "IMPORTANT" or simply by blatantly
asserting your disagreement with the conclusion.
I can't see how such conduct can coexist with
intelligence or with integrity. You seem to lack
both.
> > Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage...
>
> ROYFLMAO!!! Someone piled some bricks at the bottom of that first
> hill, and your coaster just crashed right into it!
Uh huh. Warning: I wasn't talking to you. And, Mr.
Chilton...I'm not fooled by you.
> > ...reminds me of the corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in
> > collusion with a well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
>
> No kidding? Try the "collusion" between freedom-fighter Civil
> Rights workers as they dismantled the agenda and bigotry of
> segregation, in the late '50s and early '60s. THEN you would have an
> ACCURATE parallel to today's Pro-Choicers. Same battle. The only
> difference is that the mindless, bigoted, hateful and ignorant jerks
> we oppose today have different TARGETS. The loons targeted blacks
> back then. Today's Anti-Choicers seek to impose IMMENSE hardship
> upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth
> upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their
> rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their
> INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient developing
> entities which are, in all important ways, equivalent to sperm and ova
> (human, unique, NON-sentient, a stage of development without
> which NO births would occur -- and alive); entities which the WOMEN
> would very properly, under the circumstances, regard to be parasitic.
> Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of
> their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or
> a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their
> opportunities.
> Thus, they are without excuse.
:-) The aforementioned defines ranting. Warning to Chilton:
a blatant assertion will remain a blatant assertion no matter
how many times it is typed or posted.
What follows is a repost of my response to Chilton's
sig. The sig is the same, though my words below
were originally posted in response to a different
article.
-----------------
I have two purposes in this post. The first is to
give the laughable claims of Craig Chilton regarding
abortion, Roe v. Wade, and violent crime the treatment
they deserve. The second is to issue a plea (or maybe
a challenge) to thoughtful and honorable pro-choice
participants on these newsgroups to step forward,
at least every now and then, to oppose the outlandish
claims and sickening hate speech of Mr. Chilton.
> PREFACE to This SIG -- The following 8/27/2000 ABC News story...
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> Record Drop in Violent Crime
>
> W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 27 -- Violent crime dropped
> for the sixth straight year in 1999, taking overall crime rates to
> their lowest in 27 years, the U.S. Justice Department said today.
> The Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said the total
> number of non-lethal violent crimes, which includes rape,
> robbery and assault, fell by more than 10 percent in 1999 from
> the year before, a record one-year drop, according to the
> bureau's National Crime Victimization Survey.
>
> Today's report confirmed the overall drop in crime
> across the country has continued.
>
> Property crime also fell 9 percent, led by a drop in
> burglaries and household thefts, continuing its downward
> trend from 1974.
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ABORTION'S GREAT FRINGE BENEFIT!
>
> WHY is America doing so fabulously well, lately, with an
> unheard-of economy?
I don't personally think America is doing "fabulously well", but
that's just an opinion. As for the "unheard-of" economy, mini-
recessions like the one that seems to be ending in the U.S. are
anything but unheard of. Let's tuck this hyperbolic opening
question away for later.
> There are MANY interacting factors. But one factor that
> CAN'T HURT is THIS one: In tens of millions of cases over the last
> 27 years, children have NOT been born into hardship in such great
> numbers as would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade, and a higher
> percentage of children HAVE been born into loving, and stable homes.
Let's see: Mr. Chilton seems to be claiming that because of Roe v.
Wade, "tens of millions" of children have not been "born into
hardship." Or perhaps he's making a more vague claim about
this not happening in "such great numbers." It's hard to tell;
if he's asserting the former, he's posted an outrageous falsehood,
if the latter, then his claim is statistically insignificant
and his conclusions comically unjustified.
You see, according to data and analysis posted here by Minx,
RvW didn't result in dramatically-increased abortion rates.
(This probably surprises many at first [it did me] since
at first glance the opposite seems the case. But the data
are very clear, IMO.) In other words, roughly the same number
of abortions per capita occurred before and after 1973, only
they were legal (and thus reported) after RvW. So, of the 40
million or so abortions performed since RvW, exceedingly few
have occurred because of RvW. As Minx showed (citing an AMA
study), abortion legality doesn't affect abortion rates, but
does affect the health of women. In fact, statistically,
the unchanged rate implies that *no* abortions occurred as a
result of RvW. This can't be literally true, as legal barriers
must have prevented some abortions that would have occurred after
Roe, but the point is that the numbers are so small as to be
statistically negligible.
So, for Mr. Chilton to document *any* "fringe benefit" of
abortion, he'll have to go back to the introduction of
abortion as a widely-available procedure. According to
Minx, that'll be many decades back, since abortion rates
have been "roughly the same as today's during most of the
20th century." (Quote from Minx's post, in thread entitled
"abortion [followup to minxs]" and posted 19 March.)
All of Chilton's pro-abortion claims in this post, then,
are false: Roe did not change abortion rates, and so any
changes in society that correlate with abortion's legalization
cannot be attributed to the termination of unwanted pregnancies
or to the assumed effects of this on rates of birth into
"loving and stable homes."
It is shocking to me that Chilton seems to be unaware of
these facts. Either he has not read the articles posted
by Minx (easily the most interesting and able participant
around here IMO) or the sources from which she draws, or
he has deliberately (and therefore dishonestly) disregarded
them. Either way, he is clearly not a reliable source
of facts (aka FACTS) about abortion or any other subject
IMO. Worse still, IMO, is the fact that no knowledgeable
pro-choicer has stepped forward to point this out,
despite their ubiquity elsewhere in the newsgroups and
in the very thread in which these falsehoods first
appeared. I digress; my pleas will come later.
But...Chilton's errors are more serious than mere statements
of ignorance. His conclusions are careless extrapolations
mixed with lavish hyperbole. I think it's worth exposing
these errors because Chilton so habitually claims to base
his pro-abortion opinions on "FACTS." To see how far his
irresponsible and illogical reasoning has led him from the
truth, let's grant his false assumption that Roe led to
increased rates of abortion in America, and see where it
takes us. We won't deal with the "unheard-of economy",
since Chilton didn't make any coherent claims about it,
and didn't attempt to justify any assumptions about its
association with Roe. So we'll stick to the data he did
post, regarding crime rates in the U.S.
> That cannot have helped but to have been of HUGE benefit to society,
> in terms of productivity and as a major contributor to the steeply-
> declining crime rate, as more and more of those WANTED children (who
> replaced the UNwanted ones who would otherwise have been born)
> have been reaching adulthood and entering the workforce. Can I
> PROVE that? No. I don't know how we could generate such
> statistics. But common sense tells us that this MUST be so.
> To what degree, we don't know. But ANY degree is worthwhile and
> beneficial.
Chilton says he doesn't know how "we could generate such statistics."
But he clearly wants us to focus on the crime statistics he posted
here. In particular, he wants us to believe (as he does) that RvW
and its elimination of unwanted children is a "major contributor
to the steeply-declining crime rate." And I assume he's impressed
by the fact that the decline in one particular type of crime
(property crime) began its decline in 1974. So let's use our
common sense to see if there's anything in the crime data that
suggests a correlation with RvW.
The property crime rate has indeed been decreasing steadily
since 1974. This observation alone falsifies Chilton's claim:
one-year-olds are notorious for disturbing the peace, but they're
not known as prolific vandals or thieves. Decreases in property
crime due to increased numbers of "wanted children" from
"loving, stable homes" would not be observed for 8-10 years
after the event in question (RvW in 1973). Whatever it is
that is causing the decrease in property crime, it isn't
correlated in any way with Roe, no matter what Chilton's
"common sense" tells him.
(Side note: examination of arrest data [see below] shows
that property crime arrests jumped dramatically between
1973 and 1974. Does this mean that Roe *caused* theft
and vandalism? Mr. Chilton?)
The data on violent crime, which is the main subject of
the news report Chilton is citing, are quite interesting.
Violent crime rates have not been decreasing since 1974;
on the contrary, they fluctuated but remained basically
unchanged from 1974 to 1994. From 1994 to the present,
as the ABC News excerpt indicates,there has been a steep
decrease in violent crime rates. Now, this is potentially
a correlation with Roe, since post-Roe "wanted children"
would be in their early 20s starting in 1994. And we all
know that young men are frequent perpetrators of violent
crime, so...hmmm.
Well, this hypothesis is quite testable. We can just look
at violent crime statistics for the various age groups at
various times after Roe. Check out:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm#National
In other words, we can see if the 15-17-year-old violent
crime rate (as indicated by the arrest rate) was down
starting 15 years after Roe. We can even look at the
rates for 14 years and under (kind of depressing). In all
these age groups, we see the same thing: high rates of
violent crime in the 80s, tailing off and then decreasing
starting around 1994. If you think about this observation
alone, and the time frames involved, you can already see
how Chilton's claim is absurd. But here's one way to
make it very clear. Consider the violent crime rate for
kids 14 and under. Beginning in 1987, all these kids were
born post-Roe, thus the replacement of "unwanted" kids
with "wanted" ones was unfettered. What happened to the
violent crime rate in this age group from 1987 to 1994?
It *skyrocketed*, nearly doubling in 7 years during an
increase that *began* in 1987 after almost 15 years of
remaining unchanged. Ditto for 15-17-year olds,
who became completely post-Roe starting in 1990,
when the disturbing rise in violent crime in
America was ongoing. (This rise is evident in
the victimization data as well, but that data
indicates a drop-off in the early 80's that
is not reflected clearly in the arrest data.)
In other words, a simple examination of the data
Chilton posted, followed by a simple examination of
additional, more detailed (but easily obtainable)
data on crime rates, shows that Chilton's extrapolations
from Roe to American sociology are plainly incorrect,
even absurd. In fact, since violent crime *increased*
among post-Roe young Americans in the late 80's and
early 90's, Chilton's technique of using "common
sense" in the absence of intellectual integrity
would easily lead to a conclusion quite the
opposite of the one Chilton intended for us to reach.
One final point regarding these foolish extrapolations:
Chilton and others who wish to find societal indicators
that lead to pro-abortion positions should be relieved
that Roe did not actually increase abortion rates. Why?
First, because the data that Chilton posted himself
shows no correlation at all between crime rates and Roe,
clearly falsifying Chilton's dream of "wanted" children
having been of "HUGE benefit to society" as a result of
Roe. That's a pretty big problem for those who want
to claim that a world populated by "wanted" children
(defined as those whose parents chose not to abort them)
is a better world. Second, these folks should note that
it's not so hard to find data that suggests that
in many important ways, the U.S. has become an uglier
and more dangerous place in the years since Roe. Go to
http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/statinfo/nis3.cfm#national
to read some sad statistics regarding child abuse and
neglect in America. Am I suggesting that these trends
are in some way related to abortion or to Roe?
Absolutely not; in fact, I'm convinced this is *not*
the case. And that's a silver lining for Chilton.
It will require the introduction of intellectual
integrity into this discussion for Chilton to
acknowledge this.
Now for my plea. I think it should have been obvious to
any thinking person that Chilton's claims are ridiculous.
(Am I the only person who read Minx's articles? I don't
think so.) His posts are riddled with philosophical errors
and hyperbole just like that we saw here. He regularly
pretends to speak on behalf of pro-choice people while
dispensing arrogant insults in pompous collections of
"FACTS" which he claims verify pro-choice opinions.
He refers to Christian populations with which he disagrees
as "cults" and routinely portrays pro-life people,
en masse, as ignorant bigots. Let me be clear: my plea
is not for "fairness" as though I think that Chilton insults
pro-lifers too much. (For the record, I think the pro-life
contingent here is often deserving of harsh criticism, and
I have dispensed some myself.) Nor am I claiming that
every instance of obnoxiousness or bigotry by a pro-
choicer requires (or deserves) a response from anyone.
And I certainly don't need any help refuting Chilton's
claims or exposing his bigotry and hypocrisy. No, my
concern, frankly, is that silence in the presence of
Chilton's ubiquitous abuses creates complicit hypocrisy
and ultimately undermines the most noble and compelling
aspect of pro-choice philosophy: that the rights of the
woman are the paramount concern in discussions of the
legality of abortion, and that her significance is
overwhelming *regardless* of the rights and significance
of the embryo or fetus, whatever they might be.
Some of the people posting right now were instrumental
in changing my own thinking on this issue, years ago
when I was officially "undecided" on the legality of
abortion. It hurts to see the damage that Chilton does
to these ideas, and to see him get Carte Blanche on
falsehood and hate speech from honorable people who
never let pro-lifers get away with such things. No one
should be allowed to smear others and to lie, unopposed,
in the name of women's rights or anything else, especially
when the opinions he continuously espouses are all about
devaluing unborn humans and slandering those who disagree.
Sign me:
Steve Matheson, anti-abortion but largely
pro-choice, at least partly due to interaction with wise
and thoughtful pro-choicers on talk.abortion.
math...@scientist.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<m...@seesig.net>
wrote
on 10 Jul 2002 13:08:33 -0700
<m24rf79...@seesig.net>:
> math...@scientist.com (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>> xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
>> news:<3d258446...@netnews.mchsi.com>...
> [...]
>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
>> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
>> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
>> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
>
> Mr Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
> find his posts somewhat embarassing to read. More importantly, how-
> ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily read USENET as a matter
> of personal entertainment--why on Earth would I expose myself to more
> tedium?
Well, I suppose the recommended daily allowance of tedium (which,
most likely, is between illudium and natteringnabobium somewhere in
the periodic table -- I think it's in the "rare candor" section)
is probably quite low. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random shaving cream molecule here
EAC code #191 146d:19h:39m actually running Linux.
Be paranoid. Everyone else is.
Stephen Matheson
> math...@scientist.com (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
> > xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
> > news:<3d258446...@netnews.mchsi.com>...
> [...]
> > In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
> > based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
> > and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
> > guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
>
> Mr Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
> find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
> More importantly, how-
> ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily read USENET as a matter
> of personal entertainment--why on Earth would I expose myself to more
> tedium?
Got a point there.
> > Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
> > newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
>
> Given the sorts of things that the smart 'pro-life' people have let
> pass unchallenged in the past, I think it's safest to conclude that
> there is no particular onus to challenge everything that one disa-
> grees with.
That's not the standard I'm asking for. As near as I can
tell, Mr. Chilton is *never* corrected or opposed by
a pro-choicer.
[snip]
> [--By the way, for the remainder of this post, if I'm snipping one of
> your points, it's probably because I pretty much agree with it.--]
Got it. I note that this includes all of my most important points
and my most serious criticisms of Mr. Chilton. The discussion
below is over trivia. (Wait, don't leave! *Interesting* trivia, I meant
to say.) I consider you to have gone on record in opposition to
most of what Mr. Chilton claims in his current sig, and therefore
in most of his posts.
> > > And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
> > > majority of Americans:
>
> > > -- In NO way condemns abortion
> > > -- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
>
> > False. It specifies a penalty for the causing of a miscarriage.
>
> This, at least, Mr Chilton has right, or at least right enough that
> I'm not going to bother disputing it.
>
> There is a penalty when a third party causes a woman to miscarry
> through recklessness. One can accept and support that while failing to
> condemn abortion--indeed, many states in the US (where a woman does
> have a right to have an abortion) provide stiffer penalties than the
> Bible does. So even if you disagree with my interpretation...
>
> > There is much that could be intelligently discussed about this,
> > including the fact that the offense is clearly not equated with
> > murder.
>
> ...which (hopefully) falls under the rubric of "intelligent discus-
> sion"...
I consider the hyperbolic claim ("NEVER") to be plainly
inaccurate.
> > But IMO this continuously-repeated claim is dishonest.
>
> ...I hardly understand how it could be dishonest. Stating something
> without proof falls far short of dishonesty.
:-) Nicely done. We disagree. I consider such hyperexaggerated
claims to be dishonest. 'Nough said.
> [...]
> > > -- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
> > > fertilization
>
> > Does the Bible ever mention conception? In any interesting or
> > important context?
>
> Not so far as I know. So...
You're wrong.
> > Mr. Chilton? Can it really be that no other pro-choicer on Usenet
> > sees this as patently dishonest?
>
> ...how can it be patently dishonest to conclude that the Bible doesn't
> ascribe any importance to something it doesn't even mention?!
Not only does the Bible *mention* conception, it does so in critical
passages upon which fundamental Christian doctrines are based.
Mr. Chilton, if he is a confessing Christian, knows this.
(Cf. Heidelberg Catechism, questions 7, 23, 35, 36 for these
confessions and their scriptural basis.)
That's why I consider Chilton's claim to be dishonest.
This is not to say that there is nothing to be discussed
regarding the Bible's use of the term, or its implications.
As I think I've made clear, Mr. Chilton and I (and you)
almost certainly agree on many crucial questions, and
almost certainly oppose conversely hyperbolic claims
made by pro-life Christians attempting to use vague
Biblical references to justify a political stance.
> > > -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
>
> > If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on their own
> > hypocrisy, and less time typing scores of little posts every week
> > accusing pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of the very same, then at
> > least one of them would make the simple point that the preceding is
> > an obvious, ludicrous, laughable non sequitur.
>
> So now it's *hypocrisy* to be bored by Chilton's posts? That's truly
> and deeply bizarre.
Look, Matt, I *know* that my criticism of pro-choice silence in
the presence of Chilton's abuses is easily misinterpreted. My
criticism is aimed at those few who regale us with "scores of
little posts", full of furious denunciations of "pro-liars",
while plain idiocy like the above is left *completely without
comment*. That's my objection. The silence, IMO, is
deafening.
If you don't read Chilton's posts, and never see his
assertions, then your silence certainly isn't hypocrisy.
This, in general, *cannot* explain the phenomenon.
I have a theory. More later.
> > > -- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
>
> > You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
> > by re-wording the same basic claim.
>
> And it's damned hypocritical to not want to pick apart a fluffed-up,
> vacuous list point-by-frickin'-point, isn't it?
Relax. That was never my beef. Give me a break.
BTW, it would be pretty damn noteworthy if anyone besides
yourself had even had the guts to acknowledge the crap
for what it is: fluffed-up, vacuous, and *dishonest*.
> > > despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack on Sept. 11,
> > > 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire world.
>
> > I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step forward
> > and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably inaccurate
> > speculations that all intelligent participants know they are.
>
> Why? Who would benefit? The intelligent participants know it already,
> and the unintelligent ones aren't all that likely to benefity.
First, it's clear to me that some folks fall for this stuff, as
CC occasionally gets attaboys from other posters. Second,
and related, the silence is easily (and I think, at least occasionally)
misinterpreted as tacit agreement. Chilton, IMO, acquires
undeserved credibility from the fact that no pro-choicer
*ever* denounces either his raging hate speech or his
ubiquitous falsehoods. Third, a lie is a lie, and I don't see
how honorable folks can tolerate so much dishonesty, so
often, from someone who openly claims to speak for them.
It's about integrity. Your mileage may differ.
No, I don't expect every error or falsehood to be
corrected or opposed. But complete silence speaks
clearly. And yes, I know that all this and more is
perpetuated by pro-lifers. For the record, I
regularly correct errors and denounce lies by pro
lifers. I'll be glad to do it more.
> > Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage reminds me of the
> > corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in collusion with a
> > well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
>
> Yeah, except that cops have a duty to oppose corruption, and enforce
> the law. They are, in fact, payed to do just that. I, despite the
> occasional suggestion that I am a shill for Planned Parenthood, do not
> get paid to post USENET. I feel I am no particular obligation to reply
> to every lame, error-ridden post that should find its way to my
> server.
Point taken. I'm trying to be clear about my objection.
I think the silence is deafening. And...you just broke it.
Now for my theory. It seeks to explain both Chilton's
behavior and pro-choice complicity with his abuses.
In a word, war. Chilton thinks this is war, and so,
I propose, do most of the people here. And, we
all know, the first casualty of war is truth.
Steve Matheson math...@scientist.com
Craig Chilton
Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote:
>> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
>>> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
>>> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
>>> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
>> Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
>> find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
> I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
Yeah. It takes real... guts?... to admit that one is an OSTRICH.
Which is all that kill-filing accomplishes.
Rather that be confronted with FACTS that can't be refuted, which
serve as a constant REMINDER to an Anti-Choicer of his ignorance and
bigotry, it's so much EASIER just to bury one's head in the sand and
pretend the facts never appeared on the server...
>> More importantly, how-ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily
>> read USENET as a matter of personal entertainmen -- why on Earth
>> would I expose myself to more tedium?
ROTFL!!! I haven't seen a Usenet post YET that I couldn't simply
ignore, if I wanted to. WHO is dragging you, kicking and screaming,
into brining up ANY post and then forcing you to read all of it?
> Got a point there.
See above. Some "point." :)
>>> Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
>>> newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
>> Given the sorts of things that the smart 'pro-life' people have let
>> pass unchallenged in the past, I think it's safest to conclude that
>> there is no particular onus to challenge everything that one disa-
>> grees with.
> That's not the standard I'm asking for. As near as I can
>tell, Mr. Chilton is *never* corrected or opposed by a pro-choicer.
Pretty darned LOGICAL, since my posts deal with solid FACTS. And
there's no such thing as a fact that DOESN'T support the PRO-Choice
stance. Why would ANY pro-Choicer feel inclined to disagree with ANY
such fact?
Try using your head. Then maybe you'll GET it.
>[snip]
> Not only does the Bible *mention* conception, it does so in critical
> passages upon which fundamental Christian doctrines are based.
> Mr. Chilton, if he is a confessing Christian, knows this.
> (Cf. Heidelberg Catechism, questions 7, 23, 35, 36 for these
> confessions and their scriptural basis.)
>
> That's why I consider Chilton's claim to be dishonest.
> This is not to say that there is nothing to be discussed regarding
> the Bible's use of the term, or its implications. As I think I've made
> clear, Mr. Chilton and I (and you) almost certainly agree on many
> crucial questions, and almost certainly oppose conversely hyperbolic
> claims made by pro-life Christians attempting to use vague Biblical
> references to justify a political stance.
By way of clarification, I have never claimed that conception
wan't mentioned in the Bible. I HAVE pointed out that there is
nothing in the bible that ascribes any "specialness" to it. I.e.,
nothing, for example, that would ascribe more value to the
fertiliztion process (transition from Stage One to Stage Two --
zygote -- of the reproductive process) than to the formation of
the Stage One etities (sperm & ova) in any given person's parents'
reproductive organs.
This is VERY important, because upon that fact hinges the
HYPOCRISY of Anti-Choicers when they seek to "defend" z/e/fs,
but OMIT sperm & ova from such defense. Since sperm & ova --
JUST like the later stages, ALSO a living, human, POTENTIAL
people. Therefore... as said before ---
>>>> -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
>>> If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on their own
>>> hypocrisy, and less time typing scores of little posts every week
>>> accusing pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of the very same, then at
>>> least one of them would make the simple point that the preceding is
>>> an obvious, ludicrous, laughable non sequitur.
>> So now it's *hypocrisy* to be bored by Chilton's posts? That's truly
>> and deeply bizarre.
LOL!!!! I agree!
> Look, Matt, I *know* that my criticism of pro-choice silence in the
> presence of Chilton's abuses...
"Abuses?" Presenting solid FACTS -- ALL of which support the
PRO-Choice stance -- and NONE of which exist to support being
ANTI-Choice... constitutes "abuses?"
Because that is the primary substance of my posts: The
above-mentioned facts, and opinions that are solidly-BASED
on those facts.
How could ANYONE honestly refer to that as "abuse?" ?????
> ... is easily misinterpreted. My criticism is aimed at those few
> who regale us with "scores of little posts", full of furious
> denunciations of "pro-liars", ...
I think that if you examins such posts HONESTLY, you'll find that
it's in a RESPONSE to an actual lie that WAS told by an Anti-Choicer.
Or multiple lies. So the Anti-Choicers got CALLED on that. What's
wrong with THAT? They had it coming!
> ...while plain idiocy like the above is left *completely without
> comment*. That's my objection. The silence, IMO, is
> deafening.
Gee. That should TELL you something. Such as: there was NO
"idiocy." Except, possibly, in your mind.
> If you don't read Chilton's posts, and never see his assertions,
> then your silence certainly isn't hypocrisy.
It isn't if he DOES, either. The only people who could reasonably
criticize my presentation of the FACTS would be Anti-Choicers whose
cause is being exposed for the vicious and ignorant one that it is.
> This, in general, *cannot* explain the phenomenon. I have a theory.
> More later.
LOL!!! THAT should prove interesting. :)
>>>> -- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
>>> You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
>>> by re-wording the same basic claim.
>> And it's damned hypocritical to not want to pick apart a fluffed-up,
>> vacuous list point-by-frickin'-point, isn't it?
> Relax. That was never my beef. Give me a break. BTW, it would
> be pretty damn noteworthy if anyone besides yourself had even had
> the guts to acknowledge the crap for what it is: fluffed-up, vacuous,
> and *dishonest*.
Yeah. Anti-choicers with everything to lose WOULD make such
silly claims about the clear-cut points that I make.
>>>> ...despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack on Sept.
>>>> 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire world.
>>> I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step forward
>>> and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably inaccurate
>>> speculations that all intelligent participants know they are.
WHICH, of course, you OMITTED mention of the material I
presented which BACKS that statement.
Honesty is LOST on you, then, is it?
>> Why? Who would benefit? The intelligent participants know it
>> already, and the unintelligent ones aren't all that likely to benefit.
What bullcrap. (Or ignorance. Probably both.)
> First, it's clear to me that some folks fall for this stuff, as
> CC occasionally gets attaboys from other posters.
Aw, gee! People actually "falling for" FACTS!! Perish forbid!! :)
> Second, and related, the silence is easily (and I think, at least
> occasionally) misinterpreted as tacit agreement. Chilton, IMO,
> acquires undeserved credibility from the fact that no pro-choicer
> *ever* denounces either his raging hate speech...
"Hate speech?"
Oh. You're probably referring to THIS, or some similar statement:
"Anti-Choicers seek to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no
fewer than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth
upon them. AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their
rights... their RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient developing
entities which are, in all important ways, equivalent to sperm and
ova (human, unique, NON-sentient, a stage of development
without which NO births would occur -- and alive); entities which
the WOMEN would very properly, under the circumstances,
regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of that hardship
would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both short-term
and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and the
DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities."
Nowhere do I get very much harder on the Anti-Choicers than
in THAT statement. So... let's see you be HONEST enough to
answer these questions about that paragraph:
(1) WHAT did I say in there that was NOT true?
(2) Considering what they seek to DO to millions of
women, WHY should I *not* tell it like it IS about them?
> ...or his ubiquitous falsehoods.
"Ubiquitous?" Look that word up, and see how that squares
with "not one." I never lie in my posts, and i challenge you to BACK
that asinine statement by proving otherwise. OR being honorable
enough to apologize.
> Third, a lie is a lie, and I don't see how honorable folks can
> tolerate so much dishonesty, ...
It's very EASY to tolerant NONEXISTENT dishonesty.
> ...so often, ...
ROTFL!!!!!
> ...from someone who openly claims to speak for them.
> It's about integrity. Your mileage may differ.
<<<sheeesh>>>>
> No, I don't expect every error or falsehood to be corrected or
> opposed.
Why not? Since there aren't any, that certainly wouldn't
take any time.
> But complete silence speaks clearly. And yes, I know that
> all this and more is perpetuated by pro-lifers. For the record, I
> regularly correct errors and denounce lies by pro lifers. I'll be
> glad to do it more.
It's EASY to do that. Anti-Choicers, having NO facts on their
side, THRIVE on errors and lies.
>>> Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage reminds me
>>> of the corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in collusion with a
>>> well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
You're up to lesson 17, now in that course you are taking, right?
"How to be a complete SCHMUCK." (??)
>> Yeah, except that cops have a duty to oppose corruption, and
>> enforce the law. They are, in fact, payed to do just that. I, despite the
>> occasional suggestion that I am a shill for Planned Parenthood, do not
>> get paid to post USENET. I feel I am no particular obligation to reply
>> to every lame, error-ridden post that should find its way to my
>> server.
> Point taken. I'm trying to be clear about my objection.
> I think the silence is deafening. And...you just broke it.
>
> Now for my theory. It seeks to explain both Chilton's behavior and
> pro-choice complicity with his abuses. In a word, war. Chilton thinks
> this is war, and so, I propose, do most of the people here. And, we
> all know, the first casualty of war is truth.
It IS a war. Just as battling segregation was a war. The
segregationists were JUST as ignorant, hateful and bigotes as today's
Anti-Choicers. And they, TOO, sought to relegate millions of people
to second-class-citizen status and deny them valuable rights.
Fortunately, thanks to the fair-minded Supreme Court of 1973,
women HAVE access to safe and legal abortion on request. But
freedom isn't free. Thus, we of the Pro-Choice makority will continue
to openly oppose the faction of vicious bigotry -- the Anti-Choicers
-- until their agenda rightfully JOINS that of the segregationists...
in extinction. And we won't let up until that has been accomplished.
NOW -- let's see you TELL us just HOW truth was the first victim
of war, while the war versus SEGREGATION was underway?
THAT should prove VERY interesting.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
stu...@spam.com
Wow.
That hole you're digging for yourself just gets deeper and deeper!
(ROTFL!!!!) So
how's the weather in China?
Matt Pillsbury
> Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote in message
> news:<m24rf79...@seesig.net>...
> > math...@scientist.com (Stephen Matheson) writes:
[...]
> > > Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
> > > newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
> > Given the sorts of things that the smart 'pro-life' people have
> > let pass unchallenged in the past, I think it's safest to conclude
> > that there is no particular onus to challenge everything that one
> > disagrees with.
> That's not the standard I'm asking for. As near as I can tell,
> Mr. Chilton is *never* corrected or opposed by a pro-choicer.
I tend to get snippy when I feel I'm being called upon to denounce
some poster on account of their statements or positions. One poster in
particular would demand such denunciations as part of some dishonest
rhetorical ploy or another, and even today I can think of another
poster who loves playing the, "I see you refuse to denounce *. You
must be a terrorist/pedophile/communist!" game.
You aren't doing that. But the itchy trigger finger came free with my
newsreader.
> > [--By the way, for the remainder of this post, if I'm snipping one of
> > your points, it's probably because I pretty much agree with it.--]
> Got it. I note that this includes all of my most important points
> and my most serious criticisms of Mr. Chilton.
Yes. Though in retrospect, I think you're being a *little* hard on
Chilton for defending abortion on the grounds that embryos and fetuses
should not be accorded anywhere nears as much moral weight as born
humans. He argues his position poorly or not at all, and, IMO, over-
states the case a lot (for one thing, there is much ethical ground
between "person" and "nothing"), but perfectly reputable posters
(Hans-Richard Gruemm and Jim Rogers amongst them) make arguments along
related lines.
It is not necessary for defending legal abortion, but it is suffient
grounds to do so.
> The discussion below is over trivia. (Wait, don't leave!
> *Interesting* trivia, I meant to say.)
Oh, I enjoy interesting trivia at least as much as serious
criticism. :-)
[...]
> > > But IMO this continuously-repeated claim is dishonest.
> > ...I hardly understand how it could be dishonest. Stating something
> > without proof falls far short of dishonesty.
> :-) Nicely done. We disagree. I consider such hyperexaggerated
> claims to be dishonest. 'Nough said.
Fair enought.
[...]
> > > Does the Bible ever mention conception? In any interesting or
> > > important context?
> > Not so far as I know. So...
> You're wrong.
Drat. I hate it when that happens.
> > > Mr. Chilton? Can it really be that no other pro-choicer on
> > > Usenet sees this as patently dishonest?
> > ...how can it be patently dishonest to conclude that the Bible
> > doesn't ascribe any importance to something it doesn't even
> > mention?!
> Not only does the Bible *mention* conception, it does so in critical
> passages upon which fundamental Christian doctrines are based.
> Mr. Chilton, if he is a confessing Christian, knows this.
Ah. I am not religious, and my upbringing was in a very diffident sort
of Judaism. What I know of any Book after Esther has been learned via
very casual investigation, or conversations like this one. Let me say,
however...
> (Cf. Heidelberg Catechism, questions 7, 23, 35, 36 for these
> confessions and their scriptural basis.)
> That's why I consider Chilton's claim to be dishonest. This is not
> to say that there is nothing to be discussed regarding the Bible's
> use of the term, or its implications.
...that after Googling for your reference, I see your point. Or even
points.
[...]
> > > > -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
> > > If your fellow pro-choicers spent more time reflecting on their
> > > own hypocrisy, and less time typing scores of little posts every
> > > week accusing pro-lifers, often *en masse*, of the very same,
> > > then at least one of them would make the simple point that the
> > > preceding is an obvious, ludicrous, laughable non sequitur.
> > So now it's *hypocrisy* to be bored by Chilton's posts? That's
> > truly and deeply bizarre.
> Look, Matt, I *know* that my criticism of pro-choice silence in the
> presence of Chilton's abuses is easily misinterpreted. My criticism
> is aimed at those few who regale us with "scores of little posts",
> full of furious denunciations of "pro-liars", while plain idiocy
> like the above is left *completely without comment*. That's my
> objection. The silence, IMO, is deafening.
I'm familiar with such posts; I've been the target of more than a few
over the years. Just being wrong isn't enough to merit them, nor is
being dishonest, or making a general ass of oneself. One must some-
how demand others "make sacrifices" or suggest that people ought to
"take responsibility", and thereby be "punished" for, their sexual ac-
tivities.
Mr Chilton does none of that.
[...]
> > > You're obviously fluffing up this almost completely vacuous list
> > > by re-wording the same basic claim.
> > And it's damned hypocritical to not want to pick apart a fluffed-up,
> > vacuous list point-by-frickin'-point, isn't it?
> Relax. That was never my beef. Give me a break.
<counts to ten>
OK.
> BTW, it would be pretty damn noteworthy if anyone besides yourself
> had even had the guts to acknowledge the crap for what it is:
> fluffed-up, vacuous, and *dishonest*.
Would it?
The 'pro-choicers' around here are not exactly noted for presenting a
united front. When we fight amongst ourselves, however, it's about
things that, well, push our buttons. It's different things for dif-
ferent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one who
is bothered enough by what Chilton has to say to really single him
out.
[...]
> > > > despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack on
> > > > Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
> > > > world.
> > > I'm waiting for a pro-choicer to muster the courage to step
> > > forward and label these hyperbolic claims as the laughably
> > > inaccurate speculations that all intelligent participants know
> > > they are.
> > Why? Who would benefit? The intelligent participants know it
> > already, and the unintelligent ones aren't all that likely to
> > benefity.
> First, it's clear to me that some folks fall for this stuff, as CC
> occasionally gets attaboys from other posters. Second, and related,
> the silence is easily (and I think, at least occasionally)
> misinterpreted as tacit agreement.
That's a fair position, and, yes...
[...]
> No, I don't expect every error or falsehood to be corrected or
> opposed. But complete silence speaks clearly. And yes, I know that
> all this and more is perpetuated by pro-lifers. For the record, I
> regularly correct errors and denounce lies by pro lifers. I'll be
> glad to do it more.
...one I have seen you apply in a consistant manner. But I really
don't think it's common on this newsgroup. Indeed, I tend to think
it's a good way to get oneself in a lot of fairly pointless flamewars,
and there are already plenty of those to go around. It may not be ad-
mirable, but people do tend to pick fights with people that they have
serious ideological differences with, even without the "war" mental-
ity that you mention.
> > > Pro-choice silence in the presence of this outrage reminds me of
> > > the corrupt policemen in 'Serpico' who were in collusion with a
> > > well-paying sleazeball who happened to be a cop-killer.
> > Yeah, except that cops have a duty to oppose corruption, and
> > enforce the law. They are, in fact, payed to do just that. I,
> > despite the occasional suggestion that I am a shill for Planned
> > Parenthood, do not get paid to post USENET. I feel I am no
> > particular obligation to reply to every lame, error-ridden post
> > that should find its way to my server.
> Point taken. I'm trying to be clear about my objection. I think
> the silence is deafening. And...you just broke it.
> Now for my theory. It seeks to explain both Chilton's behavior and
> pro-choice complicity with his abuses. In a word, war. Chilton
> thinks this is war, and so, I propose, do most of the people here.
> And, we all know, the first casualty of war is truth.
I don't know about the "complicity" part. I think it would be dif-
icult to *understate* the importance of this newsgroup (and USENET in
general) in the actual political fray over abortion. I suspect that
Chilton's view is somewhat unique on the 'pro-choice' side, in that he
appears to view it as a venue for activism, instead of a diversion or
a sounding board for ideas.
Jim Rogers
> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> > Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote:
> >> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
...
> >>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
> >>> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
> >>> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
> >>> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
> >> Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
> >> find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
> > I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
> Rather that be confronted with FACTS that can't be refuted, which
> serve as a constant REMINDER to an Anti-Choicer of his ignorance and
> bigotry, it's so much EASIER just to bury one's head in the sand and
> pretend the facts never appeared on the server...
Not at all, Craig. I don't have a real killfile (netscrape), but
you've been in my "virtual killfile" for years, for essentially the
same reasons Matt states. I generally have no gripes at all with your
main points, your motivations, nor what you're trying to accomplish,
but it's mostly just so much background noise to me. Matt is not an
"anti-choicer" by a long shot, nor am I.
> >> More importantly, how-ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily
> >> read USENET as a matter of personal entertainmen -- why on Earth
> >> would I expose myself to more tedium?
> ROTFL!!! I haven't seen a Usenet post YET that I couldn't simply
> ignore, if I wanted to. WHO is dragging you, kicking and screaming,
> into brining up ANY post and then forcing you to read all of it?
That's just what a "killfile" accomplishes. Don't feel slighted that
some people ignore what you write; heck, the vast majority of the
usenet community doesn't even look into talk.abortion at all (not to
mention that the vast majority of the population doesn't know nor care
about usenet in the first place), but that hardly means they're being
"ostriches." They'd just rather spend their online bandwidth talking
about astronomy or hamfests or role playing or Britney Spears or rock
climbing or unix quirks or homebrewing or whatever.
Several other t.a regulars I also mostly ignore, some because they do
nothing but bust a spleen ranting, some because they quote entire
posts only to add one often trite observation, some because they're
blithering idiots who think they're geniuses and Mark Twain's advice
is best, some because they're usually more abusive than enlightening
or clever, some because they apparently have some psych problem I want
no part of, some because I have no interest in the theology and/or
scripture they found everything on, and some because they're
philosophies are so far apart from mine that it's difficult to find
_any_ common ground for discussion, at least at the their posting
volume.
...
> > Look, Matt, I *know* that my criticism of pro-choice silence in the
> > presence of Chilton's abuses...
> "Abuses?" Presenting solid FACTS -- ALL of which support the
> PRO-Choice stance -- and NONE of which exist to support being
> ANTI-Choice... constitutes "abuses?"
...
For starters, you're more than capable of answering for yourself, and
I don't feel obliged to challenge whatever "abuses" you might
perpetrate just to satisfy Stephen or any other pro-lifer -- until,
say, any christian I might randomly designate feels obliged to
directly challenge or answer for the sins of Pat Robertson, Jerry
Falwell, Jim Bakker, every child-molesting priest, gimboid politicians
who want to theocratize our nice secular republic, the Spanish
Inquisition, the Crusades, and hell, while we're at it, every Holy War
sponsored and every fatwah issued by every monotheistic religion going
on today or proudly documented in their own scriptures.
Likewise, of course, nor do I expect you or any other pro-choicer to
answer for _my_ "offenses." Life's just too damned short to live for
everyone else's priorities.
...
> > ... is easily misinterpreted. My criticism is aimed at those few
> > who regale us with "scores of little posts", full of furious
> > denunciations of "pro-liars", ...
> I think that if you examins such posts HONESTLY, you'll find that
> it's in a RESPONSE to an actual lie that WAS told by an Anti-Choicer.
...
Yeah, you're right, but truth be told, Ray is usually far more terse
than suits his own good, as the rationale for such a response from him
is often far from manifest (i.e., _which_ lie, specifically, he means,
depending on what the definition of "is" is and so on).
Jim
Craig Chilton
Jim Rogers <jfr~@~fc.hp.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
>>> Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote:
>>>> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
>>>>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
>>>>> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
>>>>> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
>>>>> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
>>>> Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do, indeed,
>>>> find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
>>> I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
Yeah. It takes real... guts?... to admit that one is an OSTRICH.
Which is all that kill-filing accomplishes.
>> Rather that be confronted with FACTS that can't be refuted, which
>> serve as a constant REMINDER to an Anti-Choicer of his ignorance and
>> bigotry, it's so much EASIER just to bury one's head in the sand and
>> pretend the facts never appeared on the server...
> Not at all, Craig. I don't have a real killfile (netscrape), but you've been
> in my "virtual killfile" for years, for essentially the same reasons Matt states.
> I generally have no gripes at all with your main points, your motivations,
> nor what you're trying to accomplish, but it's mostly just so much background
> noise to me. Matt is not an "anti-choicer" by a long shot, nor am I.
Then what's your problem? The fact that I repeat facts, and emply
some boiler-plate, as appropriate, in the process? That's simply the
best way to respond with the FACTS, to the repetitive disinformation
that the Anti-Choicers keep spewing. It might seem as though I'm
trying to mteach pigs to sing, as programmed and brainwashed as the
are -- but the POINT of my doing that is the provide a constant
reminder to any possible fence-sitters of just HOW hateful,
inconsiderate, and ignorant the Anti-Choicers are.
>>>> More importantly, how-ever, they are long and tedious. I primarily
>>>> read USENET as a matter of personal entertainment -- why on Earth
>>>> would I expose myself to more tedium?
>> ROTFL!!! I haven't seen a Usenet post YET that I couldn't simply
>> ignore, if I wanted to. WHO is dragging you, kicking and screaming,
>> into bringing up ANY post and then forcing you to read all of it?
> That's just what a "killfile" accomplishes. Don't feel slighted that
> some people ignore what you write; heck, the vast majority of the
> usenet community doesn't even look into talk.abortion at all (not to
> mention that the vast majority of the population doesn't know nor care
> about usenet in the first place), but that hardly means they're being
> "ostriches."
I'm fully aware of all that, and couldn't care less who reads my
posts and who do not. My criticism of the "ostriches" is their
silliness at employing "killfiles" instead of simply IGNORING the
posts in which they have no interest. By BEING ostriches, they
run the risk of missing a post that MIGHT be of interest to them.
> They'd just rather spend their online bandwidth talking
> about astronomy or hamfests or role playing or Britney Spears or rock
> climbing or unix quirks or homebrewing or whatever.
No prob! (See above.)
> Several other t.a regulars I also mostly ignore, some because they do
> nothing but bust a spleen ranting, some because they quote entire
> posts only to add one often trite observation, some because they're
> blithering idiots who think they're geniuses and Mark Twain's advice
> is best, some because they're usually more abusive than enlightening
> or clever, some because they apparently have some psych problem I want
> no part of, some because I have no interest in the theology and/or
> scripture they found everything on, and some because they're
> philosophies are so far apart from mine that it's difficult to find
> _any_ common ground for discussion, at least at the their posting
> volume.
So you simply ignore them. FAR different from actual
'kill-filing."
[ ... ]
>>> Look, Matt, I *know* that my criticism of pro-choice silence in the
>>> presence of Chilton's abuses...
>> "Abuses?" Presenting solid FACTS -- ALL of which support the
>> PRO-Choice stance -- and NONE of which exist to support being
>> ANTI-Choice... constitutes "abuses?"
[ ... ]
> For starters, you're more than capable of answering for yourself, and
> I don't feel obliged to challenge whatever "abuses" you might
> perpetrate just to satisfy Stephen or any other pro-lifer -- until,
> say, any christian I might randomly designate feels obliged to
> directly challenge or answer for the sins of Pat Robertson, Jerry
> Falwell, Jim Bakker, every child-molesting priest, gimboid politicians
> who want to theocratize our nice secular republic, the Spanish
> Inquisition, the Crusades, and hell, while we're at it, every Holy War
> sponsored and every fatwah issued by every monotheistic religion going
> on today or proudly documented in their own scriptures.
>
> Likewise, of course, nor do I expect you or any other pro-choicer to
> answer for _my_ "offenses." Life's just too damned short to live for
> everyone else's priorities.
You do not appear to have any desire to oppose women's right to
choose, so you won't be getting any arguments from me.
[ ... ]
>>> ... is easily misinterpreted. My criticism is aimed at those few
>>> who regale us with "scores of little posts", full of furious
>>> denunciations of "pro-liars", ...
>> I think that if you examine such posts HONESTLY, you'll find that
>> it's in a RESPONSE to an actual lie that WAS told by an Anti-Choicer.
[ ... ]
> Yeah, you're right, but truth be told, Ray is usually far more terse
> than suits his own good, as the rationale for such a response from him
> is often far from manifest (i.e., _which_ lie, specifically, he means,
> depending on what the definition of "is" is and so on).
We all have our own style, in fighting the good fight. Ray is
terse, I'm verbose, and many people are in between. But the objective
is the same: Send Anti-Choice to the bone-pile of extinction to join
its first cousin in bigotry, segregation.
>Jim
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Matt Pillsbury
> On 15 Jul 2002 19:44:27 -0700,
> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> > Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote:
> >> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> >>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions are
> >>> based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful lie,
> >>> and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever musters the
> >>> guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
> >> Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I
> >> do, indeed, find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
> > I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
> Yeah. It takes real... guts?... to admit that one is an OSTRICH.
You know what, Craig?
You're right. My 'reader marks posts from authors that bore me read,
and colors them a pleasing hunter green. I saw your reply to Mr
Matheson...
> Which is all that kill-filing accomplishes.
...and I felt I do owe you a reply. And no, you probably shouldn't be
in my killfile anymore.
> Rather that be confronted with FACTS that can't be refuted,
> which serve as a constant REMINDER to an Anti-Choicer of his
> ignorance and bigotry, it's so much EASIER just to bury one's head
> in the sand and pretend the facts never appeared on the server...
Indeed, I'd love to pretend that you weren't posting your nonsense at
all. Not because I'm an "anti-choicer", as I'm quite vehement in my
belief that its important that abortion be legal, safe and easily
available. But nonsense in defense of something worthwhile is still
nonsense.
> >> More importantly, how-ever, they are long and tedious. I
> >> primarily read USENET as a matter of personal entertainmen -- why
> >> on Earth would I expose myself to more tedium?
> ROTFL!!! I haven't seen a Usenet post YET that I couldn't
> simply ignore, if I wanted to. WHO is dragging you, kicking and
> screaming, into brining up ANY post and then forcing you to read all
> of it?
No one. But the wonderful thing about killfiles is that they make it
even easier to skip posts that I'm not interested in reading.
[...]
> >>> Believe me, Mr. Chilton, the smart pro-choice people on this
> >>> newsgroup *know* that you're not telling the truth.
>
> >> Given the sorts of things that the smart 'pro-life' people
> >> have let pass unchallenged in the past, I think it's safest to
> >> conclude that there is no particular onus to challenge everything
> >> that one disa- grees with.
>
> > That's not the standard I'm asking for. As near as I can
> >tell, Mr. Chilton is *never* corrected or opposed by a pro-choicer.
>
> Pretty darned LOGICAL, since my posts deal with solid FACTS.
> And there's no such thing as a fact that DOESN'T support the
> PRO-Choice stance.
Fact: the sun rises in the East. True and, simultaneously irrelevant
to the pro-choice stance.
> Why would ANY pro-Choicer feel inclined to disagree with ANY such
> fact?
Uh, because many of the things you suggest are facts aren't facts.
They are opinions, or poorly supported conjectures, or flat untruths.
[...]
> > That's why I consider Chilton's claim to be dishonest.
> > This is not to say that there is nothing to be discussed
> > regarding the Bible's use of the term, or its implications. As I
> > think I've made clear, Mr. Chilton and I (and you) almost
> > certainly agree on many crucial questions, and almost certainly
> > oppose conversely hyperbolic claims made by pro-life Christians
> > attempting to use vague Biblical references to justify a political
> > stance.
> By way of clarification, I have never claimed that conception
> wan't mentioned in the Bible. I HAVE pointed out that there is
> nothing in the bible that ascribes any "specialness" to it. I.e.,
> nothing, for example, that would ascribe more value to the
> fertiliztion process (transition from Stage One to Stage Two --
> zygote -- of the reproductive process) than to the formation of the
> Stage One etities (sperm & ova) in any given person's parents'
> reproductive organs.
Having read Mr Matheson's references, I'd say that your particular
contention isn't supportable. Being "conceived in sin" is an im-
portant issue, as is being "born in sin". No reference is made to
being "mitosed[1] in sin". So there *is* a degree of specialness that
is conferred to the conceptus that is not explicitly conferred to the
gametes which preceded it.
That doesn't mean that the Bible explicitly condemns abortion, or
confers the same sort of status on the unborn as it does on the born.
Indeed, the one passage that specifies a penalty for destroying a
fetus indicates to me that they are not as significant as people, but
are more like property.
> This is VERY important, because upon that fact hinges the
> HYPOCRISY of Anti-Choicers when they seek to "defend" z/e/fs, but
> OMIT sperm & ova from such defense.
It may well be inconsistancy, or even total intellectual bankruptcy,
but it isn't hypocrisy, which consists of doing one thing while say-
ing another.
What is hypocritical, if you're looking for 'pro-life' hypocrisy on
this issue, is denouncing 'pro-choice' people for daring to define
personhood, when they're really just annoyed that we don't use their
definition.
> Since sperm & ova -- JUST like the later stages, ALSO a living,
> human, POTENTIAL people. Therefore... as said before ---
> >>>> -- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
I'm sorry, that doesn't follow. It may be true, but you haven't
demonstrated it. It *is* true that few 'pro-lifers' are up to the task
of plausibly explaining why the differences between gametes and
zygotes are of any moral importance.
This difficulty, and the doubt that it implies, is more than enough
on its own to support a defense of abortion: we know the woman is a
person, we know that she is of importance, and we know that stripping
her of her liberty is bad.
[...]
> >> And it's damned hypocritical to not want to pick apart a
> >> fluffed-up, vacuous list point-by-frickin'-point, isn't it?
> > Relax. That was never my beef. Give me a break. BTW, it
> > would be pretty damn noteworthy if anyone besides yourself had
> > even had the guts to acknowledge the crap for what it is:
> > fluffed-up, vacuous, and *dishonest*.
> Yeah. Anti-choicers with everything to lose WOULD make such
> silly claims about the clear-cut points that I make.
Except that's not the problem. The problem is that many of your
points are vacuous, many aren't supported adequately, and many appear
to be totally wrong.
Consider, for instance, that there were periods of strong economic
growth in the US prior to the legalization of abortion (and, also,
after its criminalization). Such growth was, in fact, stronger than
it is now, or even was recently.
Consider also that there are countries (notably Japan) where abortion
is legal and perhaps even more acceptable than it is here and yet the
economy is pretty fucked up.
At the same time, you might want to consider that legal abortion does
come hand-in-hand with being a developed, Western democracy. Even the
Western democracies with fucked up economies are better off than most
of the developing world. So if you want to argue that banning abortion
isn't coherent with the liberal values (market economies, democratic
representation, the rule of law and civil rights) that make nations
like ours work, go ahead and do so.
What are people going to point to as a counterexample? Ireland?
[...]
> > Point taken. I'm trying to be clear about my objection. I
> > think the silence is deafening. And...you just broke it.
> > Now for my theory. It seeks to explain both Chilton's behavior
> > and pro-choice complicity with his abuses. In a word, war.
> > Chilton thinks this is war, and so, I propose, do most of the
> > people here. And, we all know, the first casualty of war is
> > truth.
> It IS a war. Just as battling segregation was a war.
No. It is not war. It is USENET.
However, one thing that you might want to consider is that even
battling 'pro-life' political efforts in not war. One of the problems
with American political thought as it now stands is that nothing can
be done without declaring "war" on something--as if a war on poverty,
or drugs, or now terror could possibly mean anything, or possibly be
won.
[...]
Matt Pillsbury
> Craig Chilton wrote:
[--Almost 300 lines of unbroken quotation.--]
> Wow.
Wow indeed. You just quoted screen after screen of text to tack...
> That hole you're digging just gets deeper and deeper. (ROTFL!!!!) So
> how's the weather in China?
...a flame that's as witless and as it is irrelevant on the end.
Next time, fail to suck.
Jim Rogers
> Jim Rogers <jfr~@~fc.hp.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> >>> Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.net> wrote:
> >>>> Stephen Matheson <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> >>>>> In any case, your mantra-like taunt that pro-choice positions
> >>>>> are based on FACTS, while pro-life opinions are not, is a shameful
> >>>>> lie, and the fact that none of your fellow pro-choicers ever
> >>>>> musters the guts to call you on it is a disgrace.
> >>>> Mr. Chilton is in my killfile. Part of the reason is that I do,
> >>>> indeed, find his posts somewhat embarassing to read.
> >>> I'm not surprised. Thanks for the admission.
> Yeah. It takes real... guts?... to admit that one is an OSTRICH.
>
> Which is all that kill-filing accomplishes.
You know, one particularly annoying posting behavior is the insistence
on re-inserting all personally written bits previously elided for
brevity, no matter how irrelevant to the context or points of the post
being responded to. Papa Jack does that very often in order to throw
up a smoke screen of irrelevancies and avoid actually responding to
what the post actually tried to communicate. You're not doing your
case for digging out of killfiles any good there, Craig.
> >> Rather that be confronted with FACTS that can't be refuted, which
> >> serve as a constant REMINDER to an Anti-Choicer of his ignorance and
> >> bigotry, it's so much EASIER just to bury one's head in the sand and
> >> pretend the facts never appeared on the server...
> > Not at all, Craig. I don't have a real killfile (netscrape), but
> > you've been in my "virtual killfile" for years, for essentially the
> > same reasons Matt states. I generally have no gripes at all with your
> > main points, your motivations, nor what you're trying to accomplish,
> > but it's mostly just so much background noise to me. Matt is not an
> > "anti-choicer" by a long shot, nor am I.
> Then what's your problem?
The part I was responding to appeared to be in direct response to
Matt, who was the only one of the two who'd mentioned he had you in a
killfile.
...
> >>>> ... why on Earth would I expose myself to more tedium?
> >> ROTFL!!! I haven't seen a Usenet post YET that I couldn't simply
> >> ignore, if I wanted to. WHO is dragging you, kicking and screaming,
> >> into bringing up ANY post and then forcing you to read all of it?
> > That's just what a "killfile" accomplishes. Don't feel slighted
> > that some people ignore what you write; heck, the vast majority of the
> > usenet community doesn't even look into talk.abortion at all (not to
> > mention that the vast majority of the population doesn't know nor care
> > about usenet in the first place), but that hardly means they're being
> > "ostriches."
> I'm fully aware of all that, and couldn't care less who reads my
> posts and who do not. My criticism of the "ostriches" is their
> silliness at employing "killfiles" instead of simply IGNORING the
> posts in which they have no interest. By BEING ostriches, they
> run the risk of missing a post that MIGHT be of interest to them.
Sit a million monkeys down at a million typewriters for a million
years and they might, just might, write something profound, but that's
no reason to try to scan every page they produce. Not having a
killfile, the way I usually "ignore" posts I expect to be a waste of
my time is to sort on sender, mark vast quantities "read", sort on
threads, mark vast quantities "read," then sort on order received, and
pick up where I'd left off.
Life's just too damned short to stress over what I might be missing by
skipping some number of needle-in-a-haystack searches. Ever heard of
"information overload"?
...
> So you simply ignore them. FAR different from actual
> 'kill-filing."
Not a lot different, just less consistent. Kill-filing sounds more
dramatic than it is.
...
> > Likewise, of course, nor do I expect you or any other pro-choicer
> > to answer for _my_ "offenses." Life's just too damned short to live for
> > everyone else's priorities.
> You do not appear to have any desire to oppose women's right to
> choose, so you won't be getting any arguments from me.
No of course not, but suppose I started ranting about clearing out
paths to clinics by running over any and all gauntlets of harrassing
picketers with bulldozers or something. You'd probably consider that a
bit over the top but why waste a breath on it? You're not my "keeper"
nor I yours, just because we both support a woman's right to limit how
and for whom her body gets to be used.
...
> >> I think that if you examine such posts HONESTLY, you'll find that
> >> it's in a RESPONSE to an actual lie that WAS told by an Anti-Choicer.
...
> > Yeah, you're right, but truth be told, Ray is usually far more
> > terse than suits his own good, as the rationale for such a response
> > from him is often far from manifest (i.e., _which_ lie, specifically,
> > he means, depending on what the definition of "is" is and so on).
> We all have our own style, in fighting the good fight. Ray is
> terse, I'm verbose, and many people are in between. But the objective
> is the same: Send Anti-Choice to the bone-pile of extinction to join
> its first cousin in bigotry, segregation.
Sure. Most of us could find ways to improve our effectiveness toward
that goal, though. That's the only reason I chose to dive in here, and
I hope you take it in that spirit.
Jim