Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Reply to Carl

Expand Messages
  • Rateliff, John
    ... I think it highly unlikely that I m projecting onto Lewis positions which I do not, in fact, hold myself. More importantly, I don t think I can quite
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
      Carl wrote, in his reply to David's reply to his reply to my reply to his reply to my reply to someone else's reply to his reply to my reply to his reply to my post:

      > John a) feels that abortion and euthanasia are not moral matters, but rather
      > only matters of personal choice and political opinion; and b) believes
      > Lewis shared his opinion.
      >
      I think it highly unlikely that I'm projecting onto Lewis positions which I do not, in fact, hold myself.

      More importantly, I don't think I can quite convey my anger and shock at your inventing religious and moral positions I have never held and claiming, in public, that I hold them. You obviously have never bothered to ask what my beliefs are on either of these issues, since you so falsely represent them here. To give only one example, I oppose euthanasia so strongly that I believe it unjustified in any case, human or pet, and I am deeply offended by a false public statement to the contrary.

      To recap: Lewis states, in MERE CHRISTIANITY, that he has chosen to deliberately avoid discussion of topics which Xians disagree on. Lewis, in THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, does not discuss many topics which we know Xians disagreed on then as well as now. The author of the faux-Screwtape deliberately focuses on topics which Xians disagree on (and yes, millions of devout Xians in this country-Catholics, Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians, &c. &c.-do in fact belong on both sides of both the issues you keep harping on). That's why I call it a travesty of Lewis's format and method. You are free to disagree with this opinion, though your disagreement would carry more weight if you bothered to read the books you were discussing.

      To go further: I stated that I believe Lewis himself had strong opinions on many of these topics, and even indicated what I thought those opinions are; each item on my list is open to debate FOR THE PRECISE REASON THAT CSL, given every opportunity for more than thirty years, did not deliver a firm public opinion on them. That he chose not to make them the subject of his pieces was, I feel (based on the evidence of MERE XIANITY and many other comments Lewis made), a deliberate choice. Again, you are free to conclude that he simply didn't get to those topics or that they don't appear for any of a number of reasons (lack of space, focus on single-soul temptation, timeliness, &c.). You can speculate (in the complete absence of any evidence) that he wrote hard-hitting pieces on abortion and euthanasia that were suppressed; you can even do a Lindskoog and create the missing evidence for your views for yourself. You're free to form whatever theories of Lewis and his works that you like: that's what scholars do. But don't ever tell me I'm not free to form, or express, my own opinions. Feel free to point out where you think I'm in error, and give your evidence why. Don't ever try to bully me into withdrawing a statement simply because it conflicts with your own preexisting opinion.

      Enough.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Patrick Wynne
      ... And I would propose that from this point on we call the cowardly, despicable act of insulting a dead scholar who is no longer around to defend themselves
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
        On Mar 27, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Rateliff, John wrote:

        > you can even do a Lindskoog and create the missing
        > evidence for your views for yourself.

        And I would propose that from this point on we call the
        cowardly, despicable act of insulting a dead scholar who
        is no longer around to defend themselves "doing a Rateliff".

        Pat
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... John, you can be angry if you prefer, but let s at least make sure that you re angry about the right thing. First, let s establish what I actually said,
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
          On Mar 27, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Rateliff, John wrote:

          > Carl wrote, in his reply to David's reply to his reply to my reply to
          > his reply to my reply to someone else's reply to his reply to my reply
          > to his reply to my post:
          >
          >> John a) feels that abortion and euthanasia are not moral matters,
          >> but rather
          >> only matters of personal choice and political opinion; and b) believes
          >> Lewis shared his opinion.
          >>
          > I think it highly unlikely that I'm projecting onto Lewis positions
          > which I do not, in fact, hold myself.
          >
          > More importantly, I don't think I can quite convey my anger and shock
          > at your inventing religious and moral positions I have never held and
          > claiming, in public, that I hold them.

          John, you can be angry if you prefer, but let's at least make sure that
          you're angry about the right thing. First, let's establish what I
          actually said, which you've cropped for your own purposes; namely:

          "Since John is quite comfortable with calling be "obsessive about
          abortion and euthanasia", I will offer that I am quite prepared to
          believe that John a) feels that abortion and euthanasia are not moral
          matters, but rather only matters of personal choice and political
          opinion; and b) believes Lewis shared his opinion."

          Now, from this, I would make three observations: First, if you think
          you have a right to be angry, then even you can't think that I don't as
          well, given your false and ad hominem assertion about my interests.
          Second, I said I was _prepared_ to believe you thought these things,
          but I did _not_ assert that you _did_ believe it. Indeed, the whole
          point of my question was to establish what you actually did believe
          about Lewis. Third, if you had simply answered my original question,
          including (as I have already stated) simply saying that my
          interpretation of your statement was wrong and that you did not believe
          these things about Lewis -- you know, like you've FINALLY done now,
          after first avoiding the matter, then answering some other questions
          you seem to prefer to think I asked, and after allowing hordes of
          utterly beside-the-point "responses" by people who can't be bothered to
          read what I actually wrote -- then none of this would have happened or
          been necessary. So I don't accept your pose as innocent victim and
          aggrieved party -- you could have dealt with all this simply and
          directly LONG ago.

          > You obviously have never bothered to ask what my beliefs are on either
          > of these issues,

          I certainly did, merely by posing my original question, which you've
          now conveniently set aside in favor of your angered pose as victim. Let
          me remind you that what I wrote was simply this:

          "Do you really believe that abortion and euthanasia are included in any
          "common ground" that Lewis would approve of?"

          We see two things from this: first, I asked you a _question_ -- I
          didn't assert anything; second, I allowed that you possibly DID NOT
          believe these things, despite appearances. Had you simply answered that
          question in the negative, then all would have been answered and NONE of
          this would have occurred.

          > since you so falsely represent them here. To give only one example, I
          > oppose euthanasia so strongly that I believe it unjustified in any
          > case, human or pet, and I am deeply offended by a false public
          > statement to the contrary.

          I made no such statement. I asked a question, based on my
          interpretation of your own statement, of which I asked for
          clarification. At which point everything was done EXCEPT to clarify.

          > To recap: Lewis states, in MERE CHRISTIANITY, that he has chosen to
          > deliberately avoid discussion of topics which Xians disagree on.
          > Lewis, in THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, does not discuss many topics which we
          > know Xians disagreed on then as well as now. The author of the
          > faux-Screwtape deliberately focuses on topics which Xians disagree on
          > (and yes, millions of devout Xians in this country-Catholics,
          > Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians, &c. &c.-do in fact belong on
          > both sides of both the issues you keep harping on). That's why I call
          > it a travesty of Lewis's format and method. You are free to disagree
          > with this opinion, though your disagreement would carry more weight if
          > you bothered to read the books you were discussing.

          This would ALSO have been a suitable response. Why didn't you offer it
          at the start of this, instead of at such remove?

          Apart from your anger and you misrepresentation of what I actually said
          and did, I appreciate your clarification, and am glad to learn that my
          interpretation of your words was inaccurate (though not, I maintain,
          unjustified, based on what you wrote and what others have written in
          "response"). I'm grateful for your answers, and only wish you had
          provided them BEFORE all these beside-the-point rejoinders were
          offered.

          > You can speculate (in the complete absence of any evidence) that he
          > wrote hard-hitting pieces on abortion and euthanasia that were
          > suppressed;

          I made no such speculation whatsoever. That is a fabrication of yours,
          and a straw-man, and a deceitful form of faux-"argument".

          > But don't ever tell me I'm not free to form, or express, my own
          > opinions.

          And this is another example of deceit. You show me even ONE example of
          where I did any such thing, to you or anyone else, ever. Or, as you put
          it:

          > Feel free to point out where you think I'm in error, and give your
          > evidence why.

          Right back atcha.
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          In short, all John had to do to reply to my _actual_ question (i.e., what I _actually_ wrote, as opposed to the fabricated misrepresentations that have been
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
            In short, all John had to do to reply to my _actual_ question (i.e.,
            what I _actually_ wrote, as opposed to the fabricated
            misrepresentations that have been bandied about here), is type:

            "No."

            And hit the send button.

            How hard is that? How long would that have taken? Why let all these
            irrelevant "rejoinders" pass instead?
          • Mike Foster
            Permit me a return volley, Carl, on the Heal thyself , business. It is tiresome to defend views one never espoused; I m sure John understands quite well after
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
              Permit me a return volley, Carl, on the 'Heal thyself', business.

              It is tiresome to defend views one never espoused; I'm sure John
              understands quite well after this enfilade from you. And you could've
              read several chapters of Mere Christianity in the hours spent whilst you
              were sharpening your shovel, a far better expense of your time this Easter.

              But as you said, rather than that, it's more--what, fun?--to deal in

              fabricated
              misrepresentations that have been bandied about here


              Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

              >In short, all John had to do to reply to my _actual_ question (i.e.,
              >what I _actually_ wrote, as opposed to the fabricated
              >misrepresentations that have been bandied about here), is type:
              >
              >"No."
              >
              >And hit the send button.
              >
              >How hard is that? How long would that have taken? Why let all these
              >irrelevant "rejoinders" pass instead?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... By all means. ... As you still seem not to understand -- incredibly, I might add --, despite my most recent reiteration of the fact, I didn t say John
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
                On Mar 28, 2005, at 12:04 AM, Mike Foster wrote:

                > Permit me a return volley, Carl, on the 'Heal thyself', business.

                By all means.

                > It is tiresome to defend views one never espoused; I'm sure John
                > understands quite well after this enfilade from you.

                As you still seem not to understand -- incredibly, I might add --,
                despite my most recent reiteration of the fact, I didn't say John
                espoused these views. I _asked_ him _whether_ he espoused these views.
                There's a big difference, and all he needed to say was "no". Matters
                would also have been helped if you had been able to pay attention to
                what I actually wrote, and respond to _it_, instead of launching off
                into pat, cliched, and lazy "responses" to things I never said.

                > And you could've read several chapters of Mere Christianity

                And still not have answered my question, since a) it wouldn't tell me
                whether John really believed about Lewis what it appeared to me he was
                claiming (you know, the question I _actually_ asked, not the one you
                _think_ I asked); and since b) No evidence supporting what I thought
                was John's claim about Lewis is to be found in MC or in any other book
                Lewis wrote, since Lewis in fact left no such evidence, as even John
                now states. Following your advice, I still wouldn't have any answer, or
                learned anything about Lewis's actual positions on these matters that I
                hadn't already deduced.

                > in the hours spent whilst you were sharpening your shovel,

                You love to throw phrases like this into the discussion, despite being
                neither accurate nor apt, and which can only serve to distract from the
                actual matters at hand. Shame on you.

                > a far better expense of your time this Easter.

                I went to Mass, and then visited with my three young nephews and other
                family members. Seems like I spent my time this Easter just perfectly.
                At least I wasn't being embarrassingly obtuse in public, and attempting
                to silence inquiry by giving daft and worthless "advice".
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                Now that John has finally offered a response to my actual question (more or less), let s at long last return to the actual matter under discussion. First,
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
                  Now that John has finally offered a response to my actual question
                  (more or less), let's at long last return to the actual matter under
                  discussion.

                  First, let's remember what John first wrote (3/24/05), regarding a
                  _Screwtape_ pastiche dealing with the issues of euthanasia and
                  abortion:

                  > here we have a piece by an author who prefers to focus on issues that
                  > are divisive borrowing the character, concept, and voice of someone
                  > who championed the common ground of "Mere Xianity".

                  Which prompted me to ask John (3/24/05):

                  > Do you really believe that abortion and euthanasia are included in any
                  > "common ground" that Lewis would approve of?

                  The relevant portions of John's reply read:

                  On Mar 27, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Rateliff, John wrote:

                  > Lewis states, in MERE CHRISTIANITY, that he has chosen to deliberately
                  > avoid discussion of topics which Xians disagree on. Lewis, in THE
                  > SCREWTAPE LETTERS, does not discuss many topics which we know Xians
                  > disagreed on then as well as now. The author of the faux-Screwtape
                  > deliberately focuses on topics which Xians disagree on (and yes,
                  > millions of devout Xians in this country-Catholics, Episcopals,
                  > Methodists, Presbyterians, &c. &c.-do in fact belong on both sides of
                  > both the issues you keep harping on). That's why I call it a travesty
                  > of Lewis's format and method.

                  and:

                  > I believe Lewis himself had strong opinions on many of these topics,
                  > and even indicated what I thought those opinions are; each item on my
                  > list is open to debate FOR THE PRECISE REASON THAT CSL, given every
                  > opportunity for more than thirty years, did not deliver a firm public
                  > opinion on them. That he chose not to make them the subject of his
                  > pieces was, I feel (based on the evidence of MERE XIANITY and many
                  > other comments Lewis made), a deliberate choice.

                  The first thing I would note is that while John states, correctly and
                  obviously, that the issues of abortion and euthanasia are extremely
                  divisive among many (that call themselves) Christians _today_ -- which
                  I never questioned -- he does _not_ in fact establish that they were
                  nearly so divisive among Christians _of Lewis's day_. I have postulated
                  before that these matters were perhaps not nearly so differed upon by
                  (those that called themselves) Christians of Lewis's day. John has not,
                  however, addressed that matter here, and thus it is still not
                  established that _Lewis_ considered them too divisive to deal with, or
                  that Christians could have differing opinions on these matters without
                  moral or intellectual fault.

                  John instead relies on an indirect argument: he takes the fact that
                  Lewis did not write about abortion and euthanasia to indicate that
                  Lewis considered them too divisive to discuss (a la _Mere
                  Christianity_). Fair enough; that's a possible explanation. However, I
                  have offered an alternative explanation: that in fact Lewis considered
                  acceptance (to say nothing of advocating) abortion and euthanasia so
                  _obviously_ un-Christian that there was no _need_ to argue against them
                  from a Christian perspective, esp. for a Christian audience (a la _Mere
                  Christianity_), or even for the broader audience of all his readers at
                  that time. Moreover, we do know that he _did_ in fact speak at least
                  briefly on the matter of euthanasia (as has been quoted in this
                  thread); so it can't be that Lewis considered it so divisive as to
                  avoid _all_ discussion of it. And I submit that the _manner_ of his
                  discussion itself, in which he considers no "sides" at all, but flatly
                  states that it is not permitted for humans, suggests that he himself
                  did not consider that there were legitimately differing "sides" on the
                  matter. I frankly count that as evidence for my own suggestion, as
                  against John's.

                  Now, returning to the matter of _Screwtape_ in particular, the next
                  thing I would note is that John allows that in _Screwtape_ Lewis in
                  fact _does_ discuss at least _some_ matters that (using John's
                  terminology and definitions) Christians would find "divisive": John
                  writes that Lewis "does not discuss _many_ topics which we know Xians
                  disagreed on" (emphasis mine), which shows that John thinks he did
                  discuss _some_ such topics. This leads us to the conclusion that,
                  whatever Lewis said in _Mere Christianity_, even John does not think it
                  applies _absolutely_ in Lewis's writings, and specifically that it is
                  not _absolutely_ true of _Screwtape_.

                  Given all this, I still find little to no reason to think that John is
                  correct in asserting that Lewis would have considered abortion and
                  euthanasia too divisive a topic _for a Screwtape-type treatment_. To
                  wit: Lewis was, even by John's account, willing to engage in somewhat
                  more cutting wit in the mode of _Screwtape_, so that even if abortion
                  and euthanasia _were_ so divisive in his time as ours, that in itself
                  wouldn't preclude his treating it in the fashion of _Screwtape_, in
                  which mode he clearly relaxed the standard set forth in _Mere
                  Christianity_. Which was my _other_ point, sc. that it is ultimately
                  unfair to criticize the author of the _Screwtape_ pastiche for failing
                  to live up to the standard set for by Lewis in _Mere Christianity_ (as
                  John specifically does), when by John's own account even Lewis himself
                  did not adhere to that standard in _Screwtape. Again, as John writes:

                  > Lewis, in THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, does not discuss many topics which we
                  > know Xians disagreed on then as well as now. The author of the
                  > faux-Screwtape deliberately focuses on topics which Xians disagree on

                  which itself implies that John himself recognizes that the author of
                  the _real_ _Screwtape_ _also_ "deliberately focuses on [_some_] topics
                  which Xians disagree on".

                  Finally, John writes:

                  > That [Lewis] chose not to make [abortion and euthanasia] the subject
                  > of his pieces was, I feel (based on the evidence of MERE XIANITY and
                  > many other comments Lewis made), a deliberate choice.

                  Fair enough. I would like to see some of this evidence that causes you
                  to feel that this was a deliberate choice on Lewis's part. Page
                  references will do, I have the books.
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  A further thought: as someone (I think it was David?) observed, in _Screwtape_ Lewis focussed mostly on those diurnal sins that all Christians (indeed, all
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 27, 2005
                    A further thought: as someone (I think it was David?) observed, in
                    _Screwtape_ Lewis focussed mostly on those diurnal sins that all
                    Christians (indeed, all humans) are wont to casually commit and
                    rationalize. Whatever the relative amounts of "divisiveness" of
                    abortion and euthanasia between our time and Lewis's, can anyone
                    believe that abortion and euthanasia are not _vastly_ more common and
                    diurnal today than they were in Lewis's time, and thus _vastly_ more
                    and more casually rationalized and accepted today than in Lewis's time,
                    even/esp. among (those who call themselves) Christians? Does that not
                    in and of itself make them _more_ suitable topics for the _Screwtape_
                    treatment today than in Lewis's time, not less? Have they not become,
                    in short, utterly Screwtapian today in a way that they very clearly
                    were _not_ in Lewis's time?

                    So again, I fail to see how it is fair to criticize the author of the
                    Screwtape pastiche in question on the grounds of what Lewis said in
                    _Mere Christianity_ (not even of _Screwtape_).

                    This is not to say that there aren't other perfectly legitimate grounds
                    on which to fault the piece; but I do not agree that it is utterly
                    un-Lewisian, esp. not un-Lewisian in his Screwtape mode.
                  • Mike Foster
                    Carl, How could anyone but John possible answer this question you put to me? Even a week of teaching Lewis Carroll can t help me with this logical twister:
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                      Carl,
                      How could anyone but John possible answer this question you put to me?
                      Even a week of teaching Lewis Carroll can't help me with this logical
                      twister:

                      "And still not have answered my question, since a) it wouldn't tell me
                      whether John really believed about Lewis what it appeared to me he was
                      claiming (you know, the question I _actually_ asked, not the one you
                      _think_ I asked);"



                      Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                      >On Mar 28, 2005, at 12:04 AM, Mike Foster wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>Permit me a return volley, Carl, on the 'Heal thyself', business.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >By all means.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>It is tiresome to defend views one never espoused; I'm sure John
                      >>understands quite well after this enfilade from you.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >As you still seem not to understand -- incredibly, I might add --,
                      >despite my most recent reiteration of the fact, I didn't say John
                      >espoused these views. I _asked_ him _whether_ he espoused these views.
                      >There's a big difference, and all he needed to say was "no". Matters
                      >would also have been helped if you had been able to pay attention to
                      >what I actually wrote, and respond to _it_, instead of launching off
                      >into pat, cliched, and lazy "responses" to things I never said.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>And you could've read several chapters of Mere Christianity
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >And still not have answered my question, since a) it wouldn't tell me
                      >whether John really believed about Lewis what it appeared to me he was
                      >claiming (you know, the question I _actually_ asked, not the one you
                      >_think_ I asked); and since b) No evidence supporting what I thought
                      >was John's claim about Lewis is to be found in MC or in any other book
                      >Lewis wrote, since Lewis in fact left no such evidence, as even John
                      >now states. Following your advice, I still wouldn't have any answer, or
                      >learned anything about Lewis's actual positions on these matters that I
                      >hadn't already deduced.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>in the hours spent whilst you were sharpening your shovel,
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >You love to throw phrases like this into the discussion, despite being
                      >neither accurate nor apt, and which can only serve to distract from the
                      >actual matters at hand. Shame on you.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >>a far better expense of your time this Easter.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >I went to Mass, and then visited with my three young nephews and other
                      >family members. Seems like I spent my time this Easter just perfectly.
                      >At least I wasn't being embarrassingly obtuse in public, and attempting
                      >to silence inquiry by giving daft and worthless "advice".
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... First, I didn t put _any_ question _to you_. Where are you GETTING this stuff? Second, yes, of COURSE only _John_ -- NOT EVEN LEWIS S WRITINGS --could have
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                        On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:54 AM, Mike Foster wrote:

                        > Carl,
                        > How could anyone but John possible answer this question you put to me?

                        First, I didn't put _any_ question _to you_. Where are you GETTING this
                        stuff?

                        Second, yes, of COURSE only _John_ -- NOT EVEN LEWIS'S WRITINGS --could
                        have answered my question. THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.

                        Is this thing on? <thump, thump>
                      • jamcconney@aol.com
                        In a message dated 3/28/2005 12:54:41 A.M. Central Standard Time, Aelfwine@elvish.org writes: can anyone believe that abortion and euthanasia are not _vastly_
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                          In a message dated 3/28/2005 12:54:41 A.M. Central Standard Time,
                          Aelfwine@... writes:

                          can anyone
                          believe that abortion and euthanasia are not _vastly_ more common and
                          diurnal today than they were in Lewis's time,


                          Abortion is not more common--it is just more open and more talked about and
                          more emotionally debated.

                          In Lewis' day (40s and 50s) abortion was a secret thing. You might suspect
                          that your affluent neighbor's daughter really hadn't been visiting a health
                          spa, but you wouldn't have spoken about it (except perhaps as whispered
                          gossipover the teacups). You probably knew that less affluent women were making use
                          of backstreet abortionists, but you didn't know any such women (or didn't know
                          that you knew them!).

                          If you subsume withholding life support (whatever that may be) under the
                          umbrella of euthanasia, then yes, it is more common today. Remember that Lewis
                          died in 1963 when we were just beginning to develop sophisticated techniques
                          for keeping the human body alive, at least in the technical sense of breathing,
                          accepting nourishment, pumping blood, just beginning to deal with the
                          end-of-life issues that engage us now.

                          So these two great issues are strangely complimentary. One asks "when does
                          human life begin?" and the other asks "when does human life end?" We are
                          finding that people (including Christians--ALL of whom BTW, are self described as
                          such) have many different answers. These questions and answers are necessary
                          and should be discussed and debated. I think if they had been as present to
                          Lewis as they are to us, he would have considered them thoughtfully in this
                          larger human context and presented them fairly no matter what his own final
                          position might have been.

                          My real objection to the Screwtape pastische, which has some clever moments,
                          is not so much that it presents a case, but that it does so by reproducing
                          some very old arguments without testing, or apparently even questioning, their
                          validity and that is something I think we're safe in saying Lewis would not
                          have done.

                          Anne


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... I don t believe that for a second. I just today read in Time magazine (not exactly a pro-life propaganda organ) that one in four pregnancies in the US
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                            On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:31 PM, jamcconney@... wrote:

                            > Abortion is not more common--it is just more open and more talked about

                            I don't believe that for a second. I just today read in Time magazine
                            (not exactly a "pro-life" propaganda organ) that one in four
                            pregnancies in the US end in abortion. That _cannot_ have been the case
                            in Lewis's day. In any event, I don't accept someone's say-so on the
                            matter. Cite statistics from credible sources, if you're really going
                            to argue this point.
                          • jack@greenmanreview.com
                            ... http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphab.html It appears we didn t track abortions in the USA prior to legalization. When was did it become
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                              > I don't believe that for a second. I just today read in Time magazine
                              > (not exactly a "pro-life" propaganda organ) that one in four
                              > pregnancies in the US end in abortion. That _cannot_ have been the case
                              > in Lewis's day. In any event, I don't accept someone's say-so on the
                              > matter. Cite statistics from credible sources, if you're really going
                              > to argue this point.

                              http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphab.html

                              It appears we didn't track abortions in the USA prior to legalization.

                              When was did it become legal in England?
                            • David Bratman
                              ... These statistics are doubted. CDC figures in chart below: compare and contrast with the above graph, remembering in particular that it s a tiny graph.
                              Message 14 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                                >http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphab.html

                                These statistics are doubted. CDC figures in chart below: compare and
                                contrast with the above graph, remembering in particular that it's a tiny
                                graph.

                                <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html>

                                Judging from what I found on the same site as the graph
                                <http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/opinion/index.html>, the neutrality of the
                                graph's poster may be doubted. The CDC chart says it tracks only legal
                                abortions; the graph does not say, but considering that it zeroes out
                                before ca. 1969, it must be the same.

                                DB
                              • jack@greenmanreview.com
                                ... Correct. In either case, it tells us nothing about data concerning abortion rates in the USa or the UK prior to the early 70s.
                                Message 15 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                                  > These statistics are doubted. CDC figures in chart below: compare and
                                  > contrast with the above graph, remembering in particular that it's a tiny
                                  > graph.
                                  >
                                  > <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html>
                                  >
                                  > Judging from what I found on the same site as the graph
                                  > <http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/opinion/index.html>, the neutrality of the
                                  > graph's poster may be doubted. The CDC chart says it tracks only legal
                                  > abortions; the graph does not say, but considering that it zeroes out
                                  > before ca. 1969, it must be the same.
                                  >
                                  > DB

                                  Correct. In either case, it tells us nothing about data concerning abortion rates in the USa or the UK
                                  prior to the early 70s.
                                • Stolzi
                                  ... From: ... and ... One study quoted in the U.S. Senate debate was authored by Dr. T. Hilgers from Creighton University, who estimated
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: <jamcconney@...>

                                    > In a message dated 3/28/2005 12:54:41 A.M. Central Standard Time,
                                    > Aelfwine@... writes:
                                    >
                                    > can anyone
                                    > believe that abortion and euthanasia are not _vastly_ more common and
                                    > diurnal today than they were in Lewis's time,

                                    > Abortion is not more common--it is just more open and more talked about
                                    and
                                    > more emotionally debated.

                                    " One study quoted in the U.S. Senate debate was authored by Dr. T. Hilgers
                                    from Creighton University, who estimated the figure probably was at or
                                    somewhere near 100,000 abortions annually in the U.S. prior to
                                    legalization."

                                    That's quite a difference from the more or less 1,000,000 annually of the
                                    CDC statistics post-legalization. But these figures in the nature of the
                                    case can't be certain, they are extrapolations from the numbers of deaths
                                    reported annually from illegal abortion.

                                    Dr. Hilgers is Catholic. Accding to the page I found, deaths reported from
                                    illegal abortions in 1972 totaled 39. It looks like we need to strike a
                                    balance between his 100,000 and the 1,000,000 claimed by pro-choice forces.
                                    (Which is considerably above the figure of 7 or 8 hundred thousand which
                                    actually took place in the first year of full legalization.)

                                    I would also adduce the fact that families wishing to adopt must look
                                    further and further afield, mostly outside the country, for healthy infants.
                                    This was not so in Lewis's time. I doubt the dearth is due solely to a
                                    social acceptance that leads more single mothers to keep their babies.

                                    About euthanasia, I am not so sure, Carl. As someone else pointed out,
                                    "pulling the plug" was less possible then as there were simply fewer
                                    machines keeping people alive. In a smaller population and a less
                                    impersonal society, it may be that doctors, consulting with families, made
                                    quiet decisions which weren't reported to anybody. Full-out euthanasia,
                                    which is a bit different from easing out the actively dying, lies in our
                                    future, but is already becoming more thinkable. Look at the Dutch example.

                                    Diamond Proudbrook
                                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                                    ... All good points, Mary. I concede that the case is not nearly so clear with regard to euthanasia as to abortion.
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Mar 28, 2005
                                      On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Stolzi wrote:

                                      > About euthanasia, I am not so sure, Carl. As someone else pointed out,
                                      > "pulling the plug" was less possible then as there were simply fewer
                                      > machines keeping people alive. In a smaller population and a less
                                      > impersonal society, it may be that doctors, consulting with families,
                                      > made
                                      > quiet decisions which weren't reported to anybody. Full-out
                                      > euthanasia,
                                      > which is a bit different from easing out the actively dying, lies in
                                      > our
                                      > future, but is already becoming more thinkable. Look at the Dutch
                                      > example.

                                      All good points, Mary. I concede that the case is not nearly so clear
                                      with regard to euthanasia as to abortion.
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.