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

Can we please get back to literature and related culture? Re: [mythsoc] Reply to Carl

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
    I think we are getting more than a little off topic here. We are into the realm of what constitutes the study group (all pregnant women? Or only people who
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I think we are getting more than a little off topic here. We are into the
      realm of what constitutes the study group (all pregnant women? Or only
      people who knew they had conceived?) and what constitutes abortion. There
      are other sources, many (and I can't cite any single one, sorry) that are
      recently showing how a surprising number of pregnancies self-abort before
      the woman even knows she has conceived. The topic is a very touchy one,
      dividing the nation just as much as the Bush/Kerry election (and earlier
      circus) did. Let's not throw it around just for the diva effect. The same
      thing goes for the general topic of Mars versus Venus and all that Vive la
      Difference stuff. (And what about Freud? He had a similarly skewed view
      of women, and for similar reasons of skewed experience.)

      The subject is such a hot topic, that I think it should be handled with a
      little more thought. Anne, I think made some very good points, grounded in
      deeper contemplation than supermarket pseudo-news tabloids.

      Elizabeth Apgar Triano
      lizziewriter@...
      amor vincit omnia
      www.lizziewriter.com
      www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org


      > [Original Message]
      > From: Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@...>
      > To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: 3/28/2005 2:45:51 PM
      > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Reply to Carl
      >
      >
      >
      > 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.
      >
      >
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      While I agree that this is not a forum for discussion abortion _per se_, let s not pretend that this isn t being done in a context relevant to claims about
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        While I agree that this is not a forum for discussion abortion _per
        se_, let's not pretend that this isn't being done in a context relevant
        to claims about what Lewis would or would not have regarded as an
        appropriately Screwtapian subject. The whole reason the matter of
        abortion rates was brought up was to try to determine what the
        magnitude of its occurrence was in Lewis's day, to see whether its
        _current_ magnitude might not in fact make it more appropriately
        Screwtapian than in his own day. Certainly, the discussion of this
        matter should keep the relevant connection with this list clearly in
        sight, and be brought back to it as quickly as possible, though.

        On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:

        > I think we are getting more than a little off topic here. We are into
        > the
        > realm of what constitutes the study group (all pregnant women? Or only
        > people who knew they had conceived?) and what constitutes abortion.
        > There
        > are other sources, many (and I can't cite any single one, sorry) that
        > are
        > recently showing how a surprising number of pregnancies self-abort
        > before
        > the woman even knows she has conceived.

        Obviously, we're talking here only about "abortion" in the usual sense:
        artificially induced abortion. That's the only usage that is relevant
        for the Screwtapian topic at hand.
      • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
        I know, that is a good point and in that context the subject would be relevant. But there are so many studies, and the subject is such a touchy one, that I
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I know, that is a good point and in that context the subject would be
          relevant. But there are so many studies, and the subject is such a touchy
          one, that I think we'd quickly get lost in the minutiae (sp) of
          establishing the assumptions. I am an interested party, an old married mom
          type 41-year old female who has been in college, hitchhiking, politically
          involved, and yadda ya, so I have done lots of reading on the subject over
          the years (and I have a female body at hand to observe) and I can tell you,
          it's a subjective subject. But you don't need me to tell you that -- it's
          regularly in the news. We'd do better to discuss the Inklings' takes on
          technology, the sexes (oh, wait, we're doing that now, aren't we?),
          idiomatic changes in language, or other such things.

          Also, Jack's and Anne's comments, at least, on availability of actual data
          are good to reread. I fear I can only provide impressionistic, or
          intuitive, rhetoric.

          Several list members? :-( I knew of one definite, but the others I had
          not heard.

          Lizzie

          Elizabeth Apgar Triano
          lizziewriter@...
          amor vincit omnia
          www.lizziewriter.com
          www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org


          > [Original Message]
          > From: Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@...>
          > To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
          > Date: 3/28/2005 4:25:37 PM
          > Subject: Re: Can we please get back to literature and related culture?
          Re: [mythsoc] Reply to Carl
          >
          >
          > While I agree that this is not a forum for discussion abortion _per
          > se_, let's not pretend that this isn't being done in a context relevant
          > to claims about what Lewis would or would not have regarded as an
          > appropriately Screwtapian subject. The whole reason the matter of
          > abortion rates was brought up was to try to determine what the
          > magnitude of its occurrence was in Lewis's day, to see whether its
          > _current_ magnitude might not in fact make it more appropriately
          > Screwtapian than in his own day. Certainly, the discussion of this
          > matter should keep the relevant connection with this list clearly in
          > sight, and be brought back to it as quickly as possible, though.
          >
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... The matter of relative _rates_ of abortion is certainly _not_ (_necessarily_) a subjective subject , and that s what the discussion has been about.
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mar 28, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:

            > I am an interested party, an old married mom type 41-year old female
            > who has been in college, hitchhiking, politically involved, and yadda
            > ya, so I have done lots of reading on the subject over the years (and
            > I have a female body at hand to observe) and I can tell you,
            > it's a subjective subject.

            The matter of relative _rates_ of abortion is certainly _not_
            (_necessarily_) a "subjective subject", and that's what the discussion
            has been about. Various studies my be _flawed_, but the idea that it is
            impossible to _objectively_ know the relative rates is simply not true.

            And of course, one does not need to be a woman to know that abortion is
            a _divisive_ topic; as you point out, one would have to have one's head
            in the sand not to know that. But if we stick to the subject at hand,
            namely the _rates_, and not whether we as individual list members
            personally condone or condemn abortion and euthanasia, then there's no
            reason the subject can't be discussed in a polite and scholarly and
            relevant manner to the questions at hand.
          • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
            Oh, Carl... lol... that is a sweet and optimistic thought but I think otherwise, I truly do. Elizabeth Apgar Triano lizziewriter@earthlink.net amor vincit
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Oh, Carl... lol... that is a sweet and optimistic thought but I think
              otherwise, I truly do.

              Elizabeth Apgar Triano
              lizziewriter@...
              amor vincit omnia
              www.lizziewriter.com
              www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org
              (snip for drama)

              But if we stick to the subject at hand,
              > namely the _rates_, and not whether we as individual list members
              > personally condone or condemn abortion and euthanasia, then there's no
              > reason the subject can't be discussed in a polite and scholarly and
              > relevant manner to the questions at hand.
              >
              >
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              Well, that s fine, you re entitled to your opinion. But I m entitled also to mine, no matter how sweet and optimistic or naive or cute or other dismissive
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm entitled
                also to mine, no matter how "sweet and optimistic" or naive or cute or
                other dismissive terms you might apply to it, and despite the
                persuasive, objective logic of your adjectival display; so I stand by
                what I said. I truly do.


                On Mar 28, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:

                > Oh, Carl... lol... that is a sweet and optimistic thought but I think
                > otherwise, I truly do.
                >
                > Elizabeth Apgar Triano
                > lizziewriter@...
                > amor vincit omnia
                > www.lizziewriter.com
                > www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org
                > (snip for drama)
                >
                > But if we stick to the subject at hand,
                >> namely the _rates_, and not whether we as individual list members
                >> personally condone or condemn abortion and euthanasia, then there's no
                >> reason the subject can't be discussed in a polite and scholarly and
                >> relevant manner to the questions at hand.
              • Mike Foster
                In my long college career teaching Adv. Rhet., I ve read & critiqued & graded more essays on abortion and euthanasia than I care to recall. Difficult and
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  In my long college career teaching Adv. Rhet., I've read & critiqued &
                  graded more essays on abortion and euthanasia than I care to recall.
                  Difficult and complex questions: 'nuff said.

                  It's hardly fun to banter these topics--and you left out the death
                  penalty--about, and as I said somewhere weeks ago, I joined this group
                  for fun--the particular fun one gets from talking and learning about
                  what one likes: Tolkien and the Lewis brothers, in my case.

                  In my experience, Lizzie is correct, and no matter how "polite and
                  scholarly" the discussion of abortion is at the start, the argument can
                  swiftly deteriorate into a quarrel.

                  Look no further.

                  Later,
                  Mike

                  Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                  >Well, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'm entitled
                  >also to mine, no matter how "sweet and optimistic" or naive or cute or
                  >other dismissive terms you might apply to it, and despite the
                  >persuasive, objective logic of your adjectival display; so I stand by
                  >what I said. I truly do.
                  >
                  >
                  >On Mar 28, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Oh, Carl... lol... that is a sweet and optimistic thought but I think
                  >>otherwise, I truly do.
                  >>
                  >>Elizabeth Apgar Triano
                  >>lizziewriter@...
                  >>amor vincit omnia
                  >>www.lizziewriter.com
                  >>www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org
                  >>(snip for drama)
                  >>
                  >> But if we stick to the subject at hand,
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>>namely the _rates_, and not whether we as individual list members
                  >>>personally condone or condemn abortion and euthanasia, then there's no
                  >>>reason the subject can't be discussed in a polite and scholarly and
                  >>>relevant manner to the questions at hand.
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... I have absolutely no doubt that that is true in _your_ experience. Nonetheless, the discussion in question is not of abortion , but of comparative
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 28, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mar 28, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                    > In my experience, Lizzie is correct, and no matter how "polite and
                    > scholarly" the discussion of abortion is at the start, the argument
                    > can swiftly deteriorate into a quarrel.

                    I have absolutely no doubt that that is true in _your_ experience.

                    Nonetheless, the discussion in question is not "of abortion", but of
                    comparative abortion _rates_ and how that might have affected Lewis's
                    perception of its suitability or importance as a topic of discussion of
                    Christian morals and Screwtapian influences.

                    If people want to turn that into a quarrel -- as manifestly some on
                    this list do -- I can't help that. But I'm not going to let that stop
                    me from attempting to either validate, refute, support, or cast doubt
                    on matters as they arise in connection with discussion of Our Three
                    Authors. _I_ can stick to the point, even if others can't. And I am
                    _not_ going to have my legitimate and topical inquiry silenced by those
                    who can't. Unless, of course, the list moderator requires me to do so
                    (since that is her right even if I think it unjustified).
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.