NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52876

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 9.7 KB | 213 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:56:47 GMT
Lines: 201

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>I was going to add "Was: Loren...dictator" but these subject lines tend to
>>get squashed in the middle on my "index" [better term: table of contents],
>>rendering them unintelligible.
>>
>>Part 1 was not lableled as such, it's the thread where I took Mark to task for
>>claiming that informed consent prior to abortions is a requirement, quoting
>>from Chief Justice Burger, dissenting, in *Thornburgh*.  At the time I was
>>not yet ready to accuse Mark of being a master of the Big Lie technique,
>>but now I am.  The biggest piece of evidence will come in Part 3, coming
>>your way soon.

Unfortunately, networkers like Susan Garvin keep me busy with their
frivolous charges, so Part 3 won't be ready until Saturday at the earliest.

I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his
accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the
universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is
also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post
*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
hundredfold.


>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) wrote:
>>>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Charles Don Hall) wrote:

>>>>>>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>>>>>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>>>>>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>>>>>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>>>>>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>>>>>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>>>>>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an
>>>>>>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.
>>>>>>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized.
>>
>>Larry Margolis tells the truth below: he does hate to clue Loren
>>in; so, rather than cluing him in, he regales us with his own brand
>>of pseudoscience.  [Note in particular his substitution of "become" for
>>"grow into."  Larry is a master of equivocation and subtle terminology
>>shifts.]
>>
>>>>>I hate to clue you in, but by the same reasoning a fertilized egg will
>>>>>never develop into an adult, either.  It might become an embryo, but then
>>>>>it wouldn't be a fertilized egg any more...
>>
>>Refusing to get sidetracked from "grow", Loren replies:
>>
>>>>Except the fertalized egg will grow into an embryo...adult.  There is a
>>>>difference between growing into something (fertalized egg -> Embryo), and
>>>>being changed into something by outside forces (unfertalized egg -> fertalized
>>>>egg)
>>
>>>*SIGH*
>>
>>Here it comes.  Note the masterly misdirection below.  Mark makes it look
>>like he is rehabilitating Larry Margolis's pseudoscience, but if you
>>read what he says carefully, Larry remains refuted.

And nothing Mark has written here (I have deleted some of it) alters
that fact.

>>>You statement above, in order to be correct, should read:
>>>"Except the fertalized egg [your spelling. I'll be happy if you get
>>>the biology correct. Somebody else can undertake to teach you to
>>>spell] may, under circumstances which occur for perhaps one out of
>>>three fertilized [correct spelling, since it's my word this time...]
>>>egg, implant,
>>
>>Source, please, for the "one out of three" statistic.
>>
>Any text on obstetrics. Pick one, any one, and read it.

You statement [your spelling, even though it is my word this time]
is typical of Garvin, Adolf, Regard, and other members of the
talk.abortion inner circle (no pro-lifer need apply).  Do you have
dreams of joining this inner circle?

I could tell you a really juicy example due to Nadja Adolf
but when I asked her if I had her permission to post it to talk.abortion
she replied that I do not.  I, on the other hand, hereby give her
permission to post it, or email it to a certain Mark Cochran
so that he may see what it takes to be a true member of the inner
circle.

Mark, your unhelpful response is not bad for a beginner, but you
have a long way to go before you have scaled the heights which
Ms. Adolf has mastered.  On the other hand, she could learn a lot
from your mastery of the Big Lie technique, so well displayed in
Cycle 3.

  Could you at least tell
me what entry to look for in the index?  "Miscarriages, rate
of"?  "Spontaneous abortion, rate of?"  "Ova, fertilized, failure
to implant, rate of?"  "Zygotes, failure to implant, rate of"
"Blastocysts, failure to implant, rate of?"

I am a far more patient person than your kid brother Keith, but
even I tend to get a little testy after looking for five entries
and coming up nothing to show for my effort.

Somehow I don't think I'll find all the statistics in *every* text
on obstetrics.  But I'm willing to take you up on your challenge
once our university library re-opens after Christmas.

In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.

    Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
    rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
    rate in a non-aborted group.
        Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
      on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
      1976, pp. 1303-04.

>>> and begin the process by which it may (again, against
>>>the odds) eventually become an embryo, a fetus,
>>
>>Source, please, for "against the odds".  I've seen this kind of talk
>>bandied about for months in talk.abortion, all without a scrap of
>>documentation.
>>
>Any text on obstetrics. Pick one, any one, and read it.

Gee, how many pages do I have to read to get the exact statistics, which
you haven't even given us a clue on?  C'm' on Mark, what are the odds
against the implanted BLASTOCYST -- or is it a MORULA, Mark?  I know
it's not a FERTILIZED EGG, or are you THIS  willing to contradict
Larry Margolis?? -- eventually becoming (1) an embryo, and (2) a fetus?

Ah, but you pre-emptively told me to read any text on obstetrics, so
you are under no obligation to provide anyone in talk.abortion with
any of this information.  (Actually, you get this privilege just by
being pro-choice.  When we pro-lifers are challenged, we have to come
up with statistics.)

Do you doubt my last parenthetical expression?  Ask Keith to show you
where he figuratively snarled at me for talking about a Chicago Sun-Times
expose on over ten un-reported deaths due to LEGAL abortion in CHICAGO
alone, and I only gave the year (it was a whole series, which ran in
the fall) on my first try.  [Note that I am not saying *here* what the
year was.  If you snarl at me for not doing so, while refusing to give
statistics on (1) and (2) you will have beautifully illustrated my point.]

>>> and (potentially and
>>>eventually) a child."
>>
>>What does the word "potentially" mean in this context?
>>
>It means, quite obviously, that the z/e/f is only potentially a
>child. I would have thought even your meager comprehension capable of
>figuring that one out...

No problem there, bozo, what I wanted to know was, what does it mean
for a fetus to BECOME potentially a child?

>>And why do I not see flames against Larry for his pseudoscience,
>>nor Charles Don Hall for his gross understatement in re "not 100%"?
>>
>>Could it be because Cochran does not give a hoot about correct
>>information (despite his words below) and is only interested in
>>seeing the pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-abortionist faction win
>>debates?
>>
>Since you are disputing my facts, care to post your medical
>credentials? Or at least, post a source that contradicts me?
>I doubt it...

How about you posting yours, and telling me why you refer to a
morula/blastocyst as a fertilized egg?

>>>Does anyone remember if Loren has ever posted an article which
>>>contained any correct information?

I could ask the same about Mark Cochran, with "documented" in place
of "correct".  His sterling credentials as--choose some subset of:

{ embryologist, fetologist, obstetrician, gynecologist, physician,
research biologist}

--preferably not the empty set--which he is so coy about describing to
us, evidently absolve him, in his eyes, of documenting what he says or
*even* giving statistics instead of such vague statements as "against
the odds".

Peter Nyikos