NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53064

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 5.4 KB | 106 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!galen.med.Virginia.EDU!gjh
From: [e-mail] (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:12:44 GMT
Lines: 94

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}No misconceptions.

Er, you expressed some idea about what happens in hospitals, and
to what degree risk can be established, etc.  I pointed out that
burglary was not a good analogy to abortion, as you mentioned, but not
for the reasons you mentioned.  You expressed belief in some things
that I must assume you really think happen.  They do not.  I mentioned
almost every time that I agreed with you that the analogy was not
particularly good.  You seem to think that some things happen
in hospitals that in fact do not.  You seem to think that medical
knowledge is much more precise than it is.   I call them "misconceptions."
You may have a less graceful term for them, however.

}                                                         You, with your
}meager medical credentials, thought you could just jump in and spout
}some half-facts...

I have no medical credentials whatsoever.  I think I made that rather
clear.  I made a distinct effort to establish that I have some
knowledge about hospitals and doctors, but I have never claimed
any medical credentials, meager or otherwise.  As for my supposed
"half-facts," as you call them, let me point out again that
I work very closely with a hospital, and was brought up in
a family that consisted of medical professionals.  While I doubt I
would give medical advice, I have knowledge of what happens in the
medical profession and in hospitals that I suspect is somewhat
more intimate and accurate than yours.

}...would "refute" my point.  It failed to do so.

I had no intention to refute your point.  It doesn't surprise me too
much to see that I failed to do so.

}Then why did you jump, unprepared, into the discussion?

I was not unprepared.  As to why I entered the discussion, it was
fueled mainly by your misconceptions of what medicine can and cannot
do.  I wished to correct the impression you have that hospitals are
accurate, prompt, and/or reliable.  I don't know that you could find
much supporting evidence, but I imagine that there are those who
might make a case that you are safer having an armed burglar in your
house, in the middle of the night, than you would be being hospitalized.

}Well, it wasn't _my_ analogy in the first place, I was merely demonstrating
}its lack of validity. As for "usefulness", I direct you to whoever cooked up
}the analogy...

Oh sniff!  You attributed things which are just not so in trying to
demonstrate its lack of validity.  Once again, it is not that a
burglary -- abortion analogy is invalid that I disagree with at all.
It is your insistance of knowledge of what happens in hospitals and
in the "medical profession" that I have quite a bit of disagreement.
Perhaps you have a closer acquaintance with medicine than do I.
Would you care to share?

A note to those who are a bit confused by my seemingly imediate dislike
of Kevin Darcy.  I have been on the net for a number of years, reading
a number of newsgroups.  I don't think I have ever responded to Kevin
except in this newsgroup.  I have read his postings in a number of other
newsgroups, some that I doubt I have ever posted to.  He has posted
some of the most inane and bizarre things that I have ever seen.
I have even been in a conversation where someone said not to try
to pull a "Kevin Darcy" on them.  Kevin seems to like to nitpick.
He will point out several problems (sometimes I suspect the
problems are based on inacuracies, sometimes I know) and then
launch off into something.  Sometimes the logic is fairly clear, but
you just don't know where he's going.  Other times, the logic is
fairly muddled, and a lot of times you don't have a clue as to
where he is headed.  When Kevin was first proposed as a candidate
for Net.Idiot, my first reaction was that no one (not even noone)
could possibly be that stupid.  I used to concede that talk.abortion
was the cesspool of the net, but in defense I would reply that
at least Kevin Darcy doesn't post to it.  No longer.  Kevin
Darcy receives no (absolutly no) response from me in other groups,
and I read him in other groups, but here he can be relatively
assured that I will point out when he is flat-out wrong, and I
will also take cheap shots at him.  I never heard of TSAKC before
Kevin started posting here.  I am now a proud (very proud) member.
You can take all the Doug Holtsingers, DJRs, Suzanne Forgashes, etc.
wrap them up into a ball, and multiply them by a googool of googools,
and they wouldn't even begin to touch Kevin Darcy.

ps  I would sit down and have coffee or beer (whatever is the drink
of choice) with Forgash, Kaldis, Cramer, and others without a bit
of hesitation.  But if I knew it was Kevin Darcy, I would hesitate...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: [e-mail]
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr [phone] [e-mail]
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...