NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53119

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 5.5 KB | 131 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter shows his ignorance, once again.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 01:49:00 GMT
Lines: 116

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
[Hack and slash]

>>Any text on obstetrics. Pick one, any one, and read it.

>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.
>
You know Petey, you keep refering to my "Big Lie". I'd like to see you
post somethign that indicates I've ever lied on this forum. If you
cannot, I guess I can stand in line behind Adrienne waiting for you to
appologise for making false accusations.
I'm waiting...

>  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?"
>
Geee Petey, one assumes that a person with your sterling SAT scores
(BTW, would you mind reposting those? I'd like to have them in my
archives just to have something to laugh at when your netserver is
offline...)
is capable of using an index. Keep trying.

>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.
>
Keith is vastly more patient then you, nor is he a kid. As for your
inability to find information, that is, I'm afraid, your problem. Try
a remedial reading class.

>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.
>
Perhaps not in every one Petey. Since you seem to be
research-chanllenged (how's that for a PC term?) try this:
Any obstetrics text which is aimed at fertility, or was written as a
general overview of the field.

>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.
>
No need for correction. Of course, it would help if ou were capable of
understanding the difference between miscarriage, non-implantation,
and the other causes of failed pregnancy.

[PHoneys whining about Keith picking on him deleted]

>>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?
>
Petey, I'll type slow. Try to keep up...
A fertilized egg, *if* it implants, and *if* nothing else interferes
with development can *then* become a potential child. It is not a
child until after it is born.
Can your feeble mind grasp that concept?

>>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?
>
Sure. I'll post mine. But you have to proove a right to know. You
repost your SAT scores, and if they're sufficiently high, I'll post my
medical credentials here.

>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}
>
Have I ever posted documentation? Ask david Anderson. We're still
waiting for him to respond to the last bit I posted. Of course, your
newsserver was no doubt down, so you can claim never to have seen any
documentation in any of my articles.

>--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".
>
No Petey, we're reserved the empty set for you. There is none more
deserving. As for your list, it's incomplete, and does not include
the set of which I am a member. Keep trying Petey...



--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.