NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53231

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 8.7 KB | 189 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 2 [Was: Meet Pete...]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: PHoney does spelling flames
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:02:07 GMT
Lines: 176

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Peter "KKK" Nyikos) writes:
        ^^^^^
I've already addressed this perverse designation, by someone who is a far
more promising candidate for the KKK than I am, in a separate follow-up to this
post, "Susan sinks to a new low."

I still have not posted what I originally intended to in this "Mendacity"
series.  Why bother with searching for the right file when Susan keeps
providing me with fresh material?

>[text deleted]
>#In a more serious vein, Mark Cochran is quickly moving to the forefront
>#of candidates for the label "pro-abortionist" (not to be confused with
>#pro-abort: see my post on suggested FAQ entries).  He shows a most
>#ready willingness to dismiss the testimony of a pro-choice feminist
>#as "unsubstantiated hearsay garbage" while believing in the integrity
>#of the abortionist who fired her.

>No, PHoney, Mark is rejecting your testimony.  You're a known liar -
>why should he believe you?            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Susan, I would like to know on what you base this libelous accusation.

Or, as Fischer would put it: Put up or shut up.

TEST OF SGARVIN SOFTWARE.  PLEASE IGNORE._____________________________

>Put up or shut up.

Here we see the inside workings of PHoney's pro-force philosophy,
as he attempts to narrow me down to a choice between two alternatives.
Now we see why he wants to narrow pregnant women down to the two
alternatives of parenthood and adoption: he simply cannot even
entertain the idea of giving *any* woman more than two things to
choose from.

END OF TEST_____________________________________________________________

Note to anyone who did *not* ignore the above test:  As I have repeatedly
said, I have no desire to put legal barriers in the way of women wanting
an abortion prior to the end of the fifth week, and I do support several
carefully circumscribed exceptions up to birth.

>Congratulations on finally admitting that Tivis is a disgruntled
>former employee with an axe to grind.  Your misleading comments
>about her before made her appear to be an unbiased witness.

I wonder what accounts for this curious failure to acknowledge that
I said NOTHING NEW above about Tivis.  The following excerpts are
from the original post in the MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST
series.

__________________________Excerpts from TILLER post______________________

   Luhra Tivis, a pro-choice former NOW officer and former
employee of Tiller's clinic, wrote the following in a July 9, 1991
letter to three Wichita councilmen: "Dr. Tiller measures the
BPD (bi-parietal diameter) at its narrowest point, instead of
at the usually measured widest point, leading to a BPD reading
by Dr. Tiller of, say, 24 weeks gestation, when the accepted norm
might be 26 weeks gestation--however, this method is not illegal,
but is currently just a matter of accepted practice."
.
.
.
   And, in fact, Ms. Tivis said the following in testimony before the
Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on March 10, 1992:

"When I fully realized that Tiller is routinely aborting healthy babies
at 28 to 30 weeks, I was quite horrified and began to look for another
job.  When Tiller learned of my job search, he fired me."

___________________________End of excerpts_________________________

Two of many possible explanations:

1. Susan is deliberately lying.  I don't know why she would do this,
when the evidence to refute her is so easy to come by, unless:
    a. She is a sociopath who lies for the fun of it.
    b. She is hoping I have another newsreader failure so that I can
run and hide, er, miss her lie and not refute it.
    c. She is so confident in the overwhelming numbers of the regular
pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-abortionist faction that she thinks she
can continue to be held in high regard by most readers of her messages.

2. Susan followed up to the original post without reading it, accounting
both for the way she misrepresented it (as her old nemesis, Doug, pointed
out, much of what she was skeptical of--and Adrienne Regard called hot air--
is lifted straight from Tiller's brochure) and the way she is
misrepresenting my "new admissions" now.

Of course, there are more flattering explanations, but I leave it up to
the minions of Susan and Adrienne to provide them.  (Starting with the
ever-helpful Dean Kaflowitz, who will probably be so anxious to help
Susan that he won't even bother to contact her to find out HER
explanation-- or if he does, he'll hide the fact and try to present
it as though it were the objective, well-established truth.)

>#Susan Garvin has posted lavish praise of Tiller in the past.  I wonder
>#what she will say to impugn the testimony of Luhra Tivis, testifying
>#before the Kansas State Senate.

>I wonder what PHoney will say about these words from one of Dr.
>Tiller's patients:

>"I have to say that the staff and and the doctor of the clinic must
>be the most courageous, committed and loving people I have met
>in a while.  They treated all of us with the utmost respect and
>kindness.  They will always hold a special place in my heart."

>I think she knows a lot more about Dr. Tiller's practice than
>does a lying buffoon who is merely speculating, or a
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
More evidence that Susan never read my original post on Tiller.

>pro-lie convert who wants to gain acceptance by committing
>perjury.

"Pro-lie convert"--does Susan claim to have documentation that Luhra
Tivis is now pro-life?  And that she committed perjury?

Put up or shut up, Susan.

[No, I don't think I'll test the SGarvin software again. :-) It would
probably just output the same message, with ",Susan." in place of "." :-)]

Here is the story of another woman--or was it the same woman?  I "posted"
it back in August, but it defaulted to the local net.

___________________________Excerpt from August post_____________________
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: uscar
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:51:29 GMT

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
>is challenged.  He has reposted quotes from Supreme Court cases,
>juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest that third trimester abortions
>can be obtained if a pregnant woman feels psychological discomfort.
>The inappropriateness of this juxtaposition has been discussed
>thoroughly, more than it deserves in fact.  The bottom line is really
>about the reality of third trimester abortions.  Larry Margolis has
>documented that these abortions are performed only when it is a
>medical judgment that the life of the mother is in danger.

I missed out on this documentation.  Can anyone re-post it for me
or send me a copy?  Reasons for my skepticism are given below.

> He asked
>DOD to either provide evidence of such an abortion that did not
>protect the life of the mother.  Surprise, surprise: DOD has not
>posted such evidence.

On the TV news (NBC, I believe) about two years ago, there was an item
about a woman who traveled from Missouri to Kansas (perhaps to Wichita,
and Dr. Tiller, though I can't recall whether the item was that specific)
to abort a baby "whose brain wasn't developing properly" because it
was too late to do it under Missouri law.  Since not even Missouri
law denies the right to abort when the woman's life is threatened, you
can see that this is an exception to the above ironclad rule.

On top of which, the news item went on to say that because of the
additional delay in getting the abortion [clear case of scapegoating]
the woman suffered massive bleeding when the abortion did take place
and could not be discharged from the hospital for several days.

Add to this the case of the Florida anencephalic baby, and you might
easily conclude that it would have been better for the MOTHER to
carry the baby to term.