NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53254

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 6.2 KB | 146 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
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: 28 Dec 92 22:39:31 GMT
Lines: 134

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

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>##In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>##
>#
>#[Riiiip]
>#
>##Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist,"
>##along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>##by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>##that certain illegal abortions never took place.
>##
>#We have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by legal abortionists.

Who's "we", white man?  [Adrienne can fill you in on the rest of the joke.]

Did you miss the "Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist" thread, which featured
wrongdoing sufficient to get the State Board of Medical Examiners to
suspend his license?

Since I mentioned Susan Garvin, I suggest you use "I" in contexts like
these, unless you answered "Yes" to the second question above, in which
case I'd like to know why you say what you do above.

>#The crap you've posted about Dr. Tiller

...much of which was quoted directly from his brochure...

># didn't show anything of the
>#sort. His medical practices as you described them are certainly
>#acceptable. You did post some hearsay evidence from a soruce (an
>#employee who had been fired) which can by no stretch of the
>#imagination (except yours) be considered either impartial or reliable.

But you consider Tiller's words to be impartial and reliable, eh?
Otherwise, why would you make your audacious claim about pregnancy
terminations after 26 weeks being all done with the aim of saving the
life of the child, without documentation?

You on the other hand asked me to provide documentation for my claim
that it is otherwise.  Well, since you have been so stingy with
documentation so far, I'll only start the ball rolling here: does the
name Waddil mean anything to you?

Susan sure can dish out the jokes:

>Shhh.  PHoney thinks that charging money for a service constitutes
>malpractice.  I wish that he'd speak to my oncologists...

But she sure can't take them:

______________________________From a Garvin post________________________

From: [e-mail] (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:10:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

[...]

##Actually, I think that it's going to be Mark Cochran who gets to be
##the leader in embarassing PHoney for a while - Nyikos is posting a
##lot of medical misinformation in his latest incarnation.
##I'd also guess that Steve Adams, Eric Rescorla, and drieux will have
##their turns, too, since Nyikos has decided to branch out into
##theology.
[...]
##I'll add that there's plenty of material already available - these
##guys can have fun even if PHoney runs for cover, er, his rewsreader
##breaks down again.
#
#What's a rewsreader, Susan?

It's a typo, moron.  What were your SAT scores again?

#But seriously, folks, since Susan was never known to give a sucker
#an even break, why should she spare a clueless newbie who can't even
#reboot his newsreader all by himself?
_______________________________________End of excerpt__________________

>I do sneer at PHoney's reports.  I also laugh at them.

As I remarked in another post, "Thou shalt not be laughed at" appears
to be one of the ten commandments of Susan's private religion [with "Thou
shalt not bear false witness agains thy neighbor" conspicuously absent]
but there is nothing in her religion to keep her from laughing at others.

>#[Riiip]
>#
>##[This includes opposing informed consent requirements, requirements that
>##abortionists carry a realistic amount of malpractice insurance,
>##requirements that abortions be done in EITHER a hospital OR licensed
>##clinic, requirements that SO's be ALLOWED to witness the abortion,
>##requirements that women be tested for pregnancy before D&C etc. are
>##performed, etc.  It also includes those spreading disinformation about
>##these requirements already being in place, while knowing it to be false.]
>##
>#You mean, like the disinformation you're spreading all the time Petey?

Yep, I can't help including all the disinformation you've originated
in my posts.  Also disinformation about the Becky Bell case due to
Susan Garvin and others who claim she died as the result of an illegal
abortion.


>PHoney certainly has some odd notions about what is standard
>medical procedure.  I wonder if he thinks that a patient's SO
>should be allowed in the operating room for all surgery.  I wonder
>if he knows why they are not.  (Never mind - he is chock full
>of ideas that would make surgery less safe.)

No, just for the other way of terminating pregnancy, ie birth.  However, I do
believe that SO's *are* allowed to view lots of surgery from a distance
and I see no reason why they could not be allowed to view any surgery
on their SO's they would like to.  If Mark can give reasons, I'll be glad
to listen.

But that is neither here nor there: I'd like to know why Mark thinks
SO's should NOT be allowed to view abortions if they wish (and, of course,
the woman wants it too).  What do abortionists have to hide, Mark?

Peter Nyikos