NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53276

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 9.0 KB | 205 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
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: NOT!
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 03:36:20 GMT
Lines: 190

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>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.]
>
White man? How could you possibly have any idea of my race? Or are you
simply building up to announce your acceptance into your lcoal KKK
chapter?

>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?
>
Nope, must have been before I came back to this newsgroup. Send me a
copy, if you think it's actually valid proof, and not just more junk.

>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.

Post some evidence PHoney, and we'll judge it (and you) by it's
merits.
>
>>#The crap you've posted about Dr. Tiller
>
>...much of which was quoted directly from his brochure...
>
The quotes are fine. They also show that his practices are well within
the accepted norms. What is crap is the innuendo and implcations you
tried to draw from it.

>># 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?
>
Petey Honey, *you* are the one claiming that abortions are beign done
after viability. It is necessary for *you* to provide evidence to
support this claim. You have *totally* failed to do so. One assumes
the reason is that you are incapable.

>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?
>
Nope, but then, I'm hardly familiar with *every* doctor in the
country.

>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?
>
Seems to me she handled it quite well. 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?
At least here you *do* admit that you are completely clueless.

>_______________________________________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.
>
Given that available evidence indicates that a large majority of t.a.
posters find you laughable, I'd say she is simply relating the general
consensus about your credibility.
And I have never seen Susan bear false witness against anybody,
neighbor or otherwise. Is this another appology you're going to have
to make PHoney?

>>#[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.
>
I know I've asked this before, but you tend to ignore and delte it...
Please provide proof of this alledged disinformation I've originated,
or admit that it is yet another of your lies.

>
>>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.
>
Your belief is incorrect. SO's are *rarely* allowed into the OR. They
are permitted in *sometimes* for C-Sections, but are restricted to an
area above the mothers head, screened off from the surgical area.
There's a very good reason for this. It's a real pain to have to stop
surgery to treat the cracked and lacerated skulls of the SO's after
they faint.

>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?
>
You've changed this from your original posting PHoney... NOW you've
added the qualifier "if the woman wants it". It would depend on the
type of abortion. For most types, I can see no reason to not allow a
SO in the room, as long as the patient wishes the company.
What makes you think aboritonists have anything to hide PHoney? Other
then your very apparent paranoia, that is. Is this more of your
"conspiracy of silence" trash?

--
                  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.