NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53571

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 9.0 KB | 191 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
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: 30 Dec 92 18:35:34 GMT
Lines: 179

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>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:

>>>##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?

Tsk, tsk.  You went off half-cocked without asking Adrienne about the
joke.  She was quite imperious in her post in which she instructed newbies
about it.  I wish I had saved that post.  I often have problems with
students perceiving me as "Mr. Nice Guy" at the beginning of the semester
and then having to tighten up on discipline as the semester progresses.
If I could just emulate her tone from the beginning, I'd have no such
problems.

>>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.

I'll send it, but only if *you* think a Final Report of a State Board
of Medical Examiners, mandating a suspension of license, is "not just
more junk."

And even if you do think it is not just more junk, I'd still be wasting
the cost of the electronic signal if you then turn around and say,
"How do I know you are quoting out of the Final Report and not just
making all this up?"  Susan Garvin and Keegan have done a similar thing
in re the Tiller brochure.  From what you are saying below, you are
holding yourself to a higher standard so far, but that may be because
you don't think the stuff I quoted is damaging.  Your reaction to the
Final Report is sure to be somewhat different.

I will gladly mail photocopies of anything I directly quote from, but
I charge $1.00, in advance (why should I hold myself to a higher standard than
your heroes Tiller et.al.?) for the mailing.  Then if it is not as in
my electronic mail (barring routine typos) you get your money refunded,
double.

[Well, OK, I am holding myself to a higher standard, both as regards
refunds and as regards not charging extortionist prices for "handling"
like so many places do.  I only charge for photocopying and mailing, and
the difference between that and what you spend comes out of the below-minimum
wage you pay me for all the extra trouble.  Also I do accept personal checks,
but will wait for them to clear if they come from a pro-choicer.]

>>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...
>>
>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.

You have an overactive imagination.  Show me what implications I have
tried to draw so far.  [Part 3 of the series is still on the back
burner.  You bozos keep me busy enough as it is.]

>>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.                        ^^^^^

How much medicine do you know, Cochran?  Do you really think viability
still starts after 26 weeks?  If your medical knowledge is as good
as your spelling, I wouldn't be surprised.

> 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.

Who's "one", white man?  Not you, I am sure: you're just grandstanding
while deep down inside you are suspending judgment.  Or are you a total
ignoramus when it comes to the scientific method, and rules of evidence?

Data: Over 10,000 abortions are done past the 21st week.  Ask your
brother Keith for the documentation, he's posted it himself before.
Apparently he is more clued into medicine and statistics than you are.

Data: Nowadays roughly half of babies born in the 500-750 gram range,
putting most of them before the end of the 26th week, survive.

Since you are such an expert on matters medical, you should have
no trouble documenting this second bit of data yourself. ["Turnabout
is fair play."]

>>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.

Sorry, I got the spelling wrong.

Dr. William B. Waddill is a doctor who gave a saline abortion to a
woman, but the baby, which was estimated at 32 weeks gestation when it
came out (Waddill had estimated it around 24, I believe), survived,
according to a colleague, Dr. Ronald Cornelsen.  He, and nurses, testified
that the baby was delivered alive and that Waddill had strangled it.
The murder case ended in a hung jury, due to technical material concerning
a California definition of death.

This happened in Westminster County, California, in 1977. _Newsweek_
devoted a full page to it, and the information on the case is available
in lots of books on abortion.

How is it that you missed out on all this?

Will you next ask me, "What relevance does a 15-year old case have to
abortion today?"  If so, perhaps you can tell me just when your
enlightened standards first came to be adopted.  2001, perhaps? :-)

>>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.

A pity you can't ask Siren why politically correct pro-choicers are such
an overwhelming majority on talk.abortion.  Keith can tell you who Siren
was.  What he probably can't tell you is how you can contact Siren.  As
far as I know, nobody on talk.abortion knows her address.  As to why
that is, Elizabeth Bartley can tell you more about her than I can.  Y'see,
she was "flamed off talk.abortion" according to Chaney, but Beth can
probably confirm that, and I hope you at least consider her a reliable
witness.

'Course if you are relying on the words of your net.bosom-buddy
Susan, you probably think Elizabeth Bartley is laughable and the
consensus on her credibility is almost as low as mine.

>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?

Don't hold your breath, Cochran.  You'll turn blue and pass out, assuming
you can hold your breath that long [free medical clue to someone who has
yet to show me any evidence of medical knowledge].

>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.

Susan made the claim of me posting disinformation first.  You'll have
to wait your turn in line until she either puts up or shuts up.

Remainder of post saved to another follow-up.

Peter Nyikos