NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53602

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.9 KB | 137 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Meet Mark Cochran, credentials still a mystery
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria
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 21:05:40 GMT
Lines: 124

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

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>[Lots of unsubstantiaqted hearsay garbage deleted]
                      ^^^^^^
>>>>    abortion patients were briefly counseled that they could not
>>>>                               ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>    choose to stop the procedure once it had started, but could
>>>>    ^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>Is this supposed to be suprising? face facts Petey. After the
>>>procedure is started, it can't be stoped. The fetus is dead, and
>>>halting the procedure would be a good way to ensure that the woman
>>>dies.
>>
>>Correct would be, "once the fetus has been killed, the procedure
>>can't be stoped [your spelling; I will correct your "facts" about
>>abortion procedures and leave it to Mr. Finkelstein to correct your
>>spelling].  The fetus is dead..."
>>
>>Y'see, you well-informed authority with sterling credentials, Dr. Tiller
>>begins some of his procedures, especially on women prior to 23 weeks who
>>opt for suction curette, D&C, or D&E rather than the digoxin special,
>>with the insertion of laminaria.  He even RECOMMENDS the two-day procedure
>>for 1st trimester abortions as being more "gentle." And it often IS safe to
>>halt a procedure after laminaria have been inserted.  One woman even
>>changed her mind after being 3cm dilated, and had an uneventful full-term
>>delivery.
>>
>I admit to the mistake then. From the context, I interpreted your
>remarks to be aimed specifically at the late term abortions. In them,
>the fetus is killed before the laminaria ae inserted. In early
>abortions, the restriction does not apply. You admit that yourself
>when you talk about a woman who did, indeed, change her mind and carry
>the fetus to term. So what is your problem with his including a
>warning that it is not possible to reverse the procedure? You've
>already admitted that patients at Dr. Tillers clinic do indeed change
>their minds.

Because the warning applies to all abortions Tiller does, even 1st
trimester ones.

>>>[Lots more unsupported hearsay evidence deleted]
>>
>>Heh.  How many women will have to be fired from Tiller's clinic before
>>you've stopped [my spelling, since I am using the word this time]
>>dismissing their combined testimony as "unsupported hearsay"?
>>
>The fact that they were fired is what makes them suspect Petey. Had
>they found the Dr's practices unfit, and quit, and had they then gone
>to the AMA or whomever to provide evidence in support of this, I would
>listen. The fact that they were fired, and then choose to make
>unsubstantiated claims makes them poor sources.

How could they substantiate their claims once fired?  And Tivis would
have quit if she had found another job before Tiller found out about
her job search, and fired her.

>>>Digoxin is not "related to" digitalis, it *is* digitalis.
>>
>>Hmmm.  I don't have my dictionary with me, but it gave a chemical formula
>>for digoxin, and it was NOT the same one it gave for digitoxin, which it
>>identified as the chief active ingredient of digitalis.
>>
>*sigh* Let me be more explicit Petey...
>There is a difference between digoxin and digitoxin. Both contain
>digitalis, but it comes in slightly different biochemical forms. The
>different forms affect the drugs serum half-life, metabolization, and
>excretion. Since the drug seems so important to you, at least clarify
>which drug you are talking about.

Mark, if you are going to misrepresent me, you'll *have* to stop
leaving evidence in (by the way, what were *your* SAT scores?  Did you
ever get far enough in college to take a GRE?)

I was talking about digoxin all the time before you wrote

>>>Digoxin is not "related to" digitalis, it *is* digitalis.

up there.  Since I had no access to a dictionary, I called your claim
into question by telling you as much as I could.  The dictionary, by
the way, was the Merriam-Webster Ninth Collegiate Dictionary.
[I misremembered the title as "Intercollegiate"--sorry about that,
Larry Margolis.]  It goes on to say that digoxin has a similar action
to the heart as digitalis.


Do you see the difference between:

>>>Digoxin is not "related to" digitalis, it *is* digitalis.

and

>There is a difference between digoxin and digitoxin. Both contain
>digitalis, but it comes in slightly different biochemical forms. The

?  If "yes," why were you *sigh*ing up there, etc.?

If no, did you ever get far enough in high school to *take* SAT's?


>>> What is your
>>>problem with it's use to stop a heart?
>>
>>The same problem you'd have if someone you cared about had were subjected
>>to its use to stop his/her heart.
>>
>It's not being used to stop anybodies heart that either of knows
>Petey. It's being used, in this case, to stop the heart of a fetus.
>Big difference.

I care about these "Who's from Whoville," these little somebodies.
That you fail to see them as somebodies is a defect in you, like
your ridiculous digoxin-digitalis *sighing* up there.

[But then, what do you expect of someone who might not have passed
his high school equivalency test yet?]

Peter Nyikos