NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57295

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 6.1 KB | 141 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Janus IV: Questions for Marcus, flame set to low
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: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:33:56 GMT
Lines: 126

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Here I attempt a new beginning, of sorts, with Mark Cochran, of all people.
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>##In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>>##(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>>###Doug has a pretty cute guess, which he came up with independently of my
>>>###tongue-in-cheek guess in "(Belated) Saturnalia II: Meet Marcus Cochran,
>>>###(?)" that you are an abortionist, or at any rate someone who "sees the
>>>###damn [consent forms]" every day at an abortuary where you work.
>
>>>##I didn't  realize this. I guess this may explain his extreme defensivenss and
>>>##sensitivity.  At least he doesn't hide behind the "pro-choice" veil.
>>>##
>>>##- Paul
>>>#
>>>#You are all sadly (but not suprisingly) completly wrong about my
>>>#profession. However, if you're too dumb to figure it out, I have no
>>>#plans to enlighten you.
>
>Cheap shots:
>
>Given your track record in re honesty, why should I believe this denial?
>Anyway I don't *really* think you are an abortionist, but have you ever
>posted *anything* that would indicate otherwise?
>
><shoof>
>
>[sound of flamethrower cut back to low setting]
>
That was a flame? Pretty feeble even for you PHoney.
As for my track record wrt honesty, I'd like to see you produce
evidence that I've ever been less then honest with this group.

>All kidding aside, I have some questions for you:
>
>Are those consent forms from freestanding abortion clinics?
>
Nope, surgical permits of all sorts. You *do* know that abortion is
considered surgery, don't you?

>Have you even seen consent forms FOR ABORTION?
>
Yup. Hopsital here does abortions. Same forms we use for all other
surgery. Same requirements for informed consent.

>What assurance have you that more than 1% of all abortion consent forms
>list complications of more than .1% frequency?
>
Feel free to perform a survey of hospitals and surgeons PHoney. Or you
might consider that the standards for informed consent and disclousure
of risks are not set by individual physicians or hospitals.

>Why is it that when our children are vaccinated, we get info about
>complications with .001% frequency, mandated by law?
>
well shoot me for slipping the decimal point. I'm not the
mathematician PHoney, you're supposed to be.

>>>I thought that Mark told us all his profession when he started posting
>>>again.  If not, he certainly dropped a lot of hints that most people
>>>of average intelligence could have used to figure it out - that may
>>>explain why neither PHoney, DODie, nor Lebow were capable of it.
>>>
>>No, I never stated 'my profession is <x>'. It should have been fairly
>>obvious, to any resonably astute person though, given the sources I've
>>cited.
>
>Cited? Sources?  As in "a book, any book, on obstetrics"?  Hell, *I*
>can do better than that, and I never displayed any pretentions to
>working in a medical field.
>
PHoney, I've posted the documentation for that 4-5 times now. If you
can't find it because of your Custom Installation of the
NyikosNewsReader, with AI message deletion, that's your problem.

>> I never felt like my profession was the issue, since I was (and
>>am) able to back up statements with citations that do not rely on my
>>own expertise.
>
>As above?  or are you smugly sitting on the escape clause "able to"?
>
Yes PHoney, as above. As in '4-5 times' I've posted the sources you
asked for. Steve Matheson did too, for that matter.

>> The only place I'm basing anything on my own
>>experiences and expertise is in a thread that started between Steve M
>>and myself. And that thread is purely a thoretical debate about some
>>relatively obscure technical points of fetal neural development.
>
>Do you have a different source for your audacious claim of no
>intentional feticide past the 26th week, then?
>
A gross misrepresentation PHoney. I said no abortions past the 26th
week unless there is no other choice. Even you have claimed to view
life threatening complications as a valid reason for abortion.

>You cited your own experience to Matheson when mentioning a similar
>claim to him--all the abortions *you* have witnessed, if memory
>serves, involving feticide were before the 26th week.  Why such a
>modest claim?  Why didn't you tell him the "truth", your "truth"
>that there are no such abortions, period.
>
Perhaps because I was talking about my own experiences PHoney. Care to
try and produce evidence of abortion past the 26th week for spurious
reasons? Come on, give it a shot.

>Also, my memory must be playing tricks on me: wasn't the fetus
>with 3 chambers at 31 weeks?  Wasn't it killed?  Why did my
>8 year old nephew survive, even though he has this 3-chamber
>syndrome?
>
PHoney, unless you're even dummer then I think, you're surely capable
of figuring out that *which* 3 chambers are possessed might make some
sort of difference?

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.