NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57464

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 9.1 KB | 215 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!The-Village!waterbed
From: [e-mail] (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: FETAL AGE ESTIMATES (with apology to LM about LMP)
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:24:24 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Lines: 199
            <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: netslip63.watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Margolis) writes:
[excess atributions deleted]
>
>Oops! Looks like my eye glossed over the  LMP in ...>>>LMP both
>now and in previous
>posts.  My apologies to Larry, who is *not* full of it in this instance,
>but was correct in stating that vengeanc@...  was full of it in this
>instance.  I stated otherwise, due to these glosses and/or lapses of
>memory.
>
>>No, your general posting style is uncivil - you're the one that started
>>with the nicknames, not me; you throw in gratuitous insults in posts
>>where I'm not even involved; you lie about me; etc.
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Present what you take to be evidence of this, or retract this claim.
>
>I admit I have made bad judgments of you, Larry [see above instance]
>but they were all in good faith.

I could dig into my archives and see what I've saved, but you include an
example in this post:

>>>You have behaved dishonestly towards him, Larry.

You didn't say I was wrong, you said I was behaving in a dishonest manner,
which implies a willful perversion of truth.  The suggestion that I was
wrong is, as you've admitted, wrong.  The imputation of malicious motive
is a lie.

>One little nagging point: could you tell me where I can look up these
>stats myself?  I want to make sure the expression LMP was used.

The following:
# 50% of the 1.6 million abortions each year take place at 8 weeks or less
# from the last time the woman menstruated (LMP); 27% at 9-10 weeks LMP; and
# 12% at 11-12 weeks LMP.  6% of abortions take place at 13-15 weeks LMP;
# 4% at 16-20 weeks LMP; and less than 1% at 21 weeks LMP or more (0.6%).

is a direct quote from "Facts in Brief / Abortion in the United States",
published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute.  I'm the one who typed it in
originally, and I just double-checked it against the paper.  If you
doubt my word, you can write them and ask for a copy:
   111 Fifth Avenue
   New York NY   10003
   212-254-5656

   2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW
   Washington DC   20036
   202-296-4012

Or, I'd be willing to mail or fax you a photocopy of my copy.

>>>No, Larry, there are ways of estimating fetal age besides the woman's
>>>word, and if you don't know that, your knowledge of abortion is truly
>>>Lilliputian.
>
>>That's estimating gestational age, not estimating time since LMP.
>
>I wonder whether "gestational age" refers to time since implantation.

My dictionary refers to time since conception, but I admit that I don't
know if this is the same definition the medical references use.  (An
interesting question, but unrelated to the above, since LMP is what
was used in the statistics given, not gestational age.)

>it is customary to say that pregnancy starts with implantation, not
>fertilization.

Actually, I think it's more customary to refer to when the sex act took
place, rather than to either implantation *or* fertilization.  ("Do you know
when you got pregnant?"  "It was the night we went on the hay ride.")

>>>>As you pointed out, according to a number of dictionaries (which appears
>>>>to reflect common usage), fetushood starts at the end of the third month.
>>>
>>>You still have not answered my question of what these lexicographers
>>>think the intermediate entity (end of 8th week to beginning of 3rd month)
>>>is called.

I just noticed *when* the question was asked.  Since you are pointing out a
failure to answer, perhaps you care to respond now?

In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
#In  <[e-mail]>  [e-mail] writes:
#> Just what do these lexicographers think the intermediate (8 weeks to
#> 3 months) entity is *usu* called?
#
#Does this relate in any way to the definition of "atheist", or are you
#attempting to change the subject?  I would speculate that you're doing the
#latter because you realize that you blew it.
#
#(Note that when I *do* speculate, I label it properly.  :-)

In case you've forgotten the context, it was:

#> >> >  Atheism refers
#> >> >to the belief in a god; it has nothing to do with a belief in an afterlife
#> >>
#> >> This either/or thinking is typical of pro-choicers on talk.abortion.
#> >> "Nothing to do with" is downright silly.
#>
#> >Why silly?  That's what the word means:
#> >   atheism (n)
#> >   DEFINITIONS:
#> >   1a  disbelief in the existence of deity
#> >   1b  the doctrine that there is no deity
#> >   2   UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
#> >   (c) G. & C. Merriam
#>
#> You have a naive faith in the Merriam-Webster people.
#
#Well, considering that every dictionary I've checked says the same thing,
#I have a lot more faith in that definition than in yours.

Then you went off on a tangent regarding the definitions of embryo and fetus.

(Back to the current reply.)

>>>>According to other dictionaries, and apparently the proper medical
>>>>definition, is that fetushood starts at the beginning of the 9th week of
>>>>gestation.  By any definition I've seen, Simmonds is wrong.
>>>
>>>Didn't Simmonds say the end of the 8th week?  Six of one and half a
>>>dozen of the other.
>
>>You are again demonstrating disingenuousness bordering on dishonesty, or a
>>fundamental stupidity.
>
>No, Larry, once more you are going off half-cocked. [I admit I do that
>sometimes too.]

[Perhaps you got the point, then.  If someone appears confused, you can correct
them without suggesting that you know what's going on inside their head.]

>I was here thinking of the narrow issue of when fetushood begins.

OK, please try to pay attention to the topic in the future.

[Since Peter seems to be trying to mend his ways, I won't go on about his
omitting a '>' in the following line.]

> The discussion of who's right and who's wrong is
>>in regards to the erroneous claim that the majority of what is aborted
>>is in the fetal stage (a claim which *you* made).  As I stated above:
>
>I did not make the claim.

If I say you did, it's a pretty good bet that you did.  In the future, you
might want to hedge by saying that you don't *remember* saying it.

Did you not write the following, with the subject line "Nyikos and the one
bad apple theory of forced pregnancy."?
In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
   (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
#fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

Is this another example of "Down the Nyikos memory hole"?  :-)

>I merely shed doubt on the correctness of yours.  As I do below.
[...]
>In fact, Hern writes in _Abortion Practice_, copyright 1984:
>
>    Correlation between the sonographic estimate of fetal age
>    and the measured result is 0.97...whereas correlation with
>    the last menstrual period is only 0.62 at best and the correlation
>    with the physician's estimate is 0.87.  [pp. 209-210]

I don't see the point, here.  LMP is Last Menstrual Period; it's obviously
a way of *bracketing* when conception occurred, not pinpointing it exactly.
Steven Matheson took this into account when doing his calculations.

>>I know how to apply my
>>language and logic skills in communicating with other people,
>>a capability in which you seem to be lacking.
>
>How am I doing in this post, by your reckoning?

Better, although your statement "I hold [that your love of wordplay and
mindgames is inexorably making a fundamentally dishonest person out of you]
in abeyance, pending further evidence." contains an implication that I have
a tendancy towards dishonesty, which is not true.

>>Are you suggesting that a sizable percentage of women don't know when
>>their LMP was?
>
>Seems like Warren Hern does that above.

That doesn't answer the question.  First, saying that using an estimation
with a month's leeway doesn't correlate well with something that attempts to
pinpoint the exact age says nothing about whether the woman's statement of
when the *reference point* for the first estimation occurred is accurate.
Second, the question was whether *you* are suggesting that, not Warren Hern.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), [e-mail] (Internet)