NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57893

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 6.6 KB | 147 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: PHoney, dust off your brain.
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: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:36:43 GMT
Lines: 132

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:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>>Come on, you can do it. Drag yourself out of that little cesspool you
>>>>call a mind...
>>>
>>>Anyone can say such things about anybody.  The trick is to back them
>>>up.
>>>
>
>>>Since I last saw Mark make the audacious "26 week" claim, I have
>>>posted clear evidence that either a baby was aborted by Tiller no
>>>earlier than 26 1/2 weeks after fertilization, or Susan Garvin
>>>was mistaken (unless she was lying) about a certain woman being a
>>>patient of Tiller.  I am still waiting for Mark and Susan to resolve
>>>this little disagreement between them.
>>>
>>No disagreement PHoney. It's pretty obvious to all but the most simple
>>minded that the fetus Dr. Tiller aborted was (as was clearly stated in
>>the story Susan posted) completly non-viable, due to deformations.
>>This has been discussed before, of course, but the infamous
>>NyikosNewsReader must have deleted it, so as to allow you to preserve
>>your illusions a little longer.
>
>Or maybe it was discussed in one of the 100 or so posts of your 200 or so
>that I simply can't spare the time for.
>
This from the bandwidth king, who acts as if he thinks we not only
*read* his junk, but should memorize it too. Get real PHoney.

>Since the woman claimed the fetus was not viable on the basis that it
>had a 3-chambered heart, while I have an 8-year old nephew with that
>condition (BTW the operations he has undergone come under the name
>"Fenestrated Fontan Procedure") I'd like to know how long a former
>fetus must survive before you are willing to concede that it is NOT
>completely viable.
>
You really should get a reality check, PHoney. She did not claim the
fetus was not viable. She was told by her physician (who had no
connection with the abortion, so can the conspiracy idiocy) that the
fetal abnormalities made it unviable.
As far as your nephew goes, I'm somewhat sceptical about his
existance, considering your reputation for lying.
As for 'how long a former fetus must survive before you are willing to
conceded that it is NOT completely viable'...
If it's aformer fetus, and it *is* surviving, then I'd assume it has
shown at least *some* viability. Perhaps you should reconsider what
you intended to say with that gobbldygook sentance.

>>>Tiller uses an abortion technique incompatible with using the
>>>lungs, liver, and kidneys of the unborn child in question for
>>>transplantation to save the lives of up to four wanted babies.
>>>
>>Which cannot be done in cases such as Susan cited, due to the massive
>>deformities responsible for the abortion, PHoney.
>
>I only know of the heart being deformed.  What about the organs I
>mentioned.
>
I'm shocked PHoney! nah, aghast even! Are you advocating that
abortions be performed strictly to provide organs for harvesting? Even
I have never gone so far as to suggest that!
Consider a brain transplant for yourself PHoney. If the heart is
messed up during fetal development, how are other internal organs to
be expected to develop normally? Keep in mind that they are going to
be oxygen starved for the duration of the pregnancy.

>>>He also disposes of the remains in an incinerator.
>>>
>>Is that supposed to make some sort of point PHoney?
>
>It means that this man you admire is burning things that would save
>up to 4 WANTED babies, and since you held "Mucus Brain Sizzie"
>responsible for such deaths in a similar context, you are condemned
>out of your own mouth for being a stalwart supporter of "Killer
>Tiller".
>
Can you provide an article number for any post in which I said I
admired Dr. Tiller? There is a difference between admiring the man and
defending the right of the woman to receive competent medical care.
See above for commentary on your new espousal of abortion for organs.

>I mentioned this in a post, of which I took the precaution of sending
>you a copy.
>
I hope your sysadmin enjoyed it. You know I won't tolerate your bilge
grunging up my mailbox.

>In another thread, Doug H. is being lambasted for making you violate
>medical ethics by supposedly breaching confidentiality in the case
>for which you roasted me and Suzanne.  My question is:
>
>What ethics?
>
Get a dictionary and look up the concept PHoney. we realize it's
completely foreign to you.

>After faking out Mark Pundurs with not being on the
>ethical branch he thought you were sawing yourself off,
Mr. Pundurs manages to fake himself out quite nicely without any
assistance from me, PHoney. One wonders if perhaps he is a protege' of
yours.

>you and others climb back on to the branch to avoid documenting
>the slander you made about Suzanne being responsible for
>the deaths of 4 wanted babies.
>
Care to produce an article number for this 'slander'? PHoney? I hold
her views (and yours) and the groups you support responsible, not you
or she as individuals, since neither of you was personally involved in
the case.

>As far as I and Doug are concerned, there were no such babies to
>begin with, and if you think I will take your word for it after the
>abominable show of ethics you have given us to date, you better wake up.
>
You who hold that it's a baby even during the embryonic stage have a
hard time imagining them being babies after birth?
>Peter Nyikos
And please show documentation for any case in which I have commited an
ethical breach. Come on, article numbers and quotes please, or admit
you're merely making more groundless, unsupportable (and slanderous)
claims.

--
                  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.