NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58050

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 9.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Janus IV: Questions for Marcus, flame set to low
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:38:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Lines: 209

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

>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:

>>>>#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?

>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.

You made some very damaging allegations about me and my kind, and specifically
the woman you call "Mucus Brain Sizzie", on the basis of claims which are
so tenuous, you will not even release the name of a hospital which is
involved in your alleged sources.  Owing to the seriousness of the
claims you make, holding "Sizzie" and responsible for the deaths of 4 children,
one would think you would at least have said something to the following
effect: "The individuals I use as my source have asked that I not release
to you the name of the hospital.  I therefore withdraw my claim that
matches were found for these organs, until such a time as I can find a
source in the public domain."

Your brother Keith reflexively accused me of poor reading comprehension
when I posted words to the same effect as in the first half of the
above paragraph.  Could you please tell us just how to interpret the
words:

#> So, you and your "Pro-Life" friends can and should consider yourselves
#> responsible for the deaths of 4 children. Born, wanted, otherwise
#> healthy children who needed a transp
#> Hope you're happy with yourself.

Hope you are happy with having crossed the threshold into infanticide
advocacy.

This is a dangerous game you are playing, Mark, not only where I and
talk.abortion are concerned, but also as to the fabric of our culture.

You talk to us about how your medical ethics forbid you to reveal even
the name of a hospital, yet you say things that undermine the medical
ethics that has been in place since the Oath of Hippocrates.

Can you explain how you can do all of the above, and still be considered
an honest person?

Not to mention the deception you engaged in where the digoxin/digitalis
distinction is concerned.  There you said "Digoxin *is* digitalis,"
just so you could make an insult about my alleged lack of medical
knowledge, and then did not even get the distinction right on the second
try, and then on the third try you pretended that I was ignorant of
the distinction yet again.  Are these the actions of an honest man?

>>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.

Most abortions are not done in hospitals.  Let me rephrase the previous
question by inserting "used by freestanding abortion clinics" after
"forms"; what is your answer now?

Recall that this whole dispute between us had to do with late-term
abortionist Warren Hern complaining how inadequate so many consent forms
were, then giving a "model form" which failed to list all complications
that occur in .1% of the cases, much less .001%:

>>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 am, but that is hardly relevant where empirical data are concerned
[there are exceptions even here].  Let me further modify my question
about consent forms, with .001% put in place of .1%.  What is your
answer now?

>>>>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.

Okay, be that way.  I'd like to know whether Steve Matheson has seen
the documentation. [Copy of this post goes to him.]

>>> 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.

Except that his source disagreed with yours.  You said 2/3 of all
zygotes fail to implant, his gave a GUESS that 1/3 to 1/2 fail to
do so.

>>> 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.

Here is what you said in an e-mail message:

#>Me
#you

#> Mark, is your real name Rip van Winkle, by any chance?  Does the word
#> VIABLE mean nothing to you in connection with abortion?
#>
#Considering my profession, I'd be willing to bet it means considerably
#more to me then it does to you. However, the topic is ABORTION. And
#abortions are not performed after viability is reached. Terminating a
#pregnancy after the point of viability (nominally 26 weeks) is done by
#inducing labor and procedding with a normal delivery. None of which
#has anything at all to do with abortion.

This was in a message of December 18, in the same message where you
said:

"I have said nothing in mail that I would not say on the net."

Care to retract your charge of gross misrepresentation?

Note to readers: the "Rip van Winkle" bit was in response to the following
exchange:

> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
> Subject: Born fetuses (was: restrictions)
> Distribution: world
> References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >>[e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
> >>> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >>>>Nobody's proposed limiting access to abortions that are medically
> >>>>called for.  The proposal was to limit the _method_ of terminating a
> >>>>late-term abortion so as to provide the fetus a chance at survival if
> >>>>possible and practical.
> >>>>
> >>>What is this stuff about providing the fetus with a chance for
> >>>survival after an abortion? Did somebody invent an artificial womb and
> >>>I didn't notice? Hang on a minute, lemme take a peek through the
> >>>window of the NICU...
> >>>Nope, no metal-momma in sight...
>

>>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?

The stuff Susan posted made no mention of which 3 chambers were working.
So tell us non-medicos, please, which ones they were, and what the
differences are.

Peter Nyikos