NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58354

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 11.0 KB | 246 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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:31:58 GMT
Lines: 231

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:
>>>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."
>
Obviously I'm not going to reveal confidential sources PHoney. Neitehr
do I retract my statements. Do the newspapers retract statements made
by anonymous sources? Nope. Do police ignore information from
anonymous sources? Nope.
Deal with it, pink boy.

>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.
>
Look to me like I'm expressing an opinion about what the actions of
you and your 'pro-life' friends have accomplished. Specifically, the
deaths of children that could have been saved by transplants. Where
does it say 'I hold you responsible' PHoney?

>Hope you are happy with having crossed the threshold into infanticide
>advocacy.
>
Poor PHoney. Can't tell the difference between infanticide and
allowing the grieving parents of a terminally defective infant to
fidn some comfort in knowing that their loss saved the lives of other
children. If the child had any chance of survival, PHoney, you might
have an argument.

>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.
>
Name the ethical principles I am undermining PHoney. The medical
profession is devoted to quality of live, not mere quantity. And when
a man and woman are losing their child to fatal birth defects, I see
nothing wrong with allowing them the solace of knowing their loss
saved the lifes of other desperately ill children.

>Can you explain how you can do all of the above, and still be considered
>an honest person?
>
Not to you, since it is apparent that honesty is a foreign concept to
you.

>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?
>
PHoney, do some research. Digoxin is digitalis. So is Digitoxin. At
least, digitalis is the active ingredient in both drugs, though the
action and metabolism differs markedly. I'd say I was honest, given
how many times I've explaained this to you.

>>>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?
>
Big suprise for you PHoney. Free standing clinics that provide
surgical treatment (such as abortion) are governed by the same rules
and regulations as hospitals.

>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%:
>
He expressed his opinion. I differed with it. He is free to include
any additional information above and beyond that required by
standards.

>>>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?
>
Same as it was before PHoney. Is there a point to all this rambling?

>>>>>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.]
>
Poor Steve. I'll have to mail him details on how to auto-bounce email.

>>>> 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.
>
I also corrected that statement within a matter of hours to clarify
that I was talking about 2/3 of all conceptions failing to make it to
birth, not implantation. Errors happen, and some of us make an effort
to correct them, rather then deny they happened. You'll probably deny
that you ever saw my correction, thanks to the NyikosNewReader with AI
article deletion.

>>>> 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.
>
[email deleted. Only a PHoney type scum would post email without
permission]

>Care to retract your charge of gross misrepresentation?
>
Nope, since the email you posted (without permission, you scum bag)
was dicussing abortion and the termination of pregnancies, not
'intentional feticide'.

[Irrelevent bandwidth wasting deleted]

>>>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.
>
Well lets hear it from you Phoney. Tell us what your 'nephew' was
diagnosed as having. Was it hypoplastic left heart? Tetralogy of
fallot? ventriculo septal defect? Be specific and we'll talk PHoney.
What Susan posted did make clear that the physicians in her case
determined that the fetus was not viable.

--
                  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.