From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:11:46 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <C1870B.1v8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>#dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#
>##In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>##decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>###dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>####garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#####dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#
>###### it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
>###### applied to today's situation.  
>#
>##### Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
>#
>#### Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
>#### Why are you still arguing the point?
>#
>### Susan never said any such thing.
>#
>##Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
>##you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
>##did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
>##abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
>##situation:
>#
>#Absolutely.  This whole topic was started based on my comments on the
>#number of deaths from illegal abortions claimed by NARAL before 
>#Roe v Wade.  Susan started quoting info on the number of abortions,
>#which was not what I asked about in the first place!!!  

>I also quoted estimates on the number of deaths from illegal
>abortions.  If you had read the article as I wrote it, rather
>than Reverend Holtsinger's version of my article, you would 
>know this.

If this is the case, than you may be correct.  I'm not sure if I ever
got your original post here.  I seem to recall only seeing Doug's
response.  

>By the way, what is the article number in which you provided
>the references that you had promised on this subject?

A. I wasn't aware I promised any but I believe Mr. Nyikos posted the same
   source I was using for this (Abortion- Questions and Answers, Willke I
   think... not positive). 

B. I have NO idea how find an article if I had to.

>##  # The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
>##  # in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
>##  # is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
>#
>##   Actually, it has something to do with it.  
>#
>##       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>##        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
>#
>#
>##And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.
>#
>#Ditto.  

>No, you see me saying that I meant what I said.  I said that
>Blackmun had done similar research.  Of course, DODie deleted
>that part.  It was in a post that replied to one of your
>articles, and you even replied to the post.  I hope that
>you don't mind proving that you're either a liar or an
>idiot.

Look... no matter what you say the fact remains that statistics from
pre-Roe have no bearing on this issue today.  The advances in technology
have been so profound in this area, that there is simply no basis
for this sort of comparison.  The only purpose of your love of these
statistics is to reinforce your OWN misguided belief that you are
protecting women from great physical danger.  

>### Only a stupid person would conclude that therefore they are 
>### worthless.  
>#
>##Her estimates are worthless to the extent that they cannot be 
>##used today in any meaningful fashion.  They do help soothe
>##yours and Ms. Garvin's precious little egos though.... 
>## 
>#
>#Ditto.

>I'll assume that you, like DODie, are incapable of understanding
>the relevance of history.

>#[Editors note: Author expecting flames for agreeing with Mr. Holtsinger]

>If the Reverend Holtsinger had been telling the truth, or
>even making sense, you would not need to expect such flames for
>agreeing with him.  It's nice to know that you knew a priori
>that you were agreeing with a liar and a fool.


[Editors note: Author sees his expectations confirmed in Susan's inability
	       to remain even partially civil]

>###Dean Kaflowitz
>#
>#
>##   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."
>##                                     sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
>#
>##Doug Holtsinger
>#
>#
>#
>#Great job Doug,
>#
>#
>#Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

>Let's see if Simmonds approves of DODie's tactics in general...

>Susan

>"My final action will be to abort all homeless and poor welfare families
>because I have decided that they are not living productive, fulfilling
>lives, and I am God.  These are humans, because they are scraping out a
>sparse survival in our world, but since I'm God I feel it would be more
>compassionate if I ended their misery."
> - Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu),
>   in article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>



ATTENTION: MASSIVE QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT WHICH CLEARLY IGNORES THE
	    SARCASM INTENDED BY THIS TEXT




Is that the best you can do, Susan?  Sheesh, how pathetic.



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57611 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13652 talk.politics.misc:69486