From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:37:55 GMT

In <1993Jan20.171409.27837@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727476745@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan14.203524.13491@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>
>>>mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>>> Abortion trauma is not a myth, but a proven medical fact.  It doesn't happen
>>>> to all women who undergo abortions.  I care about those women who suffer 
>>>> through it, you don't.
[...]
>>>If you have evidence showing that the incidence of post-abortion trauma is
>>>higher than that of post-partum depression, please post it.
>>
>>What I am aware of is a pair of very unusual statements:
>>
>>	Statement 1:  "No less than 90 percent of aborted women
>>		experience moderate to severe emotional and psychiatric
>>		stress following an abortion.  Up to 10 percent require
>>		psychiatric hospitalization or other professional 
>>		treatment."
>>
>>	Statement 2:  The same figures in re postpartum depression.
>>
>>The source for the first is _Aborted Women, Silent No More_, pp. xxiv-
>>xxv.
>>
>Now try to find an unbiased source which bases it's conclusions on a
>resonably wide sampling PHoney.

Such sources do not exist.  Stop trying to send me on wild goose chases.

>>The source for the second is a post either last July or last August
>>by Linda Birmingham.
>>
>>I have not been able to find the copy I made of this post, or rather
>>of my follow-up in which I said, "Where do you get your statistics,
>>Ms. Birmingham?"
>>
>I've already posted the stats and the source for them PHoney.

Do they agree with Linda's?  I missed them, y'see, because even I 
don't have the stamina to plow through 180 articles by you.

>>What Ms. Birmingham may have neglected to note, IF she indeed plagiarized
>>Reardon's book, is that Reardon speaks of "aborted women," i.e. the members
>>of WEBA, who are hardly representative of the women who have had abortions.
>>
>So her eyou admit that your quotation above about post abortion trauma
>is so much bunk. Thanks for wasting our time. Why bother posting it
>when even you admit it's worthless? What? Oh, I see. You can't *find*
>any valid evidence, so you post crap instead. Makes Nyikossense...

My main point was that what Linda Birmingham posted was bunk, and claimed
to be an accurate reflection of women, unlike Reardon's material, which
he admits is from a biased sample, but as they say in the Army, "We go
with what we got."

You are making this too easy for me, Cochran.  A more experienced 
pro-choice Establishment member, like Humphrey or Hekhuis, would have
deleted everything I said about Linda Birmingham, making me work hard
to restore it.  Looks like you are still not ready for the big leagues.

>>To use such obviously unreliable material as a basis for something made up
>>out of whole cloth in re postpartum depression is indicative of something,
>>but I'd rather not say what it is. 
>>
>I'll say it. It's indicative of your total and complete lack of any
>human intelligence PHoney. Why *do* you use such obviously unreliable
>material?

You made it so easy, I don't even need to add anything, except that 
if past behavior is any indication, Linda Birmingham will refuse to
follow up to any post which mentions her wild and wooly claims of last
summer, while flaming people like Bill Overpeck in long, detailed posts,
and calling him a coward for not answering *all* her questions.

BTW I wonder what good ol' Bill is doing.  I'll send him a copy of this
post.  Unlike you, Marcus, he does not pretend that they are personal
e-mail messages, nor threaten to impose this illusion on my postmaster.

>>>Please define convenience.
>>
>>How about doing the same, since you ask such loaded questions?  My 
>>definition: something not more than three times as bad as having an 
>>abortion and putting up with PMS and menstrual cramps, bleeding, etc.
>>
>>I wonder why there is all this hullabaloo about the mother's tissues,
>>organs, blood, etc. in regard to pregnancy and not in regard to menstrual
>>blood, etc.  Aristotle even believed that the unborn child was built up
>>from the menstrual blood of the mother, congealed by the sperm of the
>>father.
>>
>So because Aristotle was incorrect, you feel jusitifed in being an
>idiot? Doesn't work that way PHoney...

Let me spell things out a little more here.

Aristotle, most ancients, and many biologists up to the 17th century,
believed the myth because they thought the volume of menstrual flow
(including blood, but I don't think it was restricted to that)
over 9 months was adequate to produce a baby.  I wonder, BTW, what
the true story is on this: has anyone compared volumes or weights?

One can see allusions to this theory in the biblical book of Job, in the
Apocryphal book of Wisdom, and even in Sterne's _Tristam Shanty_, showing
the belief persisted in the common folklore even after being discredited
scientifically.

Superficial biology texts do not mention this theory, but do mention the
rival homunculus theory of the middle ages, which never really supplanted
it.

Anyway, my point is that there is a lot of menstrual flow, and, coupled
with menstrual cramps, can sometimes be worse than pregnancy.  I have
a sister who was plagued with extremely severe cramps lasting longer
than a week at a time, until she had her first child.

>>>>> Your attempt to compare abortion to the holocaust is cheap
>>>>> emotionalism, and smacks of anti-semitism to many of those who have
>>>>> personal conenctions to that time period.
>>
>>And not to many others, like Bernard Nathanson.  I have made a post
>>earlier on why he became a pro-lifer, that deals with this matter.
>>
>Again you cite what can hardly be considered an unbiased source. Have
>you ever tried to find one?

He was as unbiased as you can get in _Aborting America_.  He is also
Jewish.

>>I have seen few people as shallow in their thinking as Chris Lyman.  Back
>>in November I posted, "Chris Lyman's Massive Denial, Part 1" but I fear
>>that never made your boards, because I have never seen a follow-up.
>>
>How lucky we are! We've been spared another 1000 line bandwidth
>wasting PHoney article in which he shows that his only claim to
>credibility is his ability to rely on Truth by Blatant Assertion,
>without any support whatsoever from facts. And often without any
>connection with the Real World (tm).

You speak of you know not what.  The bulk of that post, less than 200
lines long, was quoting from Jerome Lejeune, the discoverer of the
genetic basis for Down's Syndrome.  Ever hear of him?

TEST OF MARK COCHRAN SOFTWARE.  PLEASE IGNORE._____________________

No, but I can hardly be expected to know the name of every
geneticist.

End of test___________________________________________________________
>Still working on how attribution lines work aren't you PHoney?
>Twit.

Still trying to fathom the concept, "begging the question"?

Peter Nyikos