From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Basic English 101 (Was: Abortion on a non-pregnant woman)
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.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 04:05:10 GMT

[Note: Deletions not marked...]


In article <nyikos.715896062@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <Bu4qGG.1Ho.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.715729698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>#My point went in quite a different direction.  Judge Kelly
                                               ^
>>#drafted a proposal that would limit pro-lifers to what kind of picketing
>>#they could do and still be acceptable to him, and proposed that a neutral
>>#party report on "what really goes on in Tiller's clinic," to be 
>>#accompanied by Operation Rescue types doing "community service", like
>>#homophobes being made to attend sensitivity training sessions.  This was
                                                                ^
>>#totally unacceptable to Tiller's lawyers.  So far as I know, they would
                                           ^
>>#never let anyone mentioned by Judge Kelly, who so zealously arranged for
>>#arrests and convictions, to see the inside of the clinic.  
                                                           ^
>
>>Do you have any sort of reference for this?  
>
>Do you require references of people asking questions, and pleading
>ignorance about the answers to the questions?  You are one tough
>customer, Susan.

Peter, I've highlighted the ends of each of your sentences.  Nowhere do you
indicate that you're asking a question.  (I'll give you a hint.  You write
a question mark ("?") at the end of a sentence to make it an interrogratory
statement).  The closest you come to asking a question is the sentence that
begins "So far", and that seems more like speculation or a conclusion than
a question.

Is the Kevmeister proud of his student learning how to backpeddle so quickly?

>
>Or is your request slightly misplaced and you are referring to "This
>was totally unacceptable to Tiller's lawyers?"  I have two different
>sources for this, both pro-life, one a book, another a national magazine.
>I realize these sources aren't worth diddly to you, so I won't even 
>name them, but merely ask whether you have any news of what really
>happened the day before Kelly was asked on the Phil Donahue show why
>he abruptly released the "rescuers" from prison and answered
>"Because the other side pissed me off."

Go take your Haldol, Peter.  You're making no sense.  As for sources, how
about a newspaper report.  Something by UPI? API? A local newspaper in Kansas?

>
>>#And maybe
>>#not even Kelly himself.  Nor any of the marshals.
>
>>If you could leave this sort of speculation out, people
>>wouldn't respond as angrily to your articles.  You
>>have no way of knowing this.
>
>Right. That's why I keep asking about it.  In the absence of answers,
>am I not even allowed to say "maybe"?

No, Peter.  You're not "asking about it".  You're giving us speculation, and
hoping that we can refute it.  If we can't, then you "scored one" for your
side.  I've gone over this with you once before (with Eric), but here's how
you ask a question:

Does anybody know if the marshalls (or the judge) in the Tiller case was ever
allowed to observe the inside of the clinic?

See?  It's simple, it's easy.  Even if I did use bad grammer, people will
still understand that it's a question.

>
>>#Of course, you can all go on believing Tiller had nothing embarrassing
>>#to hide.  

Go ahead, Peter. Tell me that this is a question.  I dare you.

>
>>You've certainly not offered anything to convince me otherwise.
>
>Well, I've had so much else to do, I just haven't had the time to 
>present the evidence I have.  And, given how skeptical you and your
>fellow pro-choicers are, it's going to have to be a long, tightly
>reasoned post.  But I'll do my best, and I hope to have something
>for you by the end of the week.

I'll be waiting.  Hopefully it will be the post that makes us all "see the
errors of our ways".  (No sarcasm.  None whatsoever).

>
>>#But his activities, while perhaps legal under Kansas law, 
>>#were still of a sort that most ordinary people find repugnant.  
>
>>I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the dead bodies of
>>the women who would be denied abortions by people like
>>you. 
>
>Now don't you start misrepresenting me.  It's bad enough having
>Adrienne accuse me of endangering women's lives when I've said
>over and over again that I have nothing against an abortion done
>to save the life of a woman.

Gee, how ...noble... of you.  Is this the mindset that says, "Well, the
incubator will be dead if we don't, so...", or what?

>
>> I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the shattered
>>families created when the wife and mother is permanently
>>physically impaired by a pregnancy that people like you
>>would force her to carry to term. 
>
>I've also relaxed my opposition to abortion to where I would 
>allow it if the impairment were as great as the permanent loss of
>one kidney.  But I believe the difference between
>that and a life-endangering situation is nonexistent in the real
>world.  Does anyone here know otherwise?

Well, let's see... There's gestational diabetes, osteroperosis(sp?), cracked
disks, crushed kidneys, ruptered abdomens, collapsed uteruses...

>
>> I'd find it a lot more
>>repugnant to watch an infant die in pain because you
>>would insist that it suffered needlessly.
>
>I have also said that if not giving abortion means an infant is
>sentenced to a fate worse than death, I would allow the abortion.

Well, golly gee.  I guess you are a canidate for "Mr. Compassion", aren't you?

>I guess that was all before you started paying close attention 
>to my posts.
>
>>I saw photographs of one of the cancerous tumors they
>>removed from me.  I am not comparing a fetus to the tumor,
>>understand that.  I am saying that the operation and the
>>results of that operation were disgusting to look at.
>>On the other hand, I would surely be dead if that operation
>>had not been performed.
>
>When I say "repugnant," I am speaking morally, not esthetically.
>Sorry if it wasn't clear before.

Riddle me this, Peter.  Why do you find it morally repugnant for a woman who
is on the pill, has BC failure, finds out she's 8-10 weeks pregnant, knows
nothing else out the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornBaby" (ie. male/female), and gets
an abortion?  She's stated her desire to not be pregnant by using BC.  She's
not getting a "sex selection" abortion, she's not waiting until 5 minutes
before she's due.  She's using a solution that is morally acceptable to her
to take responsibility for a condition that she didn't want to occur.

>
>>You continue to miss that point, though.  Many life-saving
>>operations are hideously ugly.  
>
>That does not bother me.  They are "beautiful" in the moral
>dimension.

So why is the decision of the above woman not "beautiful" in the moral
dimension?

>
>>#Perhaps
>>#some pro-choicers here would too, if they saw them, but they never get
>>#the chance.
>
>>I would strongly doubt that there is a single person who reads
>>this group and supports legal abortion who does not know
>>what a late term fetus looks like, and who can't imagine
>>what happens when such a fetus is aborted.
>
>But some deny that such a fetus suffers terrible agony in many abortions.
     ^^^^

Names, you asshole.  I want either the names of these people who "deny that
such a fetus suffers terrible agony in many abortions", or a retraction.

Or is this just another attempt to show how Pro-Choicers are really
"EvilSatanicVoodooDoctors"???


>
>>The abortions done in Dr. Tiller's clinic are tragic, Nyikos.
>>The alternative to those abortions, though, is even more
>>tragic to the women who undergo them. 
>
>That remains to be seen.  I guess you missed my post about the woman
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're about to make me angry, Mr. Nyikos.  I wouldn't suggest doing that.

>who, on the evening TV news, went to Kansas to abort a baby "whose
>brain was not developing properly," and suffered massive hemorrhage
>as a result of the abortion.  I don't recall anyone saying that the
>anencephalic baby who was born in Florida not long ago had its birth
>accompanied by massive hemorrhaging.  

Some woman used the evening news to get to Kansas?  Huh?  (Never mind.  I
do understand your point).

Suxanne, do you want to tell Peter about your relative who died in childbirth?

Would you like to hear about my Sister's collapsed uterus, which happened
because she's had children?

Anybody want to re-post the statistics about the various dangers of both
childbirth and abortion, and your chances of suffering in each case?

"Dr" Nyikos doesn't seem to have seen them...
>
>[Don't confuse statements of fact, or speculation, with reproaches.  No
>reason why you should have caught that earlier post.]

True.  We've already established that you don't bother to read any of the
articles you respond to, so why should anybody, right?

>
>And people were quite 
>positive that the anencephalic baby was NOT suffering.  If they are
>indeed incapable of suffering, what's the point of aborting them
>in the first place?

What in the world do these two sentences mean?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =