From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Chris Lyman's failed reading comprehension (Was: Statistics)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:07:42 GMT

In <1993Jan20.185543.24777@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>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.

>> I readily believe this assessment of Cochran.

>Considering that you don't know what Mark does for a living,

What has that got to do with the price of eggs?  He is awfully tight-lipped
about it.

> this is a,
>ahem, _brash_ accusation.  Even wild and illogical.  See below.

I looked, and could not find anything relevant by Cochran.  I did see
a lot of stuff by you where you covered most of the same ground he did.

I dealt with some of the stuff I deleted below in a follow-up to his kissing
cousin of this post.

>>> 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.

[Cochran-style non sequitur deleted]

>> The source for the second is a post either last July or last August
>> by Linda Birmingham.

>As I've mentioned before, post-partum depression can entail anything from
>a mild case of the 'blues' to a full-blown psychosis.

According to Ms. Birmingham, less than 10% of all births result in a mild
case of the blues, shared with those with even less in the way of
unpleasant sequelae.  Care to dispute her claim?

[Cochran-style demand deleted]

>I believe some one out there has posted evidence from a recent article in
>the Journal of the American Medical Association that indicates that most
>women feel just fine after an abortion.

Just fine?  After having a curette shoved up their cervix and deep into
the womb?  Tell me another one, Chris.


>Pot, kettle, black, Perfesser.  I didn't read all of your 75 freaking
>articles, but of the ones I did read, most of the content dealt with
>your inability to understand and get along with other t.a participants.

I understand them all too well.  Hence their inability to get along
with me.

>Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.

I don't apologize for things I don't do.

>> 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.

>Wait a minute.  If you cite Reardon's book, that's research; if Ms.
>Birmingham cites it, it's plagiarism???  Why?  Because she's pro-choice?
>Or she's Canadian?  What gives?

Ms. Birmingham did not cite Reardon's book.  She gave the statistics
as though they were common knowledge.  No documentation.  In fact, no
indication where she "learned" about those statistics.

Go back and read what I wrote above.  Then read the thread title.
Then read the following thing you wrote, and, if you forgot the 
thread title, go back and read it again.

>Btw, I've never known Ms. Birmingham to use others' material without giving
>credit.  Maybe you should nip this in the bud (and save bandwidth :-) )
>by retracting your speculation now.

>> 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.

>Heh.  

Why is Chris Lyman laughing?

>It's reliable enough when it suits your purposes, eh?

Why, he just came up with a bit of baseless speculation, the question
you see above.  No, baseless speculation is too kind a word.

Would "character assassination" be closer to the mark?

TEST OF CHRIS LYMAN SOFTWARE. PLEASE IGNORE._________________________

>Would "character assassination" be closer to the mark?

Heh. "Character suicide" would be more like it.

END OF TEST._______________________________________________________

>>> Is aborting a pregnancy because one does not have the resources to care
>>> for another child a matter of convenience? 

>> Yes, in the USA, where there is a serious shortage of infants (as opposed
>> to older kids who have been shuttled in and out of foster care) up for 
>> adoption.

[claim not mentioning adoption deleted]

>2.  It has been repeatedly shown that the people on waiting lists to adopt
>    are looking for healthy, white babies.

This is an instance of what I call "the Linda Birmingham Phantom 
Universal".  "the people," without qualifying aduectives.

>  There are plenty of babies of
>    color and/or with disabilities waiting to be adopted.

Well, in Minnesota, I am told, the "people of color" were successful in
making it illegal for whites to adopt babies of color.  Can you either
confirm or deny this?  and back up the confirmation or denial with
documentation?

[Sorry, that first question was rhetorical.  Please concentrate most
of your widdle bwain on the second, Chwis.]

>>> Is aborting a pregnancy because the conception was the product of rape
>>> a matter of convenience?

>> No.

>>> 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.

>Tut, tut, Petey, it's pro-lifers like Mr. McMillan who say over and over
>that most abortions are for 'convenience.'  If I were to attempt to define
>what 'convenience' meant in the context of this discussion, pro-lifers
>like Mr. McMillan would rightly accuse me of setting up a strawman.

I answered the question, as you can see.  Were I of the same mentality
as Adrienne Regard, I would say you lack the *balls* to answer it 
yourself.

Since I am not of the same mentality, I respectfully ask you to please
answer it.


>> 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.

>Do us all a favor, Petey.  Find the passage in Aborting America where Dr.
>Nathanson appeals to all abortion debate participants _not_ to water down
>the memory of the Holocaust and post it.  I posted it once and had it
>archived, but it was lost in the shuffle when we recovered from a crash.

Sorry, Chris.  I did my share by posting the incident which changed
Nathanson's mind about the matter.  The rest is up to you.

>>>> You are just throwing around wild, illogical accusations.  

>> That I readily believe, since I have seen Chris do a great deal of that.

>Coming from you, that's a compliment.

Have you eaten any crow, or humble pie, ever?  Someone once told me 
it was nourishing.  If you could post just one example, it would do
wonders for your credibility where I am concerned.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion