From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:41:39 GMT

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.

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

##  # 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.

### 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.

###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>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion