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 00:20:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.130133.15616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1993Jan21.014921.9070@ncsu.edu>, 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:
## 
##   # 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.
#
#Oh yes, that is correct.  That's what Susan said.  She is right
#in that the laws against abortion put in place in he 19th century
#were partly motivated by the dangerous nature of the procedure, and
#that the Roe v Wade decision may in part have been motivated by
#the fact that illegal abortions were far more dangerous in 1973 than
#legal abortions.  But that's not what you said.  Today is January 22,
#1993.  Exactly 20 years after the announcement of the Roe v Wade
#decision.  So what you are talking about is not what Susan was
#talking about.  By the way, they are not "her estimates," but
#estimates from sources contemporary to the illegal abortions
#discussed.

I note that Reverend Holtsinger deleted Dean's explanation
of why DODie was wrong in his reply.  Maybe DODie thinks
that this really is 1973.  We already know that Simmonds
thinks that 1957 was over fifty years ago, so maybe a
problem with dates is common among misogynists.

## # 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.... 
#
#The estimates she quoted addressed the issue under discussion
#specifically and conclusively.  The estimates give insight
#into some of the motivation of the Roe v Wade decision.  The
#estimates are not worthless, unless you try to make them do
#something they were not intended for.  I have no idea what you
#are trying to do with them.  I don't think you have any idea
#either, beyond trying to say "so and so is wrong" just to say
#it.

DODie's just upset because he's forgotten why I posted the estimates
in the first place.  I explained it again in a reply to Simmonds.
DODie probably deleted the explanation mentally instead of
reading it.

#Dean Kaflowitz
#
#"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
#spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
#so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger


Susan
 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion