From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Sep 92 18:46:58 GMT

In <1992Sep8.044914.2971@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715899847@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep5.102619.11915@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>>>Nyikos
>>>>> Ferrari
>>
>>>CONTRACEPTIONN IS BESIDE THE POINT!! Abortion "prior to the end of the 5th
>>>week" is basically beside the point also, since paltry few women know
>>>that they are pregnant by that time,
>>
>>If so, sex education has done a lousy job of teaching about menstrual
>>cycles and pregnancy tests, and about the desirability of EARLY abortions.
>>

>Peter, my mother is routinely up to 2 weeks late starting her period.  My
>sister has been up to 4 weeks "out of synch".  A friend of mine has been
>up to *6* (Six, you know, between 5 and 7) weeks late starting her period.
>(She takes birth control pills to get herself more "even").  Granted, Jackie
>is an exceptional case, but most women _do not_ have rhythm-steady cycles.
>Are you suggesting that these three women keep an EPT handy so they can test
>themselves they day after they "should have" started?

Not really, if they make the necessary arrangements they can wait until two
weeks after they should have started.  That's assuming they want to abort.

>>> much LESS have time to make up their
>>>minds about it (abortion is NOT a snap decision),
>>
>>I would expect a lot of women have made their minds up, even before
>>having intercourse, that if they get pregnant, they'll abort.

>And you're living in a fantasy world.  Certainly some women have.  I've talked
>with them.  But most women (I think) have a general "If I Got Pregnant Today,
>I'd..." attitude, and then when it actually happens, they want to be able to
>take stock of their CURRENT situations.

There would be an awful lot more women in the first category if a law
like the one I envision gets passed.  People have a marvelous way of
adapting themselves to circumstances, like seeing speed limit signs, seeing
state trooper cars, etc.

And there are bound to be a lot of false alarms, so that lots of women
in the second category would have a chance to see how they react to what
they are afraid is a pregnancy, before the real thing comes along.

>>
>>> AND get to the abortion
>>>clinic, when antis keep passing abortion restrictions and generally making
>>>it extremely difficult to get to a clinic. 
>>
>>This is a bogus argument.  What's a 24 hour waiting period compared to 
>>5 weeks?

>For some women, life and death.

I would certainly allow abortion at any time to save a woman's life, as
I have said over and over again.

>>> This 5-week abortion grace
>>>period you so generously bestow upon us is nothinng but a mirage.  What
>>>makes a 5-week fetus different from a 6-week onne anyway?
>>
>>Well, I can't know when sentience occurs, but there seems to be a 
>>prima facie case for it beginning some time between the end of the
>^^^^^^^^^^^Based on a book written in 1961...

Your faith in human progress is touching.  In some respects we have
regressed.  Until you show me where the book was refuted, I'll stand
by it.

>>5th week and the end of the 8th.  Like I said, I am open to moving
>>up the cutoff point to the 8-week point.

>How about to 24 weeks, when mylination occurs, and the brain can actually
>FUNCTION???

Will someone please point me to the original reference to this mylenation
argument?  To me it seems totally irrelevant to whether there is
"anybody home".

>>>Let me try this one more time, inn nice, short, sentences: Conntraception
>>>is NNOT an alternative to abortionn.  (Pause while you look up that big
>>>word "contraception.")  Contraception prevennts abortionn.
>>
>>>Got it?
>>
>>Sorry, repeating a statement is not the same thing as explaining it.
>>Contraception does not prevent abortion, otherwise people would not
>>be talking about "contraceptive failure."  So what did you mean?

>Yes, folks, we have a winner in the "Tommy Kelly Look Alike Sweepstakes".

Sorry, I don't know who Tom Kelly is.

>Let's try it from the other end, in bigger words.

>If a pregnancy is avoided by the use of contraceptives, then no abortion will
>be needed.  If a pregnancy is NOT avoided (ie. BC failure), then abortion can
>(and oftentimes is) used as prevent the pregnancy from proceeding.

Thanks for the education.  I still don't see how it relates to
"contraception is not an alternative to abortion."  Both have as their aim
the prevention of a future birth, only the first is a lot less gruesome.

>>>Let's summarize in case you don't.
>>
>>>Contraception prevents pregnancy.  Contraception does not STOP a pregnancy.

>>I know that.  What's your point?

>AAAAAUUUGGGHHHHH!!!!! (boish.  boish.  boish).

>Peter, stop playing dumb.

Sorry, I'll just have to play dumb a little longer until we connect.  It
appears to me that you, like the adolescents on the Oprah Winfrey show,
would much prefer to stop a pregnancy already started, than to prevent one
from happening in the first place.  If this is not your meaning, why are
you so fond of statements like "Contraceptionn is nnot ann alternnative
to abortionn?"

Peter Ny.