From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:27:48 GMT

In <17glukINN3jn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714846005@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>A bunch of stuff, deleted.

>>|||- Ms. Birmingham
>>||- Dr. Nyikos
>>|- Ms. Regard
>>||| You cannot fit a baby's head through a birth canal without some
>>||| tearing.
>>|| I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the first.
>>|  You're wrong.
>>I'm right.  Our second and third children came out with no tearing
>>whatsoever.  And one of my wife's sisters had only one child, and he
>>came out with no tearing whatsoever.

>Ah.  I see.  That your wife didn't need a second episiotomy means that
>ALL WOMEN NEVER need a second episiotomy.  That your wife had one with the
>first child means ALL WOMEN DO.  Your wife is all women.  I *get* it.

As you would say: "Scuse please, reality check time"

Linda said, "You cannot." No exceptions. Not my wife, not her sister,
not Linda, not Adrienne.  How is it that you read it another way?

>Also note: Linda said "tearing", which includes but is not limited to
>the tearing one hopes to avoid via episiotomy.

>Of course, the *STANDARD*
>medical practice in the USA today is to perform an episiotomy ANYWAY.

Which I am against, just as I am against all unnecessary surgery, be it
(please keep inserting "unnecessary" mentally:) masectomy, ovarectomy 
[touted in the 19th century as a cure for sundry ailments], hysterectomy,
cosmetic surgery, and abortion.

>Regardless of whether or not it's a first second or third child, regardless
>of whether or not one 'thinks' there will be tearing, etc.  Your wife was
>lucky or something, I guess, to avoid this standard treatment, given that
>she didn't need it.

Well, we chose our ob/gynecologists very, very carefully.  When a wonderful
midwife joined their group, we immediately requested that a midwife take
care of Leila.  We could not request her specifically, but even the other
midwife has as good a bedside manner as the best of the doctors, and he
in turn has one of the best bedside manners of any male doctor I've
dealt with.

>Heck, there are probably a number of women who don't require episiotomy
>to reduce the cost of tearing the openings of the vagina.  How many suffer
>*no* tearing at all?  That is, no tearing of cervical tissue, vaginal tissue,
>or perianal tissue?  Where do you think infection beings if it's all so
>smooth and unbroken?

I don't know what the stats are.  {Satire} You obviously do, and so do 
all of the 1.5 million women who choose abortion.  Now please provide them
for the rest of us.

{I'm not sure whether the satire should end after the first sentence, or
the second.}

>>>>Sometimes I wonder about Adreinne.
>>So do I.

>I don't know what you two are wondering about.  It should be abundantly clear
>to both of you that I think your insistance at 'informing' women 'adequately'
>is bogus -- merely a ploy to force upon women *your* biases.  And that I 
>personally don't believe that any women on this planet need your biases 
>foisted upon them.  I believe that *people* make a lot of choices all the
>time based on limited information, because that's what *people* do, and I
>don't support holding pregnant-women-who-don't-want-to-be-pregnant to any
>different artificially high standard than we hold other *people* to.  Get
>it?  Nothing left to 'wonder' about, is there:  quite clear.

Who said anything about holding them to a higher standard?  I for one
just want the information available to them.  And in case of abortion,
which has so many complications, they should be provided without asking
JUST AS THEY ARE FOR ANY OTHER MEDICAL TREATMENT.  We got lots of
information about the possible difficulties of pregnancy and childbirth
from our ob/gynecologists without asking, and lots more in Lamaze class.

>The world must really be a very messed up place with those millions upon
>millions of ignorant/misinformed/vulnerable/put-your-favorite-patronizing-
>adjective-here women wandering around so mislead and lost.

>Pfffft.

As Suzanne said last month....Nah, I won't say it, Miss Manners wouldn't
approve.

>Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34870 alt.abortion.inequity:3483