From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:58:17 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> A preliminary comment: from the description below it would seem that
>>> anesthesia was not given.  I wonder whether this was a Planned Parenthood
>>> clinic, and how much they charged for a miserable little urine test.

>> Argumentum ad ignorantum again, eh Peter?  If it was a PP clinic, you should
>> know that they have a sliding fee based on ability to pay.

> I think you meant to say, "Argumentum *ab* ignorantium."  Anyway, I knew
> about the sliding scales, I just did not want to go into details.  The
> biggest "slide" of all (upward) comes if the insurance pays for it. And
> guess WHOSE insurance money pays for it?  Yours and mine and hers and
> everybody else's, if we happen to be on the same plan.

'Ab' makes better sense, but the textbook say 'ad.'

> I lumped all this together, but I mostly had in mind how much OUR
> insurance paid for it.

That's doubtful.  Did you see the post from the former member of a local PP
board of directors?  He said that PP lost its shirt every year on abortions
since many of the clients did not have insurance and couldn't pay the full
amount.

> Now, if she had gone to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, she
> could have had the same urine test for FREE.

Sure.  If she'd gone to, say, the "Robbinsdale Women's Health Center,"
where there are _no_ health professionals available, just volunteer
"counselors," that's about all she would have gotten.  Oh, and maybe
incessant phone calls telling her not to abort her baby. I got this
information from the 9/19/92 edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, btw.

[--deletions--]

>>> I sure am not, it is one of the things I am angry at abortion mills for,
>>> not offering anesthesia as a matter of course.  As one can gather from
>>> my SUFFERING OF SOME... post and follow-ups, I care very much about
>>> women going through abortion, and this post only reinforces that 
>>> attitude.

>> You still haven't proven that PP clinics do not offer anesthesia. 

> Note, I said, *as a matter of course*.  They do make it an option, BUT
> I would be surprised if there was anywhere near the range of options
> one gets with childbirth: general, epidural, cervical, pudendal.

Heh.  I certainly hope you saw Cathi Cook's response.

>> Remember making that assertion and then dropping it? 

> I never made THAT assertion.  I said *some* PP clinics do not offer it,
> then retracted even that statement, replacing it with the one you see
> above.  You just never saw the retraction.  (I even made it in two
> different posts!)

Yes, I missed it, and other pro-choicers called that to my attention.  See,
I can make mistakes, too!

> A pity, since you and Margolis have been claiming that I make all sorts
> of admissions I did not make, then missing the one I DID make!

That's odd, I don't recall claiming to have seen any other admissions, though
I once expressed anticipation of some Olympic-caliber backpedaling on your
part.

[--deletions--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: talk.abortion