From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Mark Pundurs, dust your saw off for Marcus C.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:24:50 GMT

In <1993Jan22.044752.10577@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727625975@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan19.063758.19883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>>Come on, you can do it. Drag yourself out of that little cesspool you
>>>call a mind...
>>
>>Anyone can say such things about anybody.  The trick is to back them
>>up.
>>

>>Since I last saw Mark make the audacious "26 week" claim, I have
>>posted clear evidence that either a baby was aborted by Tiller no
>>earlier than 26 1/2 weeks after fertilization, or Susan Garvin
>>was mistaken (unless she was lying) about a certain woman being a
>>patient of Tiller.  I am still waiting for Mark and Susan to resolve
>>this little disagreement between them.
>>
>No disagreement PHoney. It's pretty obvious to all but the most simple
>minded that the fetus Dr. Tiller aborted was (as was clearly stated in
>the story Susan posted) completly non-viable, due to deformations.
>This has been discussed before, of course, but the infamous
>NyikosNewsReader must have deleted it, so as to allow you to preserve
>your illusions a little longer.

Or maybe it was discussed in one of the 100 or so posts of your 200 or so
that I simply can't spare the time for.

Since the woman claimed the fetus was not viable on the basis that it
had a 3-chambered heart, while I have an 8-year old nephew with that
condition (BTW the operations he has undergone come under the name
"Fenestrated Fontan Procedure") I'd like to know how long a former 
fetus must survive before you are willing to concede that it is NOT
completely viable.

>>Tiller uses an abortion technique incompatible with using the
>>lungs, liver, and kidneys of the unborn child in question for
>>transplantation to save the lives of up to four wanted babies.
>>
>Which cannot be done in cases such as Susan cited, due to the massive
>deformities responsible for the abortion, PHoney.

I only know of the heart being deformed.  What about the organs I
mentioned.

>>He also disposes of the remains in an incinerator.
>>
>Is that supposed to make some sort of point PHoney?

It means that this man you admire is burning things that would save
up to 4 WANTED babies, and since you held "Mucus Brain Sizzie" 
responsible for such deaths in a similar context, you are condemned
out of your own mouth for being a stalwart supporter of "Killer
Tiller".

I mentioned this in a post, of which I took the precaution of sending
you a copy.

In another thread, Doug H. is being lambasted for making you violate
medical ethics by supposedly breaching confidentiality in the case
for which you roasted me and Suzanne.  My question is:

What ethics?  

After faking out Mark Pundurs with not being on the
ethical branch he thought you were sawing yourself off,
you and others climb back on to the branch to avoid documenting
the slander you made about Suzanne being responsible for
the deaths of 4 wanted babies.  

As far as I and Doug are concerned, there were no such babies to
begin with, and if you think I will take your word for it after the
abominable show of ethics you have given us to date, you better wake up.

Peter Nyikos