From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 23:22:52 GMT

In <24537@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <24500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Hear that, Dougie? Don't even think of quoting from a pro-life source,
>>you can see plainly how much they will believe you ("pro-lie").  Meanwhile
>>they feel perfectly justified in quoting from the Alan Guttmacher
>>association, etc.  Since they have us outnumbered, they feel they
>>can go on treating us this way.

>Well, if honest reporting, like Koop, who is pro-life btw, makes you
>think it is all biased because it doesn't show what you want it to show,
>too bad.

Sorry, I've been on talk.abortion only two months and this is the
first mention I've seen of Koop.

> Thanks for admitting the hopeless stance you've adopted by
>admitting you're "outnumbered".

I'm referring to talk.abortion, most of whose members are from the
academic world, which is far more pro-choice than the populace in general.

> An aside, "Dougie" is intended
>as a demeaning form of Doug, amazing that you don't think any better
>of him.

I know it's demeaning, I was being sarcastic.  Like Dick Gregory, on 
the cover of his book _Nigger_: "Mama, if you hear the word `nigger',
you'll know they're talking about my book."

>>>, which we all know to
>>>be ever so thoughtful in trying to show everyone the truth. After all,
>>>they only claim pregnancy is wonderful, and that you should be estatic
>>>about that miracle in your tummy (even though it is going to nearly
>>>kill you or at the least cause you to be partially paralyzed)

>>Now, if we had them outnumbered, we could call this last parenthetical
>>statement a lie, and make it stick.

>As for the parenthized portion of the statement, it is obvious that
>Kathi Mills' post just blinked in front of your eyes. (That was the one
>where she described in detail how the abortion she had was necessary,
>and why, and the ramifiacations if she hadn't had one.)

The parenthetical statement admitted no exceptions.  Pregnancy, period,
has these effects.  Should I have read between the lines somehow?

Or did you mean to write "even if" instead of "even though"?  I'm
a mathematician, not a mind-reader.

> As to how you
>could ever make it stick, when there are actual facts to dispute it,
>beats the hell out of me. That's why the Pro-life argument is so weak,
>because there are so many holes in it you can't stop them all with your
>fingers and toes.

On the other hand, pro-choicers have been able to call lots less 
sweeping pro-life claims lies, and make them stick. 

>>> whereas
>>>the pro-choice organizations openly admit that abortions are dangerous
>>>as is carrying to term, and are generally honest in their presentations.

>>Given that Ron considers himself to be generally honest, I'm
>>not surprised to hear him making this claim.

>And you are the paragon of truth and honor.

>As you indicate here that I'm dishonest, a liar, and worse, please indicate
>where I've said anything dishonest, to at least prove one point in your
>implications.

I just did.  Or am I lacking in integrity just because I was unable
to read your unwritten thoughts?

> Not that anyone except your fellow pro-lifers believe
>you to begin with anyway, but just to indicate how hollow your integrity
>really is. Not only are you an ignorant misogynist oaf, but a malicious
>liar to boot. (Note, implications are as good as an outright lie, subtlety
>does not change the fact that a lie has been made.)

Whether you can make these charges stick or not, the fact is they
are unfounded.

>You must sleep well at night.

If I don't, it won't be because of you.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion