From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis shows his expertise at innuendo, again
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 03:43:48 GMT

In article <nyikos.725748406@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.063751.2980@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>>>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>>>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.
>>>
>>>       Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>>>       rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>>>       rate in a non-aborted group.
>>>               Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>>>         on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>>>         1976, pp. 1303-04.
>
>>Perhaps I can help.  How about adding the following note:
>>   Of course, it should be noted that is from a British journal from
>>   16 years ago, and describes a problem with techniques that are probably
>>   no longer used in the US.  There is *no* evidence of problems with
>>   later childbearing among women who have an early abortion performed by
>>   the most common method used *today* - vacuum aspiration.
>
>Vacuum aspiration predates 1976.  As for the *no* evidence part, is there
>*any* evidence that it IS different today? 
>
Yes, there is. Plenty.

>Can you give me a reference?  Please don't pull a Mark Cochran on me
>("Any good medical journal."), nor a Nadja Adolf (go to the library and
>dig it up yourself).
>
Oh stop whining. You've been given references, you just ignore them.

>After all, you are the one who, by innuendo, have created the impression
>that things are DIFFERENT today.
>
I'll give you several PHoney...

_Maternal-Newborn Nursing_ 4th Edition,
Sally Olds, RNC, MS
Marcia London RNC, MSN, NNP
Patricia Ladewig RNC, NP, PhD

_Total Patient Care_ 8th Edition
Gail Harkness Hood, RN, DrPH, FAAN
Judith R. Dincher, RN, BSN, MSEd

_Maternity Nursing_ 14th Edition
Sharon Reeder, RN, PhD
Luigi Mastroianni, MD, FACS, FACOG
Leonide Martin, RN, MS, MPH

_Medical-Surgical Nursing_
Joan Luckmann, RN, BS, MA
Karen Creason Sorenson, RN, BSN, MN

All of these contain statistics that show quite plainly that the
problem you claimed above does not exist in this day and age.
Please note that, unlke you, I'm also not going to try and claim to
know the authors stance on this issue. I've always found it amazing
(and detrimental to your credibility) that you claim to know the
stances of the people you quote (i.e. the fired employee of Dr. Tiller
that you claim is pro-chioce, as well as various authors you claim are
both feminists and pro-choice).

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics