From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Summary: This is long.  Probably too long.  Sorry. 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 17:29:59 GMT

In article <nyikos.718174651@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.034752.6607@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.717798089@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep27.085848.166097@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>In  <1992Sep26.010844.3042@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>>As usual, you give only mortality figures.  And except for the Alan
>>>Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood whose stats
>>>on other things are higly dubious (as I've pointed out to Cochran on the
>
>>I've begun to wonder about Peter and his constant whining about "dubious"
>>and "biased" sources...
>
>Constant whining?  Name me some other source besides this Planned
>Parenthood Affiliate, and Mildred Hanson (and her staff) that I
>have complained about.

I don't do archives, so let me amend that statement.  It seems to me that
you're constantly whining about any source a pro-choicer uses as being
"biased".

>
>>Does he consider IBM to be a "biased" source when it announces a new product
>>line?
>
>No, but I do consider it a biased source when it compares its computers
>to those of rival companies.

With material like this, you should go on "Caroline's Comedy Hour".

(What what did you delete here???  Hmmmm???)

>
>>>talk.apology thread), it is impossible to tell how far removed these
>>>other sources are from the PRIMARY sources by the little info you give.
>>>
>>>>source: universal almanac, 1990.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>The universal almanac is not a PRIMARY source.  It is a compilation
>of information from a multitude of sources, very few of which are
>themselves primary.  

I know it's not a primary source, "Dr Nyikos".  I'm wondering why you
consider it to be a BIASED source.

>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>From the Alan Guttmacher Institute, published in "Facts in Brief:
>>>>Abortion in the United States."
>>>
>>>>--     The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11
>>>>     times as high as that associated with abortion.
>>>
>>>That's officially reported figures.  In 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times
>>>did an expose in which it uncovered 12 previously unreported deaths
>>>due to abortion.
>
>>Gee, "Dr. Nyikos", I don't suppose you'd care to give us THE DATE THEY
>>PUBLISHED THIS EXPOSE, would you?  The month?  Anything beyond "1978"?

[Dr. Nyikos deleted my question about how the paper determined that these
deaths has previously been "unreported as deaths due to abortions".  I
wonder why?]

>
>It was a whole series of articles in the Fall of 1978.  That's as
>specific as my source, _Aborted Women, Silent No More_ gets.

Of course, _AWSNM_ is an unbiased source, right?

>
>Do you begin to see the meaning of the term PRIMARY source?
>Reardon's book is not a primary source, and most of its references
>are not to primary sources either.  But the Chicago Sun-Times ran
>its own investigation, so it is very close to being a primary source,
>though a historian might prefer the various early drafts of the
>materials which probably contained a lot more specific data than
>the final printed version.

A historian would prefer the original notes of the initial investigators,
IMNSHO.

So, how did the CST conclude that these 12 deaths were "previously unreported
deaths due to abortions"?

>
>>>>--     the risk of complications with abortion is minimal --
>>>>     less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major
>>>>     comlication associated with the procedure, such as a
>>>>     serious pelvic infection, hemorrhage requiring a blood
>>>>     transfusion or unintended major surgery.
>>>
>>>And how do they know, when so many women are understandably 
>>>reluctant to return to a place that butchered them in the first
>>>place?
>
>>[Watch it, Peter.  You're starting to foam at the mouth...]
>
>You seem to have forgotten a certain conversation we had along
>the talk.abortion SUFFERING OF THE UNBORN thread, Sledovatel
>Cochran.

We've talked about you foaming at the mouth before?  I don't remember this.

>
>>Peter, when was the last time you knew of a woman going to an abortion
>>clinic for a blood transfusion?  Around the same time you last heard of
>>a woman taking her car to a Dentist for an oil change, right?
>
>You are only reinforcing my point.  How is the abortion clinic to
>find out that the woman had the blood transfusion?

Peter, if you knew *ANYTHING* about medical practices and procedures, you
wouldn't even be asking this question.

>
>>>>Saying "I'll kill you if you tell anyone about this" is not, generally
>>>>speaking, a serious threat.  (Is it safe to assume that she did *not*
>>>>kill you?  :-)
>>>
>>>Nor is "If she had...I would probably have snapped right there and killed
>>>her on the spot" ordinarily perceived as a threat at all.  J'accuse the
>>>pro-choicers of arguing in bad faith when they claim to take it as a 
>>>threat to kill any woman who does
>>>not show Will the proper respect.
>
>>Personally, I think Will needs to get rid of the anger in his life, and
>>get out of abusive relationships.
>
>Must I bring up your sexual harrassment of me again, Cochran?

Ah, yes.  Your impassioned "Anita Hill and I are Sisters Under The Skin"
speech.  There's only one problem.  I consider it to be a way of giving
Pro-Lifers who can equate nine months of pregnancy with an "inconvience"
a unique insight into what a portion of the birthing process is really
like.  And that's not harassment, any more then shoving a stillborn
fetus into somebody's face is harassment.

>
>>>>> This is also an interesting subject matter... How can "pro choice" people
>>>>> oppose abortion after a sex determination, if they are in favour of abortion
>>>>> "for any reason and no apologies"?  Will they oppose sex determination solely
>>>>> because "it just might be a female"?
>
>>I don't oppose abortions after sex determination.
>
>Figures.  You and Storga are the two most likely candidates for the
>label "pro-abort" as opposed to "pro-choice".

Storga *IS* pro-abortion, Clueless One.

>
>>For that matter, what happens if it's proven that homosexuality is genetic?
>>And they develop a test that 100% guaranteed to tell you if your "unborn child"
>>is Gay?  Will pro-lifers suddenly want to allow abortions in the case of 
>>"Rape, Incest, or Homosexuality"?
>
>I think not.  But of course, you would allow abortions even in case
>of homosexuality, would you not, Cochran?

Yes, I would.  IT IS NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS WHETHER A PREGNANT WOMAN
DECIDES TO CARRY HER PREGNANCY TO TERMINATION, OR TO ABORT IT.  IT IS NONE
OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS *WHY* SHE WANTS TO CARRY HER PREGNANCY TO TERMINATION
OR TO ABORT IT.  IT IS MY BUSINESS THAT A PREGNANT WOMAN HAS THE *CHOICE*
OF CARRYING A PREGNANCY TO TERMINATION OR ABORTING IT.

>
>>>>You seem to be confused.  Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.  Pro-choice does
>>>>not mean that you're in favor of abortions at all.  It means that you're
>>>>in favor of letting the woman make her own choice as to what's best for her.
>>>>You can oppose abortion for sex selection, or abortion for any reason at
>>>>all, as long as you don't want to *legislate* your opposition.
>>>
>>>That's a pretty good definition of pro-choice, actually.  Trouble is, the
>>>pro-choicers who are this uncomfortable with abortion are the exception
>>>rather than the rule in this newsgroup.
>
>>Excuse me?  As I've said before, if God snapped his fingers tomorrow, and I
>>became pregnant, *I would not have an abortion*.
>
>That's neither here nor there.  The point is, would someone else planning
>to have an abortion make you uncomfortable if the reason was, say, sex
>selection?

Yes it would.  The fact that *ANY* woman obtains an abortion for *ANY*
reason makes me sick.  But I realize that the *ONLY* person who is qualified
to make decisions regarding a pregnancy is the *WOMAN* involved.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: soc.women