From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 13:09:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep4.035233.6281@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> See, Larry, I'm not suggesting you abandon the claim PERMANENTLY; only until
> such time as the facts can be determined.

The facts *were* determined.  Can I take it that you never use statistics
unless you personally verify that each person polled did respond as the
poll-taker reported?

> >I have seen multiple
> >independent reports of this, so I'm satisfied that it's true.
>
> I only remember you citing the 60 Minutes source. Multiple independent
> sources are _more_ credible, of course,

Perhaps you missed the following.  In <1992Sep1.161533.11807@hemlock.cray.com>
Russ Anderson wrote:
!From the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:
!
!        ABORTION/ Doctor says saline method discarded
![...]
!        Saline solution is no longer used as an abortion technique,
!        said Dr. Mildred Hanson, who does abortions in Minneapolis.
!        "Nobody uses saline anywhere," she said.  "It is accompanied
!        by a risk of bleeding and also by a risk of some of that
!        saline going into maternal circulation."
![...]
!        Today, abortions in the first trimester usually are by
!        suction aspiration.  Late-stage abortions are done by a
!        surgical procedure.
!
!        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
!        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
!        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
!        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
!        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
!        those conditions," she said.
!  Bottom of News   

> >No
> >matter how many sources are provided, it seems that Doug will not
> >be satisfied with them.  So why should I bother?
>
> By the same logic ("why bother?"), should you be making such claims in the
> first place?

Why shouldn't I?  I'm reporting facts as seen in the newspaper and TV news
shows.  It's not as though I was presenting wild speculation and claiming
it to be fact.  (I leave that to Doug.)

> It is my opinion that if a claim is made, and challenged in
> good faith,

(I question "in good faith"...)

> then the only two acceptable choices are to support it, or to
> retract it. You seem to find a third alternative in there somewhere.

I feel that pointing to multiple sources *is* supporting it.  Now, if
Doug had presented any conflicting evidence, then I'd be obligated to
go further.  But given that he's been refusing to accept facts that
come from "pro-abortion" organizations, it's reasonable to assume that
even if I did my own investigation and came up with the same answer
reported on 60 Minutes and in the Minneapolis StarTribune, Doug would
discount it because I'm a "pro-abort".  So, as I said, why bother?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion