From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:21:29 GMT

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:
>>
>> Actually, I've seen many statistics showing that pregnancy is no greater a
>> risk for women than the operation to terminate one.

>Where have you seen these statistics?  Everything I've seen says that
>the risk for carrying to term is much higher.

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
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.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.

>--     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?

{Now on to Will and his ex-SO}

>> I was speaking from anger, but I never actually threatened her.
>>
>> She, however, threatened *me* three times.  Just *who* is the violent
>> person here?  Me, who dared to have *thoughts* of it, or her, who actually
>> *threatened* me three times?  You decide.

>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.

>> 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"?
>>
>> But if one *is* "pro choice" *and* opposes abortion after a sex determination,
>> then the question arises : What do these people *really* believe?  - In being
>> Pro-Choice, or Pro-Choice-Only-If-It's-A-Choice-We-Agree-With?

>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.