From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:49:21 GMT


In article <C1869L.1Bn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##In article <C0vKJq.FJJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
##[included text deleted]
###Can you believe this?  She's using sources and studies that are anywhere
###from 50 to 115 years before Roe v Wade!  The ONLY source she listed
###that was anywhere near 1973 was one quoted by Planned Parenthood in 1957!
#
##(Does anyone else get a number greater than or equal to 50 when they
##subtract 1957 from 1973?)
#
##Some moron claimed that NARAL's estimates of the incidence of illegal
##abortion prior to Roe was a complete fabrication.  I had suggested
##that this person look at contemporaneous estimates of the incidence,
##but they requested that I do their research for them.  Because I
##wanted to show people that there were many estimates of large
##numbers of women having illegal abortions, I did some of that research.
#
###Do you actually expect us to accept any of these as credible?  
#
##It depends on what you mean by credible.  I think that any estimates
##of illegal activity are suspect, since the activities will be
##concealed if at all possible.
#
###The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
###in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
###is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
#
##Actually, it has something to do with it.  Unlike you, Blackmun researched
##the issue before stating his opinion.  You might try learning something
##about the issue.
#
###Hell, they didn't even have penicillin at most of the times she so
###smugly quotes. 
#
##I would imagine that most particpants on t.a. are aware of this.  Did
##you have to go look it up?
#
##I wonder if you are also aware that penicillin (and other antiobiotics)
##require a doctor's prescription.  I wonder if you are aware of how
##long women usually waited before seeking medical attention following
##a botched, illegal abortion.  I wonder if you know that not all
##infections respond to treatment.  I don't wonder if you care or not -
##it's obvious that you don't.
#
##Susan
#
#You still haven't given us any reason to respect how abortion rates
#from 1860 have anything to do with Roe v Wade.  

You quoted my response to this question, which disproves your
claim.

#Also, I did not personally
#call into question any statistics regarding the NUMBER of abortions
#prior to Roe v Wade as claimed by NARAL.  What I DID question was the
#number of DEATHS, which you did not address whatsoever.

Read, or ask someone to read to you, the original article.  I addressed
the number of deaths in it.

#I will not grace your condescending innuendo with any response other
#than this one.

In other words, you're upset because I had documentation for my claims
while you do not.  Carry on in ignorance, Simmonds, it suits
you.

#Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  


"I am God."

Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu),
in article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>


Organization: Sponsored account, Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA