From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Janus IV: Questions for Marcus, flame set to low
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:25:48 GMT

Here I attempt a new beginning, of sorts, with Mark Cochran, of all people.

In <1993Jan17.035630.15648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <C0wKMM.ICA.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan15.045631.18285@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>#In article <C0v8s1.8HI@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>##In article <nyikos.726863128@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>>##(Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>###Doug has a pretty cute guess, which he came up with independently of my
>>###tongue-in-cheek guess in "(Belated) Saturnalia II: Meet Marcus Cochran,
>>###(?)" that you are an abortionist, or at any rate someone who "sees the
>>###damn [consent forms]" every day at an abortuary where you work.

>>##I didn't  realize this. I guess this may explain his extreme defensivenss and
>>##sensitivity.  At least he doesn't hide behind the "pro-choice" veil.
>>##
>>##- Paul
>>#
>>#You are all sadly (but not suprisingly) completly wrong about my
>>#profession. However, if you're too dumb to figure it out, I have no
>>#plans to enlighten you.

Cheap shots:

Given your track record in re honesty, why should I believe this denial?
Anyway I don't *really* think you are an abortionist, but have you ever
posted *anything* that would indicate otherwise?

<shoof>

[sound of flamethrower cut back to low setting]

All kidding aside, I have some questions for you:

Are those consent forms from freestanding abortion clinics?  

Have you even seen consent forms FOR ABORTION?

What assurance have you that more than 1% of all abortion consent forms
list complications of more than .1% frequency?

Why is it that when our children are vaccinated, we get info about 
complications with .001% frequency, mandated by law?

>>I thought that Mark told us all his profession when he started posting
>>again.  If not, he certainly dropped a lot of hints that most people
>>of average intelligence could have used to figure it out - that may
>>explain why neither PHoney, DODie, nor Lebow were capable of it.
>>
>No, I never stated 'my profession is <x>'. It should have been fairly
>obvious, to any resonably astute person though, given the sources I've
>cited.

Cited? Sources?  As in "a book, any book, on obstetrics"?  Hell, *I*
can do better than that, and I never displayed any pretentions to
working in a medical field.

> I never felt like my profession was the issue, since I was (and
>am) able to back up statements with citations that do not rely on my
>own expertise.

As above?  or are you smugly sitting on the escape clause "able to"?

> The only place I'm basing anything on my own
>experiences and expertise is in a thread that started between Steve M
>and myself. And that thread is purely a thoretical debate about some
>relatively obscure technical points of fetal neural development.

Do you have a different source for your audacious claim of no
intentional feticide past the 26th week, then?

You cited your own experience to Matheson when mentioning a similar
claim to him--all the abortions *you* have witnessed, if memory 
serves, involving feticide were before the 26th week.  Why such a 
modest claim?  Why didn't you tell him the "truth", your "truth"
that there are no such abortions, period.

Also, my memory must be playing tricks on me: wasn't the fetus 
with 3 chambers at 31 weeks?  Wasn't it killed?  Why did my
8 year old nephew survive, even though he has this 3-chamber
syndrome?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc