From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
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.
Organization: none worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 02:31:20 GMT

In article <nyikos.725744605@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.033620.8746@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

[Deletia]

PHoney wrote:
>>>#But seriously, folks, since Susan was never known to give a sucker
>>>#an even break, why should she spare a clueless newbie who can't even
>>>#reboot his newsreader all by himself?  
>
>Here it is again, that clouded issue.  Note the lack of smileys:
>
>>At least here you *do* admit that you are completely clueless.
>
>[Clue for Mark: when a comedian says, "But seriously, folks," one should
>NOT expect a completely serious message.  If he's really serious, he'll
>say something like: "All kidding aside," or "If we could get serious here
>for just a minute,"...]
>
So now you have delusions of being a comedian? Don't quite your day
job... (Much as your students might appreciate it if you did.)

>>Your belief is incorrect. SO's are *rarely* allowed into the OR. They
>>are permitted in *sometimes* for C-Sections, but are restricted to an
>>area above the mothers head, screened off from the surgical area.
>>There's a very good reason for this. It's a real pain to have to stop
>>surgery to treat the cracked and lacerated skulls of the SO's after
>>they faint.
>
>Well, assuming you are telling the truth here, things are different at 
>hospitals in Germany, where my brother saw all the gory details of
>the C-section on his wife and removal of triplets.  I believe this may 
>have been a US Army hospital: I can check with him if you trade me a reference
>to what you've just said here.
>
Yes PHoney. You have one example in which you claim an SO saw "all the
gory details" and from that you determine what is common practice?
Do you have fits with these fantasies?

>BTW my brother teaches arts and crafts and never took a course in
>medicine.  His knowledge of things medical is considerably inferior
>to mine.
>
That's certainly saying a lot about your brother, considering the
abysmal lack of knowledge you have shown in this forum.

>>You've changed this from your original posting PHoney... NOW you've
>>added the qualifier "if the woman wants it". It would depend on the
>>type of abortion. For most types, I can see no reason to not allow a
>>SO in the room, as long as the patient wishes the company. 
>
>My statement stands, with or without the qualifier.  I want to know
>why abortionists do not allow SO's in, and how much resistance a bill
>to ALLOW them in, given the consent of the woman, is apt to meet 
>from the ACLU, NOW, NARAL, PP, etc.
>
Why do you feel the need to legislate everything Petey? What is it
with you and this compulsion to control the lives of others?
Just as it is the patients right to make choices about their own
treatment, it is the physicians right to make choices about who is
allowed to observe/participate in that treatment. If oen doctor does
not wich to aloow an SO in the room during the procedure, the patient
can either accept that decision, or find another phsycian, or discuss
the issue to arrive at a compromise.

>I'm not indulging in innuendo.  I'd like a reasonable estimate, to
>see how hard to try to convince pro-life legislators to introduce
>such a bill.  I think pro-choice legislators are a lost cause on this.
>If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear about it, because I think 
>the bill would stand a MUCH better chance if it were introduced by
>a pro-choicer.
>
I see no need to legislate people's lifes PHoney. Your control
obssesion is your problem, not mine.

>>What makes you think aboritonists have anything to hide PHoney? Other
>>then your very apparent paranoia, that is. Is this more of your
>>"conspiracy of silence" trash?
>
>Calling it names won't make it go away.  As to the "paranoia" bit,
>the two Columbia abortionists I know anything about have plenty to hide,
>as I have documented here in talk.abortion [Ask Keith why I call
>him Sledovatel Cochran: it was in re a case of an incomplete 
>abortion.] and between them they do about half of the 5000+ abortions
>here in the Columbia area in those years when Elguindi isn't suspended
>for some reason or other.
>
An Asserting it without support of any kind won't convince anybody
that any such conspiracy exists PHoney.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion