NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/47683

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-11 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!shamash!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!mon
From: [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:53:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 80
Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>[exchange with Susan deleted]
>
>>>I'd grant exceptions to everyone up to the end of the fifth week, and
>>>am open to moving it up to the end of the eighth week, given the
>>>right embryological data.  After that, rape is not an exception
>>>no matter what the reason.
>>>
>>It is interesting, is it not, that you deliberately
>>choose a time interval in which abortion may not be
>>safely performed because of the danger of uterine
>>perforation.  Do you want to see more women damaged
>>or dying?  That's what abortion prior to five weeks
>>will do, if you look at the situation from the woman's
>>point of view.
>
>Your accusations are all false, though you may have made them in
>good faith, not yet having seen my post, MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND
>THE 5-WEEK LIMIT.
>
I did see that posting, some time after this one went out.
Your reasoning is still flawed, and I wish you wouldn't shout.

Tell me what your wonderful new system will do for the young
married woman who's still in school, and her husband is, too,
who's using two forms of birth control and has three normal
periods after conception?
(NB: _Not_ a hypothetical.)

Many women would have to be testing themselves constantly
in order to get in under the 5-week limit.  What of those
who did not?

If anyone has any current info on menstrual extraction,
I'd love to see it.  I remember seeing articles some years
ago which heralded this method as a panacea for all reproductive
issues.  I understand that it did not turn out to be so,
but I'm not sure why.

>[Distributions sure are crazy.  This post has already expired
>on my boards, yet this message of yours dated 4 days ago takes
>no cognizance of it.]
>
>BTW this is the first hint I have seen that the suction curettage
>procedure causes a HEIGHTENED risk of uterine perforations prior
>to the__________week.  [I'm not sure what should be put in the blank,
>though Muriel evidently knows what belongs there.]  I emphasize
>"heightened" because the procedure always carries some risk of
>uterine perforations. {Another thing anti-Casey people conveniently
>ignore.}
>
>>You would only allow a 3-week window in which a woman
>>might reasonably hope to survive the process if you
>>are 'given the right embryological data'.
>
>Gimme a break.  "Reasonably hope to survive the process"????
>Do you have any idea what the death stats are?
>
One woman dead would be too many for me.
Why should I give you a break, Petey?  You're the one
who wants to reach into the uteruses of my daughters
and their friends with the long arm of the law.  Your
presence is no more welcome there than Keith's fist
is in any part of your anatomy, but you don't seem to get
the point.  I feel sexually harassed by the prospect
of _you_ making choices about what happens inside _my_
genitals.

[deletia]

If you make menstrual extraction safer and cheaper than D&E,
you could probably convince many women to abort earlier.
Why are you so obsessed with legislation?

muriel
standard disclaimer