HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:07:05 GMT

> = (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>One of the things that "pro-life" folks here like to present is that
>pro-choice is the opposite of being pro-life.  That isn't true.
>The opposite of banning abortion would be forcing abortion.

[rest of excellent article deleted...]

Galen, what's this drek doing in talk.abortion? :-)


get this w>
>Think about it a moment.  A whole lot of the objections that some
>of the "pro-life" here offer might be true.  Likewise, a whole lot
>of the projections you hear might be true also.  Consider if 
>abortion were forced whenever pregnancy were evident then you 
>could logically expect the movement to vanish in a generation.
>If the oft mentioned "abortion on demand" were really supported, 
>then you might expect some pro-choice folks to endorse the demand
>when it were made by the government, rather than the woman involved.
>
>No, pro-choice is hardly the opposite of the "pro-life" thought, it
>is merely in opposition to it.  I can't speak for all pro-choicers,
>but I imagine many of them would fight against any government mandated
>abortion at least as strongly as they do now against any government 
>attempt at prohibition.  
>
>If you go to the extreme opposite of a governmental ban on abortion
>you wind up with a governmental mandate of abortion.  If you go 
>halfway, you wind up in an area where the government neither bans
>nor endorses abortion.  In other words, the government doesn't 
>get involved at all.  The purest middle of the road philosophy
>would be that the government should make no laws whatsoever regarding
>abortion.  
>
>Of course there are grey areas.  The decision isn't exactly pro
>or con.  Those who endorse government involvement in banning late 
>term abortions might find their objections somewhat fruitless were
>the government to mandate early abortions, should it find such a 
>posture in its own best interests.
>
>You can argue about fetal development and personhood all you want, 
>but I don't think the government has any business being involved
>in abortion, or human reproduction, for that matter.
>
>
>--
>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
>  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:59:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>This is garbage Mark.   Since we are talking third trimester here, post
>viability by definition, and all third trimester abortions include either

Is it really? Would you care to take over the care of *one* 7 month
premie? Especially one that is to be aborted because of genetic defects?

>inducing labor or doing a c-section (after the baby has been put to death
>of course), there is NO MEDICAL REASON to insist on putting the baby to
>death before inducing the labor or doing the c-section.

>You loose.  Just by not using your head.

I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:16:49 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <23461@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write

#In article <23423@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) wri
# It really begins with the creation of the particular sperm and egg,
# which of course, begins with the creation of the being from which they
# are created by, etc. If you mean that the building blocks of the individual
# have been brought together to allow an individual to come about, then
# yes, it is at conception. But why stopping this is a problem, I don't
# understand, as it is only stopping another one of many that have already
# been stopped by nature, and why should it make any difference whether
# man or nature terminates a conceived entity?

[...]

>> 2/3 of fertilized eggs never make it past the fetus stage. What else
>> I need to clear up, you'll have to be specific about.

>you mean the above 8 line paragraph simply states that two thirds don't
>make it past the fetus stage?  Are you sure that's all it says?  there's
>a lot of words there!

Of course it says more, it was the only thing I tought needed elucidation.
If something else is unclear, please say what it is, and I'll attempt
to clarify the point.

[...]

>I'm sure you can see my point.  0 moles become babies.  1/3 of all
>fertilized eggs (with your figures of course!) do.  There is a
>difference between abortion and removing moles...  Babies aren't
>persons when they are newborn, but they have enough potential to become
>persons that most people refrain from killing them.

Yes, but those that are removed through abortion aren't even babies.
They have the potential to become babies, which, by your wording, means
that they have a potential to have a potential to become persons. So
now it is a potential twice removed, at what point should we stop? With
egg and sperm? The ovaries and testicles? The parents of the potential
parents?

A line must be drawn somewhere, and what I've seen, you're a fairly
reasonable person, so you should be able to see the validity in birth
as that arbitrary point. It is the point where the infant (it is after
birth) does not directly impinge upon any one particular person, although
mothers generally tend to care for their newborns, as any person can
take care of it after that point. Before birth, the z/e/f relies entirely
upon a single woman for everything, 24 hours a day, causing her harm
and hardship. (for those who would say pregnancy is wonderful, I've
never heard a pregnant woman say that, only that the *results* are wonderful,
a big difference) Birth seems the earliest time that this line can be
drawn, and not encroach on another's rights.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:59:34 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the hallchaney thing posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to
mark kaufman:
-> You are the shame of the pro-choice contingent on
-> this newsgroup.

how do you know? name one person who supports choice
who has so stated.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:25:04 GMT

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:


>Maybe you could write another post, one that shows us that
>you know something about adult sexuality.  I'd love to read it.

Well, it certainly wasn't the one where he says "Why do people
think that marriage is something less without sex?"

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:12:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug21.192206.10405@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug21.040932.17501@watson.ibm.com>, by Larry Margolis <margoli
> > In  <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writ
> >>
> >> Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
> >> popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.
> >
> > That's comparing the "ideal" numbers, right?
>
> > And it turns out to be a lot
> > less effective if you compare the "real life" numbers, right?
>
> Not at all.
>
> Shall I post the studies and statistics again?

The ones polling NFP Institute members (or whatever) which approached the
theoretical ideal, or the ones comparing the methods among the general
population which showed the "real-world" results?

> >> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.
> >
> > Even *prayer* is effective in avoiding pregnancy for virgins.  :-)
>
> That was my point.

You're assuming, of course, that she'd *be* a virgin, but I think this
is way too theoretical to be worth discussing.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:59:03 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bt5qns.6LL.2@cs.cmu.edu>  kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>
> I agree that from your description it doesn't sound like the statutory rape
> case was a good decision.

On the other hand, you should know better than to go by his description.
My understanding of the case is that an 18-year-old boy made love with his
15-year-old girlfriend.  Now, 3 years later, they want to get married, but
Chaney would rather see the guy in jail.  It sounds to me like that would
not be in the best interests of anyone.

> ****************************************************************************
> ****************************************************************************
> **                                                                        **
> **     STEVEN CHANEY SUPPORTS LETTING CHILDREN BLEED TO DEATH            **
> **                                                                        **
> ****************************************************************************
> ****************************************************************************

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 06:38:30 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Correction of typo.

<+h6m50a.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Aug12.232518.26589@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
...
>Geez Suzanne!  You opened your response with crying over your murdered
>grandchild and now you won't even attempt to punish the people who did
>it?!  I got news for you, if one of my parents killed one of my nieces I'd
>be pretty pissed and probably would just continue to love them.
                                    ^n't

Thank you

Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:29:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.151708.21068@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>
>I suspect his real position on abortion mirrors that of the majority
>of the country: anti-abortion, pro-choice up to a certain age of
>gestation. I also see no evidence that he is anti-gay ( he has
>expressed, as has his wife, a laisse faire attitude on personal
>behavior other than drug use). Yes, I know that the platform says
>otherwise, but the only people that really pay attention to a platform
>are those on the platform committee, and opponents who may want to
>use it to embarrass the nominal keeper of the platform.
>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)


Perhaps he has expressed these attitudes. However, he appointed a Supreme
Court Justice who is part of an almost majority opinion which would return
the law to the pre R v W days when any abortion in many states was illegal.

If elected he may well appoint another such justice. 

For those who weren't around in the pre R v W days it wasn't very nice.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: politics
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:33:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <2310@unet.UUCP>  heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.192004.4214@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <1992Aug19.163821.17023@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
> >> In article <onv3s2k@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
> >>
> >> > I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
> >> > pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
> >> > adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
> >> > and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.
> >>
> >> And the Democrats aren't extremists on abortion?  The Democratic
> >> platform plank on abortion indicates that they support ...
> >> unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.
> >
> >This sounds like another Holtsinger lie.  Can you document this?
> >
> >(Note that both Roe v. Wade and the Freedom of Choice Act allow for
> >restrictions on abortion after viability, and the current situation
> >is a de facto ban on third-trimester abortions for anything other
> >than serious medical considerations.)
>
> Here is the relevant section, as reprinted verbatim from the 1992
> Democratic Party platform.  (Source: article in alt.politics.clinton;
> thanks to Mary Jacobs for posting the information there.)
>
>
>         CHOICE.   Democrats stand behind the right of every woman
>      to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, regardless of ability
                  ===========================
>      to pay, and support a national law to protect that right.
>      It is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual
>      Americans -- not government -- can best take responsibility for
>      making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions
>      regarding reproduction.  The goal of our nation must be to make
>      abortion less necessary, not more difficult or more dangerous.
>      We pledge to support contraceptive research, family planning,
>      comprehensive family life education, and policies that support
>      healthy childbearing and enable parents to care most effectively
>      for their children.

"Consistent with Roe v. Wade" means that restrictions are allowed.  Thank
you for the post showing Doug to be wrong once again.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 )
Subject: Okay, okay, the Michelman joke was sexist!
Originator: chaneysa@nextnet
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:08:55 GMT

Okay, okay, you're right, whoever pointed out the Michelman / PMS
statement. 

It was sexist and I apologize and I retract it, no if's, and's or
but's. 

- Steve

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Pat Robertson - liberal (was Re: Bush's abortion stance
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:25:27 GMT

<17AUG199209113336@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider) said:
>In article <1992Aug15.223258.13015@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
>>In article <usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> 
>>usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>> 
>>> Incidently, tothe press was asking Marlin Fitzwater about the statement
>>> the Barbara Bush made regarding abortion.  He said something about her
>>> being entitled to her opinion and then said that President Bush considers
>>> the platform plank justified.
>> 
>>Can you provide proof for these statements?
>
>I saw the interview on NBC news, that is what he said.

I just watched a little of Larry King Live at the Republirat
Retention.  Pat Robertson was being interviewed.  Robertson was asked
[1] what he would do if his *adult* daughter was determined to get an
abortion.  He replied that he would be with her in the hospital.  He would
not throw her out of the house.

He was later asked about "family values", the definition of this term, and
the Democratic position.  He defined "traditional family values" as
being a family with a husband, wife and children. (King quickly pointed
out that Pat Buchanan couldn't have family values since he didn't have
children.)  He then quickly pointed out how the Democrats were blocking
Bush's attempt to get a larger tax cut for families with children
passed.  King asked him if the family should come first ahead of
economics.  He said yes.  King then asked him why Bush is against
"family leave" for businesses. "Doesn't the family come first?" he
asked Robertson.  Old liberal Pat giggled, and tried to change the
subject - King wouldn't let him.  Pat then said that an employee taking
120 days off of work would be disastrous for business.  King audibly
laughed at him.

Good old consistent Pat.  Is there any doubt that Republicans will say
anything to get their agenda passed?  Is there any doubt that the
Republican platform is "Do as I say, not as I do"?

[1]  I did not transcribe the conversation.  This is paraphrased.  But
there was no doubt -- Robertson was backpedaling faster than an All-pro
cornerback.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:20:38 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do it."
>>>  -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

> I'm glad you pro-abortionists like my .sig!

Of course, DOD.  It's a four-color tribute to your dishonesty.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:03:03 GMT

In article <1684414FEA.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (The guy holding Chaney's strings) writes:

Pat L. (for Liar) Harumphrey strikes own head once again. 

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:39:37 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>#<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>##<1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>
>
>###Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
>###net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
>###that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
>###now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
>##
>##Susan Garvin? 
>#
>#I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.
>
>And you won't, since Dennis is lying again.
>
>I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
>to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  

"As policy requires"? Why does this sound faintly reminiscent of "I was only
following the Fuehrer's orders" (sorry, Nora)?

Working as I do at a large corporation, I'm aware of hundreds, if not 
thousands of policies affecting my day-to-day work. Ninety-nine percent or 
more of those policies are routinely and flagrantly  I G N O R E D. Is CMU so 
different, I wonder? How would they police such a policy, inasmuch as it 
refers only to _knowledge_ of a forgery. Orbital Mind Control Lasers?

I'm sorry, but the observance of this "policy requirement" sure seems to smell
like a conveeeenient post-hoc rationalization to me...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion