HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Silly Connection (formerly: Abortion and Infanticide)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.142952.341@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Jul21.033057.4795@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul14.213122.25498@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- soft-sectored) writes:
>>>What: <1992Jul13.190320.22457@ncsu.edu>
>
>>>>> The ones I know all believe in an absolute right "not to be
>>>>> pregnant". Under this scenario, infanticide is not allowable,
>>>>> because infants aren't inside anyone's bodies. 
>>>>
>>>>You have not given any reasons to justify the killing of a late-term
>>>>fetus other than its mere physical location.
>>>                      ==== ======== =========
>>>
>>>Once again, we do the Pro-Life Shuffle:  "fetus" = "child"
>>>                                         "woman" = "mere physical location"
>>>
>>>Your degredation of women is astounding, and yet, predictable.
>
>>Your knee-jerk response is equally predictable, but this time it misses the
>>mark. If you were paying attention, perhaps you would have noticed that
>>Charles Don Hall, and not Doug Holtsinger, was the first to "de-personalize"
>>in this particular exchange ("inside anyone's bodies").
>
>When I said "anyone", I meant "any one person", and not "any one
>location" or "any one living organism". I apologize for my vagueness,
>and will try to be more clear in the future.
>
>The reason that I said "anyone" instead of "any woman" is because I
>believe that men also have a right to bodily autonomy, and that they
>therefore have the right to remove unwanted z/e/f's from their own 
>bodies. They may not have as much opportunity to exercise this right
>as women do, but I think that it is important to remember that the
>right is still there.
>
>So, I would like to change the phrase in question from "inside anyone's
>bodies" to "inside the body of any pregnant human being". Again, I
>apologize to any person who was insulted or confused by my original
>phrasing.

No apology necessary, IMO. My ire was directed mainly at the knee-jerk
scapegoating of a pro-lifer, not your inadvertant "de-personalizing" 
semantic shift...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:51:26 GMT

<adams.712421943@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>
>>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>
>My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
>Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
>disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
>tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

First, fetal tissue research has already resulted in very positive
indications that it can help people suffering from "horrendous" diseases.
Second, we already have over 1.3 million abortions occuring annually for
*other* reasons.  
I don't see any reason why someone would *need* to conceive just to
provide fetal tissue.  Even if only 5% of the abortions could be used for
fetal tissue research that still results in over 65,000 already usable
fetuses.

I think it helps if you look at the comparative good/bad: If we do allow
fetal tissue research *some* people would be offended, AND some people's
lives would be extended or saved outright.  Would you prefer to protect
some people's sensibilities and let others *die*, or save people and let
others be offended?

Even if some people needed to conceive a fetus for use (because of blood
type or somesuch) I doubt many of these situations would occur.  You just
don't allow people to be paid for fetal donation.  And you regulate where
fetal tissue can be purchased for research.

I can understand your moral trepidation, but while people like yourself
"think things over" more people are contracting or dying from possibly
curable diseases.

My opinion.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29271 alt.flame:11426 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:331
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: birds of a feather
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:39:27 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

darcy expresses pleasure that a loved one of one of his 
many adversaries has been sexually abused.

franklin defends darcy.

darcy and franklin; the similarities are overwhelming.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:44:09 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul24.171203.13905@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>child you cannot have it."

>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.

>--
>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

     Do I.U.D.s? 
     If not, I guess they're not abortificents then...
    Anyway, to the point.
    Well, well, well--this wouldn't be the same PP that pro-forcers tell
us lie in honeyed words to convince unwilling women into the clinics so
that they can make a massive $200, would it?

                                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Originator: boutell@athena
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:19:02 GMT

I continue to be amazed at the incredible volume in this group, in light of
the fact that when offered the chance to write articles for a magazine
doing a special issue on abortion, only one person has done so.
(A small additional number have sent poetry.)

C'MON, people, do you actually care enough about your position on this
issue to write something coherent, or do you just like to flame
about it? 

If this piques your interest and you'd like to write a piece on the issue
(yes, I am accepting pro - life, pro - choice, *and* intermediate views),
please email an inquiry (or an article - anything from half a page to
ten pages, news items (your own), historical pieces, position papers,
first - person accounts, anything!) to VOICE magazine care of boutell@cshl.org.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who find the time to bitch
about this topic but turn down the chance to air their views before
a *much* larger audience. Talking about abortion here is preaching to
the converted and the damned, respectively (which is which is a matter
of opinion); neither can be convinced of anything. If you really want to
get something accomplished, try writing for a larger audience. Thanks.

-- Tom Boutell, Editor, Voice Magazine

-- 
My return address now works!
Believe it or not there is life after college. At least if you live
near NYC.
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:06:56 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

A dialogue with a pro-abortionist:
>}>}Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>}>
>}>I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
>}>there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  
>}
>}The heart begins beating at 18 days and begins pumping blood, whose type
>}is different from that of the mother, through a closed circulatory system
>}at 21 days.
>}            J.M.Tanner, G.R.Taylor, et al.
>}            _Growth_
>}            New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p. 64.
>
>So something which terminates a pregancy before your 18 days does not
>constitute an abortion?  Puzzling.  

What's puzzling?  Are you suggesting that induced abortions occur before
18 days of pregnancy?  Surely you're not another who hides behind the skirts
of spontaneous abortions.

>}>I am a bit disgusted by people who repeatedly make statements they
>}>know to be incorrect.  Unless, of course, they are too stupid to
>}>do anything else, in which case I pity them.  What should it be,
>}>Mr. Clausen, disgust or pity?
>
>}You're on a roll, I'll let you choose.
>
>OK...pity...

Thanks, I feel better already.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice=Pro-Life
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:20:01 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul31.013623.5859@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

> 
>    You're full of shit.  A lame attempt to twist choice into some
> sort of 'right to choose to kill a child.'  Who are you trying to
> kid?  Is any of your post a lie?  Is ALL of it a lie?  Is it okay
> in your religion to fabricate and express a position on something
> when you don't believe it yourself?  Don't you fear the flames of
> Eternal Damnation?  We are talking about a Commandment, you know.
> 
> Be careful.  You don't know what you're risking!

  Apparently having his words twisted.  Did we read the same post?  Sounded
like a standard pro-choice argument to me.  

  And it may be some quirk of your system, but it would help a lot if you 
included at least part of the post you're responding to.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:32:44 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>># This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>># abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes ...
>> Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  

<z5fmx3#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> Too funny for words.
>
> Just to spare the poor little borg-brain the strain of doing the arithmetic, 
> this makes Ms. Sanger about 84 years old at her death.  And as an added bit
> of info, human females can't have children when they're in their 80's, which
> means they can't get abortions.

>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

>That's something I _would_ like to see.  It should be enormously entertaining.

Uhhh... No! No! No!  She wasn't *getting* an abortion, she was,
uh....., *performing* an abortion, yeah that's it.  She was
performing an illegal abortion on uh...... on my wife, Morgan
Fairchild.  Yeah, that's it.  That's the ticket.

Then the cops came in and caught her in the act, and uhh...
they shot her!  Yep!  Gunned her down right there, forceps
in hand.  One murderer less for the courts to deal with.

(Any correlation of this article with the truth is purely
 coincidental.)

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:57:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <2216@unet.UUCP> jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
#In article <1992Jul23.120150.17424@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
##garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##-# who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
##-# support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
##-# abortion
##
##wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
#
#Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as 
#a minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.


I didn't hear him qualify it last night.

Quayle would deny this choice to all adult women who don't
happen to be daughters, of course.  Are we supposed to
be impressed?

I saw a quote from Marilyn Quayle today that said, "She
would carry the child to term."  (Who was complaining about
people treating their children like property?)  

As far as I'm concerned, Marilyn Quayle's blanket
pronouncement is another good argument against parental
consent laws.  There's no concern for her daughter's
feelings, health, or anything else here.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: secret life
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:44:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.155852.25974@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

> And the millions of people who are waiting to adopt babies are
> waiting for the perfect, little, blond-haired, blue-eyed infants.

> The 'millions' who are waiting to adopt are vastly outnumbered by
> the number of children who need to be adopted.  

> If this is not true, then why are all of the perfect little white
> infants adopted, but minority children, and babies with a medical
> problem wait forever?  

Your statements are not correct. In a 1989 article in The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science ("An Organizational Dilemma: The 
Case of Transracial Adoptions"), it was estimated that half of
the 36,000 children who are legally free for adoption are black.
In 1984, it was estimated that of the two million white couples
wishing to adopt children, approximately 68,000 would consider
transracial adoption.  

In the same article, the authors detailed the practices of adoption
and social service agencies which often discourage and prevent  
black prospective parents from adopting black children. One study 
found that of 800 black parents who applied for adoption, only 
2 (1/4 of 1%) were approved. Blacks often face outright discrimination 
from adoption agencies when they attempt to adopt children. 

Many states have "race-matching" policies which require that black 
children be paired with black parents. These policies result in black 
children having to wait several years to become adopted if no black 
parents are immediately available. Some white foster parents have 
fought court battles to adopt the black children under their care.


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:45:35 GMT

---
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|OK, then define "necessary". When is it "necessary" to kill a 
|late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman? Would it
|be "necessary" if the woman does not want to endure labor?   

You've already answered your own question:

Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
|It is sometimes necessary to kill a late term fetus during a medically 
|indicated abortion. The woman's immediate physical health or life may be  
|threatened by the presence of the fetus, and often the fastest remedy 
|is to perform an abortion. Inducing labor may take too long to remove 
|the fetus, by which time the woman's condition might worsen. 

You should see a doctor about this memory loss problem of yours.

Your original challenge has already been sufficiently answered.  
You yourself, in the quote above, give a rationale for third 
trimester abortion that cannot be used to justify infanticide.
Nice work, Dougie!  Now be a nice non-hypocrite, and admit it.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." --Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research, Nathanson, etc.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:50:33 GMT

Apparently, Mr. Kellmeyer thinks that he can just wave
his M.A. in history and his candidacy for a Ph.D. in front
of us and we'll all just fall prostrate in admiration.  He
dismisses a book without even having read it or looking
through its bibliography and notes for sources.

Perhaps I've been naive.  It seems that ignoramuses can
aspire not only to the vice presidency, but to MD's and
PhD's as well.  What a country!

Goodbye, Ralph, er, Steve.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29535 alt.flame:11514
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 12:00:36 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
>    You see, I fully believe that strong, loving heterosexual relationships
> will (in most cases!) breed in turn loving, heterosexual relationships.
> However, I subscribe to the theory that homosexual relationships and
> practices stem from a childhood that was less than "normal". You define
> normal if you like. There is a higher incedence of homosexuality in chilren
> who have been through a divorce. There is also a higher incedence of 
> homosexuality in those who lost a father (OR mother) when young...

No, why don't YOU define "normal", since you're the one who's using the term.
In what sense are children who have been through a divorce "abnormal", given
that around 1 in 3 marriages ends in divorce?


mathew
-- 
"He is heterosexual.  It is a sort of breath of fresh air, isn't it?  The
 indecent assault, an expression of his sexuality." -- Judge Geoffrey Jones

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:10:20 CDT

In article <1992Jul22.225042.15548@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <nkkbsug@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>Sorry, I should have said, "it's never necessary to kill a late term 
^^^^^^
>fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman during an elective abortion.
>Try again."
>
 Notice that Doug apologized to C J but not to Susan.
 Tell us, Doug.  What color is C J's tongue?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu
Subject: RE: Homophobics and pro-lifers.
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:35:54 GMT

In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) wrote:
><n24oacc@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) said:
>>weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:
>>|But additional and probably
>>|controversial to the original poster's opinion, I think that there is no 
>>|need to give specific official protection and support to homosexuality.
>>|
>>|Marriage would meet that definition.
>>
>>I do not understand how denying gay people a right that
>>straights consider fundamental is offering any particular
>>support.  I consider it merely fair & equitable, on a par
>>with "granting" voting rights to gay people.  They are
>>citizens;  they should get the benefits of being citizens.
>>
>>If you think same-sex marriages would hurt you in some
>>way, then yes, you are being homophobic.
> 
>This is what I don't understand -- why do some people feel threatened by
>homosexual marriages?  It doesn't seem to make sense to me.  A lot of
>people see gay men as wimps and sissies.  If they truely feel that way
>then why are they threatened?  How can you feel threatened by someone you
>consider a wimp (exception is George Bush who is one powerful wimp)?
>If all you are concerned about it "an affront to god" then let god handle 
>it.  Why do you feel impowered to act as god wrt homosexuality?  Where
>does he give you the authority to take any steps against any sinners? Most 
>Christians feel that their god's going to take care of all the sinners 
>anyway.
> 
  On the mark with one added point.  Marriage doesn't have to be church
  sanctioned.  It is a civil contract and ought to be viewed that way.
  The opposition of reliegious groups is towards homosexuality and denying
  the privilege of marriage to sincere gay couples is one more way of 
  signalling their opposition.
  - William
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:33:34 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


Pity is right.  I don't understand the relevance of the 1974
market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, either.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:36:03 GMT

In article <nkmv8q8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>>fusco is not part of the real world.  He is living in the world of
>>>his bible, which is about 1500 years ago.
>>More like 1900 for the New Testament, and as much as 3000 or more for
>>the Old.
>First off, fusco is clearly a new testament kind of guy.
>Though I am no biblical scholar, I do know that Jesus theoretically
>died in like 35AD.  I was under the impression that most of the new
>testament was written several hundred years later...

Er, no.

I guess you're definitely an "Old Testament" kinda guy, bubbeleh. :-)

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer