HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:24:24 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan8.000909.6396@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1ifv7vINNpea@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>> Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>>> Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>>> had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>>> about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>>> up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.
>
>> Uh, you did say "her" didn't you?  Well, if the pro-lifers have their way,
>> Suzanne, she won't be able to claim her WOMB is 'hers and hers alone', so 
>> why should you be able to claim in her stead (especially believing as you
>> apparently do) that her organs are hers and hers alone?  If the state can
>> commandeer a woman's womb, why not her corneas?  Why not her kidneys?
>> Why not her liver?  It's to *save a life*! after all.  So why not?
>
>There's a thin line between killing and refusing to save a life
>which you seem to have ignored. 

Hmm, first Suzanne, not Doug.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything Doug, Suzanne.  I think I'm pointing
out a basic hypocracy in Suzanne's statement.  The pro-life contingent
does not consider a woman's body 'hers and hers alone' to do with as she
sees fit.  

And, I don't think benign neglect is OK, either, which is the foolish
result of your argument, Doug, and Suzanne's equally shortsighted reply.

>you're talking 
>about killing a living human being so that another may benefit.

I'm not.  I'm talking about Suzanne's claiming 'hers and hers alone'
in one case, but not another.  Frankly, I don't think that taking
organs from a damaged body before it stops living on it's own is OK, but I
wasn't addressing Mark's point, I was addressing Suzanne's.

Shooot, Doug, wrong again.

>No matter how much you wish it to be, abortion is not "refusing
>to save a life", it is killing.  

You have no idea of what I wish or don't wish, but you are wrong anyhow.
Abortion is removing a fetus from the woman's body. 

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:30:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.kevin-darcy.net-informants
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

nfs@dynastar (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> Could we keep this out of can.politics, please?

pretty hypocritical of you to do that which you are
asking others not to do, isn't it?

-> I am not trying to infringe anyone's freedom of
-> speech.

certainly you are. you have just made a blatent
effort to control who posts what, and where. quite
amusing actually since you did exactly that which
you asked others not to do.

are you an official spokesperson for all persons who
read can.politics? do all readers of can.politics
approve of your efforts to censor what is posted to
their newsgroup?

-> I am not trying to censor jane or any other poster. 

denial isn't healthy, you know.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:11:16 GMT

In article <markp.726772250@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan10.161604.3155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>
>>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>>>
>>>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>>>
>>>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>>>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>>>
>>>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>>>
>>>which is perfectly true.
>>>
>>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?
>
>No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
>accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.
>
Then you are either a hypocrite for exempting yourself from the
restrictions you place on others, or just too stupid to realise that
you will need to prove a fetus is a person before your rationale for
seeking medical treatment is valid.
Are you going to attempt this feat?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:16:12 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

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
-> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
-> Mr. Chaney, kudos to you for doing this, even if you say it is under
-> protest.  

i agree. weak as it was, it was certainly stronger
and much, much speedier in coming than was darcy's.

-> Mr. Nyikos, if you had anything to do with this, kudos to you too.

do you really think PHoney would be so hypocritical
as to counsel chaney to apologize when he hasn't
done so himself?

-> so much for the t.a love fest.  I think you are all scum, but hardly
-> as low as Kevin Darcy.

i agree.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:03:00 GMT

In article <93008.104206MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

[much deletia]
>
>Therefore, a woman who wants an abortion during the last trimester of
>her pregnancy need find only one doctor, the abortionist himself, who
>will say that the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, using the
>meaninglessly broad definition of health quoted above.  The possible
>restrictions permitted in (c) can be evaded easily and have no prac-
>tical effect.  We are left with abortion on demand for the full nine
>months of pregnancy.

What illusory world do you live in? Do you have any idea how few
doctors there are who will do third trimester abortions? There are
several states that have none. Even those doctors that do perform them
generally do not do so on demand, no matter what the law allows.
There is no easy way to demand a third trimester abortion in this country.

Robert Johnston


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:06:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.203530.10053@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

   I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
   private email between us, to USENET. 

Congratulations.  Of course, you made that discovery a few hours after
everyone else reading this newsgroup saw it -- but I know you're slow to
pick up on stuff like that, so I understand.

   Why don't we just KILLfile PatricKKK? He has broken every rule he
   himself has set and that everyone else abides to out of courtesy. He is
   too afraid to apologize to me directly for his racist remarks, so I am
   perfectly right in making comments to and about his family. But will he
   recognize that? Yeah, when his wife is allowed to stroll the streets
   without being chased by the dog-catcher.. 

Awww.  Isn't Steve so *cute* when he foams at the mouth just before he has
another fit?

--PLH, Steve's a funny guy -- but y'all know that too well, already...

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view 
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:05:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.201750.18369@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.025210.9017@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>|>In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
>|>(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

[Deletions]

>|>So we _can_ save lives if we do end up killing a few. That means we can
>|>use that anencephalic baby after all? Thanks! Many organ recipients
>|>will cry your name from the rooftops!
>|>
>Question? is this anencephalic baby on total life support...brain dead..and
>have no chance of living off life support you answer is yes.
>
Jeff.... Anencephalia means "no head" It's a neural tube disorder in
which the baby is born with no brain, no skull, no nothing. 93-95% of
them are still born anyway, and the few that are born "alive" can not
be kept alive more then ashort time.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:54:14 CST

In article <1icpagINN5ij@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.181125.17922@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>|> In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
>|> (John Townsend) writes:
>|> 
>|> }I, for one, have chosen life.
>|> 
>|> Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
>|> over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
>|> and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.
>
>Talk about myopia.  Read me again:
>
>I think it's important to recognize that neither Choice nor Life are sacrosanct.
>We constantly face limits on our choices.  I'd choose to be a billionaire, but
>no one seems to be indulging me that right.  Likewise, should we not build
>things like the Golden Gate Bridge or go to war, if there is a probability that
>human life may be lost in the process of conducting these endeavors?  Of course
>we should, if other conditions are met.  The question is which right should
>hold sway over the other when they conflict.  I, for one, have chosen life.
>
By what right do you presume to make this choice for others?
Why is it valid to take human life in order to protect our access
to mineral deposits, or to build a bridge, and uncceptable when
it's the future happiness of a woman being built, or possibly
the access of her existing children to a reasonable standard of
living?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:47:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0CB4v.Msy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <C05BwG.Gnz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
###Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
###support his statements.  Would you actually think they would? 
#
##So, you were lying when you said "They have since admitted they were
##lying through their teeth?", weren't you?  Did you think it would 
##help you in the debate to simply make something up?
#
#WHAT?  Since when did I state I was lying?  

When you admitted that you had used the word "they" to describe
Bernard Nathanson.  I thought that most people were aware that
"they" is plural.  I see you are not.  I suggest some elementary
English classes.

#If Mr. Nathanson WAS a member
#of NARAL, which he was, then any statements he makes about their actions
#and motives are just as credible as their own statements.  For anyone 
#in NARAL to admit that even a small portion of Mr. Nathanson's statements
#were true would be tantamount to your admitting you were kidding all along,
#and that you were really an active Operation Rescue member.  

No, if eight witnesses say one thing and the ninth says another,
people don't usually assume that the ninth is just as credible
as the other eight.  (Particularly when the ninth has stated
publicly that he has lied in the past.)  

Feel free to continue to whine.  You've chosen this charlatan as
your hero, you have to live with it.

##(The whistling sound you hear is your credibility flying out
##the window.)
#
#.... pot calling the kettle black? .....

No, I have some credibility in this newsgroup.  Unlike you, I've
yet to lie here.

###Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
###be manufactured to support almost anything.
#
##Are you speaking from experience?
#
#*shrug* Perhaps.  

Why be ashamed?  You're only following in Nathanson's footsteps.

#We can see, however, from your extensive mendacity on
#this net, that you pioneered the skewing of facts and statistics.  

Somehow I doubt that you'll be any more willing to provide any
documentation for this claim than you have for any of your 
other claims.   

You certainly fit the pattern of the typical pro-forcer in this
newsgroup - you lied blatantly, denied the lie while your original
articles were still available, and then accused someone else of
lying.  Keep it up.  Laughable liars are good entertainment.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:24:54 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
[nothing of interest]

UNRETRACTED LIE
________________

	(this about susan garvin):
        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:14:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.023940.23790@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.042143.28771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <C041BC.GtD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>>"viability" is medically defined (roughly) as the point after which a
>>>developing fetus could survive outside the womb.  It may also require that
>>>the fetus could continue to grow "normally" although special care and treatment
>>>may be needed.  It is generally considered to be sometime around the start of
>>>the third trimester (I think).  It is not an exact time, it is a general range
>>>in which it is usually found to occur in those born prematurely.  (They look at
>>>children born prematurely at various times and compare the development at birth
>>>to the statistical survival rates to come up with an average figure.)
>>>
>>In practice, 26 weeks is considered to be resonably viable.
>
>OK, I'll go with that then. 
>
>Do I hear Galen still whining?
>
Not as long as you accept too that 26 is just a quidline, and may well
be totally off base in many situations. That's the real problem with
providing a definition of viability Kevin, it's *extremely*
situational. I *wish* we could say "all 26 week fetuses will survive"
or even that they have a 50% chance of survival. We can't. All we can
say is *if* this, and *if* that, *then* the 26 weeker has a pretty
good chance at survival.
It's just not an exact science.
For that matter, determining the gestational age of a fetus isn't
exact either. It is not at all uncommon to have a neonate assessed by
2-3 different people, and get gestational age estimates that are 2-3
weeks different. There's too many variables for it to be exact.
Consider just one thing that is used to determine gestational age. The
separation or fusing of the eyelids. If the eyelids are still
completly fused, we can say it is probably no more then 26 weeks
gestational, *if* we don't look at any other factors. And what if the
eyelids are *partly* fused?
Do you begin to see why it's immosible to have a truely exact
definition?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <root.726249006@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):

> Another gutless anonymous posting...

What's to be afraid of?  Being called a "twit"?  Being referred to
as "pro-force" or "pro-death"?  Finding out that the "facts" you
read in some cheap magazine aren't facts at all?  Meeting someone
with whom you sharply disagree?  Meeting someone with whom you sharply
disagree, who turns out to be an intelligent, reasonable individual and
who has thought about abortion just as much as you have?  Having to
apologize for a mistake?  Needing to respond to criticism of your
posts?

Come on, it's not _that_ bad in t.a.  Is it?

> an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:

>>I see many pro-choice people saying hateful stuff at pro-life people here
>>and I think maybe they should think about why they're saying that stuff.

> Hateful???  The pro-life crowd are the ones tossing around the accusations
> of murder, etc.

Hi Steve.  I've seen a lot of your posts here and in alt.atheism.  You
seem to be an intelligent and thoughtful person.  You seem to be a
little too intelligent and thoughtful to believe that the "pro-life
crowd" has a monopoly on "saying hateful stuff" like "accusations of
murder, etc."  Let's see, I was once called a "twit" after challenging
some scientific claims regarding personhood, and I was recently referred
to as "pro-force" by someone with no knowledge of my position on the
legal issue of choice.  Not "hateful" enough for you?  I find that there
are *several* regular posters to t.a who routinely resort to far more
strident methods of verbal abuse (i.e., slams that easily qualify as
"saying hateful stuff").  Most of these folks are not members of the
"pro-choice crowd".  Come on, Steve.


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:34:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.173938.15298@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel
Nelson) writes:
>In article <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.143250.8078@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel
Nelson)
>>writes:

>>                                                    If the unborn has some
>>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>>mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent
>>value outweighs that of the fetus - one factor may be that the unborn is
inside
>>her.  
>
>You noticed!  Not just 'may be', though.
>It is an inherent condition of fetal existence that it _is_
>inside a woman.  She's just as much a person as you are, and
>has just as much right to say how her body may be used as you
>do. 

Muriel, if I could be pregnant I should not have that right either.  

> If you look at the fetus and you think its situation
>justifies the automatic remaval of rights from women, you don't
>value women as much as I do.

Two things: 

 One, I think the way rights are now partitioned out is wrong.  Namely, all for
the mother, none for the unborn.  To remove unjustly 'recognized rights'
doesn't make me value a women less than you, only the unborn more than you do. 

 Two - do you hold the same opinion of the millions of women who feel as I do?

>>     For me, in some cases, say where the mother's life is threatened, this
>>may be sufficient.  
>
>This magnanimous concession is little comfort to me.
>There is always a nonzero risk of death for the woman.

Yes I agree, life is not fair.  This is no magnanimous concession - it just
follows from my equal respect for mother and child.
>
>>                    To say 'he call my uterus a place, that woman hater!' is
>>hyperbole.
>
>No.  Actually, I'd call it active listening.

That is perky.  Didn't I just see you refer to the "woman's body" as "a sewage
system"?  I think I'd stick with "place" if I were you.

>
>muriel

- paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: The Plot Thickens...
Organization: TSAKC Local 981
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:58:59 GMT


Well, well, *well*.  Check the interesting little bird dropping that showed
up in my mailbox this afternoon...

-------start included mail--------------------

From nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu Mon Jan 11 15:19:16 1993
From: nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
To: patrick@is.rice.edu
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:27:07 GMT

Asbestos suit...check
Flamethrower....check

Okay, another newbie (oh, shit, where _do_ they get me from??!!)
strides into talk.abortion.

In article <28DEC92.16524640@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu
writes:

>In a previous article, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) wrote:
>>This argument ("I am against abortion because had my parents chosen
>>it,
>>I wouldn't be alive at all") would seem to apply equally well to
>>contraception.
>
>And abstinence.  After all, if my birth parents had chosen abstinence,
>I wouldn't be alive at all.

And virginity. I mean, if no one gave birth, eventually no one would
be alive at all. Somehow, I don't think the anti-choice group thought
this far ahead.

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity ---
day, you'll see things in a different way...        |    but not yet.
              ...don't stop thinking about tomorrow | --St. Augustine