HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:58:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep30.214722.12081@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.224506.26902@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Stoned, AKA Nadja Adolf) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>
> >>Actually, Naziism was the first place where abortion was legal. 
> >>Historically, Rush's opponents are closer to Naziism than he is. 
> >
> >Actually, your forgot the early Soviet Union. Then the Nazis 'legalized'
> >it - but only for 'non-Aryan' women.
> 
> Okay, I forgot the USSR.
> 
> It only proves that legal abortion is utterly anti-American in principle,
> historically. In addition to it being logically discriminatory.

This is not true.  Abortion was legalin the United States until
around themiddle of the 19th Century when laws against it
first started to appear.
> 
> 
> >Rush is closer to the Nazis. They liked to tell others what to do with
> >their bodies, too. The Nazis even mandated abortion, as well as non-abortion,
> >under various circumstances. Like Rush, the Nazis didn't believe that the
> >woman should have the chance to make her own reproductive choices.
> 
> NOT. The Nazi's ALLOWED it. There were a few cases of coercion, like we
> have here now.

I see we now have Chahallney defending the Nazis as not having
been guilty of "liking to tell others what to do with their bodies."
They most certainly did.  They told quite a few of my relatives to
take baths.  Then they killed them.  They also outlawed abortion
for Aryan women, and then forced abortion and setrilization on
non-Aryan women.  Ah, but the control freaks finally had control
of an entire industrialized country.  Don't let it happen here.

> And like Jim Crow and the Nazi's, pro-choicers seem to think someone's
> choices can run rampant over another human's right to continue living,
> whether the aggressor likes it or not.

And like Jim Crow and the Nazis, pro-lifers believe that women
should have no say in what happens to their bodies.
> 
> If it destroys your version of women's reproductive choices, too bad:
> discrimination is still discrimination and it should be outlawed, whether
> it be racism or legalized abortion.

Too bad indeed.  And yes, discrimination against women is still
discrimination against women.  And totalitarianism such as that
of ROumania is not one of those foreign imports we ought to be
buying.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39417 talk.politics.misc:48600 alt.rush-limbaugh:6197 alt.politics.clinton:7787 alt.politics.bush:7171
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:08:16 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <9365@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Try this on for size.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

It works for me.  

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SATs as an insult (to Brian McBean & Peter Nyikos)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:05:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.718176175@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <BvDFsC.4BC.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


#That too was one of my zanier posts, and I saw no point in dragging
#this private talk.abortion squabble into talk.religion.misc any
#longer.

Oh, you call it zany.  

I keep forgetting that you pro-forcers redefine words to suit
your motives.


##I'm sure that everyone understands your frustration, Nyikos.
##It must be tough, being such a serious, high-minded fellow
##and still not getting any respect.
#
#What's tougher is taking the imperious insults of high-minded (I should say
#high-handed) Adrienne Regard without fighting back.

You are obsessed with Adrienne, aren't you?  

[odd repost deleted]

#The use of this title was purely defensive in this post: I was getting
#tired of Adrienne's high-handed ways with pro-lifers in general
#(you can still catch her trying to push Martin Guerrero around)
#and me in particular.

Nyikos, one reaon that people fail to take you seriously is that
you make comments like the one above.  It is impossible for
Adrienne to try to push someone around on the net.  

It sounds like you want to be admired for flaming people while
you criticize others for flaming you.  I suggest that you
continue to correspond with Chaney/Hall and his ilk - they're
the only ones hypocritical enough to suit you.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:59:22 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>>>> No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
>>>> child for convenience's sake is deplorable.

>>> Seriously, I am wondering how women who have had abortions would respond
>>> to your charge that they were cowardly and irresponsible.

>>       Dunno - haven't gotten any yet.

>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Well, I asked my sister, who has had an abortion, what she thought of
the statement.  She said "the person is an asshole who has no idea what
I went through to make my decision.  I, personally, don't consider 
adoption to be a responsible option.  I don't want my kid raised and
taught morals by someone I don't know.  To me, it would be ultimately
irresponsible to let a conservative religous person become the "parent"
of my child.  At the time I became pregnant I could barely take care of
myself, I had problems with drugs and alcohol.  The man who got me
pregnant was the man I had been living with for 3 years - he had told
me he had a vasectomy and he hadn't, I was just lucky I hadn't gotten
pregnant before.  FOr damn sure I wasn't going continue living with
someone who had lied to me like this, but I didn't know where I _was_
going to live.  There was no way I could afford to have a child, not
even if I *were* willing to give it up for adoption, I had no money
for pre-natal care and couldn't afford to take time off work (even
if there were no complications, I probably would have lost my job
around the 6th month -- I was moving furniture.).  Cowardly?  Yeah,
I've always been afraid to be evicted and starve.  Irresponsible?
Just what the *hell* could I have done that would have been more
responsible in my situation?"


Lori Kent Rothman (and my sister Linda)
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions...(and my sister's)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Anti-Abortion
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:30:24 GMT

In article <YekuyC_00WBLA8cFpq@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Mr. Kolker,
>
>    I thought your post made an excellent point.  Both the Animal Rights
>movement and anti-abortion movement show the absurdity of granting
>rights to objects that should not have such rights, though I do have a
>strong desire to grant the Pythagorean Theorem a right to life.

The unborn is a member of homo sapiens.  I don't believe any other
animal is capable of claming that.  

Why don't members of homo sapiens deserve the right to life?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:01:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.234527.27140@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.182615.14598@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.194211.17216@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>
>>>   This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>>right?  
>>
>>Only if you consider a malignant tumor a member of homo sapiens.
>>
>
>Tumors are mere mutations.  At conception, the unborn is not just a mutation.

Not JUST a mutation, eh? But a mutation, nonetheless, in the sense that its
DNA differs from that of the organism in which it resides, and in the sense
that it disrupts the normal biological process of that organism.

Sounds like a mutation to me...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:01:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <oem7OqS00WB5JDRg1H@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
#Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
#by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
## Do we show people pictures of murdered adults to convince them
## that murder is wrong?  It seems that if you need that kind of
## thing to make your point, your point must not have been very 
## strong to begin with.
#
#That's an interesting statement. Maybe if murderers were forced to
#really see the suffering they were causing, about to cause, or
#previously caused, we would have fewer repeat murders.

Wow.  This woman actually believes that most murderers commit
their crimes with their eyes closed.  

#Interesting.

I'll say.  

#I prefer to think of the abortion films this way. Some people
#(not all or most) think that the child isn't even a living being.
#Showing them something like this shows them their wrong. 

Telling them that a fetus is alive would accomplish the
same thing.  Showing them an honestly made film would, too.
Why do you think that resorting to trick photography is
necessary?

#Some people think abortion is a painless procedure. Showing them
#something like this shows it's not a painless procedure. And it
#is not a painless procedure for the mother either.

No, showing them "The Silent Scream" shows them that an object
in fluid will move when the fluid is disturbed.  As has been
said many times before, you can accomplish this with a leaf
in a glass of water.  

Abortion can be a painless procedure for the pregnant woman, too.
We have this nifty thing called anesthesia these days.  For most
healthy women, the choice of whether the abortion is completely
painless or not is up to them.  

Susan
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Playing with numbers
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 00:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.020658.53539@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>No, I believe that's 12 weeks, not 24.  According to the numbers Keith
>posted for 1991,

Ahem.  It has come to my attention that these numbers may not actually
represent 1991 figues.  I'm checking on what year they actually represent,
but I would suggest that you assume these figures are for ~1985, and were
*released* in 1991.

Thanks.

>   Statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
>   51% of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.
>   91% of all abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
>   96% of all abortions are performed in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy.
>   99.1% of all abortions are performed by the 20th week of pregnancy.
>
>   LESS THEN 100 ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED EVERY YEAR AFTER THE 24TH WEEK OF
>   PREGNANCY.
>
>I'm curious as to where Joe B. got his wacky numbers - did he just make
>them up, or were they quoted from a pro-lie newsletter?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:48:34 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <z0#pm1q.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Eric writes:
> >Lori writes:
> >>Eric writes:
> >>>This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
> >>>the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
> >>>persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
> >> 
> >> The same is true of conception.  What is your point?
> >
> >How is conception arbitrary?  It is the specific point when a sperm and an
> >egg are joined.
> 
> How is birth arbitrary?  It is the specific point when the human is
> removed from the mother's body and begins to obtain oxygen and
> nutrients on its own, rather than having the mother's body supply them.

Because that specific point is not fixed in time after the moment of
conception when a process beings that will lead to the birth of a newborn
child if nothing happens along the way to prevent it.
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:54:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>

Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.

>
>>>Not at all.  The mother has the right to terminate a fetus's life because
>>>she doesn't wish to carry it within her body and take the risks that carrying
>>>and bearing a child entails.
>>So I believe our main difference involves the value we give fetuses/unborn
>>children.
>
>Martin, you are very hardheaded, aren't you.  Our main difference doesn't
>even involve the fetus/unborn.
>
>Our main difference is that you cannot see PAST the fetus/unborn.
>

I don't think so.  I do see past the fetus/unborn.  And it is precisely
because I see "past the fetus/unborn" do I see the horrors of abortion.


Heh.  This thread sure is getting smaller.  I predict one liners in the 
next few days.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:25:46 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.

> It wasn't the last time I checked. But that is the case for many people
> who are HIV+. (Granted, I should modify that statement, and say it was a
> death sentence, not death itself.)

It's amazing how my statement above has brought out certain individuals' true
colors.  Having lost two friends to AIDS (one was from a tainted blood
transfusion), I should go into a truly righteous Old Testament rage and
smite thee.  However, I think it's sufficient to say that sooner or later,
Emil, AIDS will touch you personally.  If you are indeed as good enough and
smart enough as your .sig says, it'll change your tune or, doggone it, not
many people are going to like you.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Father Notification R
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:44:15 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ws>In article <1992Sep26.010905.3115@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DK>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...

[Deleted much of this post, because it appears Will took parts of my post
out of context and then he fails to leave any references so I can go back
and look at context.  Since I posted it weeks ago, and I am too lazy to 
try and figure out if I still have the original post, I just deleted
parts of this posts that I felt were out of context.]

DK> For these men, I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss
DK> the options rationally.

ws>But she didn't, as I explained to C.J. before.  And in fact, she threatened
ws>me with death if I told anyone what happened.

ws>Now try to tell me just *who* was in whose "mercy"?

If you are talking about the law as it stands now, neither of you are
at the other persons mercy.  If you are talking about the law as you want
it, where you will use legislation to force the woman to inform you of
things that could send you into a violent rage, then she will be at your
mercy. Currently you have the right to either let others know what she
did if you want and she has the right to inform or not inform you that
she had an abortion.  You want to take that right away from her.

ws>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter 
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.182640.683@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>[Warning: LONG, and downright petty in places.]
>In article <1992Oct2.195902.23980@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>By (Muriel Nelson):
>>>In article nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>>She is a doggedly consistent defender of individual
>>>choice for women, 
>>And the trashing of children.
>>
>Huh?  Sounds to me like Adrienne treats her children very well.
>
For the children who are alive, probably.  For those who are dead, of course
not.

>>                de
>>                ^      <cute touch, Suzanne. NOT.>
>>>and a system of values which places the life
>>>and life plans of a thinking, feeling, living, breathing woman
>>>above the interests of potential lives in all cases.  
>>Even when those lives are very REAL, and whose only crime
>>is simple dependency on their mothers.
>>
>Their lives as individual humans are still just potential
>while they are fetuses, Suzanne.  And I never said they
>were criminals.

That which exists at conception is definitely human life.  For more
details check other threads and comments long gone by.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Saving the lives of Women
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:56:49 GMT


Whoever posted this to soc.women, sorry. I'm not posting my response there.
It takes an utter fool to think that anyone can reason with those folks on
soc.women on this issue. If anyone's going to claim a class of women have
only one opinion on abortion, soc.women is the place to make your case.

I admit a margin of error of one person, maximum, of course. Two if a pig
flies by this morning.


In article <1992Sep24.211945.5622@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>] joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>] 
>] >I'm speaking of THIS disgusting world where there are 400 THIRD TRIMESTER
>] >ABORTIONS EVERY DAY IN THE US ALONE.
>] 
>] Please provide documentation for this statistic.
>] And kindly refrain from yelling.
>
>My data aren't exactly current, but I take it that not that much has
>changed since 1985.  Anyway, this is from the Statistic Abstract of the 
>US, 1990, put out by the Census Bureau.  

Uh, there aren't 400 3rd trimester abortions per day.
There are 400 SECOND trimester abortions a day, however. Over 100,000 a
year.


=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:17:35 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> = Eric Marsh writes:

[...]
>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.
>> 
>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.

>One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>derogate the religious convictions of others. 

Well, jeepers, Bill - I know this a real *stretch*, but...maybe it's not
the religious convictions.  Maybe, ju-u-u-ust maybe, it's those
religious fanatics who are trying to make everyone live their way by
force of law!

Whaddya think, hmm?  Aren't those kinds of people rather ASKING for it,
Bill?  ...Or possibly you're too close to the same condition to
recognize what seems obvious?

>If only we were all Wiccans...

Then no one would thump that bible anymore!  I like your wish.

>> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

>Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  

Bzzzt!  Pay attention, Bill.

For example...when was the last time you saw a Wiccan waxing
fanatical and trying to enact laws based on his Wiccan-ism?  How many
times have Wiccans screeched moronic religous tripe, as if they'd
misplaced one of their frontal lobes, at an abortion protest?

You're being purposefully obtuse, methinks.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:20:15 GMT

(abortion debate, blah blah blah)

>>I guess the kid has never heard of masturbation, sex, or contraception.
 
> Not wanting to insult your intelligence, I didn't feel it so
>necessary to elaborate on that point, but evidently the intelligence isn't
>there to be insulted. And as for masturbation, leave that to other news
>boards, please.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, excuse me...   You posted this alt.sex......

Newsgroups: talk.abortion