HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer [preoccupations]
Organization: NRL 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:26:53 GMT

In article <1k5h4mINNnk6@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>In article <C1HLEn.92H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>> 				   ... On the other hand, even the supposedly
>>pro-woman abortion advocacy groups themselves admit that their preoccupation
>>with legalizing abortion has left them taking a back seat to the pro-life
>>sponsored support systems.
>
>	Since abortion *is* legal, a more accurate statement would
>	make the point clear that the "preoccupation" (a loaded term,
>	leading one to suspect the wielder has no potent arguments)
>	is with keeping other groups from making abortion *illegal*
>	again.  There's no argument from me that resources would be
>	better spent on support systems for pregnant women, if those
>	anti-abortion forces were no longer at work

I have no objections to your rewording. Somehow, however, despite the equal
'preoccupation' of the pro-life side they still managed to put their money
where their mouths were with regard to not only trying to outlaw abortions but
to provide support for alternatives.


> (I'm strongly 
> against government involvement in forced childbirth).


>				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
>
>



Look, I won't deny using terms which may appear "loaded" from your point of
view, Dave, but it seems disigenuous for you to use an oxymoron (a forced
natrual process?) to support your supposedly "potent" arguments.

- Paul



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Are you pro-choice on education? (was Re: Pro-)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:16:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.004906.26636@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>Tit for Tat,
>>
>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.
>>                                Craig
>
>Because, Craig, many pro-choice people are intelligent enough to distinguish
>between an issue of personal autonomy and an issue of government subsidies
>for the rich.

How would a voucher system be any more a 'subsidy for the rich'
than the current public school system? This is a red herring.

Pro-abortion-choice folks often speak of the family planning
angle. (can't let an 'unwanted' child be brought out into the world.)
Why isn't the best education for your child considered
a part of the important life choices that a family should be able to
plan for? We are not speaking of choice in education as a "right", but
that choice in education is simply good social policy that
is in the best interests of the children and the families involved.

Pat
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:08:03 GMT

In article <C18AJH.JMv@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.215418.23448@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan10.170320.15365@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan10.063657.16609@rotag.mi.org> 
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>> As far as I'm concerned, a woman and her doctor "act in accordance with the
>
>>>> z/e/f's right to life" as long as they 
>>>>
>>>> a) kill the z/e/f ONLY as a "mercy killing", i.e. when it is 
>>>> pre-viable, and would die anyway shortly after removal, 
>>>
>>>This makes no sense at all.  Assuming that I have the right 
>>>to refuse to support someone who will die without my support,
>>>how does it follow that I should have the right to kill them?  
>>
>>If the killing bestows some positive, socially-recognized value to you, and 
>>it doesn't make any difference to them, yes. It's a highly qualified moral
>>right, but a moral right nonetheless.
>>
>>								- Kevin
>>
>Kevin - 
>
>I don't understand your definition of "mercy killing" at all.  If someone dumps
>a dolphin in my swimming pool and I remove it, leaving it on the lawn to "die
>anyway after removal" , is that "mercy killing"?  

No, exactly the opposite. Killing the dolphin instantly in the pool is more
merciful than removing it, leaving it to die slowly. Similarly, killing a
non-viable fetus in the uterus quickly is more merciful for all parties 
involved, than carefully removing it intact, only to have it die shortly
afterwards. Symbolic gestures (which is how I view the intact removal of a
non-viable fetus) are fine, but the minimization of human suffering is far
more important. 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What's the SAT deal?
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:25:53 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>While I don't remeber ALL the details, ...

>>  Some wiseass
>>then suggested the Nyikos also post his SAT scores and Nyikos,
>>apparently oblivious to the humor, did as suggested.
>
>Not completely.  You are obviously repeating canards secondhand, Ray.

No, you are obviously being an arrogant ass as usual.  I read it
myself, and as I said at the beginning, I don't remember all the
details.  You, of course, undoubtedly remember every word and will post
them for us just as soon as you have the time, or as soon as your
newserver is up, or already have but the newsserver lost it.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Let me state my view
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:45:19 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) wrote:
>>In article <1993Jan11.221648.25779@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>|>In article <1993Jan11.201750.18369@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu
>>|>(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>|>>I am against the death penalty like a said but where did that go? More
>>|>>convienent editing? 20 years in prison would do the job.
>>|>
>>|>At least you're consistent about your oppostion to death (although
>>|>I still have to give you the fruitarian test :-) ). But don't you
>>|>think prisons are crowded enough already? How will we fit millions
>>|>of doctors and women into those things? There's got to be a better
>>|>way.
>>|>
>>Build more jails. Not only will new construction stir the economy there
>>ought to be many new job openeings from the jobs that become available
>>when the women who go to jail have to give up there's. 

>I doubt that outlawing abortions will help the economy.  You'd have to do 
>more than just build jails and remove a few women from their jobs.  The 
>taxpayers would have to pay to maintain these people in prison (food, heat, 
>etc).  We'd have to pay to provide care for the born children while their 
>parents are in jail.  We'd have to pay the police and court costs to 
>investigate and prosecute every woman whose pregnancy does not result in a 
>healthy newborn (after all, how do you know if she really just had a 
>miscarriage?  Maybe she did something to make that happen.  Throw her in jail!)

>And of course, we'd have to find a way to pay for all the needs of the 
>unwanted children that women are forced to give birth to.  And the costs 
>associated with the women's pregnancies.

>I'm sure you'll be willing to pay higher taxes so all these kids can go to 
>school and get a decent education, right?

>Businesses will lose out too.  They've spent money training women for jobs, 
>and now some of these women will be out on maternity leave or in jail.

>Sure, Jeff, let's just build a few more prisons and lock these women up.  
>It will do wonders for our economy.


>				.... Heather.


Ms. Sims,

Pro-life groups do NOT support the blanket prosecution of every woman
who has an abortion.  Stop perpetuating this lie.


Thanks in advance,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57984 talk.politics.misc:69809 talk.religion.misc:27572 misc.legal:23306
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:20:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <22JAN199316264320@oregon.uoregon.edu>, dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
> In article <Jan.20.14.35.49.1993.26756@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
>  kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
> >In article <1993Jan20.031318.26063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> >gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
# ## Well, I'm not homosexual, . . . .
# # 
# #But you are an apologist for them.
# 
# I know I shouldn't say this, but why should gays need apologists?  As far as
# I'm concerned, it's none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed
# doors.
# 
# 							Daniel Reitman

It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.  Instead, they want
the government to tell consenting adults what they can do behind
closed doors -- like employment, rental of housing, etc.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:33:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCSU

In article <1993Jan24.090739.1885@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>>
>>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 

>>> I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>>> quite as severe, or as offensive.  

>> I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>> are equally disgusting. 

> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?

No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
it to stay that way.  
 
>Ray Fischer                   


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:01:14 GMT

In <skj3dm=@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
>>>From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>>>Subject: Final comment re: Why we go for non-black women:
>>>Organization: California State University Sacramento
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:42:21 GMT
>>>
>>>If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
>>>they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
>>>convince you to buy a fourth?

>To clarify, it should be noted that the "lemons" Chaney refers to here
>are African-American women.

I think I see what's going on here. Mr. Chaney has had three African-
American girlfriends, and they've all turned into hostile, disagreeable
man-haters. [I have to wonder if these women now hate _all_ men, or just
some _specific_ men.] This has convinced him that all African-American 
women are "lemons", so he's going to start dating Caucasian-American
women instead. 

I predict that after he's gone on another three dates, he's going
to start using his "PRIDE=POWER" .sig again, and six dates after
that, he'll start describing himself as a "voluntarily chaste
virgin".

>               -rocker
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:31:02 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> In article <v31kmic@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
-> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes:
-> >|Oh, I have been assured that Darcy has made a bad joke about someone
-> >|being a child molester, and that he later made a feeble apology for it,
-> >|but having seen neither the joke nor the apology, I continue to withhold
-> >|judgment.  [...]
-> >
-> >I saw both.  You can feel free to judge Darcy as a squirming
-> >slug who would rather lie & compound an error than admit he was
-> >wrong.  Perhaps, though, knowing this will help you identify
-> >with Darcy.  After all, I've seen the same behavior from you
-> >here, though not on any issues as personally painful to others
-> >as Darcy's.  Darcy, after all, accused a victim of sexual abuse
-> >of being a child molester, ...
-> 
-> Based on a mistaken impression that the victim was in fact a child molester.
-> Given the same mistaken impression, I think most people would have acted the
-> same way.

don't you think rather hollow? after all, if it was
just a mistaken impression, as you now claim, why
did you post around 25 articles defending yourself
before you posted an apology? even worse, why did
you post more than 25 articles after your apology
blaming everyone but yourself for your problem?

i'm afrain, kebbin, that you look rather small.

remember when people referred to you as DenialMan?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:46:30 GMT

From article by margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis):
> In garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>#
>>#Yes, of course.  Why else would programs like "Project Rachel" be growing
>>#so large so quickly?
>>
>>How large?  How quickly?
>>
>>Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Suzanne.  She won't have any actual
>>data to back up her claims.  Never mind.
> 
> And more importantly, what *is* "Project Rachel"?  I thought it was a program
> to bring women back into the church who had been excommunicated for having
> abortions.  If so, then if it's growing quickly that simply means that there
> are a lot of Catholic women who have abortions but want to stay part of the
> church, and has nothing to do with the mythical "Post Abortion Syndrome".
> (If I'm confusing "Project Rachel" with something else, then please
> enlighten me.)

All that a woman who has had an abortion need do to return to the Church
is to truly repent, to confess to her bishop (or in some diocese her priest),
and to receive Christ's absolution.   Project Rachel of course includes this,
but it is also a program of counselling to help women deal with their grief
for their lost child.  If that grief weren't all too real, there would be no
Project Rachel.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:10:49 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.728166121@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual:

(1) Complains about the netserver, this time for his friend, Frau
Forgach.  

>Or does she never go away from a netserver that sometimes crashes (or is
>put out of commission by a sysadmin who keeps making comments like, "the 
>people inconvenienced by this are the same ones whose news is now 9 days
>late".)?

PHoney forgot to note his deletions here.  How unusual!

>> these fetus fanatics feel compelled
>>to lie about their newsservers? 
>
>> Do you think PHoney is a transsexual laboring under the
>>same archaic behavioral code?
>
>>SJM
>
>Steve, you set the distribution to talk.abortion instead of alt.flame.

I did not set the distribution.  I replied to a previous post.

>I'm keeping it here so you'll see this message and not flame me for
>e-mailing you, etc., but really, if character assassination is what you
>are all about, I suggest watching the distribution line more closely.

This advice is up to your usual standards.  I would never complain
that you are not consistent.  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:08:50 GMT

> = cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...] I am at least open to the idea, strange as it may seem to some, 
> that abortion is ok up to 14 days, or implantation.  I know, though, 
> that no one would want to take the  debate down to those fourteen days.  

I'm interested.  First, let me verify this:
Q: Do you think abortion is OK if the fetus is 2-weeks old or less? <y,n>

-------------------------------------
> All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
> into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her 
> that she doesn't want it she can kill it.

This is not the whole truth: taken in context, it's seems rather obvious
(to most people) that no woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy
and then have an abortion for some trivial reason (on account the rather
large natural disincentives to do so, ask a woman for details).  
o Is there any reason to restrict late-term abortions?  Ie. can you 
  document any "abuse" of late-term abortions?
o Assuming such "abuse" existed, would outlawing abortion end this abuse 
  while preserving unhindered access for those needing (not abusing)
  late-term abortions?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:40:35 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[about "schizophrenia" (in common usage) ?= "MPD" (the proper medical term)]

>I never said "schizophrenia" was "medically" correct, Mark. Are you such
>a medico-geek that you can't see the rest of the world that exists outside
>of the medical realm? According to the OED, "schizophrenia" has, in general
>usage, the meaning I gave it. T.S. Eliot and George Orwell have used it in
>the same way I did. It may be "incorrect" in Stethoscope-Land, Mark, but 
>the word can have a different meaning in other contexts.

In other words, everyone is using it wrong, including the compilers of the
OED.  ;)
Actually, dictionaries describe the way the words *are* used, not the way they
*should* be used, so OED is not necessarily at fault.  ;)

>								- Kevin

-Rob
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:51:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com


SIX unnecessary newsgroups, deleted.

In article <1993Jan25.162856.1426@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:

>>Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
>>good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
>>pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
>>that fetus was killed, that's great"?
>>If you so think, I am amazed beyond words at your self-delusion.

>If not, why not?  If the fetus is no different than a hangnail, why 
>shouldn't pro-abortioners think that abortion was a good thing, and 
>that in many cases, especially unwed mothers, that abortion would 
>be desired? 


Sorry, Jamie, I gotta say that I personally do see abortion as a good thing,
in many, many cases.
Of course, I happen to see contraception as a *better* thing.

And I would appreciate y'all who intend to quote this to throw it in my face
later keep these two sentences together.  Thanks.

Adrienne Regard
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:16:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):

>>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Is that how they did your abortion Steve?  What a pity.  Find a kinder
physician next time.  My friend had a very caring and gentle
physician.  She was not "stripped". She changed into a hospital gown.
Sheets covered her lower body, with the exception of the vaginal area.
Nothing was "shoved" inside of her.  Rather the instruments were
lubricated and gently moved into place.

Everything was done to preserve her dignity.



-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57309 alt.drugs:21255 alt.magick:6890 alt.pagan:15712
From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (William E. White )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.drugs,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Smart drugs
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:42:37 GMT
Organization: Ohio University, Computer Science Department

In article <1993Jan20.184144.6464@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1993Jan14.161238.10974@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, by mgross@server.cs.jhu.edu (Matthew B. Gross):
>> I take phenylalanine about every day, and it really sharpens my awareness,
>> but I'd like to find something which could help me in the long-term.

Try tyrosine, it's one step closer to what you're trying to get (or you could
just take L-DOPA, or eat a lot of broad beans.)

>I like caffeine, myself. 

Actually caffeine is an adenosine antagonist, not at all the same sort of
sympathomimetic as, say, ephedrine or amphetamine.  In the long run, tho,
it still results in sympathomimetic action, with all the negative long-term
side effects, namely the downregulation of tyrosine hydroxylase; the brain
self-corrects for excesses and this prevents you from keeping permanently
buzzed.

Now, what we really need are drugs to inccrease production of tyrosine 
hydroxylase.


-- 
|  Bill White   +1-614-594-3434     | bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu             |
|  31 Curran Dr., Athens OH  45701  | bwhite@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu (alternate) |
|  SCA: Erasmus Marwick, Dernehealde Pursuivant, Dernehealde, Middle Kingdom  |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion