HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:17:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

> Sure.  And with the same reasoning, I can come up with compelling reasons
> to 'elminate' other undesirables, such as the insane, the permanently
> severely retarded, welfare recipients. . . 

call it retro-active abortion!

-- 
=========================================================================
Sean P. Curley						Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager					Sacramento, CA.
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:07:44 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <oealXgC00Uh_A8qGBD@andrew.cmu.edu>  Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Why can't you be aware that the line between third trimester abortion
> is also quite fuzzy.

I don't believe that the line between third trimester abortion and
infanticide is at all fuzzy.  Don't they generally shave the woman
before delivery?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
>> 
>>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  
>
>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
>own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.

Uh, Suzzy, just because a fetus is in the third trimester does not mean it
is viable.  For example, anencephalic babies are not viable even when they
have gone through a full-term nine-month pregnancy.

Does anyone have any figures as to how many third-tris that are aborted
really ARE viable?

>You loose.  Just by not using your head.

Is there a verb missing in the first sentence?  I know there is a subject
missing from the second.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Once ... in the wilds of Afghanistan, I lost my corkscrew, and we were
forced to live on nothing but food and water for days.
		-- W. C. Fields, "My Little Chickadee"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:15:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
> addressing the chaneyhall thing,
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> [...]
> -> And he says his home life was not dysfunctional, yet
> -> look at what it produced.
> -> 
> -> He's one sick little boy.  His mommy and daddy
> -> better get him some serious psychiatric treatment
> -> before his visions of his inheritance get the better
> -> of what passes for his patience.  I won't be
> -> surprised if I see him on A Current Affair somewhere
> -> down the road.
> 
> hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it was
> prejudicial to suggest that someone seek psychiatric
> help when i suggested that DODie do so.
> 
> i wonder if he'll think the same here.

Yeah, well I wasn't sure what Bill was driving at with that
one.  But I'm not prepared to change my opinions because
Bill doesn't approve.  I like and respect Bill's opinions.
Old Rngduus and I may not agree about abortion, but I don't
find him difficult to take.  And I do think Chahallney has,
if nothing else, an identity crisis of mythological
proportions.  The Two Gentlemen From Verona had nothing
on that boy.

And Bill, if you're listening, how's Irene?

Dean Kaflowitz

Goodnight Irene
Goodnight Irene goodnight
Goodnight Irene goodnight Irene
I'll see you in my dreams
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:53:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
>  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
>  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  
>
I agree.  We should take responsibility for our actions.  And for some folks,
whose contraceptive failed, they take the responsibility to terminate the
pregnancy.  Having an abortion is not always being irresponsible, as having
a baby isn't always the responsible thing to do.  

Either way, it's not YOUR decision to make, Mikey, it's the woman's.  SHE's
the one who's going to have to live with herself, not you.  YOU can't make
that decision for her.  Even Georgie Porgie recognizes that, and he's the one
who's done the most to remove the individual right to choose than any other
person so far.

Jennifer
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:52:17 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <adams.714668788@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> 
> There are other options, of which the one likely to get the most votes is
> the Libertarian Party (Marou/Lord).  They are unlikely to get more than a %
> or 2, and no electoral votes.
> 
> Other than that, there are candidates listed from the New Alliance Party
> (Lenora Fullani), the Socialists, the Communists, etc, etc.
> 
> None of these so called "3rd Parties" has any real chance at this point.
> That last Non Republican/Democrat to get a decent number of votes was John
> Anderson in 1980 (Reagan vs. Carter).
> 
> It's too bad.  A true 3rd party could only help.


Ross Perot doesn't think so.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:59:49 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <17tdcuINNnej@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:

> In article <1992Aug31.122431.15398@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de writes:
> >I don't accept that an abortion is ever over and done with 
> >as you suggest.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> >I'm saying that the knowledge of the child *you* might have 
> >raised, or might have had adopted, for that matter,  is with 
> >you for the rest of your life.   
> 
> So is the knowledge of the children you might have raised that you 
> decided never to conceive.
> 
> >In fact, all I'm saying is: abortion, for women who choose it,
> >is a Big Deal.  They will be affected by it for no little time.  
> >I find *your* claim about "most people" reveals very little 
> >understanding of human nature.
> 
> Upon what grounds do you make this claim?
> 
> There have been studies performed on these issues, you know.  Do you know
> what the bulk of these studies have found?  Upon what knowledge base do
> you decide that women will be 'affected by it for no little time' (and,
> by affected, I'm thinking negatively affected, given the thrust of your
> previous writings on this topic.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> Adrienne Regard

  Adreinne.  I believe, by your asking the question, that you have some inkling
of the results of these studies.  I think it would be good for the discussion
if you would provide us with them (and sources, of course).  I, at least, am 
interested.

  Have you seen my post on contraceptive failures, btw?

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: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.rape
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 14:28:57 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

(someone else responding to Peter)
>>What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
>>that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
>>while the doctor performs the abortion?

I wonder how many women are forcibly held to the table while the doctor
performs a live delivery, too.  After all, I've been there.  I've heard
women yelling at the doctors, telling them to stop.....



Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.221022.15269@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
rape, and theft?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:57:43 GMT

In <17g7i4INNt7p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>> Cameron Kaszas
>>>it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's will for any abortion 
>>>to ever take place. 

>I dunno about that.  See, with millions upon millions of 'em occuring
>every year (just *think* of all the fornication, folks!), I'd guess,
>from my limited understanding of the various claims about "God" and his
>ability to enforce his will,
>                             That abortion is very MUCH 'God's will'.

>Adrienne Regard

Oops...that reminds me. I was talking to God a few months back, and
He said that He doesn't care about abortion one way or another. He
says that it doesn't matter what the laws on abortion are: They might
extend the lives of fetuses, or of pregnant women, but they're still
going to die sooner or later, so what difference does it make?

He also said that whenever He sees people wasting time by posting
on talk.abortion, He adds another million years to the amount of 
time they have to spend in purgatory. 

I guess I should have mentioned this sooner. Sorry.
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Keywords: From: decay@ 
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:40:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.155335.22265@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Aug25.025331.6517@wdl.loral.com> 
#bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
#
##dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##### bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
#
#### Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
#### rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
#### a woman's right to choose.
# 
### I have expressed my support for overturning Roe v. Wade, so that
### the voters of each state can decide the abortion issue.  I also
### oppose the passage of the FOCA, because it would codify Roe into
### national law.  Other than that, I have not yet taken a position
### on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
### permissible restrictions set forth in Roe.
#
## He didn't ask you for your position on specific legislation.  We all
## want to know what legislation you'd like to see proposed.  
#
#I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
#pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.  I don't 
#believe the Constitution should grant the right to an abortion 
#under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I would 
#support legislation which banned abortions. 

DOD has, in the recent past, expressed his support for a
Human Life Amendment.  He must have forgotten that he
said it.  

I don't know why he's afraid to express his stand explicitly
now.

Susan
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:12:17 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>Nyikos
>>Mills
>>>Nyikos
>>>> Rick Kelly
>>>>> Suxie

>>>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>>>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>>>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

>>>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>>>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>>>>you stopped.

>>>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
>>>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur". 

>>Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
>>be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
>>"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
>>more specifically, for YOURSELF?

>>In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
>>procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?

>This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
>non datur" -- "there is no third way."

>One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly 
>unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

So, in other words, YES, you feel that sinnnce the woman "failed to conntrol
herself," she SHOULD be enslaved to her body.  Contraceptionn is NOT ann
alternnative to abortion.

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Another Clueless Newbie
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:37:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>
cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

>Abortions are wrong!

Truth by blatant assertion.  (Next time try stating your conclusions
*after* your "evidence", dear.)

>There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and an adult,

May I suggest a dictionary?

>these are just different steps in human development.

This is accurate.  However, it *does* contradict your statement that
there is "no difference".  If you wish to say there were no important
differences, or no moral distinctions, you really should do so outright.

>People say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive
>outside the womb,

Do they?  They really should speak with a pregnant woman, then....
She could assure them that there really is something in there kicking
her.  Now, whether it's wrong to kill that something is a more
interesting and confusing question....

>well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.

And?

>You're talking about human life,

True.

>no matter what stage it's at

Oh dear.  Do you support laws against killing eggs and sperm?

>and it's wrong to kill.

Do you eat meat? plants?

And if with the clarity shown in the rest of this post, you meant that
it's wrong to kill humans, do you think it's wrong to kill in
self-defense? to kill in defense of a baby? to execute murderers?

>Plain and simple.

Oh my goodness.  Really, you should have realized the abortion issue
isn't *that* from the amount of debate about it.

Next time, try showing your article to a friend and making certain
(s)he can understand it without explanations not in the article itself
before you post it.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:03:42 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> 
>> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>> and Pharisees suffered.

>Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.

Ignoring the poor attempt at humor, I suggest you examine Matthew 23.  Not
exactly sweetness and light.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: You be the Judge!
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 02:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.002728.19722@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
>> 
>> Let's leave the desert isle scene a minute...journey closer to home...
>> 
>> There is a woman tried and convicted of murder, and awaiting execution.
>> Her appeals have all been exhausted, and she is due to die soon.
>> She is, however, pregnant, having been raped by her father who is
>> a prison guard.  The pregnancy itself is also life threatening, that is,
>> it may kill her before the gas chamber does.  She requests an abortion.
>> (oh yeah, she is exactly between the second and third trimester, as far
>> as we can tell)
>> 
>> Should she get it?  
>
>No.  Simply by being a convicted felon, she has already relinquished her
>civil rights, even if one would be so arrogant as to even call abortion a
>"right".

"abortion rights" aside, this last sentence once again shows how Suxanne is
living in the times of the Spanish Inquisition.

One also has to wonder how she thinks felons have "relinquished their
civil rights", considering that her husband is supposed to be involved in
the penal system...

>
>
>> Who pays for it?
>
>Nobody.

This is another one of those "breast milk is absolutly free" things, right?

>
> 
>> (You can't stay her execution, she's exhausted all the appeals.  
>> What do you decide is moral in this bizarre situation, and why?)
>
>You CAN stay her execution because you have not exhausted all the _fetus'_
>appeals.   You see, despite current American abortion laws, unborn children
>are legally represented in litigation all the time.

Name two verifiable instances in the last six months, ok?
--
=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 am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:01:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep1.161013.15018@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.052644.22782@watson.ibm.com> 
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> 
> > The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
> > Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
> > vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> > not enact such legislation.  
> 
> The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in 
> a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
> down in Colautti v. Franklin.

I guess Doug doesn't understand what it means when a statute is
struck down for reasons of vagueness.  Maybe this will help.

During the seventies, some state laws which allowed capital
punishment were struck down for reasons of vagueness (I can
get the references if desired - they are at home).  Lo and
behold states now have laws on the books which allow for
capital punishment.  When a law is struck for vagueness, it
means that the principle of the law is not considered impermissible,
but the means of enforcement or determination of the application
of that law are vague.  The problem with vague laws is that they
lead to inconsistency in the application of the law.  So the
"type of legislation" was not struck down, but the specific
law and its wording were struck, and the law itself could
be re-enacted as long as the vagueness is removed so as
to limit the inconsistency in its application.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34405 alt.abortion.inequity:3406
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:44:26 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep1.221905.15681@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>It isn't quanity that I'm worried about.  I would assume that in most
>cases, the father would be notified, and that the father and mother
>would agree on a course of action.  It is in those cases when they cannot
>agree, that law becomes necesary.

So, here we have it.  In the cases where the two people agree, there is
no need for a law.  In those cases where they don't agree, John sees the
need for a law that WOULD RESTRICT WOMEN TO THE OPINION of the man.

>Wrong.  I can be legally forced to 'support' an abortion.  Remember, under
>the current system, I have NO SAY AT ALL.  Just an obligation to pay
>through the nose.

Bullshit.  You have no obligation to pay for abortion, period.

>Once again you state beliefs that are contradictory to facts.  There are
>many laws on the books that enforce others to conform to christian
>ideology.

Bullshit again.  It happens that there are laws on the books that punish
certain behaviors.  It *happens* that these laws COINCIDE with certain
Christian beliefs.  That's not the same thing as forcing people to conform
to christian ideology -- not by a long shot.

It also happens that these laws COINCIDE with certain Buddist beliefs,
Jewish beliefs, Islamic beliefs, etc.  Funny how christians never bring
that up, huh?

More hateful and disgustingly foolish drivel deleted.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics