HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: The 91% Regret Rate
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:59:58 GMT

From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
>>> So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
>>> stories of women who died due to septic abortions.
> 
>> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
> 
> I would like to echo Chuck Lavazzi and express my earnest desire to 
> see the source for your statistic.  I would also like to see your
> definition of 'Post Abortive Stress Syndrome' including symptoms.


The source is the Alan Guttmacher institute, although they refrain from
calling it "Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".   The Alan Guttmacher survey
found that of all women who have had abortions, a FULL 91% would have NOT
aborted, if someone had presented them with help for an alternative.
(Which, honestly, does translate into some measure of regret.)

Anyway, 91% is the exact same statistic as the founder of The Nurturing Network
(1-800-TNN-4MOM) found, in her interviews with women who'd used the services
of 10 different abortion clinics.  That was WHY she founded The Nurturing
Network, to put women who need help in touch with all kinds of alternative
services, all over the world.   If you want to move accross the continent
to get away from family and boyfriend pressures to abort, she can arrange
it.  If you need to transfer colleges, even in your senior year, she can
arrange it.  If you need a job or to change jobs, she can arrange it.


>> Legal abortion is by no means safe.
> 
> But a first-trimester abortion is more than an order of magnitude
> safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.


Not for the baby.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: EXCUSE, PLEASE!!!!!! (Was: Father Notification...)
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 think I'm going to mark my deletion?  Think again... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 22:22:16 GMT

In article <Bu4F34.DwJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>We return to "PRECISELY!"  If the woman doesn't want to inform her
>husband, she can break the legally binding marriage contract (which 
>exacts certain costs from him in exchange for supporting certain vested
>interests, and vice versa) and divorce him.  
>
>It might not be so bad to have a clause saying notification is 
>not necessary if the woman can reasonably demonstrate it would put 
>her life in danger, but such a clause permitting her a release from 
>part of her obligations in the marriage contract should be her burden 
>to prove.  It should not be +presumed+ that notification puts a woman's 
>life in danger.
>
>Why should we repress the "majority of men" because of instances 
>"not anywhere near the norm"?  

Excuse me, but I have a question.  Could all of you married folks go look at
your marriage licenses, and see if there's something in there about how the
two of you have to talk?

How the two of you have to live together?

How the two of you have to get along?

How the two of you have to discuss ANYTHING?
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: Are you trying to threaten me, little man? (Was: Badges...)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:43:57 GMT

In article <nyikos.715902274@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.233740.12447@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
>>>>qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
>>>>I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
>>>
>>>If you are trying to gross me out, you'll have to try a lot harder than
>>>this.  In fact, I don't think it can be done on talk.abortion without
>>>calling the wrath of network censors on your head and bringing on pressure
>
>>Are you trying to threaten me, little man? 
>
>Threaten? who? me? Not on your life.  If anyone brings pressure to bear,
>it sure won't be me.  My motives for saying the above were utterly
>different.
>
>And while we're on the subject of threats, my comment was in response
>to a very explicit threat on your part, or have you forgotten?

Reading comprehension time, Peter.  Keith never threatened you at all.
I made an offer to you (which, although you are perfectly free to 
decline, you have not even offered me the courtesy of a response).  
Keith in return made an offer to *me* which I was also free to
decline.  Now by some weird stretch of the imagination, you might 
say that *I* had threatened you by making the offer in the first place
but I think most people would laugh in your face if you tried to make
such a ludicrous claim.

Sarah McCabe



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: I *WISH* they'd keep their stories straight... (Was: People...)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:16:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.214142.23410@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <1992Sep4.023901.17473@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
## In article <1992Sep4.005228.20374@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
###From article <1992Aug30.010613.3907@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):

#### can you name one chile who walked into a clinic and was
#### killed?
###
###Can you say --- Becky Bell?
## 
## I really do wish you people could get your stories synchronized.  On the one
## hand we have Peter(?), screaming about how Becky didn't die of abortion
## complications, and Suxanne screaming about how she did...
#
#
#In fact, if you read the coroner's report itself, which I have a copy of at
#home somewhere, you learn that Becky Bell never had an abortion at all.  She
#died of the same pneumonia that caused her miscarriage the week before.

You've obviously read a different coroner's report than I have.
The one prepared by the coroner who investigated her death made
no such claim.  Jack Willke, head of the NRLC at that time, 
made such a claim.  Jack Willke is not a coroner - he is not
even a pathologist.  

#Yet pro-abort propoganda keeps insisting she died of an abortion she crossed
#state lines to get.  Nothing illegal.  She just crossed state lines.  So
#I simply used this bit of propoganda where it was most effective -- against
#a pro-abort.

This is merely Suzanne's fantasy.  There have been no claims made
that Ms. Bell went to a state without teenage endangerment laws
and had a legal abortion.  (If she had, she'd more than likely
be alive today.)  No one knows where or how she procured an
abortion.  

You're lying, Suzanne.  I hope that you never have to read the lies
of malicious people who gleefully delight in defaming your
daughter.  I will never understand why people allow their
generalized hatred to lead them into such despicable attacks
on a dead young woman.  

Susan





Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:34:49 CDT

In article <nyikos.715897687@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <18511vINN1ih@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>
[deletia]
>>IMHO, the USA could do with a little population reduction itself.
>>It may wreak havoc with the economy (since it is based on infinite
>>growth),
>
>There's a lot more to it than that.  Our population is growing top-heavy
>with age:  fewer young people to support an ever-growing population of
>retired persons.  Even the most enlightened economy has a hard time
>coping with such things.  And except for Ross Perot and Tsongas, I have
>not seen a presidential candidate even begin to address these problems.
>
>> I firmly believe that we must maintain
>>a balance, and that that balance should be somewhere below the
>>240 million or so people already here.
>
>But we must accept short-term population gains as the price of avoiding
>a calamitous drop in our standard of living later.  
>
Let me get this straight...

You are willing to compromise the standard of living for future
generations of humans, even to the extent of endangering the viability
of human habitation on this planet, to avoid a possible drop in your
standard of living when you get to be an old(er) codger?

And you think that a woman who terminates a pregnancy in order to
avoid being trapped in a life of poverty is immoral and selfish?

Thanks for clarifying.

muriel 
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:03:38 GMT

In article <Bu6HMy.Ft2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don Dodson) writes:
> I look forward to the day when families like this one as well as
> individuals being responsible in their actions will make abortion
> a thing of the past.

So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
stories of women who died due to septic abortions.  For which
reason, among others, I don't think abortion should be illegal.
So I am with you 100% Don.  The need for abortion is an unfortunate
thing, and the story you provided is a good and happy one.  I
am with you in the hope that abortion becomes unnecessary.

Dean Kaflowitz

Burned a car at the boogie.  The cop said "There'll be no
car burning tonight" while the damn thing was blazing
away fifteen feet behind him.  The crowd razzed him, but he
was just doing his job.  He let it burn about twenty minutes,
then the fire department came and put it out.  They were just
doing their job.  Everyone did their jobs beautifully and it
was perfect theater.  We burned the car like we were supposed
to, the cop tried to stop it like he was supposed to, and the
fire department put out the fire like they were supposed
to.  Nothin glike American workmanship.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:25:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep11.221625.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>  mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> In article <24887@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes
> > In talk.abortion, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
> I imagine you
> would have been mighty unhappy *while* you were being aborted.

You have a vivid imagination.  The early-term fetus is incapable of
being happy or unhappy.

> Although I'm not an expert in this, as I'm sure you're not also, I believe
> you're wrong about the unborn not feeling pain.  If it can feel then it can
> feel pain, I presume.  Ever touch a bump on your pregnant wife's stomach and
> then have it move in response to your touch?

Feeling implies consciousness.  Reaction to stimuli does not imply feeling.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35752 talk.bizarre:29447 soc.singles:24788
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Seriously NOT the Basis for a DickSizeWar
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Minor Technical point here Komrade Bard,
>but Uterus Envy is NOT a valid basis
>for a DickSizeWar....

PoLypSizeWar?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:12:25 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


js>In article <1992Sep7.192507.22083@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
ar>In article <18824cINNhuq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

ar>Actually, this is a *great* proposal.  Any random woman can say, "Sex, sure.
ar>No sperm."  And make it stick through force of law!!!!  Any random woman
ar>who becomes pregnant by a man leaving sperm around when she said "No sperm"
ar>has been raped, and can prosecute that man to the full extent of the law!

js>Try the reverse, how about the MAN saying, "Sex, ok.  But no egg."  and
js>making it stick?

I see no problem with this.  Prior to sex go ahead and say that.  And if 
the woman some how gets an egg inside your body, you should be able to do
what you want with it.

js>Any random man who is hit with ANY charges related to a pregnancy would
js>be able to charge the woman with rape. . .ok, battery.

Sure.  If the man ends up pregnant and he told the woman not to put the egg
in his body, I guess battery would be a fitting charge.

js>All joking aside, does this make you realize why people like me think
js>that pro-choice is a lie, it really means pro-female-choice-and-screw-
js>the-men?
 
All joking aside, does this make you realize that many pro-lifers have
no idea where a pregnancy takes place? 

Dan King


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Organization: Work TODAY!?  But today is LABOR day!
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:30:52 GMT

In article <-zmnl9j.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>>In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>>Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
>>>person's consent.  
>>
>>I disagree with your premise, one counterexample (IMO) being child support.
>>This reduces to whether one feels forced labor is a use of the subject's body.
>
>Child support is not bodily servitude.  It requires no forced labor of
>any sort.

Wrong.  If it can be proved in a court of law that the father refuses to
work and pay child support payments, that father can be found guilty of
contempt of court and either jailed or forced to work.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:15:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Well, it doesn't stop the flames, but when pro-lifers put the flame
>pressure back on the pro-aborts, it prevents a lot of pro-lifers from
>being "flamed-out." 

For your information, not everyone who disagrees with you is insulting
you or flaming you.  Believe it or not, it _is_ possible for two people
to disagree and still have respect for one another's opinions.  Your
usual response of insulting anyone who disagrees with you is not going 
to either further your cause (unless you're pro-choice) or engender any 
respect from anyone.

Now then, that was said with civility.  Enough karmic points for the 
next month or so.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BuAoD7.FM4.2@cs.cmu.edu>
	<SCOTTS.92Sep9230035@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>
	<BuDuF8.C30.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:16:10 GMT

In article <BuDuF8.C30.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   #Oh, well Steve's my honey (remember all those sweet love e-letters he
   #sent me).   I only go for men with a lot of "manlihood".

   He certainly did pursue you like a love-sick puppy, didn't he?

Please my puppy is much more cute than Chaney.  And probably more
macho (I agree with your Hero that Chaney is a wimp [Chaney/wimp = Chimp]). 

   #Oh, ya.  I almost forgot about his anti-Semitism.  When it comes to
   #Chaney, I get stuck on his lack of coherence and inability to engage
   #in a rationale discussion.  With everything that is going on,
   #sometimes its hard to pick out all his faults.

   At least he's willing to remind everyone of all of his shortcomings
   on a regular basis.  Anyone else would let us forget some of them,
   but Shaney/Hall keeps reminding us.

Well, that was nice of you to point out one of Chaney's virtues --
that he very politely keeps reminding us that he is a bigot.

   #   [I asked who does he think he's kidding when he implies he's
   #    against disparate treatment of gays, lesbians and bisexuals].
   #   The same people he thinks he's kidding with the rest of his rants.
   #   (I wish you'd saved that e-mail.)
   #
   #The e-mail started when Chaney objected to my position in NARAL (local
   #steering committee, big fucking deal.  I get to have dessert with
   #Arlen Specter (that scum sucking pig).)  He ranted about how he was
   #Kate Michelman's worst nightmare and how he personally was going to
   #destroy the pro-choice movement with his flawlessly logical arguments.
   #He kept talking about how he was going to win and score all these
   #points -- I thought he got abortion confused with a basketball game.

   Oh, yeah, he was going to be the anti-abortion leader by now,
   wasn't he?  Maybe he'll make a newer, longer .sig in which he
   describes himself as ruler of his movement.

With his flair for "personalities", it wouldn't surprise me to see
John Wilke or Randall Terry post from CSUS.

   #   [Chaney on civil rights]
   #   He doesn't seem to know what civil rights are.  
   #
   #Chaney has a lot of problems with many concepts.  Fetus/baby,
   #liberty/slavery, sectarian/secular,...

   Don't forget right/wrong.

Of course.

   #   Maybe his mommy and daddy should buy him more picture books on
   #   the subject.  
   #
   #I don't think they'd do it.  Would you admit it if he was your child?

   Sure I would.  I'd even go visit him in the home.  

But you would also have to admit giving birth to him.

Scott



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:45:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
>In <tyyn0gp.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:
>> Would I rather see $100,000 spent on a 95% chance of saving my life or spent
>> on a 5% chance of saving the life a 22-week preemie?
>
>  I do suppose then, that you will tell the parents that the money was poorly
>spent?

You want to tell _my_ family the money was better spent?

>> Would I rather see $40,000 spent to force a woman to give birth than spent
>> to save the lives of 40 living, breathing, starving, people?
>> 
>> Take a guess.

>  You've gone binary again, Ray.  Either-or. C'mon man, not all choices are
>1-0. All we need are about 12 fewer B-2 bombers. Then we could do almost
>all of it.  I say we can do both.

Money doesn't come from nowhere, bucko.  Somebody has to _earn_ that 
wealth.  And once you've cut back on weapons and government and prisons
and libraries, where are you going to get the bucks to save the _next_
life?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: bats (nothing to do with abortion)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:28:41 GMT


I'm very sorry if anyone got the impression that Ron was a bat and Steve
didn't mention bats anywhere.  

Over Labor Day I go to a caver's get-together in West Virginia.  Bats
are fairly common critters for us to run into, and as such, we tend to
get exposed to more than just the myth.  I get a little hyper about bats,
and I guess this overflows into things that might be a little related
to them.  I would imagine (since vampire bats are only found in the 
new world) that they are so named because of their affinity for blood,
rather than their means of ingestion.  It wouldn't surprise me at all
to find that stories about the undead predate the discovery of the new
world. 

Other myths:

Bats fly into your hair
Bats are blind  
You can get rabies from bats
Bats are rodents
 
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                            Bats Need Friends
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More Specious Unsubstantiated LIES from Nyikos
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:24:44 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715296853@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Fact: some Planned Parenthood clinics do not use anesthesia.

Substantiate this so-called fact.  Or retract it.

My guess is that all you have is whole-cloth "testimony" again.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let Galen speak for the undead (Was: Bats don't suck blood)
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:55:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep12.190551.24803@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes: 

>It is possible Galen confused vampires and vampire bats.  But since
>only Galen has the authority to speak not only for the unborn, but also
>the undead, I'm sure he could take this opportunity to speak for
>those undead.  So Galen, would the analogy hold for the undead?
>What say they?

Given his experience as spokesman for pre-born children and apparently
now as spokemsn for post-dead children and adults, I nominate Galen to
speak for all pre-dead homo sapiens.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion