HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
-> <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> (rocker) writes:
-> > I think a friend of mine put it best when she
-> > noted that people who oppose abortion are
-> > generally those who are unlikely ever to need one.
-> 
-> A fair comment.  But consider that the arrow of
-> cause-effect can go the other way too.
-> 
-> That is, you are saying there are people who are
-> unlikely to need an abortion who then conclude they
-> are opposed to abortion.
-> 
-> You should remember that there are also people who
-> are opposed to abortion, who then guide their lives
-> in such ways that they will be unlikely to ever need
-> one.

it is when these people try not only to guide the lives
of others, but impose their beliefs through legislation
upon those who don't share those beliefs, that i get
concerned.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:03:26 GMT

In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu> MILLER, JIMMY A. says:
>>
>>In <1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
>>
>>> Should a mindless fetus, for the sake of it's 'bodily autonomy', be able
>>> to ruin a person's life, damaging them physically, mentally, and
>>> financially?
>>> Gordon
>>
>>  Just to be nit-picky, none of these awful things are certain or even
>>likely, Gordon, as you well know.

>Mr. Miller it would appear you know nothing about pregnancy.

Just how much do you know, Ms. Birmingham?  I'm not asking how much
pro-choice and pro-abortion [see Forgach's re-post of my
distribution-messed earlier posts for the difference]
propaganda you've soaked up.  Just the facts, Ma'am.

>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.

So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
outweigh the damages?

>You can not force a
>fetus weighing 6lbs and up, through the vaginal opening
>without causing tearing and subsequent scaring. 

I know this is false as regards pregnancies other than the
first.  Are you sure it is true of first pregnancies?
Also, do you have any idea how much physical damage an 
abortion of a first pregnancy causes the woman?

> Then of course
>there is physical damage caused by c-sections.  You are aware
>that the US has the highest rate of surgical births in the
>world, aren't you?

I thought it was Brazil.  Where do you get your statistics?

>Ninety percent of women will suffer post partnum depression
>within the first 10 days of giving birth. 

Again, where do you get your statistics?

> Ten percent of
>these will require hospitalization and/or medication.

Same question.

>The financial costs of pregnancy are well documented,
>even in countries that have health care.  There is the
>loss of wages due to time off, the additional costs of
>medicine and nutritional supplements to name a few.
>Statistics on single mothers show a higher percentage
>living on welfare or at poverty levels when they left
>school young to start families, than single mothers living
>above poverty.

You're getting to sound more and more like a pro-abortion,
as opposed to a pro-choice person.  


>Mr. Miller your repeated trivialization of the effects
>of pregnancy and child birth in this newsgroup display
>a contemptuous attitude toward women.  I don't care what
>your views on abortion are, but your dismissal of the very
>real physical and mental stresses that a woman undergoes
>while carrying a fetus to term is either due to ignorance
>or misogyny.  Both can be rectified.

So far, I have not seen you address the very real physical
and mental stresses that a woman undergoes before, during,
and after having a fetus aborted.  Maybe you and "Jammer
Jim" can work out a joint statement.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:25:41 GMT

From article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>This is garbage Mark.   Since we are talking third trimester here, post
>>viability by definition, and all third trimester abortions include either
> 
> Is it really? Would you care to take over the care of *one* 7 month
> premie? Especially one that is to be aborted because of genetic defects?
> 
>>inducing labor or doing a c-section (after the baby has been put to death
>>of course), there is NO MEDICAL REASON to insist on putting the baby to
>>death before inducing the labor or doing the c-section.
> 
>>You loose.  Just by not using your head.
> 
> I see you saying this often, yet you never seem to win any points. Ok,
> here are some cases where putting the fetus to death is justified. It
> is discovered in the third-tri that the fetus is anencephalic, or that
> the fetus is missing a liver, or that there appear to be multiple defects,
> as in poor or miising bone growth, open spine, missing limbs, and/or
> internal defects such as lack of an esophagus/stomach/intestines, all
> of which can cause the fetus upon birth, to die shortly thereafter.
> I only state these, as they are enough to refute your statement.
> 
> Ron


Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
to death!


SF
From: 32WENPW@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: NEA, my money, & abortion
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:26:48 GMT
Organization: Central Michigan University


   The National Education Association claims to (1) represent me (as my faculty
 union) &  (2) spend my money (which I am forced to pay) to ONLY support issues
 important for my job.  They will deny, when pressed, that they ever spend my m
oney to support "abortion rights".
   But the following is from the NEA's newsletter "Higher Education Advocate" (
Aug 13, 1992):

      SCROLL FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS DELIVERED TO CAPITAL HILL
        NEA Secretary-Treasurer Marilyn Monahan led a representative group of
      NEA convention delegates to Capitol Hill July 8 -- the final day of

      MEA's Representative Assembly in Washington, DC -- to deliver a 40-foot

      long scroll covered with thousands of delegate signatures urging
      Congress to combat recent erosions of women's rights.
         Monahan presented the scroll to House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.)
         "The more than two million members of NEA are appalled by the recent
      Supreme Court decision that significantly erodes a women's right to
      reproductive freedom", Monahan noted.  "We strongly urge the Congress
      to enact the Freedom of Choice Act, which would protect this
      fundamental right."

   Why doesn't my union stick to education and stay out of this controversial
issue?

                                Ken

(Ken W. Smith, Math Dept.
Central Mich Univ., Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
... of course my opinions are my own!..)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31454 alt.flame:12030
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:00:44 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

the chaney/hall person posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes to patrick:
-> 1) FACT: YOU SAID YOU HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT "CHANEY
->    POSTS AS HALL."

evidence confirming this fact has been posted
repeatedly dennis. do you think repeated denials will
make people forget?

now spin the propellor on your beanine, say VROOM and
go away.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:03:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.004605.27871@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Ms. Garvin could say that
}I had been making up sources for a post that she had never seen.

Let's see.  I've never seen the sun rise tommorrow, however I have
every confidence that it will.  Is that clear enough for you Doug,
or should I try to use smaller words?

p.s.  Those of you who may be concerned, yes, I know the earth rotates.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life officer responds - Part 2 (LONG, Darcy only)
Summary: qork
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:52:23 GMT

In article <v2cylf@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
#
##In  <11AUG199217262456@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>  ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
###      Overall, the rate of physical complications found in abortion is
###      at least 10%, versus 2% for carrying a child full-term.
#
##Since everything I've seen says the opposite, I'd like to see some
##documentation for this.
#
#I asked for confirmation (or even a source) for this figure.  None
#was given.  Since the C-section rate in this country approaches 50%
#in some areas, either this statement is a lie or the author is using
#a very bizarre definition of "physical complication".
#
#Since this statement is apparently still being posted after being
#called into question, I tend to assume the former.

I wrote and asked for a source.  I was told that it came from
Reardon's book.  (_Aborted Women:  Silent No More_)  I haven't
had time to go re-read the book and find what statistics she's
referring to.  Maybe someone else can look it up.

(I have a feeling that the real source is going to be Hilgers,
and Hilgers' claims about the relative dangers have been
disproven.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:05:46 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug12.130621.4680@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
>> >>
>> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
>> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
>> >>
>> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
>> > 
>> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>> 
>> Isn't rja making reference to the silly thought of allowing late
>> third trimester abortions (without special circumstances like the baby
>> pulling a knife as he begins poking his head out)?

again, sorry, I meant Mahoney, not rja...
 
> Huh?  (I'm not sure how to respond 'cause I'm not sure what you're saying.)

Alright, lemme try this again...  In reference to the line above,
"Birth isn't arbitrary, Just wrong," Brendan (as far as I can figure)
is pointing out that it is wrong to abort a fetus late in the third
trimester (ie just before birth or very close anyway (like a few days say)).
For further support of this, why would a woman endure nearly 9 months
of pregnancy, and then decide to abort?  The fetus is viable and
essentially the same as a newborn.  It isn't nice to kill things like that
unless you have a damn good reason, like the baby is holding a knife
and intends to use it to inflict extra pain (that was my example of
a special circumstance, eh?)
 
>>                                                      Isn't it
>> obvious that saying you can kill a baby 1 minute before birth, but not
>> a millisecond after just sort of stupid (or at least barbaric imo)?
> 
> My point is that calling the killing of a fertilized egg a second after
> conception "murder" while *not* calling the killing of the egg & sperm
> a second before conception "murder" is just as arbitrary as calling the 
> killing of a baby a second after birth "murder" while *not* calling the 
> killing of the baby a second before birth "murder".  IMHO, both are 
> arbitrary (at least based on biology) and wrong.

Yeah, I knew that...  Seeing how you think they're all wrong tho, I guess
this argument doesn't much apply to you though.... 
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? (Re: Another ...)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:46:46 GMT
 <1992Aug13.172338.20850@ncar.ucar.edu> <1992Aug14.162611.9762@den.mmc.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jhull@vulcan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (   Joseph F. Hull) writes:

>I'm a Republican and I do NOT support the Republican Party Platform statement 
>on reproductive rights.

Ditto.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Aug 92 11:43:30 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.192206.10405@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug21.040932.17501@watson.ibm.com>, by Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>:
>> In  <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>> Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
>>> popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.
>> 
>> That's comparing the "ideal" numbers, right?  
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> 
>> And it turns out to be a lot
>> less effective if you compare the "real life" numbers, right?
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Shall I post the studies and statistics again?

Please do, or at least email them to me, thanks.
 
>>> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.
>> 
>> Even *prayer* is effective in avoiding pregnancy for virgins.  :-)
> 
> That was my point.  NFP is very effective for frequent participants in
> sex, and even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.  There is no need to hand
> her a condom as my, ahem, esteemed correspondant had implied.

Actually I think Mr. Margolis' point was that virgins haven't had sex, 
so they don't need contraception.  Note the smiley!

If that virgin had decided to have sex, then s/he should have a condom.
Ask any doctor with his head on straight (well, if you can't find one
then ask mine, and he will answer in his perfect Scottish accent,
"USE CONDOMS!" (and he'd say this for any case whatsoever really, though
might make exception for the longstanding completely monogomous relationship
in which the partners use the pill)).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:31:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>> (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>>> With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
>>> Holtsinger writes:

>>>   1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,

>>>   and

>>>   2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
>>>      quotes out of context--he just plain lies.

>>> In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly
>>> represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.

>> I believe we did warn you about Doug at the beginning...

> Mr. Margolis, what are you talking about?  Mr. Greenfield has ignored
> three of my sources, and his entire argument rests upon the opinion
> of an author who's held conflicting views on Roe v. Wade.

AND on entire paragraphs in RvW, which you conveniently deleted.  Btw,
based on the strength of those paragraphs, you could cite 100 sources
and still be wrong.

> Now he's reduced to slinging insults and false allegations; he's no
> longer able to engage in constructive debate.  When that happens, we
> usually say that a person has lost the argument...

No, Doug, in this instance we say that a person has lost _interest_ in
the argument.  You see, when you're playing a game of pick-up basketball,
and someone on the other side consistently cheats, that tends to rob the
game of its pleasure.  I've lost track of the number of times _you've_
been caught, Mr. Holtsinger.

I predict that your name will appear in more and more killfiles around
the country.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Another good reason to vote for Bush ... NOT!
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:49:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.172501.20238@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I think you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that
>all women think alike.  Many women are pro-life.  Only a sexist
>would mistakenly believe that all women are pro-choice. 

Yes, but the pro-choice position allows pro-life women not to have abortions.

The "pro-life" position would not allow *any* woman to have an abortion
(except for the "compromise" pro-life position which allows certain exceptions
for rape, incest and/or health risk to the pregnant woman).

Pro-choice encompasses ALL women.  "Pro-life" does not.

Try hard, Dougie, and maybe you can get that beam out of your eye.

(Not to mention that both Quaylee and Shrub ... er, Bush have said they are
basically pro-choice when it comes to daughter and grand-daughter
respectively.)

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

You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for
freedom and liberty.
				    -- Henrick Ibson
From: steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-Life Anniversary!
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:33:10 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Originator: steven@jaynes

Let's hear the pride from you pro-lifers!

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the kidnapping of a gynecologist _and_
_his_ _wife_ by the pro-life group "Army of God".

The two were released unharmed 8 days later after a public clamor that
arose even in this age of Reagan Worship.

This has been....GREATEST MOMENTS IN ABORTION HISTORY!

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Myths and facts about Planned Parenthood
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.004156.2888@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
> 	I saw one interesting omission:
> 	There was no mention about masturbation.
> 	Has PP ever promoted that as a safe form of sex?

Sort of.  In the "Fact Book" section on abstinence, it notes:
"Not having any touching between the penis and the vagina at all ever
(total abstinence) works 100% of the time to keep you from getting 
pregnant.  Many people who use this method show each other their
feelings in other ways of touching."

Presumably that includes oral sex and mutual masturbation. 

-- 
/\                Ilana Stern DoD#009  ilana@ncar.ucar.edu 
  \_][ <--NCAR       Colorado...is totally rectangular.
      \_Boulder______________________________________________________Kansas__
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:54:24 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  <1992Aug15.202225.8681@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 3) Women are sometimes going to terminate unwanted pregnancies,
> whether abortion is safe & legal or not.
>      Hungry people are sometimes going to terminate hunger, which
>      is deadlier than pregnancy, whether their methods of doing it
>      are safe & legal or not.
> 4) Do these women deserve injury & death?
>      Do these hungry people deserve injury & death?

The hungry people can have their hunger terminated for free, either
by the state or through private organizations.  (Food stamps and soup
kitchens.)

> Your reasoning is highly flawed here.

I'll leave the conclusion up to you...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:44:42 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Dan King):

>> [Lots of way cool stuff that Galen writes so well]

>Hardly.  He's all hung up on "control" on the wrong time scale.
>Only the people who are unwilling to control their bodies _before_ conception
>are the ones who are screaming about the "need" to control their bodies _after_
>conception.

Rape, incest, failed birth control, pushy husbands: these are just a few
things that make up the usual Lying Forgach Posting.            

What a christian, huh, gang?

>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,...

"...or we will take away anybody's control of their own bodies and force
them to give birth."

There's therapy available for pathological liars, Suzanne.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32477 alt.politics.elections:10967