HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- press Ctl-Alt-Del to continue)
Subject: Project Rachel
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:29:55 GMT

The protesters at the clinic where I escort refused to give me any of their
Project Rachel pamphlets.  This is highly out of character, as they are
generally more than willing to provide me with copies of their literature.

So we asked a patient to take a pamphlet and give it to us.

It is not nearly as "innocent" as Suzanne Forgach would have us believe.
Included with the information is a card that encourages women to sue
the clinics where they had their abortions.  Here's a quote from that
card:
       "Have you been hurt by abortion?  Call [ph# deleted] for legal
        help.  Symptoms of abortion trauma include loss of consciousness,
        depression and severe bleeding or cramping."

These symptoms are sufficiently general that they can hardly be associated
*reliably* with abortion.  To me it seems obvious that the intention is to
encourage women to enter suits against clinics so that the pro-lifers can
tout that fact in their spiels.

I would say that the problem is not so much a loss of consciousness, but
a loss of *conscience* on the part of "Project Rachel."

I will snailmail copies of Project Rachel literature to anybody who sends
me a SASE.  Email me if you're interested.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:46:04 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  

Two words: major surgery.

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:33:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.163243.11906@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.013655.6942@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Liar Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> I'm not going to violate ethical and legal 
>>>> standards for you or anybody else. 
>
>>> Naming the hospital wouldn't violate ethical or legal standards.
>>> It's public information, Cochran.  
>
>> I have only your word that the information is public knowledge
>
>It doesn't take a genious to figure out that a hospital name 
>is public knowledge, Cochran.  But tell us, how would naming
>the hospital violate "ethical and legal standards"?  Are you
>afraid to admit that you really don't know the hospital name? 
>
Hospitals and physicians often prefer not to have their names attached
to controversial issues DODie, as I'm sure you know. And since neither
the hospital nor the people I know there are on the net and able to
speak for themselves, I'll not bring their names into it. Live with
it, pink boy.

>> And despite your claims to the contrary, I still have more faith in
>> the words of people I know, then in some newspaper report you claim to
>> have dredged up.
>
>But you haven't even shown that you know these people, Cochran.
>You can't even name the hospital where they work.
>
Go get a dictionary and discover for yourself the vast difference
between can't and won't, DODie.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:18:30 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1jp6odINNij@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>> In article <13960@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #Really?  Birth control was effectively unavailable in this country
># #to teenagers in the 1950s.  It was difficult or impossible for even
># #married couples to get, until the 1960s.  What happened to the abortion
># #rate after birth control became available?  It went up dramatically,
># #as did the illegitimacy rate.  Now, I won't claim that one caused
># #the other, because I'm quite sure that's not true.  But your claim,
># #that there is a "*direct* inverse correlation" is demonstrably
># #false.
># #
># #Birth control education, pills, condoms, etc., are readily available
># #throughout the U.S. now.  When are we going to see the unwanted
># #pregnancy rate drop to the level it was at in 1960, when these
># #items were rare, or usually illegal?
># #
># 
># Um... Just a thought...
># 
># You're neglecting the fact that the sexual revolution took place
># during this time period, aren't you?
># 
># -- Mike

>What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
>control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
>birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
>gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
>isn't it?

From the history books and data I've read, the sexual revolution was
a concurrent event with the advent of birth control.  They both 
arrived on the scene at the same time, although the rumblings of
sexual revolution started in the early to middle 50's, with the
boiling point coming at the start of the new decade.  Historians
who studied the 50's and 60's with objectivity have pointed out
that the legalization of birth control was a natural fallout of
the sexual revolution, rather than the legalization of birth
control in itself causing the sexual revolution.

allen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: The launch window for 51% of abortions (Keith, note)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:06:21 GMT

In <1993Jan21.041351.8371@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727393071@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan14.064750.48880@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>I do, but a bozo (I think it was Keith Cochran said my wife should get a
>>new ob/gynecologist because ours uses weeks since LMP.  Just goes to show
>>the superficial basis on which some people make sweeping decisions.

>Wasn't me.  I could care less if your wife's OB uses days, weeks, seconds, or
>fractions of a solar year.

Sorry. Guess I'll have to search back over my files.

>>
>>>  My statement that most of
>>>what's aborted are embryos, not fetuses, is correct.
>>
>>Not clear.  You are using stats from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which
>>has a vested PR interest in underestimating time since LMP, or whatever.

>You're really big on conspiracy theories, aren't you?

Maybe you are, thinking Ted Kaldis conspired with the tire iron brandishers
when he assures me otherwise.

Maybe you even think *I* conspire with homophobes, judging from your
aggressive post in which you told me to check out the real world.  I
posted a long reply to that, and never saw you follow up, although
Larry Margolis did, making snide remarks indicating that he has no
idea of the relative risk of AIDS from anal intercourse vis-a-vis
vaginal intercourse.  [Free clue: there is a difference.]

>>BTW which of these two figures does Keith Cochran's figure of 51%
>>before [the end of?] the 8th week use?  I know what *he* thinks it uses,
>>but what does it really use?

>That's a good question.  Why don't you ask me?

I think Larry answered that one: LMP.  Do you agree with him?

And do you agree that it is correct to say *end* of 8th week, not
*beginning* of 8th week?

And do you agree with Beth Bartley, that most clinics won't do abortions
before the beginning of the 8th week?

[Mighty small "launch window" for 51% of all 1,500,000+ abortions done
in 1991, no? ]

>>
>>And as I said to him before, doesn't a figure of 51% sound a tad suspicious
>>on the face of it?

>Then why don't you refute it?  Preferably using PRIMARY sources, if you don't
>mind...

I will content myself with your answers to the above questions, plus a
little logic and common sense.  Of course, if your answers are like your
brother Mark's, I'll have to do all my own answering, or rely on some
helpful pro-choicers, like Beth Bartley or Brian Kendig.  Perhaps you
would like to beat them to the punch?  and set a good example for Big
Brother Mark?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:05:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.002455.3020@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.182624.18809@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[About his "illegimate conception tax", and what happens if a woman refuses to
>say who the father is...]
>
>>No, we make her pay his portion of the taxes.
>
>You really hate women, don't you?

Ask me that again, after I've stopped beating my wife :-)

The use of the feminine pronoun "her" merely reflects the fact that the ratio
of unknown fathers to unknown mothers of illegitimate children is immense.
In the unlikely case of a known father and an unknown mother, where the father 
is unwilling to "point the finger", the same penalties would of course apply 
to the father as would to the mother in the reverse scenario.

Now, what were you insinuating about gender bias...? Please reload your
question.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:42:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.012307.19435@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon
Storga) writes:

><1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo
Pinkas) :

>>So, because the Church does something which is wrong, you have the
>>right to do the same thing to them
>>Great!
>
>Sometimes the only way to get through to an oppressor is to oppress them.
>That's the golden rule, isn't it?  The Pope treats certain people a
>certain way, he must expect to be treated that way back.
>
Trouble is, by hacking away at Catholics and Catholicism you don't oppress the
Pope in the least.  You just build up more animosity against Catholics.  You
know, those people that the Pope oppresses?  Oh well, we're getting kind of
used to it..... 

Oh, and the rule you are thinking of is, "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you."  Somehow, you mistakenly stated the "eye for an eye"
philosophy.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: THE REAGAN ERA IS OVER, THE END IS NEAR!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:31:58 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
# cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
# #I've discovered Holtsinger's Secret Identity, and NO!
# #it isn't David Rasmussen!  Check it out:
# #
[...]
# #
# #The Canadian fixation CLEARLY reveals that Holtsinger is
# #really....
# #
# #		TED KALDIS!!!!!
# 
# Are you sure?  I thought that this revealed a different identity.
# 
# In article <1993Jan24.203740.18605@ncsu.edu>,
# dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# -Billary Clinton is nothing more than a draft-dodging adulterous
# -druggie who began back-pedaling from his campaign promises even 
# -before he dragged his liberal ass into the White House.  The only
# -reason he got elected is because Americans are too stupid to 
# -recognize that he's a special interest ass-kisser who will  
# -hand out cushy government jobs to the Democratic criminals,
# -thugs, and party bosses who helped Clinton buy his way into power.
# - 
# -
# -Doug Holtsinger
# 
# This sounds like pure Chaney/Hall to me.  It's got the Limbaughisms,
# the pointless profanity, and the characteristic lack of logic,
# after all.  
# 
# Maybe the Rev is the dreaded Chaney/Hall-Kaldis cross.

No way.  Look closely.  Chaney has *never* been able to compose a
paragraph that long with only two sentences in it.  Grammar is way too
polished for Chaney.  No word choice errors, spelling trips or typos
either.  Not enough misplaced intellectual arrogance.  Can't be
Chaney.

Kaldis, on the other hand, I can believe.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I miss Phil Ronzone.  I used to miss
| J H Woodyatt              |  Clayton Cramer, but I see he's taking
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  a short break from his gay bashing to
+---------------------------+  rant about abortion.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Congrats, Ladies...RvW is 20 and thriving.
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:27:43 GMT

Steve Novak <steven@advtech.uswest.com> writes ...
>Thanks to this ruling, women are not subject to the whims of men when it
>comes to controlling their own bodies by allowing women the freedom to 
>choose an abortion when deemed necessary - except in the third
>trimester, when restrictions except for health reasons come into play

Two corrections.
1) Women were not the only one's oppressed.
2) Men were not the only oppressors.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58502 talk.politics.misc:70462 talk.religion.misc:27813 misc.legal:23510
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:35:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1k2qdfINN1m0@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Isn't it amazing how the same crowd that doesn't see a nine month
> >fetus as human, thinks it's suddenly "real people" after the 
> >umbilical chord is cut?
> 
> One has to draw the line somewhere.  Since there is no societal consensus
> (in the USA), at this point one is free to draw the line where one wishes.
> -- 
>                                                 --  Michal

I'm not proposing passage of a law in the absence of a societal
consensus.  I am asking people to consider the moral implications of
their positions about ninth month abortions.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: international opinions on abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:10:55 GMT

mscs240@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:

] My name is Mike. I am a student at Mankato State University.  I am interested
] in the opinions of people that do not live in the United States on abortion. 
] It seems to raise much controversy in the U.S. but I do not here much on
] abotion in other countries. Please enlighten me! My userid is mscs240.


Mike,

You will NOT be able to get the opinions of
persons who are reading news in the Republic
of Irealand, as the Continuing Boycott of
any Abortion Related Matters are being Censored
at their sites.

You will, therefore need to learn the myriad
of ways in which the free distribution of 
information is maintained against the threat
of Ceonsors who are FetalIdolators.....

ciao
drieux





-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:59:37 GMT

In <1993Jan20.185651.6837@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <bob1.727034914@cos>, by bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw):
>> 
>> I removed the whole post for reasons that will become obvious.
>> 
>> I will only say this once, then sincerely promise to lose my
>> temper with whoever continues.
>> 
>> Will you all please leave comparisons with the Holocaust out of
>> this newsgroup (and any other for that matter). It was and is
>> a blot on all our humanity, 

>as is abortion.

>> and to this day is extremely
>> hurtful in the memories of the Jewish people and their friends.

>Why?  Because, sad to say, many who grieve over the holocaust
>yet commit the same crimes by accepting abortion of the youngest,
>most fragile of us.


>> We have been down this road once before, and for the benefit of
>> those new to t.a, it did no earthly good in the debates.

>It certainly did.   The truth hurts, don't it.


>> I hope that I never see this stupid, senseless argument again.

>But you will, Bob, you will.


>Suzanne Forgach

Anything emotionally painful or visually repulsive (pictures) are impossible to
uto
use when discussing the issue.  It hurts to much to see that these "things" 
look so much like a little child.  It makes us feel better to keep those 
emotionally troubling issues out of the discussion.  We're happy, and the 
child, is dead.  It is emotionally troubling.  Just asked the group Women
Exploited by Abortion.  So, please explain why it is such a stupid and 
senseless argument, without just saying it is so.  It's convenient to not have
to, but we don't get anywhere.  It is an emotional issue, for everyone.  

MAC
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mindless flamage (what, here?!?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:23:11 GMT
Organization: None worth mentioning.
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.

In article <1993Jan26.045310.6244@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>PHoney, _most_ of your posts are over 200 lines long.
>>
>>This statement is not correct. Assuming that his last 197 posts are 
>>representative, _most_ of Nyikos' posts are under 75 lines long, including 
>>headers. On average, in fact, they are well under 100 lines long. Only 14 of
>
>They just _seem_ like they're all over 200 lines long.
>
Lookie there Ray, we agree on something. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Back to you, Larry
Keywords: shown, proven, connotations
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:55:11 GMT

Your rabid attempts at character assassination are very cute, "Nyikos",
but what does any of this have to do with abortion?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:40:55 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>> it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
>>>>> applied to today's situation.  

>>>> Of course, I never claimed that they could.  

>>> Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
>>> Why are you still arguing the point?

>> Susan never said any such thing.

>Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
>you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
>did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
>abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
>situation:

Absolutely.  This whole topic was started based on my comments on the
number of deaths from illegal abortions claimed by NARAL before 
Roe v Wade.  Susan started quoting info on the number of abortions,
which was not what I asked about in the first place!!!  


>  > The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
>  > in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
>  > is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  

>   Actually, it has something to do with it.  

>       <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>        garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)


>And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.

Ditto.  

>> Only a stupid person would conclude that therefore they are 
>> worthless.  

>Her estimates are worthless to the extent that they cannot be 
>used today in any meaningful fashion.  They do help soothe
>yours and Ms. Garvin's precious little egos though.... 
> 

Ditto.

[Editors note: Author expecting flames for agreeing with Mr. Holtsinger]

>>Dean Kaflowitz


>   "I'm only really good at judging colored semen contests, anyway."
>                                     sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)

>Doug Holtsinger



Great job Doug,


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:11:58 GMT

This whole "abortion complications are being hushed up" theory reminds
me of a post I once saw on alt.conspiracy.

So, you think that there's this gigantic story out there that's being
hushed up by the media, and no one's allowed to talk about it.  So
tell me, where did _you_ hear about it?  Oh....you read it in the paper?

What magical secret drugs are being given to all these thousands of
horribly damaged women that's keeping them from talking to the media
or suing for malpractice?

                       -rocker