HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research, Nathanson, etc.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:11:11 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

[--deletia--]

> Let's talk about intellectual blind spots, Kevin.
>        YOU DELETED the next piece of evidence your compatriot supplied,

Steve, you can hang any other insult you like on me, but please don't refer
to me as Darcy's 'compatriot.'

> a piece of evidence which ANSWERS the  "question" you pose above and
> which merely PROVES ME CORRECT.  You also deleted the response which
> I gave, the response which showed both Dr. Koonz and Chris to be in 
> error.

It doesn't prove you correct at all, Mr. Kellmeyer.

> The next quote Chris Lyman supplied was a quote from a Nazi officer (1935,
> I believe) in which the officer STATES that 500,000  abortions
> were taking place every year.  The quote was from Dr. Koonz's book.  This
> was convenient, since it is also used by Dr. William Brennan, as evidence
> of the Nazis SUPPORT of abortion.

Well, then, Dr. Brennan is as bad at history as you are.  Let's restore that
quote, shall we?

	A staff officer in the SS estimated that in 1936 as many as 500,000
	abortions had been performed.  "The fact that many abortions are
	committed in the racially most valuable circles," he reported, defied
	social planners.  "If these abortions could be prevented, in twenty
	years we would have an additional two hundred regiments.

> Both Koonz and Brennan agree:  500,000 abortions in 1930's Germany.

Brennan's conclusion:  The Nazis were pro-choice.
Koonz's conclusion:  The Nazis were anti-abortion.
Probable synthesis:  The Nazis were hypocrites.  (So what else is new?)

> Now.

Addams Family table manners.  What does this have to do with abortion?

[--number crunching deleted--]

> Which means the putatively illegal abortions in Germany were occuring at
>                                *TWICE*
>             the rate of LEGAL abortion in the US today.

Is it possible, Steve, that in the midst of a depression there were many more
women per capita who could not support another baby?

[--more deletia--]

> The Nazis were PRO-abortion for "inferior" races.

Agreed.

> They SAID they were anti-abortion for the Aryan race, but when you actually 
> check what they DID about it, it's bloody obvious that they didn't give a
> damn.

Why all the moaning about "additional two hundred regiments," then?

> They were mouthing propaganda about being tough on crime (e.g. abortion)
> when, in fact, they didn't do more than make an occasional, well-publicized,
> raid to keep their white-collar supporters happy.

Ah!  On what pretext did they make these raids, Mr. Kellmeyer?

[--the rest deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.223547.28897@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> if you deny rights to the late-term fetus, then you will
>> automatically deny rights to the newborn infant.

> Patently false, since newborn infants have numerous rights that a
> late-term fetus does not.  E.g., if the newborn was born in the United
> States, then it has the rights implied by citizenship.

I was speaking in the moral sense, not the legal sense. Please don't 
take my comments out of context.
 

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:38:50 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <64693@hydra.gatech.EDU>
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.005152.14195@panix.com>
>eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley) writes:
>>In article <64100@hydra.gatech.EDU>
>>> = rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>What is the definition of third trimester?  Abortion in Georgia is
>advertised in the paper upto and (I believe) including the 27th week.
>Abortions after the 27th week, which is about 5 weeks past the current
>medical ability to sustain life, are possibly lumped into the third 
>trimester statistics.

The usage I've seen is seventh through ninth month, which would be ...
(30 * 6 / 7 = 25.714 ...) approximately the twenty-sixth week and up.

>Georgia law says abortions in third trimester (viability, >= 27th week)
>are restricted to 'hospital' environments.  But the statistics I have
>from the Georgia Department of Human Resources lumps all abortion
>that occur after or during the 21st week into one number - I wonder why.

My statistics, too, and I don't know why either.

>>>I have not seen this in print anywhere - are these new statistics?
>>>As stated above I've seen numbers from 0.5% to 1%.

>>I've never seen a number above .1%.  Only .8% of abortions are performed
>>after the *21st* week (outdated figure - 1985 - but the trends were headedd
>>in the earlier-abortions direction, anyway), let alone the 26th week.

>Georgia statistics for 1990 show 746 abortions at or after the 21st week
>out of a total of 39,245 for the year.

>That is 1.9% - where do you get your numbers?

1990 World Almanac.  (Nationwide figure.)

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act      - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: No comment
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:41:44 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> >I've decided to start re-posting some gems from the "I'm
-> >pro-MALE choice" camp.
-> 
-> Is the same Susie Garvin who, in December and January, was
-> bitching and whining about child-support articles being posted
-> in t.a now going OUT OF HER WAY to get such articles RE-posted
-> into t.a from other groups?

nope. in fact i haven't seen any susan garvin post non-abortion
related articles to t.a. you seem to be confused. perhaps you're
thinking of either kevin darcy, the GROUP, or kevin darcy, the
INDIVIDUAL.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:32:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.181225.212912@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Yes, and you said it was "sometimes necessary" to kill a late term
>> fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman. When is it "necessary" 
>> to kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman?
>>
>> Is killing the fetus necessary if the mother does not want to 
>> endure labor? That's a simple question to answer. Why can't you
>> answer it? (My answer is "no", what's yours?)

> You may find people who are willing to answer your 
> simplistic questions on complex issues, but I am not
> one of them.  

Fine. Is any pro-choicer willing to answer my questions above?


> I'm not here to do you any favors.

I'm well aware of that.

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:32:23 GMT

In <j7nm6p+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
>>since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
>>got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
>>child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
>>it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
>>pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>>end of discussion :-)

that was a little strong.  point is that the responsibility
starts before a pregnancy.  Its just my opinion.
I refuse to be politically correct and compromise my
morals, thank you very much.

>Assuming that you're not parodying pro-life rhetoric ...
nope.

>You are a sexist, hypocrite, and a coward.  

not that either. (well hypocrite, maybe :-)

>You're a sexist because you would punish women for having
>sex while avoiding any consequence for yourself.

I didn't say just the women, did I?  making a lot of 
assumptions.

>You're a hypocrite because you expect other people to live to 
>standards you are unwilling to adopt for yourself.

How do you know my standards?  (where in the hell did you 
get this out of what I said?)
I just expect people to take responsibility for their
actions.  and I try to do the same.

>And you're a coward because you're unwilling to support and 
>defend your comments.

I am defending myself, since I'm getting called names :-(
Which is why I stated the above the way I did.  People
sure like to read a lot more into what I said than what
I intended.

By the way, I don't read talk.abortion for this very reason.
too many people yelling, none listening.  Why is this 
stuff cross-posted to alt.birthright?

-- 
Todd Greenfield
tgreen@iastate.edu
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:28:49 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
> 
> [much rational response to irrational questions deleted]
> 
>>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.
> 
> Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
> testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? 

I imagine the testing in question might have something to do with live fetuses,
that were going to be aborted anyway, but then maybe I'm just morbid.
If this were the case, though, you can see the difficulty, eh?  It would
sort of be analogous to doing tests on those living in the old-folks homes...
Just think of all the live animals that could be saved the pain
(ok so I'm a bit morbid today, that's the way I saw it).

> Do you find testing on
> dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
> the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.

Fer sure.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:49:25 CDT

In article <1992Jul26.223011.20865@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <3728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.045504.15172@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>#In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>##It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>>##remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>>##kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>>##woman.
>>#
>>#I assume by "necessary" you mean medically indicated, right, in order to save 
>>#the life of the mother? 
>>
>>Are you and Holtsinger sharing a brain this week?
>
>Contentless blather.
>
>>By "necessary", I meant "unable to accomplish without."
>
>That definition is **USELESS**, Susie, since it is _never_ strictly 
>"necessary" to kill a viable fetus -- we could just rip the thing right out, 
>and who cares about the effect on the pregnant woman's health or life, right?
>
Kevin, I think it's incredibly offensive to stoop to this
kind of linguistic brutality, just because you want to get
sarcastic with Susan.  Have you given any thought to the
incredible insensitivity you display, in describing a difficult
parturition in such terms?  In mixed company, yet?  Just how
disrespectful can you get?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:40:56 GMT

<1992Jul20.170234.4463@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Jul17.232737.6202@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>><1992Jul16.214250.1773@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>><1992Jul11.234114.22394@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
...
>>Yes, removing the last part of that context does make it more reasonable.
>>However, I don't want to "need" 'our' women, I want to interact with them
>>out of choice, not necessity.
>
>Sorry.  Your statment is neat ideology, but not very realistic.  We DO need
>women, and they need us.

Why do you feel we *need* women, and they *need* us?  You are using a very
all-encompassing turn of phrase.  Perhaps you are not aware of gays and
lesbians who seem to get along fine without the other gender being an
active part of their lives?

>>I would much rather that the woman I care about do what she feels
>>most comfortable doing with her own body, because *she* is the one it would
>>affect the most.
>
>I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
>dying.

Maybe you should wait until you've been pregnant, and faced death, before
you make that choice for someone else.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Followup-To: Previous matters
Summary: Statistics can say whatever you want them to
Keywords: statistics abortion
Organization: 'Dis organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:02:24 GMT

I was wondering...  Every time you used the word "abortion" to describe your
statistics, did you mean induced/surgical or were there some "spontaneous
abortion" stats thrown in there, too?  (Spontaneous abortion!  Time to
prosecute someone!)

Yes, there are substandard clinics out there, but I don't think that
motel rooms and back-alleys would be better.

>>Abortion stops a beating heart
(Illegal ones stop two.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Summary: Truck bombs and their effects on rephrasings
Keywords: bombs fetuses rephrasing ecosystem sex
Organization: MMI, Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:05:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.001616.28026@csus.edu>  (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <nancyo.712310146@sfu.ca> (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>Somewhere else (Michael Loomis) writes:
>>>If Mr. Chaney is inquiring why supporting abortion is consistent with
>>>saving with a desire to save various animals species and/or ecosystems,
>>>then the answer is simple.  Human population destroys animal habitats. 
>>>Abortion reduces human population growth.  An environmentalists that
>>>does favor abortion rights is simply not very smart. 

I don't understand how the last sentence fits in.  It would make more sense
if he said "doesn't" over "does".

>>I would suggest that the connection between the pro-choice
>>position and the concern for the quality of life in general
>>is that such views are rights-oriented, and preoccupied with
>>the rights of the individual to a happy and prosperous
>>existence.
>
>I will now translate O'Connor's words: 
>
>In order to ensure my happy and prosperous existence, I must kill
>_you_ in order to achieve it. Hence, I you no longer legally exist.  
>
>Thanks for clarifying things. 

We hold the rights of individuals to have happy and prosperous existences
if and only if they do not interfere with the rights of others.

>==============================================================================
>Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
>	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
>	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Women as fanatical martyrs?  The other difference is that truck bombs cause
destruction to property and maybe a few bystanders.  What are our demands
anyway?  That women have SOME say in their physical/emotional/reproductive
health?  These are our daughters, mothers, wives, sisters, friends...  I
wouldn't treat them as coldly as you.

>Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
>	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".

We encourage women to kill themselves with coat hangers?  How?  Why?  Is
the "coat hanger" option something that they would turn to only after all
their other avenues of recourse have been blocked?  "We" [pro-choicers]
would be the ones to drive them to that?  That's a totally asnine statement.



-Richard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: That Silly Connection (formerly: Abortion and Infanticide)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:29:52 GMT

In <1992Jul21.033057.4795@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.213122.25498@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- soft-sectored) writes:
>>What: <1992Jul13.190320.22457@ncsu.edu>

>>>> The ones I know all believe in an absolute right "not to be
>>>> pregnant". Under this scenario, infanticide is not allowable,
>>>> because infants aren't inside anyone's bodies. 
>>>
>>>You have not given any reasons to justify the killing of a late-term
>>>fetus other than its mere physical location.
>>                      ==== ======== =========
>>
>>Once again, we do the Pro-Life Shuffle:  "fetus" = "child"
>>                                         "woman" = "mere physical location"
>>
>>Your degredation of women is astounding, and yet, predictable.

>Your knee-jerk response is equally predictable, but this time it misses the
>mark. If you were paying attention, perhaps you would have noticed that
>Charles Don Hall, and not Doug Holtsinger, was the first to "de-personalize"
>in this particular exchange ("inside anyone's bodies").

When I said "anyone", I meant "any one person", and not "any one
location" or "any one living organism". I apologize for my vagueness,
and will try to be more clear in the future.

The reason that I said "anyone" instead of "any woman" is because I
believe that men also have a right to bodily autonomy, and that they
therefore have the right to remove unwanted z/e/f's from their own 
bodies. They may not have as much opportunity to exercise this right
as women do, but I think that it is important to remember that the
right is still there.

So, I would like to change the phrase in question from "inside anyone's
bodies" to "inside the body of any pregnant human being". Again, I
apologize to any person who was insulted or confused by my original
phrasing.
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:59:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes ...
>   One of the techniques to support a woman's constitutional right 
>to abortion is to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion.  
>One favorite ploy used by the less intelligent pro-abortion fanatics 
>is to evoke the subject of abortions resulting from pregnancies
>initiated by rape or incest.  They evoke the subject as if it were some 
>significant part of the big picture of abortion in America.  It is 
>usually suggested by these zealots that there are thousands of women in 
>America who are being impregnated daily by rapists and family members.

   One of the techniques to abolish a woman's constitutional right 
to abortion is to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion.  
One favorite ploy used by the less intelligent pro-force fanatics 
is to evoke the subject of third trimester abortions.  They evoke the 
subject as if it were some significant part of the big picture of abortion 
in America.  It is usually suggested by these zealots that there are 
thousands of women in America who are daily aborting their about-to-be-born
children.

>   Even someone as publicly untutored as Mark Ira Kaufman should know
>by now that rape/incest abortions are fewer than three percent 
>all the abortions performed in America.  

   Even someone as publicly untutored as Gregory S Clausen should know
by now that third trimester abortions are fewer than three percent 
all the abortions performed in America.  

>   Even with a vivid imagination, the pro-abortion movement will
>lose this battle.  The reason is that they are fighting something
>that ultimately cannot win in the land of life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness.  

   Even with a vivid imagination, the pro-force movement will
lose this battle.  The reason is that they are fighting something
that ultimately cannot win in the land of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.  

>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Religion stops a thinking brain.

Well, that was fun.  Can we do it again sometime?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Silliest sign carried by a pro-forcer
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:51:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul21.185253.15748@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## Last Saturday, one of them had a piece of posterboard on his
## back.  On the posterboard, he'd glued a wooden Celtic cross.
## To the cross, he'd glued a rubber rat.
#
## The rat, I am told, represents the tiny sex animals that
## tempt us and result in our being sent to burn in eternal
## hellfire.
#
#Funny thing.  I'd always thought of _my_ 'tiny sex animal' as
#a big, friendly Labrador retriever.  It would be pretty hard
#to get one of those on a posterboard!

Now wait a minute, Chris.  Are you telling me that your Lab
tempts you?

I sure hope that this isn't the beginning of a trend.  Next
thing you know, we'll have some idiot collapse on the street
because he's trying to carry a donkey on his back, claiming
that the Democrats tempt us into sin.

Susan