HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:01:21 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In my experience, Mark, abortion scares and repulses children, as 
>most don't seem too comfortable with the idea that it's ok to destroy
>the contents of Mom's "tummy" if Mom wants to.

In my experience, the only things that "scare and repulse" children
are things which are described in scary and repulsive ways.  If
you say "Well, sometimes when the mommy has a baby in her tummy,
she goes to a man who takes it out and kills it"  (Btw, I _never_
use the word "tummy" when talking about pregnancy to a child.  Many
children are confused, because they know that the food you eat also
goes in your "tummy".  I always describe it as a "uterus", or a 
"womb" for smaller children.), the child is likely to wonder if the
man will kill them too.  There are more neutral ways to describe
abortion that would not terrorize children to the same degree.

Personally, I think that planting scary thoughts in children to
see that they believe the way you do is a Bad Thing.  IMO, of
course.

>Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 13:30:40 GMT

In article <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
|> In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> 
|> >The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.
|> 
|> The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
|> recorded. 
|> 

Following this logic(?), one needs to point out that the U.S. 
(or for that matter the World's) death rate is 100%. It's
one death per one life.


-- 
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:10:54 GMT

>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>
>>The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.
>
>>"According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
>>positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
>>action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
>>methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
>>fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
>>use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
>>auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
>>by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
>>detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
>>to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
>>fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
>>menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
>>heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 
>
>>Susan

Interesting paragraph on the limitations of various technologies.  
As has been previously posted, the human heart begins beating around
18 days.

Tanner, Taylor, et al., _Growth_, New York:  Life Sciences Library, 1965,
p. 64.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hanson is a Frantic Fundie! (WAS Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!)
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:57:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Dean "Dean" Kaflowitz writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> I enjoyed watching the Dream Team in the Olympic qualifying rounds, but I
>> do wonder whether continual blowouts will interest the Olympic crowds.

>Well I'll surely enjoy it if I get a chance to see it.  Baseball
>and football blowouts aren't very interesting, but basketball
>blowouts can be extremely entertaining.  

I'll enjoy them too.  I just wonder if the crowds at the games will get
bored.

>Mostly the artistry of people like Michael Jordan will be sufficient
>to sustain interest.  Also, I love fancy passing...

I see why you like Michael.  He made passes rivalling the best of Bird in
the recent playoffs.

[...]
>behind-the-back-over-the-shoulder-through-the-legs-and-in-your-face

...to Grandmother's house we go!


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: That Chaney Boy Lives in Fantasies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> >> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
> >># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
> >
> >>[text deleted]
> >>
> >>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
> >>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
> >>#
> >>#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
> >>#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
> >>#illegal abortion. 
> >>#
> >>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
> >
> >>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
> >>
> >>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
> >
> >Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
> >Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).
> 
> Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
> gave it to you guys on the chin. 

Since Susan B Anthony's position on abortion is not relevant to much
of anything, and since it has not in any way been established that
she was opposed to abortion for any reason except her concern for
the health of women, which situation has changed considerably since
Susan Anthony was alive, you have done little except to establish
a basis for your arguments but not a secure conclusion.

> That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
> bold-faced liar. 

Actually, it is you, a known liar who has misreported a number
of items in the past, including your failed attempt to deceive
the readers of talk.abortion by posting inflammatory pro-choice
rhetoric under an assumed name, who reports this about Planned
Parenthood, and since it is fairly certain that Margaret Sanger
did not die while undergoing an illegal abortion at the age of
83 or so, you will have to provide some proof that Planned
Parenthood made the statement you claim before you gloat.

Bad work, Dennis.  The best you can do, I know, but bad work
none the less.

Dean Kaflowitz

PS Had any of a number of individuals in this newsgroup made that
claim about Planned Parenthood I would have accepted it at face
value and wondered whatever Planned Parenthood was up to.  It is
Steve Hallchaney's record of falsehood that puts such claims
immediately under suspicion.  When one lies frequently, one has
to go the extra mile before one is believed.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:54:11 GMT

From article by chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
> In article bbehlen@soda.berkeley.edu (Vitamin B (Brian Behlendorf)) writes:
>>In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>
>>>Applying Mathematics has FREED us from applying possibly
>>>harmful Physics and Chemistry, to our bodies!
>>
>>You know what they call people who use the rhythm method, right?
>>PARENTS.

Only if they've chosen to be :-)

> I am sorry, but I never heard of rhythm working as a contraceptive.

Of course it doesn't work like a contraceptive!  
It's not harmful to the body!!

However, consider yourself informed of a case for whom Natural Family
Planning works extremely well at _either_ avoiding or achieving pregnancy.
ME.  I can also point you to many other people, some of whom have net
access, for whom NFP is their family method of choice.

Write to me via e-mail, Steve, and you will be SURPRISED (although you
shouldn't be) at what you find out.


> I've heard of a number of horror stories about it from pro-lifers... 

I seriously doubt this.  However I'll tell you an equal number of
horror stories I've heard from women using artificial contraception.


Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28865 alt.politics.homosexuality:5181
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Definition (was Re: What *is* Homophobia [...]
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:05:34 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<Br3rCE.DAs@acsu.buffalo.edu> v063kc44@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Nuzz) said:
>
>	`Homo' means the same. `Phobia' is an abnormal fear.
>	So `homophobia' is an abnormal fear of the same.

'Abort' mean 'to terminate a process'.  'ion' implies an action or act.
'Anti' means against or opposed.  Therefore 'anti-abortion' means you are
merely oppsed to the act of terminating a process.

Gee, nothing to do with pregnancy.

Hey Nuzz, try looking up the phrase 'in context'.


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.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:52:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes ...
><1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>} Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>
><1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
>> there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  
>
>My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll 
>simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?

What's the relevence, anyway?  Heart surgery stops the heart.  So?
It's been a long time since the beating heart was the measure of
whether a person is alive, much less whether the person is a person.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:56:27 CDT

In article <1992Jul26.171120.22168@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.161316.12037@hemlock.cray.com> 
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>
>>>>In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>>>>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>>>>> of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. 
>
>>>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>>>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>>>> it was autonomous.  
>
>>> A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
>>> If a newborn infant and its mother were isolated from civilization,
>>> and the mother had only her breast milk to feed the infant, then the 
>>> newborn infant would not be "autonomous" by your definition, and hence 
>>> it would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. 
>
>> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
>> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
>> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
>> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.
>
>I don't see how this is relevant to the original definition of
>"autonomous" given by Mr. Tjoa. He implied that a human
>being who could not survive "without a host to leech off of"
>would not be autonomous, and hence that human being would not
>possess the right to bodily autonomy. Are you offering a new
>definition of "autonomous"?  
>
I have done so in another thread.  But it should be obvious
that a nursing infant can survive without any one particular
host. Your situation is contrived to the point of absurdity,
because if there were no other food around, the woman would
soon have no milk to offer, and both would die.

It amazes me that you can come up with so many reasons for 
denying physical autonomy to newborns.  Why do you do this?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:36:28 GMT


wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <14p8t7INNngj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com 
>   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >

>>We have reason to believe that post-abortion trauma exists.
>>We have reason to believe that post-partum depression (not to mention 
>>trauma) exists.

>I have no hidden agenda here.  My question is, should women be warned
>of this potential prior to the procedure?  I realize that there is no
>corresponding warning related to the risks of pregnancy, but these days
>women don't ususally see a physician until the pregnancy is confirmed.  

I don't understand the distinction you seem to be making here.  

Adrienne and I have both pointed out that women who undergo childbirth
sometimes suffer from post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis.
We ask if you feel women should be warned about that prior to a point
where they might safely terminate their pregnancy, and you seem to
brush this point aside.  You use the word "but" as if what follows is
some sort of justification for not giving this warning.  "women don't
usually see a physician until pregnancy is confirmed"?  So?  Women
don't usually see a physician until their desire for an abortion is
confirmed, and yet you still wish to give them a further "warning".
In hopes of changing their minds?  Do you feel that women should be
given every opportunity to change their minds about abortion, and 
yet NO opportunity to change their minds about childbirth?

>At any rate, I was merely asking for opinions.  Sounds like you think 
>a warning isn't necessary given the relatively low incidence of post-
>abortion trauma? 

And I'll answer your question again.  No, women should not be given
a specific warning about "post-abortion trauma" or whatever it is
that you want to call it.  I think by giving these women a warning 
about a specific low-probability event is simply pointless.  It's
on a par with a doctor saying to a pregnant woman on her first prenatal
visit "Women die giving birth.  Are you sure you want this baby?"

What _should_ be done, however, is to advise women that counseling is
available should they feel they need it.  This goes for _both_ abortion
and childbirth.  And if counseling _isn't_ available.....well, what 
are you waiting for?

>Bill

                         -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 08:39:16 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul23.234609.13510@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> -> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
>> -> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
>> -> abortion
>> 
>> wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
>
>Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would never turn
>his back on his own daughter?   Hmmmm?   

No, as a matter of fact, he didn't say that at all.

>                                         Hell, I could say the same thing.

And it would be just as hypocritical.

>I'd like to hear Garvin expand on the context, or I'm afraid I'll have to
>go on believing she's misquoted him as badly as Doug's misquoted Clinton.

Buy a newspaper, or turn on the television once in a while.  He said he
would support his daughters decision to have an abortion.


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: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: COERCED ABORTION [Can you help me polish this up?]
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.162158.9339@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.070322.19014@cc.uow.edu.au>, nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>
>[long article deleted, equating coerced abortion with rape]
>
>Fine.  So abortion should be made illegal since some women are coerced
>into having abortions.
>
>I take it you think that, since some women are raped, the solution to
>this is to make all sex illegal, both consensual sex and rape?

I knew this would come up as a response. 

This is by no means a stupid or innefectual response given what she
was replying to. 

EXCEPT... 

You missed a tiny facet, Ilana: the reason pro-lifers seek to ban
abortion is because abortion _always_ has a victim. Whether or not the
woman is sad or glad in the future about it, the fetus (human fetus,
member of the human species just like everyone else) is a victim and
always ends up dying as a result. 

Precisely because the z/e/f dies, we are aiming to pass a Human Life
Amendment which will grant them their right to live (which was a right
of theirs since science first knew of their existence, in the
1860's-1870's).  

There's nothing wrong with sex, by the way: it's the issue of
_KILLING_ for sex, that can be made illegal on a logically justifiable
basis. 

Abortion is one of those _killing for sex_ situations. Or, maybe,
killing _because_ of sex?  



By the way, Ilana, what would you do if your 16 year old daughter were
sleeping with a 24 year old man? Would you oppose it? Ask this of
fellow workers, or in your case (especially if DoD means Department of
Defense), your fellow officers. 

Nowadays, especially in Florida, pro-choice means it's perfectly okay
to do that... 

How's THAT for an intractibility?  

>-- 
>/\        Ilana Stern DoD#009 | Whoever first said, "Things are seldom as they 
>  \_][    ilana@ncar.ucar.edu | seem," was wrong.  Things are usually as they
>      \_______________________| seem.  Otherwise, they wouldn't seem that way.


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
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
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.161316.12037@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

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

>>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

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

>>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>>>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>>>> of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. 

>>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>>> it was autonomous.  

>> A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
>> If a newborn infant and its mother were isolated from civilization,
>> and the mother had only her breast milk to feed the infant, then the 
>> newborn infant would not be "autonomous" by your definition, and hence 
>> it would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. 

> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.

I don't see how this is relevant to the original definition of
"autonomous" given by Mr. Tjoa. He implied that a human
being who could not survive "without a host to leech off of"
would not be autonomous, and hence that human being would not
possess the right to bodily autonomy. Are you offering a new
definition of "autonomous"?  

>muriel


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:19:52 GMT


>>Nevertheless, one could argue that Schenck's primary purpose was to
>>impress upon people what a fetus looks like before an late term abortion.
>>No matter how deceptive his language may have been, it would never change
>>the fact that he was holding a real human fetus.

>I don't like the implication here at all.  It sounds like you're saying
>that if he was being deliberately deceptive (or even outright lying),
>then he was justified because he was holding a "real human fetus."

>So it's okay to lie if it forthers your cause?  I thought that that was
>what *we* got accused of doing.

If one thought that a life could be saved by lying, then perhaps so. I
am not arguing that point however. I was simply saying that Schenck may
have been trying to heighten awareness about fetal development, and in
that regard, aborted fetus or not, Schenck was not dishonest.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:04:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.023334.257962@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Pity is right.  I don't understand the relevance of the 1974
>market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, either.  
>
>Susan

>>>In <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
>>>(Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>  OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
>>   $180,000 Guarantee
>>    $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
>>    brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
>>    part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
>>    medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.
>>
>>Ad run in _Dallas Morning News_ on June 24, 1974.  The above salary guarantee
>>was four times the starting salary for regular obstetric practice.
>
>Huh?  So you're saying that since this group is "guaranteeing" an ob/gyn
>4 times the starting salery [sic] of an ob doctor, that they're all 
>abortionists?

Naw, they just give money away.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28752 alt.birthright:107