HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: secret life
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:02:37 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul20.105044.1443@massey.ac.nz> news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System) writes:
>Life begins when a woman and a man consent to intercourse the choice is already
>made  the purpose of reproduction, sexual gratification is the side  affect.
>Life is the most important issue, abortion is murder even in cases of rape.
>No-one can choose to kill another human being without being told the whole
>story that life is create the instant that the sperm enters the egg. This
>generation Kills millions of people every year, when in the same  instance
>millions of people are wanting to adopt babies. Lets stop the killing and
>giving these unwanted children to good homes all around the world.
>
>
>
>  I love you with the love of Jesus my lord and saviour
>          Stephen Vidulich

No flames intended Mr. Vidulich, but: 

I just razed a guy for making the mistake that pro-lifers have to rely
on religion to justify their views, and now this. 

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate where you stand. It's _HOW_ you
stand, that's giving me the willies. 

First of all, unless (and maybe I'm assuming wrong) your stand is
scientific and your only reference to religion in this issue, was at
the end of your article, you're going to be roundly called out for
violating the First Amendment WRT religious freedom & separation of
church & state. Now, I know they don't get after Frances Kissling, who
trips the First Amendment every day (including her recent posting to
this newsgroup), but they go after pro-lifers who do it. 

Honestly, I am tempted to regard the pro-choicers' flat out refusal
to tell their religious flunkies to keep their religion out of
government affairs, and cheer you on. And if the Frances Kissling
issue turns out the way I think it will, this will be the last time I
object to religious help for our side. If they want to break the
rules, I will, too, and as good as we are in the ring, pro-choicers do
not want the devastation of a no-holds barred debate. There'll be
Bibles flying like cannon shells in WW-II... 

But when you even hint that your motives are religious, you're asking
for a justified mega-flame from the enemy on this newsgroup. Just a
friendly warning. 

 
===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Willing to discuss with Novak, off-line only
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:18:52 GMT

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> = (Ron Graham) writes:

>>I dodge no-one, and even Mr. Novak should know that by now.

>And that ought to earn one of the highest awards of them all: 
>"I dodge no-one." 

Huh?

>Novak and his low intellegence self doesn't stand a chance when
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>someone like this, takes the battle to close-quarters... 

At least I can _spell_ intelligence, you grade school twit.  And you
notice it's _Graham_ whining helplessly, not moi.

BTW, how's the "Margaret Sanger died from an abortion" (at age 83)
retraction coming?  You'd think someone that pretends they're "macho"
or "tough" would have the guts to admit such a STUPID mistake.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Where ARE you, Chaney?  (WAS: Abortion and Infanticide)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:49:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.191036.5248@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#[re: DJR-with-a-proofreader, Holtsinger...]
##He's still weaseling.  It is fun to watch.  (But not as fun
##as it's going to be watching the Airplane Boy try to explain
##his Margaret Sanger story.)
#
#A*ma*zing, don't you think, that the motor mouth of Propellor Pod has been
#totally SILENT since he was nuked.  He's having a hell of a time getting
#out of this gracefully.
#
#Oh, Borgie!  BORGIE!  BOOORRRRRR-GGGGGGIIIIIEEEE!!!!!  We're WAIting!!

I guess that you've seen his answer by now.  He's
trying to pretend that it's all Planned Parenthood's
fault.  What an idiot.

Susan
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Lefty Misses the OBVIOUS POINT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:27:50 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Jul27.040748.27892@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) wrote:
> 
> You Lefty have missed the clear SignPost to HappyHappyJoyJoyLand.

As goes without saying, drieux is 100% correct.

I repent my error in sashcloth and axes.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Survey...
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:17:17 GMT

|> In article <64456@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

|> >FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
|> >THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
|> >LIFE OF THE MOTHER.


I have a real problem with this differentiation between fetuses that 
were conceived as a result of rape or incest and those from consentual
intercourse.  If pro-life folks want to define abortion as murder, why
is it okay to "murder" and innocent "baby" just because some other 
person committed a crime?  This implies that there may be circumstances that
are so horrible for the mother that abortion is justified.  But how can
anyone decide that rape and incest are the only such circumstances?  By
whose judgement?  To allow this "murder" to occur after rape or incest
is morally hypocritcal on the part of pro-life folks who make this
distinction.  Seems like an all or nothing proposition to me.  The
circumstances of conception are beyond the control of the innocent
fetus. 

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:49:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
experimentation to save people's lives.  And many of these people are
against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
spread.  These people are obviously Pro-Death.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Extra, extra! God expands punishment for AIDS! (WAS What *is* Homophobia)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:02:47 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

> Ah, I see.  So now AIDS is not only "God's punishment of homosexuals" but
> "God's punishment of homosexuals and anybody that screws around".
> Additionally, God's apparent sloppiness leads to all those infected through
> blood transfusions, medical accidents and all the other horrors AIDS has
> inflicted.

A member of our church died last fall from AIDS, contracted from contaminated
blood.  An old friend died shortly after completing his master's degree in
music.  Regardless of how the disease is transmitted, it is depriving us of
talented valuable citizens and beloved family members.  It's time for Christians
to stop being so prissy about the 'how' of AIDS transmission and become
concerned about 'how many more.'

> Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
> with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
> loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.  Do you really think
> you're gonna recruit anybody by scaring people with this wacko version of
> the Big Enchilada?  Methinks no.

Amen and preach it, Steve.

-- 
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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:55:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article <42hm!x+.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes ...
>>>What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
>>>What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
>>>after all.
>> 
>> For the same reason people drive cars, eat steak, ride bicycles, 
>> ride in airplanes, swim, live in California, live in the midwest,
>> live in the south, have children, and walk outdoors.
>> 
>> All these endeavors (and many others, besides) have an element of
>> risk.  Do you propose making all of them illegal?
>
>In all of these cases it is _your_ risk to take.  In the case of having sex
>when you intend to abort if you do get pregnant, it is _not_ your risk to
>take, but that of the child's, whom you might be conceiving and aborting.

Since both you _and_ Kellmeyer are being either deliberately stupid or
just bigoted, I'll spell it out for you so neither of you will have to
strain your underused brains.

Driving a car on public roads puts not only yourself, but also other 
driver and pedestrian at risk, since any accident you may cause is quite
likely to affect other people as well.   This is in addition to the 
health hazards associated with the buring and production of petrolium
products.

Bicycles are associated with many of the same risks as cars.

Anyone who is part of a family or especially a parent puts that family at
risk by indulging in such risky behaviour at eating a steak.

Living where there are earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes not only
puts you at risk, but also endangers the children you're supposed to
be looking after.

Since all of these put children at risk, why is indulging in these 
activities more acceptable than indulging in a sex?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Autonomy (was Re: Abortion and Infanticide)
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:43:02 CDT

In article <1992Jul22.014836.6377@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

autonomy, n.

1. The quality or state of being self-governing
2. A self-governing state
3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence

source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary

In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a 
self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
which is completely contained within the body of 
another. 

In the second place, it's impossible for the woman
and the fetus to have 'the same right to bodily
autonomy'.  If you start awarding any rights whatever
to fetuses, you do so only by removing rights from
the woman who must defer to it.  Since a fetus is
generally incapable of enjoying or expressing such
things as 'self-directing freedom', removing the
autonomy rights of the woman in favor of the fetus
seems ludicrous.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.212034.28968@coopsol.com> 
gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

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

>> But how many late term abortions would cause you to re-think 
>> your position? It's obvious that you think thousands of 
>> annual deaths are insignificant, so perhaps we should start
>> at 10,000 and move on up. Pick an absolute number; don't hide 
>> your callousness behind percentages.  

> The assininity of this approach Doug is that we the people routinely
> allow the government to arbitrarily decide how many deaths are
> reasonable, in all sorts of activities.  Reducing the speed limit from
> 65 to 55 mph saved an enormous number of lives.  Reducing it to 45mph
> would save even more.  [..]

The only thing "assinine" here is your analogy. Killing a fetus is 
done intentionally, but deaths from traffic accidents are not intentional
killings. The government does not set permissible limits on the number 
of motor vehicle fatalities which can be caused intentionally. 

>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:45:05 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> 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.

Wrong.  The U.S. death rate for children is 0.00%.  Fetus != child.

Btw, my daughter's birth could be thought of as an abortion...

-- 
Chris Lyman - email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   "I belong to no organized
#include <std_disclaimers>                   /   political party.  I am a
R.O.a.C.H   --   charter member              /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:32:56 GMT

In <JBATES.92Jul22181129@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com 
   (John W. Bates) writes: > 

>Before you start in about the rights of the unborn, though, let me 
>just point out that until it can be shown incontrovertibly that a 
>fetus is worthy of protection at the expense of the woman involved, 
>any belief about that, positive or negative, *is* purely religious.  

For the sake of argument, why can't such a belief have a philosophical
premise? 

Bill 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:39:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.173301.15516@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
:: = (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

::	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
::willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
::Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
::eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

:Really.  You would know.

:Given this bible passage, why are Catholics like Forgach so against
:vasectomies and similar stuff?                                        

	Beats me. I'm actually rather surprised that the Vatican has
not embraced artificial insemination and IVF as ways of producing
children while avoiding sexual activity.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: .
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:46:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.155357.1654@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <92201.183901U58578@uicvm.uic.edu> Mark Czarnowski <U58578@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

[material deleted]

Hi Mark!  Don't let pro-lifers' most public embarrassment Steve "Airplane-Boy
Dennis Hall" Chaney inhibit you from expressing yourself.  He's only a newbie,
and spends half his time (judging by his ratio of message to signature)
pretending he's a space alien.  Of the remaining half of time,  half of
it is spent denying that he posted as "Dennis Hall" (apparently a personal
enemy's name) in an attempt to discredit pro-choicers, a quarter of it is
spent insulting pro-choicers, and the remaining quarter seems to be spent
in lying (apparently he's of the "say anything, no matter how stupid or untrue,
to make my side look good" school).

Poor Stevie. The sign said "pro-life", but he thought it said "pro-lie".

-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:55:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul27.164001.4246@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

#I've heard that the Schenck's fetus was actually a victim of a type
#of late term abortion called a prostoglandin abortion. This is occasionally
#used for late term fetuses. It is injected into the woman, and the
#hormone then artificially induces abortion, resulting in a stillbirth.
#If that's the case, then there is no deception. 

I always wonder about people who fail to read the article to which
they are responding...

Nyikos claimed that, since abortions can be either spontaneous
or induced, there was no deception involved if the fetus were
in fact stillborn rather than the result of an induced abortion,
since the didn't say specifically that the abortion was
induced.  I argued that the Schencks had indeed claimed that
the abortion was induced.  You seem to be supporting my argument,
yet you claim no deception.  Care to try again?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 03:35:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <Bs112E.Izr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

[much deleted]
##"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. We are also
##opposed to abortifacient drugs and chemicals like the Pill and IUD, and
##we are also opposed to all forms of birth control with the exception of
##natural family planning." -- Judie Brown, President, American Life League

#Note that Judie knows the difference between "abortifacient drugs" ,
#"chemicals like the Pill" and the "IUD".   That's why she mentioned all 
#three types of things she opposes, instead of lumping everything into
#one category..

Has DOD been teaching you how to misread people's statements?

I guess that's why she said "Birth control is abortion.  If you
put your daughter on the pill, she's killing babies.", huh,
Kellmeyer?  

Someone as pro-force as you should be aware of a group called
Pharmacists for Life, Kellmeyer.  Call them up and ask them about
birth control pills.  If you can't find them, look up low
dose birth control pills in a PDR and see what it says about
the way they work.  Contact the American Life Lobby.  Ask 
Suzanne Forgach for references - she obviously knows a great deal 
more than you do on this subject.


Excellent proof of your ignorance, Kellmeyer.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Silly Connection (formerly: Abortion and Infanticide)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.012853.5787@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>[Rest of article deleted.  Followups set to alt.fan.kevin-darcy.  Plese note
>this so that when Kibbles decides to re-direct it back into talk.abortion,
>we can try to get it out again.  

I "re-directed" nowhere, Mr. Cochran -- I'm responding to your article in the
forum it originally appeared.

Do you have a problem with that?

								- Kevin
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:04:11 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul22.201915.8925@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Menstrual extraction, an early abortion technique (prior to
>8 weeks since LMP), is practiced in Bangladesh and other 
>countries.  These abortions may not "stop a beating heart."

>I counted three different claims on when the fetal heart
>beat begins at the clinic on Saturday.  (14 days, 4 weeks,
>and 2 months)  The sidewalk harassers seem to have as much
>trouble with this as t.a. does.

I did some research last year trying to figure this out, and couldn't
because the embryology books I looked at didn't tell me when the dang
thing became a heart.  If I recall correctly, there's something that
eventually becomes a heart that "beats" at the end of the third week.

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act      - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:48:36 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul25.004750.14804@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <p2hm#g_.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
>>>mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 
>> 
>>>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>> 
>> Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?
>
>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
>what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!

Do you really believe this is how teachers behave?

Do you really believe that a movie of someone sneering and smirking as a
latex condom is placed on a cucumber is pornographic?

From your statements I can only conclude that you must also believe that
pro-lifers wave pictures of naked fetuses around because pro-lifers are
sexually stimulated by such.  If so, please do yourself a favor and seek
professional help.

When you make statements like these, I begin to suspect that your true
motivation in using so-called "Natural Family Planning" is not to avoid
conception but rather to avoid sex. 



-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion