HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:44:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.185107.9237@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <+shys6=@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):

>> Fine, Forgach.  I am glad that you have shown me the depths to which
>> you'll sink, the hatefulness you'll spew to further your own agenda.

>Yeah right.  I post an article simply questioning your interpretation
>of an event years ago, and you get all bent out of shape.

You posted an article implying rocker behaved like a stupid
ten-year-old - a lying little ten-year-old - and she was angry with you.
Why the heck are you surprised?

>> Never once have I given you a single indication to think I was a
>> liar.  

>Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
>what abortion actually IS.

Gee, Suzanne, thanks for calling me a liar, too.  Have any evidence
besides that I disagree with you wrt the worth of a z/e/f?

You know, I got a *lot* more comfortable with abortion when I started
reading embryology books.  Something to do with myelination and how
late in pregnancy a fetus's brain begins to be capable of significant
functioning.

The abortion issue is one of opinion and priorities.  It's generally
agreed that the egg and sperm don't have a full set of human DNA, that
zygotes do, that viability occurs before birth, that most e/fs will be
people at some time in the future (whether or not they are people
now), that pregnancy can sometimes greatly endanger women's lives,
that myelination takes place at 23-24 weeks, that 8 week embryos are
recognizably humanoid, that most pregnancies conceived by rape would
be very hard on the woman, etc., etc.  The dispute here is how much
these various facts matter.  Even if *you* have definitive evidence
that *your* opinions are correct ones - something I certainly do not
believe - others are not lying to themselves by believing otherwise
unless they have the same definitive evidence.

I want an apology, Suzanne, for your accusation that I am lying to
myself in my belief that the most crucial step in a z/'s development
is myelination rather than birth.  My opinion may be incorrect, but I
arrived at it by honestly and thoroughly considering all the evidence
I have.

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:26:54 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>>  Margolis
>>> Nyikos
>>> >Mills

>>> >Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
>>> >be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
>>> >"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
>>> >more specifically, for YOURSELF?

>>> >In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
>>> >procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?

>>> This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
>>> non datur" -- "there is no third way."
>>> One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly
>>> unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

>>How is that a third way?  You seem to be restating the original premise
>>which is being questioned - only have sex if you're willing to give birth.

>Sorry, I'm confused.  Which of the following two classifications does the
>way I mentioned fall under?
>   a. ALWAYS engaging in sex for the SOLE purpose of procreation
>   b. Being a flaming, raving hypocrite.	

B, since you believe that when BOTH YOU AND THE WOMAN failed to "control
yourselves at the proper time," and SHE becomes pregnant, ONLY SHE, NOT
YOU should be punished by being "enslaved to her body" for 9 months.  You
advocate NO punishment for yourself, evenn though you engaged inn THE SAME
ACT, therefore you are a "flaming, raving hypocrite."  Conception fails and
is thus beside the point.

>>(Except, of course, that by specifying NFP you can have sex less often and
>>are more likely to have an unwanted conception than if you used the Pill.)

>Wrong.  If one uses all three NFP methods at the same time--temperature,
>mucus, cervix sign--the unwanted conception rate is much lower than that
>of the Pill.  

It can't be "much" lower than that of the pill, since the use failure rate
of the pill is only about 3%.

>As to sex less often--well, you restrict sex to specified
>times, but you might have it more often to make up for it and enjoy it
>more.  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and all that.

For some, not all.

-- 
Read My Lips: No Bush In '92!

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.183830.16567@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.122014.9891@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
> > of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
> > pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
> > fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
> > a very short step to compelling abortion.  
> 
> You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
> abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
> in mandating abortion.  In addition, your statement presumes
> that abortion is a legitimate exercise of a person's right to
> conduct their own personal affairs.  That presumption is  
> questionable on its face, since an abortion kills a human  
> being.  

On the contrary, my statement addresses the issue directly.
The fundamental meaning of Roe v Wade is that a person has a
right to privacy in the form of their own body which can only
be superceded by a compelling interest.  The law in all of
its many incarnations is nothing more than a statement of
compelling interest.  As for what abortion kills, it kills
a human entity which does not have a right to occupy the body
of another human against that human's will, a right which
no other person at any other time is granted.  You ignore the
fact (well, ignoring facts is rather a thing of yours) that
most people would gladly transfer the presence of the fetus
rather than have an abortion were it feasible.  Until such time,
abortion provides the only feasible alternative to an unwanted
pregnancy other than carrying it to term.
> 
> Your slippery-slope argument is basically an attack on the
> concept of a ``compelling state interest'', rather than 
> a direct attack on abortion laws.  According to your reasoning, 

No, it is an attack on abortion prohibitions, and an attack
on the argument that was presented but deleted by you in your
usual effort to take things out of context.

> the state should not involve itself in regulating abortion, 
> even to protect the woman's health, because the state may
> ultimately attempt to rationalize mandatory abortion laws 
> based upon some ``compelling state interest''.  

No, that's not my argument, that's yours.
> 
> The state could not even require a physician to perform the abortion, 
> or to require sterilized procedures, because these regulations
> are based upon a ``compelling state interest'' in protecting 
> the woman's health, and the concept of a ``compelling state 
> interest'' may ultimately be used as a basis for rationalizing 
> mandatory abortion laws.   

On the contrary, the state has responsibilities also, but there
are limits.  It is you who are using the slippery slope argument
here to justify your opposition to human rights.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:07:04 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug27.110513.4025@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes: 

>The subject line says it all....
>
>
>ciao
>drieux

I read Richard Pitts offer to moderate with a combination of aghast
repulsion and humorous fascination: Can this guy be serious?  I was
too busy to bother posting to tell Richard, thanks, but no thanks, but
but now that drieux [tm] has posted this, I wanted to reply.

SJM
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: Decay@ no longer works, Susan!
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:44:25 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>[text deleted]
>
>##What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
>#
>#What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
>#the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
>#recreationally.
>
>What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
>pneumonia."
>
>Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
>coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
>does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
>that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.

Yeah, and the coroner doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up his
claim that Becky Bell died of an abortion. 

You fools have YET to show us hard proof of any uterine damage
or damage anywhere besides the lungs. 

>Some fools will continue to give voice to the lies of a twisted
>old man, but the facts remain.

What facts? That the Becky Bell story is a bunch of propaganda
bullshit? 

You give us solid PROOF of the damage you CLAIM existed, and THEN
we'll listen to your sorry self, Suzie Q. 

Oh, yeah, by the way, Suzie Q, new things've been happenin' round
here. It's called  

	/decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)/h:j 

The "fat black ass" has been dwelling on Internet Relay Channel for a
while. 


=============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:39:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.195018.11291@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>My honesty is that Steve Chaney posts too voluminously for me to read alot
>of what he posts.  He and I have a very congenial e-mail correspondence,
>but I have not witnessed ANY of things you accuse him of.    It was the
>exact same situation when people were after me to lecture DJR.  I simply
>hadn't witnessed his "offenses".

"None are so blind as they who will not see."




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

"You know why there are so few sophisticated computer terrorists in the United
States?  Because your hackers have so much mobility into the establishment.
Here, there is no such mobility.  If you have the slightest bit of intellectual
integrity you cannot support the government.... That's why the best computer 
minds belong to the opposition."

    - an anonymous member of the outlawed Polish trade union, Solidarity
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:54:35 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Heeey...  Wait a sec...  How did I miss this the first time around?

> In article <1992Aug21.190653.9870@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> TNN workers are truly Pro-Choice.  I do not consider EVEN ONE pro-"choicer"
>> in this newsgroup pro-choice in the least, when all they advocate is the one
>> choice, abortion.  It's like, do you like castor oil, or castor oil?

Hold on a sec.  I'm pro-choice, but if anyone were to come to me for
advice, I would more than likely tell them all about all the other
alternatives before even thinking about abortion.  

One day (maybe when I'm 65), I'd like very much to be a doctor.  
One of my fears of attaining that goal is that a patient may ask me 
to perform an abortion, even after considering all the alternatives.
Personally, I would rather loathe the dirty deed, as I don't feel
abortion should be used after implantation because (basically) it kills
a potential person.  BUT I can't just say to my patient "Too bad, you'll
have to go to a strange doctor if you want to have an abortion because
doing that for you would make me feel all icky inside."  Or can I?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Any comments on that?  I'd really appreciate some.

>> What has happened Elizabeth, is that The Nurturing Network has reinstated
>> the true meaning of the word Pro-Choice.

Doesn't mean they're the only ones.  Besides that, have you ever seen a
pro-choicer go up to a woman who is accidentally impregnated and saying
"You had better getcher butt down to the abortion clinic, or I'll get
right ornery!"?  I didn't think so.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:17:19 CDT


In article <1992Aug30.184325.9521@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> 
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >>>>> There are only 3 doctors in the United States that perform third
> >>>>> trimester abortions.  They *only* perform them for reasons of serious
> >>>>> health problems.
> 
> >>>> Please provide verifiable proof for this claim.
> 
> >>> I've told you before that I'm not going to do your homework for you,
> >>> Doug.  You'll have to contact 60 Minutes yourself.
> 
> >> a) Mr. Margolis claims that only three doctors in the United
> >>    States perform third trimester abortions, but 60 Minutes
> >>    claims that only three doctors specialize in late-term
> >>    abortions.
> >>
> >> b) The transcript does not support the claim of Mr. Margolis
> >>    that these doctors perform abortions only for reasons of
> >>    serious health problems.
> >>
> >> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
> >> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
> >> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
> >> willing to track down the source.
> 
> > That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  
> 
> In other words, you're unable to admit that you were wrong
> when you stated that 60 Minutes supported your claims, 
> and now you've fallen back on ``truth by blatant assertion'' 
> to support your claims.  I guess TbBA is acceptable only
> when Larry Margolis uses it. 

From the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:

        ABORTION/ Doctor says saline method discarded
[...]
        Saline solution is no longer used as an abortion technique,
        said Dr. Mildred Hanson, who does abortions in Minneapolis.
        "Nobody uses saline anywhere," she said.  "It is accompanied
        by a risk of bleeding and also by a risk of some of that
        saline going into maternal circulation."
[...]
        Today, abortions in the first trimester usually are by
        suction aspiration.  Late-stage abortions are done by a
        surgical procedure.

        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
        those conditions," she said.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:21:37 GMT

From article by Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
> 
> I am gay.  I strongly resent Mr. Nyikos's comparison between gay-bashing
> and abortion or infanticide.  Gay people are part of the social order,
> whether certain groups wish to think kind thoughts about us or not. 
> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
> not yet in the social order and not yet appropriate objects for ethics.


Michael, you have no idea how hateful and bigotted a statement you just
made, do you.  The first road out of bigotry, Michael is to open your
eyes.  And then your heart.


> Michael Loomis 

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:16:40 GMT

In <1992Aug28.173144.12617@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>pn>>In article <nyikos.714506449@milo.math.scarolina.edu nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) write
>dk>In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>pn>In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
>writes:

>pn>>[Item about a Dr. Chepko who is an abortionist and child pornographer]

>dk>So what is the point in this article?  I'm kind of curious if you see
>dk>some link here or what?  Does it matter that this doctor performed 
>dk>abortions? 

>pn>Sure does.  Note the item about his house and clinic being picketed
>pn>by pro-lifers.  Can we agree that sometimes the pro-lifers are 
>pn>justified in doing this?  [As maybe, just maybe, in Dr. Chepko's case.]

>Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
>child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
>because he performed abortions (A legal act).

Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.

As to why the pro-lifers were picketing, I don't know, but judging
from the pro-lifers I know, they were probably protesting both acts.
Certainly if they knew about all his sleazy porn business, they would
have been protesting both.

>While I have not seen any connection between Dr. Chepko's child 
>pornography and the pro-choice movement, I do see a connection between
>the few crazy bombers and the pro-life movement.  I would never paint the
>pro-life movement with the same brush as the Operation Rescue crazys, I
>still believe it is part of the pro-life movement.  And until the pro-life
>movement denounces such activity, they will be stuck with trying to 
>defend it. 

The bombers have been denounced.  As to Operation Rescue, there are 
mixed feelings.  Some regard it as simply the analogue of the Civil Rights
marches and sit-ins, many of which violated laws on the books.
Others do denounce it.  As for myself, never having seen a "Rescue" first
hand, I'm suspending judgment.

>I have no trouble distancing myself from Dr. Chepko's child pornography,
>can you say the same for Randall Terry's misogynic and homophobic
>preaching?

Never having heard any of it, I can't say.

>Dan King

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34964 alt.abortion.inequity:3505
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:47:09 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep3.193512.23785@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>
>Sure.  And I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that requires
>every male child to undergo a vascectomy at 12.  They could only reverse
>it (or attempt to reverse it) with written permission of their wife.
>
>How do you like those apples?  You want control over other people's
>lives, then I'll have control over yours.

With this absurd escalation, you would of course accept tubal ligation
for girls at 12, reversible only by permission of a husband.  Is that 
really the equivalent of consent for abortion?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:31:43 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


pn>In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
writes:
mk>In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

mk>  Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
mk>against her will, to bear young?

pn>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
pn>no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
pn>execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

In my ever so humble opinion:   Yes.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion