Path:
rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu
u!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!ejones
From: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.answers
Subject: talk.abortion FAQ 1/3 [Q & A]
Date: 12 Jun 92 16:29:02 GMT
Expires: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 00:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu
Followup-To: poster
Content-Length: 25528
X-Lines: 606
Status: RO

Archive-name: abortion/part1
Last-modified: June 13, 1992

*(Note: Diff markers (*) have been added to make scanning this document
*much easier for those who have seen it before.)

In an attempt to make a fair FAQ for this group, I've come up with the
following document.  I hope you'll find the FAQ fair and impartial,
without any references to actions on one side that don't include a
similar action on the other side.  This FAQ is updated every month,
and I continue to read any and all comments sent to me.  Make your
comments to me as specific as possible, even to the point of writing
whole paragraphs tha you would like to see in there.  I would like to
make this FAQ a true group FAQ, with contributions from as many people
as possible.

Please note this is the first of three documents.  The second document
is a list of relevant texts and information that people often ask for
on talk.abortion.  The third document contains relevant Supreme Court
decisions.  All three of these will always be posted at the same time,
on the first and fifteenth of each month.

In addition, the FAQ is by no means an attempt by me or anyone else to
restrict or censor the posts of other people.  This first document is
only meant to be helpful, not 1984-ish.  Also, a word of caution: This
is *not* an official FAQ.  There is no such thing as an official FAQ
for a talk.* group.  Many of the things contained in the first of the
three documents are opinion only - not necessarily my opinion, but
opinion nonetheless.  Please do not use this FAQ as official doctrine.
Use it only as the helpful guide it is meant to be.  

Thank you to everyone who helped create this FAQ.  I sincerely
appreciate the time and effort that you all put in on it.

Erik Jones
ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu

*****************************************************************************
                     FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
                          ON TALK.ABORTION

                      DOCUMENT ONE (OF THREE):
                       QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
-----------------

I. 	WHAT IS TALK.ABORTION?

II.	WHAT GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED ON TALK.ABORTION?	

III.	WHAT IS THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO?

IV.	WHAT IF I HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE GROUPS?

V.	ARE ALL PRO-[LIFERS/CHOICERS] ...?

VI.	IS THERE A LOT OF FLAMING?

VII.	HOW SHOULD I INTRODUCE MYSELF?	

VIII.	IF I DON'T WANT TO POST PUBLICLY, IS IT OK TO RESPOND BY PRIVATE
	E-MAIL?

IX.	WHAT IF I HAVE SOME STATISTICS I WANT TO POST?

X.	MAY I USE TALK.ABORTION TO ANNOUNCE MARCHES AND RALLIES?

XI.	WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN SOMEONE WRITES...?

XII.	WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON DISCUSSION THREADS?

-------------------------

I. WHAT IS TALK.ABORTION?

	talk.abortion is an unmoderated newsgroup where people discuss
	abortion.  All facets of abortion are discussed: Is abortion
	moral or immoral?  What are the current laws and court cases
	in the country?  When does a foetus become a person?  Does a
	foetus have a soul?

	The conversation also tends to stray into other related topics,
	such as the rights of the father if a woman wants or does not
	want an abortion, the morality of certain types of birth con-
	trol, the process by which certain religious groups have come
	to their stance on abortion, the rightness or wrongness of the
	tactics of such groups as the National Right-to-Life Committee, 
	NARAL, etc. Rights of the father tends to be more a discussion 
	of alt.abortion.inequity, but it certainly does arise here at  
	times.  There are no limits placed on what may be discussed,
	since talk.abortion is an unmoderated newsgroup.


II. WHAT GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED ON TALK.ABORTION?

	Just about every group you can imagine is represented.  Of
	course there are the two major sides, pro-life and pro-choice.
	(Please read section IV, NAMES OF GROUPS.)  There are also an
	infinite variety of opinions within those two groups.  There
	are those who feel any abortion is wrong, be it to save the
	life of the mother, or to abort a foetus who has been conceived
	due to rape or incest.  There are those who believe that 
	abortions should be allowed at any time during the woman's
	pregnancy, on demand.  There are those who believe that, while
	a foetus is truly a person, it is still the woman's choice to
	decide.  There are those who believe that abortions should 
	only be performed if the mother's life is in danger or if the
	woman has been raped.

	You'll find that no two people have exactly the same opinions,
	and that it is impossible to lump any person or group of people
	into one specific category. 


III. WHAT IS THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO?

	Rather poor.  Most people seem to agree that one has to wade
	through a lot of posts written out of pure emotion to find
	those which have been carefully thought out.  On a topic like
	this, which is so sensitive, most people do tend to get 
	emotional once in a while.  However, some of the best posts
	can be born out of raw emotion.  If you are willing to take the
	time, you will find some great conversations underneath the
	surface, but it will take some digging.  talk.abortion can
	range anywhere from 50 to 250 posts in one 24-hour period.


IV. WHAT IF I HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE NAMES OF THE GROUPS?

	Quite frequently, an argument springs up on talk.abortion
	about the names of the various groups.  It usually tends to
	run along the lines of, "You're not pro-life, you're ANTI-
	CHOICE!" or, "You're not pro-choice, you're PRO-DEATH!"  It
	seems to be fruitless to attempt to convince someone on the 
	other side of the issue that their chosen label (pro-life, 
	pro-choice, etc.) does not accurately describe their posi-
	tion.  Such attempts commonly degenerate into name calling.  
	If you are more interested in debating issues rather than 
	engaging in flamewars, it is usually best to refer to the 
	other person's position by the label that they have chosen.  
	Since it seems as if the majority of people who oppose legal 
	abortion choose to call themselves pro-life, and the majority 
	of people who support legal abortion choose to call them-
	selves pro-choice, those labels are used in this FAQ.  It is 
	not safe to assume that either label applies to any given 
	writer, however.  At least one participant in talk.abortion 
	prefers "pro-abortion," rather than "pro-choice."


V. ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS OR CATHOLICS?
   ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS PAGANS?
   ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS WOMEN?
   ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS MEN?
   ARE ALL PRO-LIFERS VIRGINS?
   ARE ALL PRO-CHOICERS IMMORAL AND PROMISCUOUS?

	No, no, no, no, no, and no.  As was stated above, one can not
	lump anyone from either side into any category.  Over the time
	that talk.abortion has been in existence, it has seen every
	type of person post.  Gross generalizations will tend to get
	the poster in some very hot water.  This is not an attempt to 
	censor posting, but rather a reminder how things like this 
	tend to move us away from the issues at hand.


VI. IS THERE A LOT OF FLAMING?

	Yes, an extraordinary amount.  Emotions run high with this issue
	anyway, and of course the people who will take the time to post
	to talk.abortion are those who are going to feel the strongest
	about the issue.  There are two times when people tend to flame
	the most:

		a) When they are backed into a corner.  If someone has
		trapped another person in an argument, that's when the
		flames tend to start from the person who has been backed
		in.

		b) When a person makes a blatant statement without any
		proof, i.e. "You're wrong and that's that!"  "Abortion
		is murder, plain and simple!"  "All pro-lifers are anti-
		women!"  When a person says something like this, duck
		for cover, because they are likely to get flamed rather
		badly.  Unfortunately, (b) often tends to happen because
		(a) happens.

	Needless to say, it is best not to flame, because it affects the
	signal-to-noise ratio and makes talk.abortion harder to read.
	The truth is, though, that we all tend to flame at times, and we
	will all get flamed at some point, so we do the best we can not
	to let it get to us.  By the way, it's useless to write, "Don't
	flame me for saying this..." in your post.  It won't stop any-
	one from flaming you.  If you do not want to get flamed, don't
	post to talk.abortion.


VII. HOW SHOULD I INTRODUCE MYSELF?

	There are three approaches that are commonly used, which can be
	listed for you here:

		a) Post a short biography of yourself, stating your
		position and why they feel that way in a nice, gentle,
		non-offensive manner.  You are bound to get some 
		friendly greetings from both sides of the issue if you 
		do it this way.  However, your post might also get
		lost in the high volume on talk.abortion.

		b) Slide right into the conversations at hand, which
		also works well, saving yourself from those embarrass-
		ing introductions.

		c) Post something with a subject header all in CAPITAL
		LETTERS where you say something along the lines of,
		"I AM APPALLED AT <insert side> FOR BEING SUCH ABSO-
		LUTE YUTZES ON THIS ISSUE!  ABORTION IS <a right/im-
		moral> AND THERE'S NO DEBATE ABOUT IT!  WHY DON'T ALL
		THE <pro-lifers/pro-choicers> GO JUMP OFF A BUILDING
		AND MAKE THIS <world/country> A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE!"
		Needless to say, this is probably not a good way to 
		introduce yourself to talk.abortion.


VIII. IF I DON'T WANT TO POST PUBLICLY, IS IT OK TO RESPOND BY PRIVATE
      E-MAIL?

	Yes, but I heartily recommend stating whether or not you would
	allow the person receiving the mail to post it to the Net if
	they so desire.  (We've had many conversations on the issue of
	people doing just that in the past.)  It will prevent future
	mis-understandings.

	There have been occasions where people on both sides have
	been harassed by people on the opposite sides of the issue 
	by private e-mail.  If this happens to you, promptly tell the 
	person in private that you do not wish to receive any more mail 
	from that person.  If they persist, tell your system admini-
	strator about the problem.  If the problem still persists and 
	you want to take the matter public to the Net, realize you are 
	stepping in some very hot water there.  Some people feel
	adamantly about private e-mail never being posted (due to the
	fact it is private and it can also be easily forged) and some
	others feel it is the only way to stop harassment.  This FAQ
	takes no sides on the issue.  However, a warning is appropriate:
 	If you do post private e-mail, prepare for some major flames.
	There have been a number of occasions of this happening in 
	recent memory, and when the person posted the private e-mail,
	there was fierce discussion on the issue each time.

	If someone is harassing you publicly, you have no options but
	to ignore them or harass them back.  There are a few people out
	there who have intense animosity towards specific people on the
	other side of the issue, and the language and flames between
	the two of them often gets intense.  When harassment is public,
	at least you have other people on your side supporting you.


IX. WHAT IF I HAVE SOME STATISTICS I WANT TO POST?

	DOCUMENT THEM!  We have a major problem on talk.abortion with
	people posting statistics off the tops of their heads, and then
	not quoting the source.  (After all, everybody knows that 63.7%
	of stats are made up.) If you post that the majority of people
	are pro-life, you are wrong.  If you post that the majority of
	people are pro-choice, you are wrong.  The only useful statistic
	is a documented statistic, not one created from something like,
	"Well, most of the people I know are <pro-choice/pro-life>, and
	and my rallies are bigger than the other side's, so the majority
	of people in this country must agree with me!"

	When you do document a statistic, it is best if you can also
	tell just how that statistic was reached.  At the April pro-
	choice rally in Washington DC, there were people on the Net who
	said that there were 31,000 people there, and people who said
	that there were over one million people there.  Those were from
	rough guesses.  The official estimates ranged anywhere from
	100,000 to 750,000+, all dependent on what source you looked at.
	Each group that tried to count did it in a different way, each
	with different ways in which their counting could have been high
	or low in comparison with the actual number.  When one states
	just how the statistic was reached, that allows the people on
	talk.abortion themselves to decide the merit of the statistic.
	By the way, don't expect to convince many people on the other
	side, even with statistics.  There are many people on both sides
	who claim that their group's rally in Washington DC was bigger,
	and nothing will convince either side otherwise.  After all, a
	pro-choicer is much more likely to believe a statistic compiled
	by NOW, and a pro-lifer is much more likely to believe a sta-
	tistic compiled by Operation Rescue.

	In addition to all of this, you should probably try to post 
	statistics in as fair a manner as possible.  A statement like, 
	"1.5 million children are murdered each year!" does nothing to 
	help the discussion, especially if the people on the other side 
	don't believe that it is murder.  (See the definition of MURDER
	in the second of the three FAQ documents.)  Instead, "1.5 mil-
	lion abortions are performed each year," is much more factual 
	and gets right to the point of the issue.  Likewise, an asser-
	tion, "Members of Operation Rescue bombed six abortion clinics 
	last year!" is invalid.  Six clinics might have been bombed, but 
	to say that members of Operation Rescue did it is unwarranted, 
	unless it has been proved in a court of law.


X. MAY I USE TALK.ABORTION TO ANNOUNCE MARCHES AND RALLIES?

	Absolutely.  talk.abortion may be considered a public service,
	so feel free to post information on anything you choose, in-
	cluding the following:

	- how a person may obtain an abortion
	- where a person might go to get abortion counseling
	- where a person who chooses not to have an abortion might go
	  for advice an support
	- the various options available to people seeking abortions
	- information on the work of such organizations as Planned
	  Parenthood, Birthright, NARAL, NOW, Operation Rescue, etc.
	- when rallies/parades/marches/protests/blockades are going to
	  take place, regardless of how the other side feels about the
	  fact these are taking place
	- texts of recent laws and court decisions affecting abortion
	- how certain politicians feel about the issue (document it...)
	- upcoming movies/documentaries/television shows about abortion
	- movements to pass a bill, stop a bill, etc.

	talk.abortion should be considered an information source for
	people on both sides of the issue, especially for the first
	four categories listed.  As debaters, we tend to forget that
	there might be people pregnant, scared, and in need of help,
	with talk.abortion as their only source for information.  It
	might also be a much healthier forum for debate if both sides
	engaged in more of this.


XI. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN SOMEONE WRITES:

 a) z/e/f?

	z/e/f is short for zygote/embryo/foetus.  It is a term often
	used by people on the pro-choice side.  While a pro-lifer will
	call it a baby or a child, a pro-choice person does not wish
	to give that kind of attribution.  However, the unborn is not
	always a foetus, either, when speaking in medically correct
	terminology.  Therefore, this term covers all the bases.

 b) TBA? TbBA?

	TBA is not To Be Announced, it stands for Truth by Blatant
	Assertion.  It is an acronym used commonly by both sides.  If
	a person does not have a logical or rational argument, they
	will often say something along the lines of, "Well, it
	is/isn't murder because I say so and that's that!"  This is
	Truth by Blatant Assertion; the writer is hoping that if they
	say it vehemently enough, everyone will see that they are
	right.  This is not a good way to argue if one wants to do it
	with logic.

 c) NFP?

*	NFP stands for Natural Family Planning, which is popularly
*	known as the "rhythm method."  It is a type of birth control
*	practiced by some Catholics and others.  No artificial birth
	control is used.  Rather, followers of NFP study the
	biological patterns of the woman to try to determine when she
	is fertile and when she is not.

 d) POV?

	Point of View.

 e) IMO?  IMHO?  IMNSHO?

	In My Opinion, In My Humble Opinion, and In My Not So Humble
	Opinion, respectively.

 f) WRT?

	"with respect to," or "with regard to."


XII. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON DISCUSSION THREADS?

Many thanks to Siren for sending me the original list of these threads.
Not all of the information sent could be incorporated, but I hope this 
gives newcomers a sense of what is discussed here. 

- Absoluteness of Morality and Ethics

	This thread always seems to start with someone asking, "Is
	it right to abort a foetus?"  It then continues on to debate
	the value of human life, and the importance of human life
	over other forms of life.  This thread consists of some
	often interesting explanations of personal philosophy.

- Adoption vs. Abortion 

	Facts and myths about adoption, from both sides.  Usually someone
	will state that adoption is the best answer to the whole debate 
	about abortion.  Others will then agree, and some will make a case
	that adoption is not always a better answer than abortion.  

- Bible Study 

	Interesting insights into the tradition of Judeo-Christian
	religion.  Much discussion about various Bible quotes and debate 
	over whether the Bible prohibts abortion or tacitly condones it.

- Birth Process 

	This usually begins with one person stating that pregnancy is 
	easy, and that it is not difficult at all for a woman to give 
	birth.  This is then countered/supported with the personal 
	experiences of women who have gone through a pregnancy and 
	possibly birth.  This tends to be a very emotional issue, and it 
	is advised that no one trivialize the difficulties involved in 
	pregnancy.

- Child Support 

	A tangential issue best avoided by the weak of stomach including a
	tremendous amount of flames and name calling, as well as half-
	truths and lies from both sides.  There are frequent calls to take 
	this thread into alt.abortion.inequity.

- Constitution

	A number of people on talk.abortion have great knowledge of the 
	U.S. Constitution, and much debate goes on regarding the inter-
	pretation of the Constitution with regards to abortion.  It 
	should be reminded of people that t.a is an international forum, 
	and U.S. laws do not apply to many readers of t.a.

- Feminism and the Abortion Dilemma 

	What is the role of modern feminism in the abortion debate?  This
	discussion usually centers around the policies of groups such as 
	NOW, Feminists for Life, and the policies of well-known feminists.

- Fetal Development

	Facts about gestation and fetal development are discussed at 
	length and their relevance to abortion expounded.  The purpose of
	this thread is usually to determine when life actually begins, or 
	if the unborn foetus is truly a separate organism from the mother 
	or not.

- Flaming

	There are many private flame wars going on in this newsgroup, most
	of which have nothing to do with abortion.  You can usually 
	recognize these by their bastardizations of other people's names 
	in the subject header.

- Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust, and Abortion

	People battle valiantly against the verbicide of the word "Nazi" 
	and others, and inaccurate analogies.  This topic invariably 
	degrades into both sides calling the other side "Nazi's."  On the 
	pro-life side of the argument, those who argue on this thread 
	state that Hitler condoned abortions, the Nazi's practiced it, 
	and therefore it is evil.  On the pro-choice side, they claim 
	that the pro-lifers are doing just what the Nazi's did, forcing 
	other people to conform to their beliefs.  Many comparisons are 
	drawn between the Holocaust and abortion, drawing shock and out-
	rage from others.  A word of warning: Don't trivialize this 
	subject.  There are many people who have been deeply touched and
	affected by these subjects, and for the sake of these people it is
	recommended that this thread be avoided by everyone.

- Law and the Supreme Court
	
	Discussion: Roe v. Wade, the Gag Rule, Webster v. Reproductive 
	Health Services, the Freedom of Choice Bill, the Human Life
	Amendment, as well as miscellaneous laws in various states and in 
	other countries, especially Ireland.
 
- Life of the Mother

	Should abortions be allowed if the life of the mother is at stake?
	This often delves into the relative importance of a foetus versus 
	that of a mature woman.  This is also a topic which tends to 
	explode when it reaches critical mass.

- Parent Notification and Public Sex Education

	The ever-changing family in a tumultuous society. Should our sons 
	and daughters be taught about sex, pregnancy, and abortion in the 
	public schools?  Should one, both, or none of the parents be 
	notified if a young woman wants to have an abortion?  What should 
	the age cutoff be?  This often strays from the topic, but holds 
	many interesting points and concerns.    

- Population and Society 

	The effect of abortion or lack thereof on the population of the 
	world or the country.

- Procreation and Contraception 

	The purpose of sex and what this has to do with abortion. Usually 
	framed with Biblical quotes and much flaming.  Often debates the 
	merits of NFP, and whether the Catholic Church condones or 
	condemns NFP.

- Rape and Incest

	Should exceptions be made for abortion in the case of rape or 
	incest?  Many people believe that it should; however, the official
	Catholic Church position is that this should not be an exception.  
	Therefore, this issue tends to explode violently every time it 
	arises.  (Personal note: Rape is a very charged issue for many
*	people on talk.abortion.  There are people on this discussion group 
	who have been personally affected by rape.  When discussing the 
	issue, please try to be civil and considerate to those who have a 
	greater stake in this issue than you or I.)

- Responsibility to the Foetus

	A buzzword thread.  Very little of substance ever comes through 
	here.  What responsibility does a woman and society as a whole 
	have towards a foetus, and does that responsibility end after 
	birth?

- Rights of the Father

	A thread which is usually bumped over into alt.abortion.inequity.
	Should a woman have to notify the father about the abortion?  
	Should the man have a say as to whether the woman should be able 
	to abort the foetus or not?

- Values and the Relativeness to Abortion. 

	Wherein the concept of absolute rights of the woman and the foetus
	is fired on from a variety of approaches in an intriguing display.


In closing, talk.abortion is a very volatile roller-coaster of a News-
group.  It has to be, with an issue this sensitive and this close to
the heart.  This FAQ is not an attempt to control posts.  It is an
attempt to give new readers a source of information that they can refer
to in order to find out more about talk.abortion.  Enjoy the heat.

******************************************************************************
The FAQ documents were written by:         Erik R. Jones


The following people contributed to these FAQ documents.  I owe my thanks
to each of them for their contributions, large or small.

*Jim Ault		- Address for Operation Rescue

*E. Elizabeth Bartley	- Information on common acronyms, statistics 
*			  and information on abortion and foetal
*			  development

Linda Birmingham	- Some excellent opinions on the nature of FAQ's,
			  helping me work on the tone of the documents

Keith Cochran		- Wrote a previous FAQ, which helped get this entire
			  idea rolling; ideas for definitions

Kevin Darcy		- The text of Ohio v. Akron, and general editing
			  comments

Ray Fischer		- Inspiration for splitting this up into three docs,
			  as well as an acronym suggestion

Susan Garvin		- Suggesting the info on the groups and sending me
			  said info, forwarding the Freedom of Choice Act to
			  me, the text of Section IV of the first document,
			  and keeping me honest through this whole process

James Keegan 		- Many thoughtful comments regarding the tone of the
			  FAQ, as well as thoughts about religion and the
			  abortion debate

Larry Margolis		- General comments and definition ideas, plus the Roe
			  v. Wade text

Sarah McCabe		- Inspiration for putting in some definitions, general
			  editing

*George F. McQuary	- Thoughts on NFP

Michael Moore		- An acronym suggestion

Kristy Patterson	- The first one to give me the idea for adding in the
			  Supreme Court decisions

Don Porter  		- Terrific information on Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton,
			  and Rust v. Sullivan, as well as forwarding me the
			  text to the Human Rights Amendment, which was ori-
			  ginally posted by Bill Overpeck.

Nora Rivkas		- Many thanks for your original comments, which were
			  the original catalyst to get me working on this
			  project

Rocker			- General editing comments

Siren 			- A very informative and valuable FAQ, much of
			  which was incorporated into this one, most notably
			  the list of many of the subject threads
******************************************************************************