HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:47:35 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:

>>I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice")
>>in a big way.

>If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
>get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
>"Pro-Abortion"?  Why is this distinction so important?  It seems to be more

Let's see. Pro-abortion to me means that one is for abortion. There
is a slight difference in the stance of allowing one to make a choice
between birth and keeping the child, adoption, and abortion and promoting
abortion as the only stance. (that is, after all, what pro-abortion
implies, that abortion is the only "choice", similar to pro-life, where
life is the only choice) Apologies extended to the "pro-abortionists",
whose views mirror mine more closely than they know, for making such
a simple statement about complex inuendos, but hopefully it will get
through the clouds.

>than just a legitimate concern over getting the issues straight.  I can't
>think of any other issue where people react this way.

>I think the answer is obvious: most people do find something wrong with
>abortion, but they aren't willing to impose that on others.

I think it would be great if no one ever had to have an abortion, because
there was no *need* for any. Until then, I feel the same way about it
that I feel about amputation and surgery for tumor removals. Both place
people at risk, and wouldn't it be nice if they didn't have to have
surgery?

The world is imperfect, despite all our efforts to make it so.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.011558.543@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)                   writes... 
>In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> 
>>I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
>>an enjoyable experience for some people,

I hope you don't mind me jumping into this conversation, but what do you
mean by "based on what I have read." Are you still a virgin (don't get me
wrong; there is nothing wrong with that)? Or do you mean that it has only
been enjoyable for other people? The reason I bring this up is if you are
still a virgin, maybe you should do a little research (or maybe a lot of
research, active participation only) before you start telling people
what to do with their sex lives.

 but what's wrong with a little
>>responsibility???
> 
Absolutely nothing. But from what experience are you drawing on?

>My sex life is none of your business unless I choose to
>involve you, and I really don't even care a little bit about
>your sex life.
> 
I don't think there is anything to care about.

>>Simon
> 
>Dan King

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:08:12 GMT

In article <lcml1oINNmu6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:


   >Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

   >Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
   >1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
   >judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
   >the deaths of millions?!

   Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.

   I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.
   All it does is make them look like know-nothings.

She is a freshman.  What do you expect?

Scott

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:28:41 GMT

In <1992Oct02.052125.158459@watson.ibm.com> 
   Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes: >
In  <1992Oct1.142920.1767@acd4.acd.com>  wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM
   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >>>
In article <4588@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com
   (David Favor) writes: >>>>

>>>>> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
>>>>> been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.
>
>>>> evertime I hear of people 'waiting' to adopt a child I wonder what these
>>>> people are really 'waiting' for. if they were truely concerned with the
>>>> care of a child they would simply adopt one out of their backyard... the
>>>> entire adoption process truely puzzles me.
>
>>> They are waiting for a blue eyed unhandicapped white child, preferably
>>> male.  Ask any social worker.
>
>> Ask this one.  The most recent adoptive home study I conducted
>> involves a couple who are more than willing to consider a non-
>> white, handicapped (especially hearing or speech impaired, as
>> the woman is a Speech and Language Pathologist) child.  Gender
>> is irrelevant also.
>
> OK, I'll ask this social worker.  How long did they have to wait?

Their home study will be completed today, so they're still in the
application process.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Organization: William's Marsh
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.171906.123036@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>In  <BvJwK6.7H2@rice.edu>  patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct03.005334.20257@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
>> >In  <6703@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> >>
>> >> I'm wondering when Suzanne will tell us what "black facial
>> >> features" are.  Does she mean that the baby had white skin
>> >> everywhere other than its nose, ears, and mouth, or does she
>> >> imagine that all black people look alike?
>> >
>> >What *I* want to know is, did it have a black ass?
>> >
>> >:-)
>>
>> Yow.  Well, at least you have an idea of what'll happen...:-)
>
>Gee, I don't understand.  I'd expect a black baby to be black.  Since
>Suzanne claims it's born white, I'm simply inquiring about the color of
>a certain part of its anatomy.  Surely nobody could take offense in
>regards to the suggestion that the posterior of a black person is, indeed,
>black?
>
>:-)

Well, nobody with more than a single functioning neuron could, anyway...:-)

--PLH, and we don't have white sheets, either

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:28:38 CDT

In article <1992Sep30.184027.3858@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>
>Disrupts the normal biological process of that organism?  Do you really
>mean to say that women were never biologically designed to carry on
>the human race?  I mean, the wider hips.  Were they just accidental?  Or
>were they widened to allow births?  I don't want to get into detail, but
>it seems to me that our babies are designed to be biologically compatible
>with their mothers.
>

"Make _her_ do it. It's what she's designed for."

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 28 Sep 1992 07:46:11 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep26.180933.17930@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.200000.21233@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>>In <1992Sep22.114814.13838@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
>>   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
>>In article <1992Sep21.192121.9494@acd4.acd.com>
>>   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>>[to adrienne]
   ^^^^^^^^^^^

I haven't participated in this silly thread.  No need to drag my name into
it, thanks.

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:02:47 GMT

In <1992Sep25.112508.6488@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <1992Sep24.192727.28862@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article <1992Sep19.164636.6403@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
>> > Saline/induction abortions are vanishingly rare
>> > in the U.S. nowadays.
>> 
>> But they're not gone, are they.

>Yes they are.

>> Why not?

>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."

I'd like a source that is not so obviously biased as this woman who
has been the target of several lawsuits, including one where she
allegedly had a woman held down and performed an abortion on her 
against her will.

BTW does anyone know of the present status of THIS lawsuit?  My sources
are over a year old, and at that time it was still pending.

>        Today, abortions in the first trimester usually are by
>        suction aspiration.  Late-stage abortions are done by a
>        surgical procedure.

FALSE!!  George Tiller of Wichita gives fetuses a lethal dose of digoxin by
cardiac injection, then gives the mother prostaglandins
or oxytocin to expel the
corpse.  [Except that there MAY be that dreaded complication, a live
birth.  More on this in posts later this week.]

BTW are "oxytocin" and "pitosin" the same thing? is either of them
classed as a prostaglandin?

>        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.

Almost certainly false, since Tiller's ad for third trimester abortions
mentions fetal deformity but does not use the word "serious"; nor does
it mention threat to the mother's *health*, much less *life*.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: net 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:20:28 GMT

Ideleted all the text, but left the references just to show how far
this topic has gone. Reading some of the stuff posted under the
above subject (which some may remember that I originated) I have
reached the conclusion that I was correct with my initial post.
Thank you all for verifying my theory. :-)

REB


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:49:18 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <!nkz-l-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>->If you can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider retracting
>>->the accusation.
>>
>>sure i'll consider it. but i really don't think my position
>>will change. why don't you ask cj? i'm curious if she'll
>>tell you the truth.
>And I'm curious to see if you will have the intellectual honesty
>to support your position--or retract it.

_I_ will support keegan's position on this.  But as keegan has posted
that he does not want the details public again, you'll have to email
me for the story.

>-Ekr

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:26:25 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <nate.610@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>,
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

|>    The resolution to my friends' problem was to approach an attorney 
|>who worked with one of the much-maligned "crisis pregnancy centers". My
|>friends have agreed to foot all medical bills for the birth mother (who
|>is in her 3rd "unexpected" pregnancy; neither of her previous pregnancies 
|>resulted in abortion; she kept one and put the other up for adoption).

This is a data point in support of my speculation that many "crisis-type"
(not to be confused with Crisis Pregnancy, Corp or Inc or something, which
is surely a registered trademark of someone or other somewhere. Bill.)
pregnancy centers exist for the main purpose of fronting for the very
lucrative adoption market.

|>Nathan Engle

                         -rocker
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:24:17 GMT

Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de () writes:

>Damn you, Ray, I was on my way home when this came in :-)

Just say no.

>Birth is not unambiguous.  It takes a while.

The birth _process_ takes a while.  This includes labor, etc.  The
_moment_ of birth is when the baby is out of the mother's vagina.

>When only the head is born, how many people are in the room?

I guess that would depend, wouldn't it?

>May I use the face of this half-born human child to test cosmetics?
>If I get the woman's prior consent by paying her $250K, then may I?
>If I do all of this the name of science, possibly to find a cure for Aids, 
>then may I subject the face of this human child to an acid treatment?
>What happens when the legs are born first?  Are these the legs of a 
>person but the head of a non-person is still inside the woman?
>May I inject this child's head with a lethal chemical in the name of
>science, in order to develop a fool-proof contraceptive, since the head
>of the baby is still inside the woman?  Always assuming that I don't 
>harm the woman, that I have her prior written consent, and that I pay
>her handsomely, of course.

While you've got some, ummmmmmm, _interesting_ fantasies there, I
think you'd better be prepared to work real, real fast if you want
to do any of these things.  It's generally a matter of a few seconds,
at most, between the time the head clears and the rest of the body.
If it's much longer than that, there's a serious problem with the
birth and frankly, the baby may not live through the process in some
cases.  If you want to do your experiments on one of these rare
cases, you'd better be prepared to fight for space with the doctors
who are probably performing emergency surgery.  This seems to be
preferable to the old practice, which was to break the baby's
scapula and/or collarbone and hope it survived the treatment.

>I'd just like to be sure that you've thought this through, and that you
>are not one of those misguided people who think that they alone know what 
>is best.

Was the discussion not about granting _legal_ rights?  Hey, if
you want to treat that fertilized egg as a person, we're not
stopping you.  Bring it flowers, set an extra place at dinner,
or quote Shakespeare, it's all perfectly legal under the present
system.  The law only forces you to recognize the personhood of 
the woman that's _carrying_ that fertilized egg, ok?

>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:55:43 GMT

In article <BvppHG.Ds9@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.174846.6741@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <BvpnLC.CMJ@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>
>>Have YOU been enjoying sex, Cynthia?
>>If so, please report yourself to the nearest church for reprogramming.

>>-Ekr

>I'm allowed, I'm not Christian.  :-)

>CRS

Not if the fundies get their way. Then you won't be allowed to enjoy
sex because your enjoying sex gets in the way of their practicing
their religion. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Third Trimester Anti-Abortion Laws
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:30:11 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct5.001725.5184@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.024107.3318@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org>
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>>	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>>>	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
>>>	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>>>	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>>>	etc.

>>Don't kid yourself, Kevin -- there's a cost to restricting
>>third-trimester abortions.  Even if nobody was denied an abortion,
>>everyone would have to get court/doctor's approval for their abortions
>>... this at a time when the women getting abortions can *least* afford
>>additional hassle.

>What makes you think I support laws which mandate court approval of third-tri
>abortions? There only needs to be as much cost as necessary to implement the
>laws. You seem to think that an official court process is necessary. I think 
>maybe periodic spot-checks of hospital records, with followups on anything 
>suspicious (possibly culminating in a sting operation) might achieve the
>desired results with a fraction of the social cost. When it comes to 
>IMPLEMENTATION, I'm pretty much with Cathi: don't fix it unless it's broken. 
>But at the same time, my point was that I had no overriding THEORETICAL 
>problems -- moral, legal or otherwise -- with reasonable third-tri restrictions.

I want third-trimester restrictions, Kevin, but I admit that there's a
cost to them.  You still haven't acknowledged that there's a COST to
restricting third-trimester abortions, Kevin.  In the situation as
you've described it, the cost would be the doctors having to think,
"Gee, she's got barely a 1% risk of death -- if I give her an
abortion, will the cops hassle me about it?"

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Getting Back to The christian perspective...?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:27:11 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

] Eric, you're missing the point COMPLETELY.
] 
] Our debate centers around the question "At what point does a fetus
] become a person?"  We've given you our stands on this, and our
] reasoning, and how the points we choose (myelination or birth) can be
] logically and legally supported.


Ok, so what does this interesting notion about modern science
have to do with the Clear Biblical Tradition that there is a
distinction between the Born and the UnBorn....


That you do not wish to deal with Christianity is YOUR problem....

But please, decide whether or NOT your SeXularHumanism is
sufficient reason to Abandon Biblical Principles.


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 20:32:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct4.214027.6466@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
> The use of the term "unwanted pregnancies" suggests that the mother is
> merely in a state, a state of pregnancy.  This dehumanizes the mother
> as being a mere object of state.  The mother does more than carry.  She
> takes care of the baby and safeguards it.  The mother should be a safeguarder
> of life, not its destroyer.

A strawman argument, and not a particularly good one.  The term "unwanted
pregnancy" suggests that the woman is pregnant and does not want to be.
"Merely in a state" is your invention.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 00:15:12 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.170250.14130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.053306.27
> >>What is so wrong with the fact that a human life is dependent on its mother?
> >
> >Nothing, nothing at all!  What's _wrong_ is that you say that it's
> >always unpermissible to kill the human life.  You're conveniently
> >ignoring the fact that the mother may have a very good reason to not
> >want to play host to the fetus.
>
> Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
> Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?

If you're talking about a person, no.  If you're talking about a zygote,
yes.

> >And I'm saddened by your position, too, but I can understand how some
> >people want to try to compare my life to the life of a fertilized egg,
> >and say that we're both equal (which is something of an insult to me),
> >but that the fertilized egg is more important than the woman who
> >carries it (which is an insult to the woman).
>
> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
> whatever.

Then how come I can see the forty year old musician without a microscope?
Maybe there's at least a little bit of difference?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion