HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:00:41 GMT

><1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) :
>>I have just recently subscribed and begun reading these groups.  I have never
>>seen to sides take such reactionary and extremist positions on any subject. We
>>have the pro-choicers, who feel abortion is right and should be made available
>>whenever and wherever a woman wants it.


Wait, wait, wait, Mike. I am vehemently pro-choice and I have *never* stated
or believed that abortion is "right".  I don't advocate any postition allowing
or disallowing or regulating, in *any* way, a woman's bodily functions. This
is not my decision; It is not my body.  If you cannot get this into your head
you are missing the entire issue of PRO CHOICE.


>>Then, the pro-lifers at the other
>>extreme who would eliminate the possibility of abortion for all circumstances.
>>Because of these extremist views I can safely say that I am neither pro-life or
>>pro-choice.  I will not support such extremist viewpoints. 

But you will inaccurately describe them.

>
>>                    Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  

Don't preach responsibility. I'd be willing we could dredge up quite a lot
of irresponsible behavior in your past, just as we could do for everyone 
else, including me.



>>                                                               Abortion is NOT
>>a valid method of birth control.  

I'm not sure how much more valid you can get, man.  Abortion controls birth
*very* well. It is quite effective at controlling birth. You may not *agree*
with it being used as such, but it is about as 'valid' as any other method.


>
>>                                  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>have sex regardless of the cost?  

Get real. I mean it. Not sarcastically either. You are quite naive if you think
you can just tell people "hey, get your act together. Be responsible" It
won't happen, hence, smell the coffee, dude, get real.

>
>>	I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
>>cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.  

I think you'd change your mind if you were a pregnant woman who was having
a  rapists child. It's quite easy to take a strong postition on a subject
you cannot even imagine.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:31:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes ...
>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>> 
>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
>
>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...

Just to elaborate on the consequences of such a position, I'll add the 
following.

Abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal deformity would, of course,
be prohibited.

Abortion to preserve the health of the mother would also be prohibited 
(it is not currently allowed to kill one person to preserve the health 
of another).

Post-viability abortions to save the life of the mother might also be
prohibited, as killing one person to save the life of another is not
generally permitted, and establishing the certainty of the mothers death
should the pregnancy continue would be quite difficult on most cases.

The mother would not be permitted to do anything that could not also 
be done to an infant while pregnant.  No alchohol, no cigarettes, no
drugs (legal or otherwise), no medication that might harm the z/e/f.

Any miscarriage would be treated as a possible homicide.

Is this really the world you want to live in?  Why?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not by choice. . . Only by accident.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:45:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.200159.15919@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.164210.12133@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>
>>So who do you apply to for a license?  Or do you have a degree in
>>philosophy?
>
>You apply to the North American Applied Philosophy Assocation.
>
>The kind of philosophy that you get a degree for is "Pure Philosophy".
>We don't think much of it, because it devotes too much time to asking
>questions, and not enough time to finding answers. The goal of
>Applied Philosophy is to come up with answers.
>
>If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend John Kennedy Toole's novel, 
>"A Confederacy of Dunces".

Publisher please?  I haven't found this in my regular book store, so it
will have to be a special order.  Which can't be done without the publisher,
so they sez. . .

>Two of the characters (Ignatius J. Reilly 
>and Myra Minkoff) are role-models for Applied Philosophers everywhere.
>
>===========================================================
>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
>===========================================================

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
 
Hopefully I'm not taking this out of context.  I only saw this in a
message that was J H Woodyatt reply to John Stevens.
 
>                                      I've never heard anybody, pro-abort
> or pro-life, say that ONLY the man should have the say in when a woman
> gives birth. [...] 
 
But then:

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.
  
So how are these two apparently contradicting statements resolved?  If
the fetus's father has the right to deny the woman an abortion, doesn't
that give him the say in when the woman gives birth?
 
I'm also real curious how such an amendment could possibly work.
How about spelling out for us what such an amendment would say.

>I don't want to make abortion illegal, but it does look like the
>politically expedient way of achieving fairness in this area.
 
So you are saying since men are being treated unfairly, rather than
fixing that problem, you want to make the law also treat women 
unfairly.  You want to do it this way because it is easier than
working to make legislation fair for both sexes?

>If a law or constitutional amendment is passed that allows abortion to
>remain the sole choice of the woman, then I will have to turn to getting
>fatherhood to be legally recognized as a choice, not an obligation.

So why not do it.  Why whine about how terrible men are being treated?  
Rather than making the system even more unfair, why aren't you working to
make the system fair for both sexes?  

Dan King

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:44:23 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 

<1992Sep2.021850.24928@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><l9kl7mINN6nc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) :
>><1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>><+h6m50a.gordons@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>I'm glad.
>>^^^^^^^^^
>>So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.
>>
>>Heck, that's what I've been saying all along. Glad that you finally have
>>come to see the light of reason, Suzanne.
>
>Yeah, shame on Suzanne. She shouldn't be imitating you like that. It
>is not nice for pro-lifers to say such things about people. 

Neiner, neiner.  Is this the level of school yard repartee they teach up
there in SACU?
...
>I believe Suzanne's point was that when they said "There aren't enough
>homes for them. Spay or Neuter your pet.", Gordon Storga did just
>that: he neutered himself like a good doggie. 

Ah, Stephen, it is unfortunate that you slept away your biology classes.
This is a classic example of the poor job of sex education that exists in
this country.  Let's make it very clear for you, then you can go back to
sneaking a peak at the nekkid natives in Nat'l Geographic:

In a vasectomy, the vas deferens is snipped and sutured, thereby
preventing any sperm from being introduced into the seminal fluid
during intercourse.  Semen is still produced and the testicles are still
intact.  All normal hormone secretion continues.  And most studies show
a noticible drop in the rate of prostate cancer among men who've had a
vasectomy, with a corresponding increase in satisfaction in the couple's
lovemaking believed to be due to the reduced stress involving unwanted
pregnancy potential.

Neutering, or castration, is the surgical removal of the testicles or
ovaries to cause sterility.  This usually results in hormonal imbalance
which is offset by external chemicals.

Now that you've had your biology lesson you can run outside and play.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:36:20 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> 
>> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>> and Pharisees suffered.

>Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!

                                                     MP.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:51:43 GMT

In <1992Sep3.144139.24044@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >  
In article <1992Sep1.185819.29967@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>> hmmmm. bill overpeck told me earlier today that it
>>> was prejudicial to suggest that someone seek
>>> psychiatric help when i suggested that DODie do so.
> 
>> Not true.  I said that your implication was
>> prejudicial, as your comments were obviously
>> insincere
>
> you're mistaken, bill. i would be pleased if the lad
> got help.

Since Doug has ostensibly demonstrated nothing that would
indicate the presence of any psychopathology, your "concern"
is misplaced (and not especially compelling). 

> i hope you don't feel too badly about having made this
> mistake.

Perhaps this is yet another example of your "sincerity"?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 23:20:21 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  <1992Sep1.161533.11807@hemlock.cray.com>  rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
> 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.

Thanks, Russ.  Happy now, Doug?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34751 alt.abortion.inequity:3454
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:38:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely!  How would I find it in this mess?

In article <Btx4G6.E2y@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>> I take it you are unaware of the attempts to get either law enacted, or
>>> to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion.
>>
>>Oh - you're confusing pro-choice with "pro-abort".
>
>Oh - you're confusing pro-female-choice with "pro-choice".
>Oh - you're confusing pro-second-choice with "pro-choice".
>
>>And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>>being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
>>They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
>>to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
>>of other people.
>
>Interesting.  So human fetuses are roughly equivalent to cattle.  
>You are, of course, entitled to your opinions.  But one problem
>with your analogy is that cattle are property which one person
>can own, to the exclusion of others, or which two people can
>jointly own, with corresponding rights and liabilities.  Are fetuses
>property?  If so, why can't they be jointly owned?  If singly owned,
>how can a non-owner have liabilities?
>
>>> The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
>>> who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.
>>
>>I assume this is simply emotional rhetoric, and you realize that fathers
>>are *not* having abortions, forced or not.  If not, you need to take a
>>biology course...
>
>Emotional or not, it is an appropriate metaphor.  Especially on
>alt.abortion.inequity.

At last, somebody who understands, and can think for themselves!

>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Please feel free to criticize my postings.  You seem capable of being
constructive.  Most of the critique I get is personal attack, or
straw man type argument.

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:15:01 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


You guys do know that "fantastic" literally means "unreal," right? And
that it can also mean "fanciful" and "eccentric"? How appropriate...

                                                      MP
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:23:56 GMT

In article <afxewrq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.204314.19152@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> 
>> > That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>> > think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>> 
>> If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
>> manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
>> of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
>> menstration.  Just a little reality check here...
>> 
>Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking about are
>most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not be blamed.
	But how do you know this without a proper investigation?  A human
being has died, by your definition.  Are you seriously suggesting that no
attempt at all should be made to determine whether or not the death of a
human being is accidental or not?  This would be a radical change from
current legal procedure.
>
>> > - and my wife has said the same thing...
>> 
>> Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
>> child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.
>Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.  As another
>opinion, I think sauna's are debatable (in Japan they are encouraged to go to
>saunas during pregnancy and are discouraged from going into cold water), but
>smoking and excessive drinking are endangerment.
	Who said anything about "excessive"?  As I pointed out earlier, by
your definition any substance ingested by a woman in being force-fed to a
minor child.  Are you saying that it's OK to force-feed alcholol to a child
as long as it's not "excessive"?  And if not, please reconcile your last
sentence with your claim that zygote = embryo = fetus = minor child, legally.

>> -- 
>> Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>> "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
>> they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
>
>-- 
>=================================================================
>Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation
>Engineering Manager				Sacramento, CA.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.cascade
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: alt.cascade
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:16 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
# cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
# > adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
# > >bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# > >>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# > >># That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
# > >># "We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....". 
# > 
# > >>Neither did it say, ``We, the quorum of elected representatives
# > >>necessary for ratification, ...''
# > 
# > >Nor did it say "...and having the necessary personal funds to
# > >make the trip to Philladelphia and support ourselves during the
# > >convention..."
# > 
# > Well, ya knew it had to happen.
# > 
# > It's the Constitutional Cascade.
# It's an institutional mass grave.
It's an inspirational close shave.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: ruman@meroot.eng.uci.edu (g v ruman)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Distribution: world 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Followup-To: talk.abortion,soc.culture.indian  
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:57:18 GMT

In article <BtKnsq.LMB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>India advertises amniocentesis as a way to avoid female children, when
>combined with abortion.  Currently, about 15% of the US population supports

What the fuck do u mean by "India advertises". There si
no official govt policy for eliminating female foetuses.
Amniocentesis is available in a few private clinics in
India and is extremely expensive (as compared to abortion
which used to be advertised for just the equivalent of $2 in 
govt-approved clinics). However the rich who frequent these
 clinics do appear to do so for the purpose of aborting
 female foetuses. According to a statistic published
in an Indian newspaper for the yaer 1990 (or maybe 89), of
800 women who discovered that they had female foetuses 
798 aborted them (of 20 million births annually). No statistics
 were published as to
how many of them were handicapped/deformed in any manner.
Not infrequently feminist, socialist and communist 
organisations in Bomaby hold protest rallies demanding regulation 
of amniocentesis etc, for amniocentesis in the manner in which
it is available in India is (maybe rightly)
perceived by them as causing harm to the cause of Indian women.
The equivalent of the right and the far right in India
do not bother themselves with such issues and expend their energy
on preserving "cultural values".

Abortions are cheaply and easily available and abortion clinics
 are very extensively advertised, but the mounting population
seems to indicate that few women patronise them. 

[...]
>
>Steve Kellmeyer

ruman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion