HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:19:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>The part that's aimed at preventing killing by a little more force,
>is, "..but if you decide to kill that unborn child, your ass is out of
>the house. Permanently." 
>
POC never heard of 'unconditional love'.  How sad.

My parents always told me,

"No matter where you go or what you do, you'll always be our
daughter.  And there's nothing you could ever do that would
make us stop loving you."

I humbly aspire to pass on the richness of this legacy to my
daughters.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Summary: An agreement?
Keywords: doug susan terminology sex
Organization: This one
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:33:37 GMT

>In article <1992Jul22.195415.7681@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
>> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
>> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
>> woman.

>It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
>from the pregnant woman. Labor can be induced, or if that fails, 
>the physician can perform a hysterotomy (surgical removal of the 
>fetus). Try again.
>

I don't know about anyone else around here, but "It is sometimes necessary
to kill a late term fetus..." seems functionally equivalent to me to,
"It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus..."  (An agreement?
No way!)

>>Susan
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger


-Richard
Oy.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.180821.15341@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) quotes from the 
>Philadelphia Inquirer:

>> Something happens in a very small  number  of  abortions,  per-
>> formed  relatively  late  in pregnancy, that no one wants to talk
>> about. It horrifies  many  of  the  medical  personnel  who  have
>> encountered it.
>>
>> What happens is that about once a day somewhere  in  the  U.S.,
>> something goes wrong and an abortion results in a live baby.

> Considering that fewer than 100 third trimester abortions are
> performed in the U.S. _every year_, I'm already doubting this
> article.

What do you define as the third trimester? 28 weeks and after?
The article in the Philadelphia Inquirer dealt with "late" abortions,
generally those occurring when the fetus is viable, which can occur
before 28 weeks. In 1980, approximately 13,000 abortions were
performed on women pregnant more than 21 weeks. 

> The fact that this article is _11_ years old (and therefore
> copies of the original are hard to come by) makes me wonder
> what point DearOldDoug is trying to make.

The article is not "hard to come by", I gave another source which is 
readily accessible (The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621).
The CR is available in most major public libraries.

> And how about this litany?

These quotes are all written by doctors, nurses, prosecutors, and other 
professionals in the field. 
 
> ``We have produced an unusual dilemma,''

Written in a paper authored by Dr. Warren M. Hern, chief physician, 
and Billie Corrigan, head nurse, of the Boulder (Colo.) Abortion Clinic.

> ``We've had guys drinking too much,''

Dr. Julius Butler, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at
the University of Minnesota Medical School.

> ``You are doing a destructive process,''

Dr. William Benbow Thompson of the University of California at Irvine.

> ``There  is  a  lot  in  medicine  that  is  unpleasant,''

Dr. Mildred Hanson, a doctor who performs abortions in a Minneapolis
clinic. 

> ``You get burned out,''

Dr. Bolognse, who performs abortions in Philadelphia.

> ``It's  disconcerting,''

Iona Siegel, administrator of the Women's Health Center at
Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in Brooklyn.

> ``That's not medicine,''

Dr. Ervin Nichols, director of practice activities for the American 
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

> ``This is happening all over the  place,''

An unidentified California prosecuting attorney.

> ``It is frightening,''

Dr. Roger K. Freeman, medical director of Women's Hospital at the Long 
Beach Memorial Medical Center in Long Beach, Calif. 



>Chris Lyman 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29009 alt.flame:11391 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:325
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

once again demonstrating why he was elected to the council of
net.idiots,

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> >
-> > [some self-righteous nonsense]

oh heck, kebbie, give everyone a chance to read that which you
interpret for them as ms. garvin's "self-righteous nonsense."

here. this is what you deleted.

        Darcy, there are no words which are sufficient to
        describe how low you are.  Yes, as I had previously
        posted, my SO was raped as a child.  I cannot imagine the
        mindset that finds this a joking matter.  I realize that
        you are a seriously disturbed person, but I had no idea
        that you would stoop to ridiculing rape.

        I would suggest that you confine your childish delight in
        other people's miseries to the net.

        This is not a flame, Darcy.  I will not answer your
        pathetic attempts to justify your appalling comments.  I
        will not forget this, either.

	You sicken me.

that doesn't sound self-righteous to me. i wonder how many other
readers think it's self-righteous, if any. i wonder how many are
chuckling at your sick attempt at making a joke. i wonder how
many are chuckling at your sicker, and self-righteous attempt to
cover it up.

-> Please leave this discussion in alt.flame where I originally
-> posted it, Ms. Garvin.

	"I am not a net.cop"
	Kevin Darcy
	<1992Jan4.040655.22914@cfctech.cfc.com>

	"Mr. Darcy you have elevated hypocrisy to an art form."
			Linda Birmingham
			<92126.142810ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com>
	<lefty-270792172821@lefty.apple.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:14:48 GMT

In article <lefty-270792172821@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com
(Lefty) writes:

> In article <NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com>, nuge@newport.med.ge.com
> (James A. Nugent) wrote:
> > 
> >   Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
> > the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:
> > 
> >   "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
> >   already born."

> Forgive me for asking the obvious question, but why would one consider the
> "Didache Apostolicae" to be divinely inspired?

  I never said it was. It represents early Church Teaching. The line
right above, to which I was responding, was:

> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."

  My reply was probably too terse, and should have been

 "Yes, the first record of that church teaching was in the Didache..."  
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:32:48 GMT

<29660@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> And how does your position square with the 14th amendment to the
>> Constitution which gives equal protection under the law to all 
>> citizens of the US? Would you oppose changing that amendment 
>> to deny full citizenship status to newborn infants? 

<1992Jul31.134116.12521@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
> You forget, the 14th Amendment grants equal protection to citizens of 
> the US, and qualifies the term citizen as being those persons born in 
> the US or born in other countries and naturalized into the US.

No and yes.  You're right on wrt the definition of a US citizen.
You're off a bit on equal protection guarantees:

   14th Amendment
   Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
   and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
   United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State 
   shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
   or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any 
   State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 
   due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction 
   the equal protection of the laws. 

As you can see, the States are required to give all "persons"
(not just "citizens") under their jurisdiction equal protection
of the laws.  The trick comes in a detailed legal definition
of "equal protection" which involves a hierarchy of tests
that I just begin to understand in broad, sketchy terms
including "strict scrutiny" for racial discrimination and
"heightened scrutiny" for sex discrimination.  I think
age distinctions in the law are at an even lower level of
scrutiny, so that most reasonable ones are ruled constitutional.

It was not the intent of the 14th Am. to overturn centuries
of common law recognition of an age of majority and diminished
capacity of minors, so such interpretation is reasonable.  The 
law would be of little use if it did not treat children as children.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Pro-Life? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:49:29 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.191305.21907@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> > What the "Pro-Life" people want is an end to abortion.  Period.  
> > Therefore, the proper appelation would well be "anti-abortion." 
> 
> Not necessarily. Many of the pro-life people also oppose euthanasia
> and the use of anencephalic infants as organ donor sources. 

In what possible sense can opposition to the use of anencephalic infants as
organ donors be construed as being "pro-life"?

Several months ago, there was a fairly well publicized case in which the
parents of an anencephalic baby desperately wanted their child's organs to
be available for transplant.  My recollection is that they were opposed by
a "pro-life" group, and the case was taken to court.  The parents wishes
were disallowed, as I recall, after the court ruled against them.

Their baby died; it would have under any circumstances.  Quite likely
several other children who could have benefitted from the organs, had they
been transplanted, died as well.  In what sense is this a "pro-life"
stance?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:15:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.000206.17701@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
### fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
#
## It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
## remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
## kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
## woman.
#
#It is never necessary to kill a late term fetus during a purely
#elective abortion in order to remove it from its mother. Try again.

Why should I?  I answered your question.  (And you did, too,
in the original reply.  Did you cancel it?)  It is not
my problem that you are unhappy that you disproved your own
thesis.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: HeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality Batman!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:53:36 GMT

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

] In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
] jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
] 
] >[blahblahblah] clear cut [blahblahblah] Abortion is murder [blahblahblah]
] >Liberal supporters [blahblahblah] oppose the death penalty [blahblahblah]
] >animal rights are more important [blahblahblah] Liberal tax and spenders
] >Gore and Clinton [blahblahblah] George Bush [blahblahblah] last hope
] >[blahblahblah] homosexuals take over [blahblahblah] wrath of God
] >[blahblahblah]
] 
] Good grief! Another AI experiment gone haywire!

Please folks, notice the interesting convolutions....

if abortion is murder, then we need to ececute those murderes
or we will fall victims of KneeJerkWimpLiberalism that opposes
capital punishment....

Notice also how there is NO MENTION of the Secret
heterosexual kabal that has been undermining the morals 
of innocents and youth....

Now would ANY decent AI program, even if gone arye,
or gone abourban, or gone ascotch, would be so
UnderIntelligent as to MISS the FlagrantHeavingUndulationsOfHeteroSexuality!!!!


ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "Upon insertation, some pain may be experienced" (Was: CNN...)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:17:07 GMT

From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> [text about the origin of Rev. Schenck's <deleted> fetus deleted]
> 
> #Obviously he got it somewhere.  Is it so off base to think he simply got it
> #from it's mother?
> 
> Suzanne, all kidding aside, just how do you suppose that the
> woman would have gotten possession of the product of a 
> prostaglandin abortion?  If it is a stillbirth, then I
> could maybe understand some sick woman keeping the body,
> given that the birth occurred at home, but I cannot
> understand where you think the woman would have gotten
> it if it were an aborted fetus.

It's "her body" ain't it?   Don't she have the right to do with "her body"
as she pleases?   Are you saying the abortionist would have forbidden her
from taking possession of this piece of her body, once she pushed it out
under the influence of the drug he merely administered?   (Never mind the
possibility that he could have simply administered the drug, then sent her
home to deal with the mess of the induced stillbirth herself.)

No, Susan, I seriously doubt there is anything to stop a woman of an
aborted baby from taking possession of the remains, since my own brother-in-
law was able to take his own appendix home in a jar only two weeks ago.


> Susan

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Pay Women for Abortions !
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.080216.3547@doug.cae.wisc.edu> debling@cae.wisc.edu (Jon Debling) writes:
>I just had an idea that would solve the abortion issue. If some people 
>are intent on forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term then we should
>compensate those individuals for their losed income, pain and suffering.
>
>I figure almost 9.5 months of labour which is 289 days or 6,931 hours at a 
>salary of $6/hr is about $41,586.
>
>Therefore, any woman "FORCED" to have a baby by the state must be paid
>$41,586 for her "labour".

And while we're at it: 

People who oppose legalized theft ought to be mandated to work in food 
shelters until all hungry people are fed.

Yeah, that ought to make us re-think our position on people stealing
for food! 

>J. A. Debling
>
>Note: The abortion pill will arrive in the U.S. fairly soon (legal or otherwise
>) and this will put an end to the debate.

And an end to the company that imports the pill: It will die from
boycotts and malpractice suits like those that hit the IUD
manufacturers. 

That pill will never make it here. Guaranteed. The last time it came
here, good old Clarence Thomas took a nice, hefty swipe at it...  

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: secret life
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 20:03:45 GMT


	I don't get it....life begins when two sex partners consent
to having sex....


	Now if a drag queen and I consent to have sex, does the life
begin when I unhook her bra strap, or when she takes off my underclothes
and we het to doing "the wild thing" ?



	Or better yet, did my life start when my parents where necking,
or did it start when they where talking dirty ?


	Let's say a couple consent to sex...life is supposed to begin
now, but they use a rubber and she doesn't get pregnant ? Did the life
the started when they aggreed to do the wild thing die, or is it an 
unperson ?


	Now what if a couple consents to sex..then changes their mind
..and then consent again, and then change their mind...

	Did they just start and end two lifes or what ?
	Does this this make in decisivness and sex a killer combo
or what ?


	Or.......


	IF consent to sex prior to the act is the start of life and
you get a call from your boss telling you to come in NOW, after you
and your partner have consented. you go and die in a car crash and never
get to have the sex you consented to. Does this mean you have started a
life and not finnished it ? DOES THIS MEAN THAT IF YOU CONSENT TO SEX AND
DO NOT FOLLOW THROUGH, YOU ARE A MURDERER ?



	We in NWROC have a little slogan....


	"I fuck to come, not to conceve"


	My problem is that as hard as I try, I will not be able to
get a "gender bender" pregnant. But we have consented to having sex
and a life WAS started...darn it, I better research this....I'll go
and find a transvestite, transexual or crossdresser and have as much
consentual sex as humanly possible !!! perhaps we will start a life
or two...I guess there will be just "spirits" and no bodies...perhaps
we will cause overcrowding in heaven ? but since there are no such
things as spirits, ghosts, goblins or sane right-to-STRifers I figure that
I have nothing to worry about......



	This is the White Rook, signing off to have sex with a 
	
	Transvestite, transexual or crossdresser...beats the
	hell out of church and bingo and stuff....


-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:07:29 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.710692270@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>
>>Not at all...God created everything...whether or not it's literally as
>>Genesis says, or simply over the course of time is immaterial to the
>>concept...

>If your god is 'uncreated' meaning he wasn't created, then that means the
>your god didn't create himself.  Therefore he didn't create everything.
>Now if you are claiming that he did create himself then what was he before
>he created himself.

God has created all that has been created.  He has always been, always will
be...He is an uncreated, eternal being.

 -Steve
-- 
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Celibate marriages? (was Re: Well, I lost that article...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:34:29 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul23.003313.18002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
>children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
>use them against their wills.]
>
>[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
>teach about abstinance?]
>
>If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
>foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.

	And will it also be taught that the safest marriage is a
celibate one? 

	I may add that the ideal of celibate marriage was actually
taught by the medieval Church; they called it the "Josephite marriage"
on the ground that Joseph and Mary had supposedly never had sex with
each other. See Ute Ranke-Heinemann's _Eunuchs for the Kingdom of
Heaven_ for more fun info of this sort.

	And if marriage is conceded safe, will "living together" also
be conceded safe?

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion