HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:38:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.000518.18051@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.133317.16209@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>><.. note follow-ups to talk.abortion, once again ..>
>>In article <1992Aug18.055058.14190@watson.ibm.com> 
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> Premature infants that have been born between 21 and 24 weeks have
>>>> been known to survive.  The reported "third trimester" figures that
>>>> you cite do not represent all post-viability abortions, but only those
>>>> performed after 24 weeks.
>
>>> In other words, my figures address Mr. Moore's misconception regarding
>>> the number of third-trimester abortions, and your comments had nothing
>>> to do with what he said (quoted above).
>
>>I'm entitled to point out that your figures do not represent the number 
>>of post-viability abortions.  That's all I was doing.  Don't take it so
>>hard. 
>
>You didn't make it clear that you were addressing a different issue
>(viability, rather than third trimester).
>
>You haven't yet answered my questions regarding what *percentage* of
>fetuses from 21 to 24 weeks survive.  If it's something like 5-10%, I
>wouldn't consider it post-viability.  If it's over 50%, I would.
>Between those it gets murky.
>
>--
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.


Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
Plain and simple.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:25:46 GMT

In <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>[text deleted]

Talking about the Becky Bell case:

>##What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
>#
>#What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
>#the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
>#recreationally.

>What the death certificate says is this:  "septic abortion with
>pneumonia."

Does it say the two were connected, and which was the cause of death?

>Nyikos vile accusation originates with Willke and the NRLC.  The
>coroner who performed the autopsy has stated publicly that he
>does not believe Willke's fantasy about how Ms. Bell died, and
>that Willke's fantasy is not based on medical evidence.

Publicly? Where?

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

I'll need to see them to make a judgment.  I have a very open mind on this
case, by the way.  In the Spring 1991 _Issues in Science and Technology_
(a national magazine available, I hope, in most university libraries
despite its biases) I wrote the following:

    O'Keeffe and Jones...treat as undisputed fact the claim that Becky Bell
    "died from an abortion obtained outside the health care system," even
    using it to support an *ad hominem* attack on the alleged "lack of
    real concern for the health and well-being of pregnant adolescents
    by those opposed to abortion."  In fact, pro-life organizations such
    as Birthright have given great moral and material support to pregnant
    adolescents.

	John C. Willke, the focus of the attack, has made a case that
    (1) Becky Bell's "abortion" was a miscarriage, not induced; and
    (2) that the cause of death was a lung infection brought on by drug-
    taking, not the "abortion".  His case is still open to debate, but
    it is certainly much better documented in his published writings 
    than anything in the O'Keeffe/Jones article.

So there you have it, Susan.  I have had no new info on this case one way
or the other until you made your claim above.  Please proceed.

>Susan

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:42:01 GMT

In article <nyikos.715461788@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Aug31.234316.4909@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

##No, I haven't read the piece of propaganda to which you refer.
#
#You call it propaganda without having read it, eh?  Have you read 
#excerpts from it, or paraphrasals?

You've yet to quote anything that isn't propaganda, Nyikos.

Feel free to start using legitimate sources any time you like.

[explanation of joke deleted]

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:27:26 GMT

From article <1992Aug22.205019.12578@midway.uchicago.edu>, by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
>>What do people think of the idea?
> 
> I like the idea of a moderated abortion newsgroup, but I think there
> would be lots of problems with it.
> 
> As an alternate suggestion, what about a moderated abortion mailing
> list (people would get themselves on the list simply by mailing the
> moderator/one of the moderators)?  This has many advantages over a
> newsgroup, probably the biggest of which is that it's *much* easier to
> give it a try to see if it'll work.


The pro-lifers already have one!  Ha!  I merely assumed all the rest of
y'all did too!


> Various problems I can see with both proposals:

Well, I've found it works out great!  All meat and no smoke.

Although, in our case it is plain that the acceptance criteria are a little
more stringent than just "no flames".   ;-)


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Followup-To: talk.abortion  
Summary: it will likely come to pass  
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In <1992Aug27.190809.26107@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
>
>>Well, I was wondering if there was anyone here who supported abortion but
>>wanted to stop sex-selection abortions, and so far it appears there isn't
>>anyone.
>> 
>   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
>whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
>sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
>could be legislated.
>
>>Joel
>
>                                                            MP

It is really interesting to me how postings on this newsgroup can be
completely ignored.  I posted a bibliography of some 20 papers and
articles that have been written about this topic in the medical
literature, plus a personal opinion in the matter, and Joel says "so
far it appears there isn't anyone (who supported abortion but wanted
to stop sex-selection abortions)".
   If you read my post you know that many bioetheicists are opposed to
the concept, and also many prominent obgyn docs.
   This will not be legislated, it will be made an uncovered benefit
in insurance plans.  If the woman wishes to pay the whole tab herself,
she will likely find someone willing to do it.  But third party payors
are going to respond to the pressure from organized medicine and
refuse to pay the tab since it is NOT 'medically necessary'.
   If you think this is not a hot topic for discussion, i.e. medical
necessity, you have not been paying attention.




shalom,                               Len Howard
                                      tas$pegasus.com
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:11:50 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Aug24.192619.23063@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   I'll make a deal with all of you who want to prohibit elective
>third trimester abortions.  (Those of you who want to prohibt ALL
>third trimester abortions, even if the woman's life is in danger,
>are simply too sick to be bargained with!)  It you agree that all
>adult women, before fetal viability, have a right to an abortion,
>I will agree to oppose third trimester abortions.  Any takers?  I
>didn't think so.

>P.S.  By right to an abortion, I mean that society has recognised
>their adulthood and, as such, will NOT impose upon them some dumb
>waiting period, or compel them to look at pictures that show some
>fetuses at a much more advanced stage of development than the one
>which the woman is having aborted.

They don't do that, they give her the option of looking.

>   If you cannot agree to this, then why are you wasting our time
>with this crap, when it is really ALL abortions that you oppose?

I thought you said you weren't addressing that particular crowd.
See parenthetical expression, first paragraph.  Would you be an
exception to the Quayle quote below?!

>   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
>world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:49:56 GMT

From article <1992Aug23.202904.20693@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
> In <1992Aug20.194554.9645@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>>> 
>>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>>> 
>>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.
> 
>>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>>more beautiful way to go."
> 
>>She did die young, but not in childbirth.
> 
> Suzanne, is this the great-aunt who (as you posted some time ago) would
> up dying from an illegal abortion?


No.  The aunt who lived was my mother's aunt.  The aunt who died was my
father's aunt.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:29:48 GMT

In article <BttGE0.L16.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
>>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or 
>>> older.

>> No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
>> employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
>> for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
>> Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  

> Kathi's statement is correct.

No, it is not correct.  

> As more than one person has pointed out, Colautti
> v. Franklin struck down the law because it was vague, not because
> the prohibition was unconstitutional.

Where are we disagreeing? 

As I said above, the Court "struck down" legislation to require
a physician to employ the abortion technique which would provide 
the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive.  Therefore
Ms. Mill's statement is not correct.  

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.025331.6517@wdl.loral.com>, I demanded:
| Are there any circumstances under which you would support a
| woman's right to choose an abortion? (Choose one)
|
|	A. Yes.
|
|	B. No.
|
|	C. I'm not telling.
|
|	D. I don't understand the question.
|
|	E. Fish!  Great big swarms of malevolent fish!  Poisoned
|	   spines!  Bubbly eyes!  They hate hate hate!  Fish!

In article <1992Aug25.155335.22265@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
# pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.  I don't 
# believe the Constitution should grant the right to an abortion 
# under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I would 
# support legislation which banned abortions. 

In other words, your answer is `C.'

Thanks, Mr. Holtsinger.  Do let us know when you feel inclined to
answer.

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

"So I've got my eye on you, punk, because I - let's face it - am the
Sole Representative of Law and Justice, nay civilization itself, in
this MY GOD NO.... BASTARDO!  you did it, that's the end, you've
doomed us all..."
                           -- Curtis Yarvin (impersonating Raoul Duke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:23:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.070639.10555@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>To those of you that it concerns, I, the real Cynthia Swicegood, as
>opposed to the person that has been posting to this news group (and who
>knows what other news groups) using my account, I would like to
>sincerely apologize for the intrusions into your conversations and the
>lack of network etiquette.  I gave one of my employees permission to use
>my account to READ only, the News network and familiarize himself with
>our system here at GMU, until he was able to get his own account (considering
>what just occurred, it may be a very long time :-), especially if I find
>that my name has been used anywhere else.  Yes, I do realize how stupid
>this was and I have learned my lesson, I just didn't want to turn him
>loose using the system's operator account.
>
	Well, it hasn't bee all bad, then.  One should never, *never* simply
turn one's account over to another.  As you have observed, the results can
be very personally embarrassing!  >:-)>

>A message from the guilty party (Rob): "I shall return, after learning
>more about the News network."  
>
	Be still, my heart.

>Thank you all for your time.
>
>Cindy Swicegood

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,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:59:35 GMT

Mr Aznabul deleted all of Will Steeve's comments explaining that he'd
might kill a woman "on the spot" who DARED to tell him of getting an abortion
"a year ago".

Which resulted in my comment.......
                                  |
> = (Char Aznabul) writes:        |
>> = Steve Novak wrote:           |
                                  V
>> I feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to fall for a walking time bomb
>> like you, Will.

>My goodness, aren't we the epitomy of sympathy.

My goodness, aren't we the epitome of honesty.

>Ps. Sorry for dripping sarcasm on your keyboards.

I think that was drool, Char.  Now, wipe it up and go back to sucking up
to Will.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:01:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.171206.12387@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) wrote:
> 
> Sound off:  Which pro-choicers believe that "newborn babies are not
> yet appropriate objects for ethics"?

I would not agree with the assertion that "newborn babies are not yet
appropriate objects for ethics".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 17:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.162017.8786@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
> In article <siyemop@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) 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
> > - and my wife has said the same thing...
> 
> I'm sure she mimics your every word.
> 
> Say, you aren't Catholic by any chance, are you? - J.J.
> 
I am _not_ catholic and I married my wife because she does _not_ mimic my every word
(along with other reasons).


-- 
=================================================================
Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager				Sacramento, CA.
=================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Don't inhale (was Re: Life at conception...)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:34:07 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  <1992Sep2.014028.23551@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> And when Gregory Clausen writes "Abortion stops a beating heart" and
> people respond with "So does steak," that's not asinine?

Sure it's asinine when he says that; that's why people point it out.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:18:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.013022.2371@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#People have constitutional ``rights'', governments don't.  

That's not true, DOD.  Try reading the constitution.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Keywords: deadmeat@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:11:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.231315.7116@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Wherever a child's life is endangered, parental consent is irrelevant: they
>can get the operation regardless.

Steve, y o u   a r e   w r o n g.

Just try to get a child treated for *ANY* condition, life threatening or not,
in *ANY* hospital in the US without a legal parent or guardian's signed consent
form.

I'll bet you find the experience enlightening.

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

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds.
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl.

		-- Mike Adams
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Choice and post-viability abortions?
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:14:57 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

A question that seems implicit in many discussions of post-viability
abortions and in disputes (real and imagined) among those who are
pro-choice seems to be the following: Is there a rationale for
restrictions on post-viability abortions for someone who favors a
woman's right to choose abortion?

I believe that one possible answer is yes, premised on some fairly
straightforward (althouth not necessarily very palatable) assumptions:

(1) Because the fetus has been allowed to develop to the point where
it could survive without her, its status has changed.

(2) Because the woman could have aborted the fetus prior to viability
and because the status of the fetus has now changed, the woman may now
be considered to have entered into an implied contract with the fetus.

(3) The discharging of that obligation involves carrying the infant to
term.  This a burdensome responsibility, but one that the mother could
have avoided by aborting earlier in pregnancy.

Exception: Complications threatening to the life of the mother will
allow her to choose to terminate the pregnancy even after viability.
The obligations of the implied contract do not include maintaining a
pregnancy in the face of known life-threatening medical conditions.
It would seem that to the extent possible, the lives of both mother
and child should be protected during the procedure.  

No other exceptions: If a woman gets to the point of viability in
ignorance of her pregnancy and then decides for an abortion, it would
not be allowed.  The rationale is that she was grossly negligent in
not realizing that pregnancy was a real possibility.  

I want to state clearly that I do not personally support the above
restrictions on post-viability abortions.  I lean towards opposing the
above rationale myself.  We do not force people to donate blood to
others who may need it to survive.  Given this, why should we force
women to carry pregnancies they do not want, even after viability?

However, I thought the points might be worth discussing.

SJM