HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:13:31 GMT

rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:

> The woman's mental health appears questionable already.  How frequent
> an occurrence is this?  I can't imagine any serious madness resulting
> from carrying a child to term.

Just to mention one psychological disorder, post-partum depression...

It can manifest itself as a simple case of the 'blues,' as uncontrollable
bouts of apathy and/or weeping, or go the whole nine yards and manifest
itself as a (thankfully rare) full-blown psychosis.

Several years ago, I read a story about a woman who became delusional
after delivering a baby.  She perceived the ambient light to be blue,
imagined plumes of fire coming from her baby's mouth, and heard voices
telling her to kill her baby.  She and the baby were saved from her
actually carrying out these instructions.  The cause of her psychosis
turned out to be biochemical, and her disorder was arrested through
the use of medication.

As I said, instances of full-blown psychosis are rare, and I'm sure that
there are other psychological disorders that would impact a pregnancy.

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: The Infamous `Value of a Man' Article
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:19:16 GMT

I said I would post my opinion of the `Value of a Man' post when I
read it, and now that two individuals have been kind enough to send it
to me, I suppose I ought to carry through with that threat.

(Anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about, if you rocker --
cookc@rpi.edu -- nicely, I'll bet she'd send it to you. Otherwise, I'm
going to assume the reader is familiar with the text.)

I thought the article was pretty damned funny. Not as funny as the
`Red Button Scenario' and what amused me about `The Value of a Man'
was not that it was all that bizarre (sure, it was pretty bizarre, but
the `Red Button' was just so cheesy, I *still* have to ridicule it),
but rather that it was a fair solution to the inherent inequity caused
by the removal of women's fundamental reproductive rights: simply take
away *everyone's* reproductive rights.

It was bizarre. It was far-fetched. And here's the catch, boys and
girls -- that's the patriarchal view of the `Value of a Man' post. It
is important to realize that the agenda of the anti-abortion crowd
that wants to use the authority of government backed by the guns and
the jails of the judicial system to deny women their rights is equally
bizarre, and it should be equally far-fetched.

But it isn't, because the patriarchal view is that men have the
natural right to control reproduction. And *that's* bizarre.

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

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:11:26 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug15.194628.2118@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> (Suzanne Forgach):
>> 
>>> She will be going to an NFP class at the first sign of her first cycle,
>>> and she will know exactly how her body works, how boys' bodies work,
>>> and where babies come from.
>> 
>> Excuse my ignorance (I don't read all articles on ta), but what is NFP, and
>> why do you have to wait til her first cycle?  
> 
> Natural Family Planning.   Certainly she will know about it, but she cannot
> possibly observe her own body's cyclic fertility changes (much less chart
> them) if she doesn't even have cycles yet.

Well it's easy to get into the theoretical aspects.  You could even
consider allowing her to see you chart everything.  It would be
a good preparation.
 
>> Why not educate her before
>> and spare her the fear and ignorance, even if it only lasts a day or so?
> 
> Oh puleez.   She will have neither ignorance nor fear.  It's just physically
> impossible for a female with no cycles to chart cycles.

Unless she charts another female who happens to have cycles.
 
>> Also, just wondering if this education includes info about contraception
>> because if she were provided with that in the first place, then maybe she
>> wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, and none of your
>> grandchildren will have been killed.
> 
> Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
> popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.  
> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.

No, I'm sorry, but this is wrong.  NFP requires consistent attention be
paid to your body, and that you must refrain from sex during certain times.
It's success can only be charted by the determination and patience of the
user.  With the pill, you just have to remember to take it, and assuming
you do, there's just a fraction of a chance of failure.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:19:56 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Do have this idea that we all get together to get our stories straight?
>> Here's a clue, Mr. Chaney:  we are _all_ (pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike)
>> very diverse individuals.  I doubt that you could find any two of us who
>> agree on everything.

> Nice theory on paper. We only wish you'd act like it in debates on USENET.

I guess you haven't noticed that that's exactly what happens.  Speaking for
myself, I don't know how to act like anything except myself.  In fact, to a
certain degree, many posters have developed such individual net.personas, I
can make a good guess at the writer's identity without looking at the header
or the attribution lines.

Certain posters (both pro-choicers and pro-lifers) are attracted to specific
subtopics; their writing styles differ; the tone of their articles differ.
To a certain extent, even how they use white space differs.

It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
whether abortion is a religious issue or not.

On the other hand, it is very evident that pro-choicers are unafraid of
expressing disagreement with someone who's 'on their side.'  I have no
doubt that if any pro-choicer reading this article and I were to sit down
and compare positions and philosophies, we'd find grounds for disagreement
quickly.  Dealing with these disagreements in public is healthy, imo.

Btw, I noticed elsewhere that you have stated (commendably, imo) that
discrimination against homosexuals is inappropriate.  Did you know that
Steve Franklin supports the recent statement of the Catholic Church that
_endorses_ discrimination against homosexuals?

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything... :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A little known fact...
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:11:32 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

The Western ethic against infanticide gained its roots from
early Judeo-Christian thought. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32804 alt.abortion.inequity:3203
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:09:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
>I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
>moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
>but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):
!@  Suzanne Forgach
@  Steve Adams
!@  Steve Chaney
!@  Tim Buckley
!@  Kevin Darcy
!@  Peter Nyikos
@  Richard Pitts
!@  Wes Orr

This is a joke, right? Thosae with !@ in front I wouldn't trust with
a toothpick, much less being unbiased wrt abortion.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:06:56 GMT

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.

>Todd Greenfield

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,co.politics
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? 
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:22:53 GMT

By the way, a couple of months ago I wrote to (Colorado) Senator Hank 
Brown, a Republican, asking him to support the Freedom Of Choice Act.
I received a reply from his office which outlined his position: he favors
the FOCA provided that it does not receive any amendments which would
make it stricter than Colorado's current [and liberal] abortion law,
but opposes the use of federal funds for abortions.  So Senator Brown
is another Republican who opposes the abortion plank of the party
platform.

[Talk.abortion readers:  please note that this article has been 
crossposted to co.politics, and watch your followups.] 

-- 
/\                Ilana Stern DoD#009  ilana@ncar.ucar.edu 
  \_][ <--NCAR       Colorado...is totally rectangular.
      \_Boulder______________________________________________________Kansas__
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: I tend to be Pro-Choice because: 2
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.162402.19224@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Linda Heather Springer) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Also, the Jews were under different rules than Christians.  They were  
>>allowed to have slaves and kill other nations.  God expects more of  
>>Christians. Please se my previous article *Re: I tend...*.
>
>Dear deluded Bible twinkie: if your "god" is this much of a shithead, who
>needs him anyway?

Thanks a lot for showing us just how bigoted _YOU_ are. 

It could be argued that Linda Heather Springer's above statements were
bigoted. Then again, it could be argued that they weren't. 

But responding with bigotry? That only makes two bigots, at best. One
very blatantly so. You, that is, not Springer. 

>Please stuff your bigotry up your Forgach.

Showing your Anal Ostrich Type IV behavior again?  


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:26:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu>,
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron
Echeverri) writes:
|>
|>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
|>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
|>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
|>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
|>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
|>> platforms.
|>
|>Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
|>and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
           
so does that mean that if his granddaughter became pregnant by someone
in the family then its ok to leave the abortion decision to her but
if she gets pregnant from someone else the government can make the
NOT TO HAVE ONE decision for her?

These BUSHpeople are strange.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:33:39 CDT


In article <1992Aug13.204551.24642@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.205750.8790@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want him to
> >be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?
> >
> >Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of their
> >female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that they would
> >remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or granddaughter; all 
> >equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents' support of their right
> >to choose.
> 
> I  believe there is a slight confusion.  I took Bush's statement on
> Dateline to be support AFTER THE FACT.  The media and others twist it 
> around and use the logic to something BEFORE THE FACT.  There is a BIG
> difference, and I hope people see the difference.

If this is the case, did Bush answer the question asked?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:57:58 GMT

In <og33a8g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:


>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
>|rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>||HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>||ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>||tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>||dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>||plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>||platforms.

>|Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports
>|exceptions for rape and incest, and for the life of the mother.

>And, of course, for his own family.

>This morning's news had a lovely story about Bush's reactions
>to a question about how he'd react if a grandchild of his sought
>an abortion.  In his reply, he said that the woman was the only
>one who could decide, ultimately.

See my reply to another post along this thread.  What I said about
"daughter" applies equally to any other relative, and refutes this:

>Either he's pro-choice but not above shameless political pandering
>to the extreme right, or he's pro-life-for-everyone-except-himself
>and a shameless hypocrite.  Whichever-- it doesn't matter to me.
>He can't be trusted, and he's not getting my vote.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:42:41 GMT

From article <1992Aug13.122456.5050@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, by decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz):
> With such insightful analysis as this, I can see why Suzanne
> has been hired by a political think-tank.  I just hope the
> think-tank has a shallow end.
> 
> In article <1992Aug13.000256.27262@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> > smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>> > -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
>> > -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
>> > -> late.
>> > i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
>> > sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
>> > democrats.
>> BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
>> important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!
> 
> Unemployment running close to 8%, high numbers of business
> closings, a huge federal deficit, home sales still dragging
> like crazy.  These are what will throw the election to the
> pro-choicers if anything does.  While the Democratic
> and Replublican candidates have opposing views on the issue
> of abortion, it is not the issue of abortion that will
> decide this election.  Your bizarre notion that this election
> will be about the abortion issue, implied in your statement
> above, is myopic.  There are bigger issues for most Americans.


Hey, I was simply addressing Jim Keegan's myopic statement that the
entire election would swing on the "choice" issue.  First off, "choice"
is not the issue.  "Killing Unborn Babies" is the issue.   Second off,
there is NO BIGGER issue than this one for ALL future generations of
Americans.    Since whether they live or die hinges on it.

Dummy.


> Dean Kaflowitz

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:23:03 GMT

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

>In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
>> choose.  

>And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
>_want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
>pro-choice.  

You're babbling, Holtsinger, it assumes no such thing.  

>Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
>many women are pro-life.  By failing to recognize women as individuals
>who have a variety of opinions on abortion, he assumes that all women
>think alike on the issue of abortion, which is a sexist attitude. 

So if the government gave itself the power to _mandate_ abortions,
you don't believe that these pro-"life" women would want support for
the right to choose?

Your constant accusations of sexism appear to be projection.

>Doug Holtsinger

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: T I F A T T S P (?)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Aug 92 12:19:19 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.200421.22729@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
> I would like to make a few comments off the subject now. 

btw, what does the sucject heading stand for anyway?  Should I know this
already?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Suzie Q proves her skull is full of cream stuffing and not brains.
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:34:04 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Aug15.232518.14958@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <Bsz7Cr.2K7.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> Suzie Q steps in her own shit by claiming that Mark Kaufman is still
> in my killfile when I said before that I took him out of the killfile.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh boy !! Really showed her! I'll bet she won't even
sleep a wink now.......




			gln

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:11:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.145143.4535@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com 
(Mike Serafin) writes:

}  I could believe what I have just read if it were directed at my
}  4 year old son.  He is still quite naive in these matters. 

You don't believe it then?  What about it do you find hard to believe?
Would you believe it if CJ addressed it to your son?  What is his name?
If addressing it to him would help, I imagine CJ might oblige...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>And since you're claiming to be pro-"choice", do you support unrestricted
>abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy?

Oh Dougie, being pro-choice means you support whatever *choice* someone
makes, not necessarily abortion itself, and definitely not the extremist
position you state above.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:20:32 GMT

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

>The next-of-kin of a child killed in an elective abortion can never
>be acting in the best interests of the deceased. 

What kind of interests do the deceased usually have anyway?
-- 
			  I'm not wearing any pants.

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown    pashdown@slack.sim.es.com    ...uunet!slack.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: talk.abortion