HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:08:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.184902.15287@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>Joel, rather than answering your question, I have one for you.  Just how
>do you intend to STOP a woman from aborting for that reason [sex selection],
>assuming that abortion is legal? 

I think it would be pretty hard.
 
>The point to all this is this, Joel.  Regardless of anyone's personal feelings
>about this, as long as abortion are legal a woman has the right to get one
>for ANY reason.  The only way to reduce the number of "sex-selection" abortions
>(like there's this epidemic of them) is to ban all abortions.

Agreed.

>So, let's not get on the highly flammable issue of "sex-selection" abortions,
>as there is no way to stop them, regardless of how disgusting some people
>think they are.

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.
 
>Jennifer

Joel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 23:18:18 GMT

In <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Aug26.112909.25187@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writ
>>es:
>>>something CAN happen that is NOT god's will.  And, of course, that
>>>just happens to be a procedure that saves the lives of thousands of
>>>women in this country alone,

>>Not per year, it does not.  You have to go back to the 1940's before
>>penicillin to have more than 1,000 women dying of abortion--and even
>>then it was death from spontaneous and induced abortion and "abortion
>>from unknown causes" lumped together.

>Nyikos proves again that he is completely clueless. Peter (very appropiate)
>there are over 200,000 women per year that die in Brazil,

Why do you feel the need to shift over to Brazil?

> a country
>of approximately 150 or so million people. Brazil has made abortion
>illegal.

Pro-choicers keep coming up with wild mortality figures.  It's 
called the big lie technique.

> There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
>US, which has a larger population. These sentences are short and on
>a seventh grade reading level, so that you may comprehend them more
>easily. Posting of info and stats will follow this post, as I believe
>I've got them archived.

Should be interesting to see these stats.  I hope they are broken 
down according to age group.  I don't doubt that there are over
200,000 women (and men too)
 who die each year in Brazil, by the way.  They haven't
yet found the cure for "We've all got to go some time."

>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.

Nope, sorry, that's been tried, and it does not cure the "disease"
I just referred to.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas)
Subject: A difficult position to be in....
Organization: Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:59:52 GMT

> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Cam> However, it is inconceivable TO ME that it is God's 
>Cam> will for any abortion to ever take place.

> Everytime that someone testifies that it was 'God's Will....'
> that saved them, and not the person sitting next to them....
> many folks pause and wonder what sort of god does this....
> { I speak from the unpleasant experience of watching my father
> roll to one too many aircraft crash... }

I believe that God has a will (or wills?), but I also believe 
that none of us can ever be sure of when he is acting (either 
on his own, or through us) to carry it out.
  
And later on ...

> When you cross the threshold that allows you to see that one
> can be "Both Christian and <X>" YOU HAVE alienated yourself
> from those who's sense of faith rests upon a simplistic approach
> to the notion of "Moral Absolutes."

I don't like your insinuation that the notion of "Moral Absolutes" is a simplistic
approach.  We should all try to accept *people* of all different viewpoints, and accept 
everyone's right to believe as they do.  But that is different than necessarily
believing that there are no moral absolutes.  I think if we got down to
it, most of us would agree that there are some moral absolutes.  But saying what 
exactly those are is where we get into trouble.  I'd argue that dumping this 
question entirely and saying everything is relative is really the simplistic 
approach.

Every group will have those who blindly follow their tenets, Christianity is
definitely no exception.  This is a big turn-off to a lot of people, especially
those who are well-educated.  But I hope that people don't make the mistake of
assuming that there are not plenty who do question, and come up with satisfactory
answers.

Cam







Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: *CHORTLE*, not bloody likely.  Where would I begin?
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:29:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.220151.12113@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purd
>> ?????  But that is JUST what YOU are doing.  You are trying to make
>> the right to abortion a law on the basis of "because I say so".
>
>Actually, no.  If there weren't people trying to *take away* the right
>to abortion, there wouldn't be anyone attempting to codify it into law.

So there are people who are attempting to codify it into law.  So your
'no' is wrong.

There is obviously a disagreement over whether or not there is (or should
be) a right to abortion.

>We're willing to let each individual make the abortion decision according
>to their own belief system.

And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.

I have no problem with allowing other COUPLES to make their own decision
about abortion.  But what you are pushing for, is to cut out the father
entirely (until, of course, you decide that you want to keep the child,
then he suddenly gets roped back in).

I don't want to make abortion illegal, but it does look like the
politically expedient way of achieving fairness in this area.

I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.

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.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.193101.14173@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Chris A Lyman) writes:
### = Doug Holtsinger writes:
#
###      "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#
##     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here#
##     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
##     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here#
#
##What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?
#
#Well, it shouldn't be surprising, this Rasmussenesque raving: DJR...er,
#Doug, supposedly an atheist, defends christianity like it was his *Mother*
#(heh heh), yet blatantly spews his anti_Semitism.
#
#Notice Holtsinger, allegedly an atheist, has been too chicken to comment on
#Bush's claim that "atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens, or
#patriots".  

When are you going to say something that I can disagree with?

#BTW, Doogie...I'd be proud to be part of your .sig.
#
#I disagree with Susan Garvin that _not_ requesting to be part of DOD's
#.sig is a sign of anti-Semitism, for these reasons:

Ah.  Here it is.

#(1) Who gives any _real_ weight to the Doltmeister ANYway?

DJR.  Dennis Hall.

#(2) How is anyone supposed to know that [a] Gloria Feldt is Jewish, or [b]
#that her comments indicate a religious belief?  I didn't until reading this
#group.

[a] Well, I still don't *know* that she is Jewish.  It's just that
the only religion I know of that has such a belief is Judaism.
[b]  She says so in the quote.  :-)

#(3) Many people don't even pay attention to the Doltster these days (and
#those of us that do use him for humor, as a Human Dartboard).

Okay, you got me there.

#I sense HUGE upcoming arguments with Susan, since this is maybe the
#*second time* in 3 years that I haven't just nodded my head in appreciation
#of her posts :).

Don't think I'm not keeping track of these disagreements, either.
If you're not careful, I'll intimidate you right off the net.

Seriously, I don't think that not being in DOD's .sig really
means that you're anti-Semitic.  Aping DOD's .sig, on the other
hand, does.  

Susan
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: FIGHTING THE PHONIES.
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 12:32:33 GMT


   There are numerous anti-abortion zealots who continuously carp
about things like third trimester abortions and the like, when it
is obvious that they oppose ALL abortions.  For them to bear down
on the difficult areas of choice is a diversion that doesn't do a
damned thing but waste the time of those who are fighting to keep
a woman's right to choose the law of the land.  It is obvious why
these fanatics do this.  They do not have the courage to fight an
open battle on the basic issue of choice itself.  This is why the
fight is always directed to the fringe areas of abortion.  We who
support choice must not allow the battle to be directed away from
the real issue, we those who have no ethical leg to stand on.  We
must ALWAYS direct the fight back to the basic issue.  The fringe
issues are NOT what these igorant zealots are concerned about.  A
fool could see that they oppose ALL choice, and evoke these other
issues as a diversion.  Just more anti-choice deception!
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observatio
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 05:28:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep3.201826.24379@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.123844.25790@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
> Have you ever been a man, Ms. Mills?

Why, Doug, do you want to find out what a man thinks?

:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:36:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug31.160659.13328@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Aug26.001935.2945@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
...
>>It's my belief that the idea that women do not control whether they
>>give birth or not, and that men do, is a hallmark of patriarchal
>>sexism, and that the idea that women should generally not be permitted
>>to terminate their pregnancy of their own volition is another hallmark
>>of patriarchal sexism.
>>
>>Further, I believe that making an exception to the general rule that
>>women must give birth when pregnant in cases of rape, serves the
>>interest of the patriarchal sexist man who is opposed to being
>>required to father a child he did not conceive.
>>
>>Are you satisfied yet, or must I wax further?
>
>I understand you now.  I just think you are confused.  You ascribe beliefs
>to others that they never professed.  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.  Just that he should have some say in the decision.

You haven't been on this group very long.  Several months ago a pro-life
man stated quite clearly here that if his wife/girlfriend were found to be
pregnant he would do everything he could to make sure she delivered.  Doesn't
sound like he thinks she should have any say.  Also, in a slightly
different context, the Quayles have publicly stated that if their daughter
got pregnant she *would* deliver it, regardless of her personal
wishes.  It doesn't sound like they think their daughter should have
*any* say in the matter either.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:58:24 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

> DRIEUX (whoops) is simply responding to my position of being pro-life,
> as he sees his viewpoint as being the correct one, as everyone else does,
> too.

You're darn tootin' we think that drieux's viewpoint to be the correct
one.  Try as we might, we fail to emulate him, but that's how it is when
you deal with

popes, er,

gods, er,

avatars...

What were you again, drieux?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Shocking News About Clinton!!!!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:10:50 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>] In article <l9ni49INNorq@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>] 
>] >	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
>] >American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
>] >"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
>] >kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.

If you are rich enough to be able to afford choosing your own doctor, then
good for you. But 40 million Americans cannot; 70% of whom are working
full-time jobs (or their families), according to ABC News.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	CLARKSON '95	FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						 
What "family values" are the GOP's pushing when they don't want give children
any legal recourse when the system sends them back to abusive parents?
We're not talking about children complaining about chores or not having a
Nintendo. We're talking about children beaten, both physically and emotionally. 
Do they have no rights if the system makes a mistake?		

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:15:25 GMT

In article <BtwMFB.Dr0.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
>>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).  

> No, it is correct.  The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989
> contains a section which restricts abortions of fetuses of 24 weeks
> or greater gestational age.  It requires that three physicians
> determine that the pregnant woman's life is in danger (and suicidal
> tendencies in the pregnant woman cannot be considered.)  It
> requires that a second physician be present to take "all reasonable
> steps" to save the fetus.  Finally, it requires that the abortion
> be performed "in a manner which provides the best opportnity for
> the unborn child to survive."  A physician who violates this
> law is guilty of a 1st degree felony.

The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in 
a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
down in Colautti v. Franklin.

>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>
From: dyer@marina.asd.sgi.com (Dyer Crouch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-Choice Event
Keywords: walk, event, abortion
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:03:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

** If this is a duplicate, sorry, I had trouble posting. **



THE PRO-CHOICE COALITION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (CA.)
WILL BE PUTTING ON THE FOLLOWING:

THE 4TH ANNUAL  (drum roll.......)

**************************************************

     >>>>>>     WALK FOR CHOICE!       <<<<<<

**************************************************

EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE OVER THE EROSION OF OUR
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!!!!!!

             > 5K Walk and Rally <
    > Celebrity Speakers and Entertainment <


*WHAT IS THIS COALITION?

We are a coalition of Pro-Choice groups dedicated
to keeping abortion acessible, safe and legal.
Some of our member groups are:
The Democratic Central Committee / ACLU /
Catholics For Choice / Republicans For Choice /
Planned Parenthood / Santa Clara Womens Community
Clinic / and more. We have about twenty seven
membership orginizations.


*WHY?

We raise money each year to cover our expenses as
well as help others in the pro-choice community.
For instance, we give financal aid to member
orginizations staging protests over anti-choice
descisions. We sent $1000.00 to the Redding, (CA.)
Feminist Women's Health Center after they suffered
another fire at the hands of arsonists. We sponsor
events such as the "Religion, Abortion, Politics
Fourum" where members of various faiths are
invited to discuss thier views on abortion.


*WHEN?

****** SUNDAY, October 25 / Rain or Shine! ******


WHERE?

***** Plaza Park (In front of the Fairmont) *****
***** Market and San Fernando in downtown  *****
***** San Jose. *****


################################################

 INTERESTED IN VOLUNTEERING OR WOULD LIKE MORE
 INFORMATION???  CONTACT ME:
 E-MAIL:  dyer@asd.sgi.com

 Please indicate the following:

 A. I would like to Volunteer for helping with
    the walk.

 B. I would like a "Walk Packet" including more
    information, as well a sponsor sheet.

 C. I would like to be contacted for more
    information.

You can include name, address, phone, and
E-mail address if possible. If you do not feel
comfortable with some of the above info, please
send enough info so someone can contact you, or
send information.

         Thanks, dyer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:36:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <BtLE9w.AD4@cs.dal.ca>
        franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

]It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?

Come now, Stevie, you know I'm made in god's image.  And ain't it so.
I mean, here's this god guy, and he takes piles of filth and compacts
them into tiny little nuggets, and shoves them into people's brains.
Next thing you know, parents are putting their children in front of
trucks.




--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:37:58 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Nyikos
>> Chris Lyman
>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
>>> what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
>>> zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
>>> ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
>>> of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
>>> ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
>>> waiting for the answers.

>>Few, if any, of those federal marshals have seen what goes on during
>>coronary bypass surgery.  Maybe they should, because...

>Still you miss the point.  Few, if any of those federal marshals arrested
>people for blocking coronary bypass surgery units.  And I don't think
>Judge Kelly ever took such a case.  

No, he didn't miss the point.  The POINT is that what happens inside abortion
clinics is LEGAL, annd nno one has any more right to prevent women from going
innto an abortion clinic thann they do to go innside a coronary bypass surgery
unit, or the corner gas station, for that matter.

>>I know there are at least three regular contributors to t.a who have
>>had abortions.  If what goes on inside of an abortion clinic is so scary,
>>don't you think they'd be warning us away?

>>In other words, Peter, what is your point?

>I don't generalize about abortion clinics in general, nor about what
>happens any given day in any given abortion clinic.  It's like Russian
>Roulette: if they don't let you look at which chamber the bullet is in,
>would you play the game?

That makes nno sense.

-- 
Read My Lips: No Bush In '92!

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity