HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:54:09 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep10.121924.23405@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
> 
>> frank (twit)
>>> mcbean (pinhead) 
>>>> suxie (suxie)
>>>>> ferrari (me)
> 
>>: >>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
> 
>>: > ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
>  
>>: Pro-choicers don't (necesarily) cannibalize.  Not even the abortionist
>>: eats the aborted z/e/f/b/c.
> 
>>Pro-lifers don't coat women with breadcrumbs and MSG and sell them
>>at outlets around the world, either.  Even Col. Sanders would have
>>thought twice :-)
> 
> Could y'all please miss the point more completely?

"White and feathery, yet crude and noisy, the chicken is the backbone
of our farming community."  -  Brian McBean, English 200, 1987.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:17:22 GMT

In article <24879@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) 
writes:
}In talk.abortion, scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

}>                                   (like smoking Peyote...

}                                    ...peyote smoking...

Uh, you don't smoke it, you eat it, and I'll bet you only do that
once.  Talk about a self-limiting drug.  Come to think of it,
I've never seen a peyote addict.  I hope I never do...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.194041.11683@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes [to Keegan]:
>
>In retrospect, I think the reason that I responded to 
>you (instead of someone else) had something to do with 
>the fact that 1) we've corresponded before, 2) your posts 
>have become increasingly ad hominem over the last year 
>or so (which I don't understand), [...]

I think that maybe I'm partially responsible for that, Bill. This was an 
unexpected side-effect of Keegan's Darcyization. Some folks react better than
others to having their layers of superficiality stripped away. If I had
anticipated this -- that Keegan would be left, twisting in the wind, howling 
out the sufferings of his exposed ego, annoying anyone and everyone who doesn't
already have the appropriate killfile entry -- I'd probably have gone somewhat
gentler on him. My apologies.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35779 alt.abortion.inequity:3659
From: wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:54:04 +0200
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>
>>> If the pro-aborts get their way, this is EXACTLY what they will be doing,
>>> 'trying to legislate their beliefs as though they were facts'.
>>
>>Sorry, but I don't know of any pro-aborts with a legislative agenda.
> 
> I take it you are unaware of the attempts to get either law enacted, or
> to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion.
> 
>>Who are they trying to force to get abortions?
> 
> The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
> belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
> belief about when a child becomes a human being.
> 
> The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
> who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.
> 
>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
> 
> John
> stevens@uswest.com

That is so true!  It is a question of whose morals will be legislated. 
Pro-aborts want their morals legislated; making murder nice and antiseptic -
removing all feelings of guilt.
wanliss@phy.uct.ac.za
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:13:57 GMT
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO

>>> = bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>  = margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>   = eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
>> > be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
>> > weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
>> > begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
>> > pain, and in fact has no consciousness.

>So, am I correct in assuming that a human must be able to feel pain and be
>recognizably conscious to be a person?
>If this is not the case, then please explain your position more clearly.

The way read it, 
IF the "brain and nervous system" are sufficiently undeveloped, so that 
  consciousness & sensation are impossible, 
THEN a fetus wouldn't be considered a "person", given any reasonable 
  definition of "person".

o You don't really think the word "recognizably" has anything to do with 
  consciousness prior to 8 weeks, do you?
o Can you provide a reasonable definition of "person" that doesn't require 
  (directly or indirectly) a brain or nervous system?
o Can you provide a reasonable definition of "person" that doesn't require 
  (directly or indirectly) the ability to be conscious?

-Brian
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:41:08 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <k6tn!_p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:

[very premature baby survives and goes home after long time in hospital]

> And at $300/day for 4 months, it probably cost at least $40,000 (and note
> that I'm using _extremely_ conservative cost estimates).  How many lives
> were lost to save this one person?  How do you justify spending this kind
> of money on a regular basis to "save lives" when it means trading one 
> life for hundreds?
> 
> While I think it's great that wanted babies' lives can be saved, I am
> puzzled at the pro-lifer's glee at this news.  Don't born people count?
> Don't Africans count?  Don't Indians count?  Don't poor people count?
> Ray Fischer

  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
this guy.  Ditch him."  This can happen when there are too many casualties to
treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  Then the deciding factor
is usually time and medical resources.  Time spent on saving 1 person could
cost several others their lives.

  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you include
money in the criteria.  Shall we then dismantle MD Anderson hospital?  Cancer
costs a LOT of money to treat, and its not even contagious.  Somehow I think
Susan Garvin would not appreciate the idea.

  I know for a *fact* my Dad wouldn't.  Or my aunt.  Or my best friend.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:25:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney - Official virus) writes ...
>If the answer leans largely to "none," maybe because a woman's body
>does not have: 
>
>4 arms.
>4 legs. 
>2 hearts.
>2 brains. 
>2 different blood types. 
>
>Until those 5 facts change, anyone who says a fetus is part of a
>woman's body, is scientifically illiterate. 

This coming from a person who beleives science discovered where babies 
come from in the 19th century, and that a fetus consciously guides its
own development.

And by the way, an embryo in an early abortion doesn't necessarily _have_
arms, legs, brain, or heart.  Does that make any difference?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:42:46 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep4.233740.18662@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <lefty-310892165951@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
>> In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
>> Holtsinger) wrote:
>>> 
>>>       "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>
>> 
>> I see no evidence that, unlike you,
>> Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  
>  
> As with every other pro-abortionist, she is attempting to impose her
> view on the unborn and newborn children of our entire country.

How is this?  Is Ms. Feldt a proabortionist, or a pro-choicer?  Let's
just assume for the sake of argument that you believe Ms. Feldt is
a person who stands for the availability of abortions.  So she makes
it possible for a pregnant woman to abort.  She is not *imposing*
her views on anybody, she is simply making it possible for some people
to be able to act upon their own personal views.  If a woman feels it
is her right to abort her own z/e/f/b/c before birth, then Ms. Feldt
is simply allowing that woman to carry out her own personal acts.
You may think they are acts of murder, but the other woman doesn't.
No views are imposed upon anyone, unless Ms. Feldt is guilty of one
of those terrible coerced abortions, in which case she should be jailed.
I don't imagine Ms. Feldt is responsible for forcing a woman to have an 
abortion, but I guess that's beside the point.
 
>> Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
>> statement, either.
> 
> And for that, you are extreme and reprehensible.

Why?  Because that person has an opinion differing from yours?
Lot's of people are in disagreement, that doesn't necesarily make
anyone "extreme" or "reprehensible."

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

PS.  I understand the "pro-choicers are cannibals" thought now.  Kathi's
     Colonel Sanders remark implied that pro-lifers are cannibals...
     I get it now!
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 11 Sep 1992 08:34:49 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep11.144108.10600@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>[very premature baby survives and goes home after long time in hospital]
>  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all? 
>... This can happen when there are too many casualties to
>treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  

(Of course, this is exactly what *does* happen after a battle or a major
urban disaster, so it doesn't require anybody's 'approval'...)
>
>  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you include
>money in the criteria.  

I think, as we see the bulge of population known as the baby boom age, and
fail in their age, and begin to die, we will see a *lot* of weird criteria
in medicine.  Those who have property that can be attached will be served.
Those who don't -- hmmmmm.  As the wealth transfer from baby boomers to
doctors beings to take a bigger and bigger bite out of the next generation,
you'll see a different set of criteria emerge.

All of this has been happening over the past 40 years or so, true, but it's
the sheer number of the baby boomers that is going to bring this to the fore.
We simply cannot, as a people, afford $250,000 worth of medical care for 
each and every old person to extend their lives by a few months.  And before
anybody out there goes leaping upon me, please bear in mind that I'm older
than most of you...I'm no 18 year old kid to whom grey hair means 'ancient'.
I'm speaking instead of the skyrocketing cost of medical care that is a 
demonstrable phenomenon in our society, and what I think will be happening
with it.

I recall the description of pneumonia as 'the old man's friend', by a 
physician friend of mine.  As technology advances, and we *can* extend lives,
we have to decide when and when not to do so.  (We being very rhetorical
in this case.  I don't think *I* have any business deciding for someone else,
obviously (-:). 

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:21:05 GMT

From article by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>> 
>>> While I'm glad that the child survived, and hope that she truly
>>> has no ill effects, I feel that I do need to point out that it
>>> is possible to misjudge gestational age by up to four weeks.
>>> (That was the justification for allowing mandatory viability
>>> testing at 20 weeks in the Webster decision.)
>> 
>>While teams of medical doctors working on a premie in the neonatal intensive
>>care ward could ~conceivably~ get a child's gestational age wrong, they sure
>>as heck will get her weight right.  
> 
>>** 15 ounces **    As human and thriving as the rest of us.
> 
> Well, according to the neonatoligist that checked out my new son, the
> child's gestational age was just shy of 26 weeks.  

Then obviously we are talking about two different children.   


> How does he know?  He is
> good frinds with the head of the team in Florida that saved this child.
> Don't believe me?  Call Edward Hospital in Naperville, IL, and ask for Dr.
> Hernandez.  He'll give you the whole scoop.

I'd like to know what makes you think we are talking about the same child?
Survival after 26 weeks is quite common.


> Suzanne is correct that the lungs were underdeveloped.  And a specialized
> treatment was used (it involved some form of solution being put into the
> lungs).

The day my sister gave birth last month, one of the nurses was called out
by intercom to help care for a "new patient in LDR 11".  When she hesitated
to leave, as she was assisting my sister, but the voice on the intercom became
more insistant - "he's 24 weeks".   It was quite clear they believed they
could save him.

Now, my sister has an acquaintence who works in the neonatal ward of that
very hospital, so I do intend to find out how that "new patient" is doing.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The 91% Regret Rate
Date: 14 Sep 1992 08:13:00 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep11.235958.28946@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>>> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>>> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
>The source is the Alan Guttmacher institute, although they refrain from
>calling it "Post Abortive Stress Syndrome".   

Uh, don't you think their refrain might *mean* something?  Like, for instance,
that Post Abortive Stress Syndrome is actually different than what you
reference, below?

>The Alan Guttmacher survey
>found that of all women who have had abortions, a FULL 91% would have NOT
>aborted, if someone had presented them with help for an alternative.

Hmm.  You know, I may not have aborted if I'd had an extra $150,000 or so
lying about unused, too.  However, that doesn't mean when I did abort that
I suffered Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

Bill, you have a chance here to earn some net.respect.  Is 'Post Abortive
Stress Syndrome' the same thing as "gee, I wish I had other alternatives"?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Obs
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:18:12 GMT

In article <Bu8p8B.31n@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) 
rites:
>In article <1992Sep8.021225.6846@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (
an King) writes:
>
>...
>
>>All joking aside, does this make you realize that many pro-lifers have
>>no idea where a pregnancy takes place? 
>
>Sure, in the back seat of a Chevy, in bed, at work, in small towns,
>in big cities, in nature, in hospitals, in cabbage patches, on planes,
>at the beach, in the bathroom, ...   Various stages and various location
.
>Where it doesn't take place: abortion clinics.  If the "pro-lifers" don'

>know it, they can read it here.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you speaking of where *conception*
or even *impregnation* occurs?  Or maybe you forgot pregnancy lasts
about nine months and tends not to be especially fun.  Are you
under the impression that a baby pops out after intercourse?
I guess you are correect if you were saying that people don't have
sex in abortion clinics (well those that do are weird!), but
at least fractions of a pregnancy may occur in an abortion clinic
if a pregnant woman happens along (imagine that, a pregnant woman in
an abortion clinic!).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca  -  bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:27:51 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <88947@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Eric
>>Kevin
>>>Chris
>>>>Eric
>>>>> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (No - No  Never) writes:
>>>>  ^^^^^^
>
>
>>>>I was a little taken aback by your response, Eric, but then I looked
>>>>at the attribution line.  Talk about ikky-gross:  Kevin Welch is back!
>
>>>>So Kevin, have you harassed any pregnant women lately? >:-|
>
>>>I've never harassed a woman for being pregnant.  I usually congratulate them
>>>for achieving it.
>
>>So, Kevin, are you going to apologize to all the rape victims that
>>you insulted in the above post?
>
>Hey, Eric.  What is your problem?  Are you just plain stupid?  Or ignorant?
Neither. You, however, seem to be both.

>First you misconstrue my response (which was just another way of saying
>abstinence - with no reference intended whatsoever to rape); then you ask
>me to apologize to raped women for congratulating a woman for getting pregnant.
No, I asked you to apologize to them for implying that refusing to
have sex was a sure way to avoid getting pregnant, which is what
your original post implies.

>Number one, abstinence is a sure way to prevent pregnancy.  I do NOT believe
>that it is any deterent to a deranged rapist.  I never said that abstinence
>had anything to do with being raped, nor did I intend it.
Abstinence can be a difficult thing, sir. It is quite difficult to be
abstinent when someone is holding you to the floor and forcibly penetrating
you.

Your snide response that "pants" is a perfect contraceptive reminds
me of nothing more than the implication that a woman who was
raped "wanted it". I remind you that it was not so long ago
that Steven Friend claimed that women who were raped secrete a chemical
which prevents them from getting pregnant.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.224010.29434@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug31.210559.14664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug31.194119.26396@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov
>> (Dan King) writes:
>>
>> }DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  DOD, if it
>> }wouldn't be too much trouble could you add my name right below
>> }Susan's in your cute little .sig.  I agree with Susan so I wouldn't
>> }mind being added.  I bet you could make your own little list of
>> }people who agree with Susan here and come up with a way cute .sig.
>>
>> I agree with Dan and Susan, too.  So you can add my name.
>>
>> }>      "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
>
>You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
>incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  

Is he making fun of it, or just disagreeing with it? If he's a Christian, or
an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or ...) then would it be 
such a big surprise that he disagrees with one of the tenets of Judaism??

So where is this "fun" he's making of it? Where is the sarcasm, the satire,
the irony, the farce? I see none. Just a pro-lifer, who is (presumably) non-
Jewish, disagreeing with a pro-choicer, who is (presumably) Jewish. What do
you see that I don't?

								- Kevin