HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Use of Force
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:48:07 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>Some OpRisk-lives members have already adopted life-threatening
>>tactics again.  During one of the recent protests at a Dallas clinic
>>they shut off the power after breaking in.  No telling what could have
>>happened to a patient _who_waysn't_necessarily_even_having_an_abortion_
>>(Do the OR folks actually think that's the only thing clinics do?).
>>Luckily, at least according to the news, no one was hurt.  No thanks,
>>of course, to a bunch of brain-washed pre-teens who think they're
>>_saving_ lives.

>In hospitals, all essential equipment is on a seperatewiring system
>with a backup generator to rpevent problems like this from causing any
>serious harm. Ventilators, anesthesia machines, minimal lighting, etc
>would continue to work after such an attack, unless the culprits were
>also able to getto the generator and disable it. I don't know if this
>holds true for free standing clinics all over, but the 2-3 here that
>do surgery have backup generators.
>There's still a risk of injury form idiots like this, but it's at
>least minimized.

I'm relatively sure that clinics that perform surgery are required to
have such backup systems.  Such a system would also have its own set
of circuit breakers.  I have no idea whether these kids were able to
get to them, or just the main power breakers.  However, my concern was
about accidents caused by the sudden (though most likely temporary)
panic resulting from a group of kids storming the place and killing
the main power.  I wouldn't want to have someone using a scalpel on
_me_ when they jumped.  Also, the potential of needle-sticks and the
like goes way up in a low-light situation.

>>Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
>>as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
>>purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
>>an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
>>purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
>>actions.

>Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
>crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
>operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?

Sorry.  It was brain damage on my part.  That should be "minors" not
"minorities".  I guess I shouldn't try to carry on a separate
coversation with someone while composing a post. ;)

Apologies to those who might have been offended by such an
implication.  I assure you that those who know me would attest to my
general lack of racial prejudice.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------

                     Dallas Cowboys -- NFC Champions
                           The 'Boys are Back!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: EEGs, brainwaves, insults (Was Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:59:04 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>Agrred. I suppose it relates back to that old saw about humans only
>using 10% of our brain anyway. 
>So: Is this all because the rest is redundancy, or is it because the
>rest has no real function, or another reason of your choice?

I thought it was 20%.  I think it has more to do with replacement capacity
than direct backup.  (losses could be "fixed" by the more flexible unused
part...)  Of course this is just a theory (actually a hypothesis).  But,
after all, if it were a "backup" then it wouldn't be *unused* now would it?

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:49:40 GMT

From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>> <objecting to calling abortion a holocaust> 
>>> and to this day is extremely 
>>> hurtful in the memories of the Jewish people and their friends.
>> 
>> Why?  Because, sad to say, many who grieve over the holocaust
>> yet commit the same crimes by accepting abortion of the youngest,
>> most fragile of us.
> 
> Have you noticed that many Jews, including those who lost relatives to
> the Holocaust, are pro-choice?  

That's EXACTLY what I was saying!

> They don't seem impressed with _your_
> comparison.

Nor I with their failure to learn from the horrors of the past.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:31:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.030628.21585@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>2. Go through with it and dump the baby at the door of some "anti-choice"
>activist or an impotent family who would kill for a baby.

You are neglecting the impact on the woman's life of having to go through
an entire unwanted pregnancy.

>3. Go through with it and slit its throat as it comes out of the womb. 
>According to feminist types, it ain't human till you cut out the cord and
>they are forced to breath. 

As a "feminist type", I resent your suggestion that *all* feminists think
"it ain't human till you cut out the cord".  There are many different kinds
of feminism!
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some more NFP discussion
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:15:00 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan23.061944.2743@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) evades giving statistics regarding NFP, how unusual!

There are two good reasons why Frau Forgach will not give statistics.
(1) If abstention during fertile periods is assiduous, the rhythm
method, as they ysed to call it when I was a Roman Catholic, has some
modest success at preventing pregnancy.  However, in actual practice
the effectiveness of this method is low for behavioral reasons.  The
presumption of abstinence during fertile periods tends to not be
descriptive of actual behavior.  Thus, like many other of Frau
Forgach's beliefs, her advocacy of NFP is based on an archaic
behavioral code [tm].  Just as she would force all women who become
pregnant to bear their children, she would also prefer that all men
and women have sex and birth control according to her beliefs.  For
this reason, she tries to avoid publicizing that NFP is relatively
ineffective as a birth control method.  (2) NFP actually leads to more
birth defects.  Pregnancy that occurs at the ends of the fertile
period, more likely under NFP, are more likely to result in birth
defects.  In fact, I believe this may be a possible explaination of
Frau Forgach's peculiar belief structure.  I wonder if PHoney's and
DODIE's parents practiced NFP?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:15:33 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.165605.25573@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> In article <C19I0H.6p5.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
>> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> 
>> > I wonder why it was so important to him to lie so persistently
>> > in this thread.  
>> 
>> Garvin, you suggested that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
>> in 1860 has "something to do" with the Roe v. Wade ruling in
>> 1973.  Now it looks as though you're back-pedaling from that
>> suggestion.  Instead of whining about me, why don't you admit
>> that you were wrong to begin with.


>I explained the connection in another article.  I'm not
>sure if that was the connection Susan may or may not have been
>referring to, but I did explain it.  I'll explain it again,
>since Reverend Holtsinger may have missed it.  The unsafe
>nature of abortions in the 19th century was at least partly
>responsible for the passage of laws prohibiting abortions
>in many cases.  This was done to protect women.  The historical
>rates of death and injury among women who have had illegal
>and medically unsafe abortions in turn influenced Justice
>Blackmun's approach to the issue.

>If you need a longer explanation than that, Reverend, let me
>know.

>.Dean Kaflowitz

Mr. Kaflowitz, the main reason abortion was made illegal in the 19th
century was the discovery of fertilization and the fact the AMA was
actively lobbying Congressmen with their view that life began at
fertilization.

Sorry to burst your bubble.



>"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
>spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
>so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:59:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.144301.8997@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <mfh3ptm@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
> 
> >> Down with the welfare state. Let the fit survive.
> >>
> >> Bob Kolker
> 
> > And this is a person that Holtsinger called "pro-choice"?
> 
> He's obviously pro-choice.  He supports the legal availability
> of abortion, which is the usual definition of "pro-choice"
> which has been offered in this newsgroup.  Do you wish to
> change that definition to exclude people like Kolker who
> oppose public funding for abortions?  

Actually he seemed to be saying that he supports a policy
of mandatory abortion and sterilization for Mexicans.  I
suppose he has some other ethnic groups to which he would like
the policy applied as well.  That is not a "pro-choice"
position since it removes the opportunity to choose for a
number of people.  It is more in line with the "pro-life"
position as it seeks to make one option alone permissible
by law.  A long time ago my girlfriend in college told me
that opposites tend to have a great deal in common.  At
first I thought it was some kind of koan, but I soon
saw it made a great deal of sense.

An intelligent person would say, by the way, that the usual
definition of pro-choice is to support the legal availability
of the option to have an abortion.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:18:56 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan26.001645.22769@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>In article <19JAN93.20185693@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Why aside from medical hardships?  A woman carrying to term is facing a risk 
>>of death.  She is also facing risks of pain, discomfort, and serious threats 
>>to her health.  Does this mean nothing to you?

>So women should never have children, because there might be
>discomfort or complications?  

No, it means that since they will suffer, they SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE TO
GO THROUGH THAT OR NOT.  Why is this so difficult for you?

Jeez.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:04:32 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>>>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 
>
>> Of course not!  Because the mother can get rid of the infant by just
>> giving it up for adoption.  When you balance the right of an infant to
>> live against the right of a mother to not be bothered, it's rather
>> obvious that the infant has quite a bit more at stake.
>
>  Why does the infant have more at stake than the fetus.

Than the MOTHER, not the fetus.  Read more carefully next time.

>  You said the infant could be given up for adoption rather than
>  killing it, couldn't the same thing be done for the fetus?

Nope, because if you remove a fetus from the mother's womb, it'll die.

>  Men and women need to realize that "controlling your
>  own body" needs to occur before sex, be it with abstinence or birth
>  control.

Not all abortions are a result of accidental conceptions, remember.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Keywords: Gestation
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:38:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

[only including you to use the following, the post I am responding to expired]

>> = 90397106@bradford.ac.uk (JR HAVELOCK) writes:

>>I am currently writing an article on the stages of gestation. I would appreciate any details/
>>statistics on this and any ideas (plus reasons) on when life beings. I was interested to note
>> [...]

I took part in a high-school science competition (quiz show format) run by
the Illinois Association of Phillipino Physicians (or something like that).
Questions were submitted in advance (either by science instuctors or by the
physicians themselves, I'm not sure which--maybe both) from which they were
randomly drawn.  One of the questions was litterally:  "When does life begin?"
There were a couple immediate objections and the question was thrown out.
(They didn't take too long in deciding to throw it out, either; there is no
way they could have come to a consensus on what the "correct" answer would
have to be.)

On another question a Chemistry textbook I had brought along was used to
settle a dispute.  (I don't remember what it was.) All in all, it was a
pretty interesting day.  Incidentally, I won 3rd place, and got the LARGEST
3rd place trophy I've ever seen!  (It seemed larger than most 1st place
sports trophies...)  If only I'd responded sooner that the general formula
for an alcohol is ROH, I might have had second...

-Rob
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:03:39 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>UNRETRACTED LIE
|>---------------
|>
|>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
|> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
|>				    Susie Garvin
|>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
|>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
                                                   
>From talk.abortion Tue Oct  6 18:37:18 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
<l!_ps+.bskendig@netcom.com> <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Gag rule to be rescinded
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:10:06 GMT


My understanding from the news media is that Pres. Clinton will 
rescind Bush's gag rule prohibiting staff from mentioning abortion 
in federally funded clinics tomorrow (Jan. 22).
It will be nice for doctors to discuss ALL the options with their 
patients again.

Note that this is also the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  
Good timing!


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 29 Jan 1993 04:52:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu
Summary: deletions?  where?

In article <lmgj6lINNccn@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>In article <1k7ntvINN8am@shelley.u.washington.edu> lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:

AR> = Adrienne Regard in a previous article, no reference given

AR>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
AR>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  

AR>The answer, Paul, is "no".

>>....I cannot find your addressing of the point however.
>>Do you intend to include it?  Where in our legal system is another
>>entity allowed to use the body of a person against that person's will?
>
>If you read what I have posted in the thread very carefully, you could
>say that I _have_ addressed the point indirectly, but only from a
>moral/ethical-style approach.  

Actually, I must have missed it.  I just saw you giving your opinions
and admitting that you weren't even too sure about the basis of those.

>                               I haven't specifically addressed it in
>a legal sense, however, because as I said, I feel relatively uninformed
>in that arena.

I hope that this means you will refrain from attempting to change the
legal status of abortion until such a time?  I personally do not believe
people should be increasing the number of laws because it will make 
them feel better.  I don't think that the "rightness" or "wrongness"
is worth arguing about in this case - I don't think it will get one
very far but I may be suprised some day.  I'm not holding my breath
on that.  Most people can't agree on "right", "wrong", "person",
etc... 

I get the impression from you that you also don't know very much
about what pregnancy entails or what people choosing abortion go
through.  Perhaps you should check that out as well when you brush
up on your legal issues.  Many people here have related their own
experiences - perhaps it is time to brush the dust off a few of
those posts and repost them (I haven't saved any, tho').  

When one considers the effect that laws have on people, one 
should be sure that there are no side effects to any law one 
proposes - perhaps when you consider what kind of law you would
support, you may discover that it is not possible to implement 
for one reason or another.  I suggest that you come up with 
some actual examples of laws you would support if you desire
to legally ban abortion.  If you are morally opposed to abortion
for some reason or another but do not wish to make it illegal,
you fall in some pro-choice camp, which one is not clear.  Do
you wish to make abortion illegal for most reasons, Paul?  If
you don't wish to restrict abortion, I cannot see arguing further.

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer