HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:47:09 GMT

The following item is taken from _The Forerunner_, May 1989.  It appears
with a picture of the woman giving the testimony, which took place
at the "Meet the Abortion Providers" conference in February, 1989 at
Chicago's O'Hare Marriott, sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League.

Audio tapes of the abortionists' complete testimonies are available
for $20, and video tapes for $40.  Orders may be sent to;

Pro-Life Action League
6160 N. Cicero Avenue, Suite #210,
Chicago, IL 60646

This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
(for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.

	"When I started working at the Fairmount Center in Dallas,
I was a radical feminist and completely pro-abortion.  But I became
traumatized by what I saw every day.  It's hard to work in a place
where there is no love.

	"One woman came to the clinic forcing her daughter to have
an abortion.  The daughter was in the second trimester at 15 weeks.
She kept going to the bathroom, and it seemed that something was 
definitely wrong.  Then the girl started screaming at the top of her
lungs, `It's a baby! Mama! Mama!' The doctor was in the middle of a
procedure and couldn't come.  She'll be scarred for life for seeing
her baby in the toilet, which is where it landed.

	"Another woman got an abortion because she had twins.
Everyone went in to see what the twins looked like after the 
abortion.  I had never been in the procedure room.  I wanted to
avoid it.  In my heart, I knew they were babies, and I knew
abortion was murder.

	"I became depressed, despondent, and hooked on drugs.
I took drugs to wake up, took speed at work, and took pot and
alcohol in the evening.  I also took birth control pills and
developed amenorrhea.  The abortion mill assumed I was pregnant
and gave me an abortion, but it turned out I wasn't pregnant.
Furthermore the phantom abortion led to complications, including
a severe pelvic infection.

	"Finally, when I decilded to give my life to the Lord,
I got out of the abortion business.  I told my husband that I
wanted to get out of the `rat race' and get a new job in a new
town.  Then, when I got pregnant, a physician recommended I
get an abortion because of the drugs I had taken.  He predicted
deformity.  I absolutely refused to get the abortion, and now I have
a beautiful four-year-old girl -- my `miracle baby' whose picture
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Killing in defense of possessions?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.200352.20459@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <24187@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>> False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
>> from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
>> them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
>> members of the human species. 

>There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
>it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
>your valuables.  

Names of states, please?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.202634.11650@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
## 
## Tell me Doug, do the *number* of people who object to something have any
## bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the event or action?
#
#Hell Gordon, why do you think Pro-Lifers laugh up their sleeves every time
#pro-"choicers" cite polls inflating their numbers?   (Hint: it just doesn't
#matter.)

Well, then, Suzanne, can you explain why Jack Willke falsely 
inflated the membership of the NRLC while he was president?
Did you laugh at him?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:40:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

>Hey, by fealty may belong to Dan (King) but I must admit that I, too,
>dedicate my sacrifices to drieux...

Man thanks for clearing up this line in your following post.  I was
semi-concerned I had been reading too many inturdgent posts and my
reading comprehension had gotten as bad as the little guys.  

You can sacrifice and part or all of your fealty to drieux-dude.  As
long as you keep speaking for fetus, and other such objects, you have
my blessing.

>  Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu

Dan King
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 14:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep3.193131.24521@Cadence.COM>  phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>
> I doubt we would have many of these, though, seeing as there are so few
> third-tri abortions, and I know of none that are not done because of a health
> threat to the mother or fetus.  The main reasons I agree with Ms. Bartley are
> because I am uncomfortable with allowing a high-probability viable fetus to
> be killed for any reason other than this,

I'd be uncomfortable as well, but since there is absolutely no evidence that
this is happening, and I don't like unnecessary laws, I see no reason for
additional legislation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:17:47 GMT

In article <5240@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> you did neglect to mention that the actual accusations
> had been substantiated


When?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:42:57 GMT

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

> Uhmm. Here's a (hopefully) dispassionate suggestion about abortion. No 
> federal legislation. Leave it to the lower courts to decide each case on its 
> own merits, just as we now let courts decide cases of other kinds of 
> killing.  We let courts decide whether a specific instance of killing was 
> manslaughter, murder, etc.  Since both parties to the abortion debate 
> concede that not all abortions are murders but may sometimes be killings, 
> why not let the trial courts handle them case by case?  Why should acts of 
> abortion be treated any different from other acts of killing?

Ken, there are ~1.5 million abortions every year in the U.S.  You want to tie
up the courts with a 'case by case' construction of abortion law?  Let me
guess; you're a starving lawyer?

Btw, many pro-lifers do _not_ concede that abortion is not murder.

>   If this suggestion is largely acceptable, then the abortion debate can 
> then come to center almost exclusively on the question of whether abortions 
> are [at least] prima facia killings. Since not all killings are unjustified 
> killings (i.e. murders,etc), it should then be left to juries to decide 
> whether, e.g., a woman is having or had an abortion in the third timester 
> just to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe or in the interest of 
> her own life or health.

Your cynical remark about trips to Europe deserves a sharp reply.  Here's
one I saw in alt.politics.bush:

In alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.elections, alt.fan.dan-quayle,
williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

>> I don't even regard abortion as a "necessary evil."  It is a medical
>> procedure, & one that women employ as an absolute last resort.  It is
>> a vicious, unfounded, cynical republican conservative myth that there
>> is an army of women out there that "got drunk, got laid, got pregnant,
>> got scraped." without a second thought.

-- 
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
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Here's a thought...
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.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 03:10:04 GMT

In article <180ulpINNn1a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

[Delete:  Peter's stuff.  It's no longer relevant...]

>You would feel quite free to stake a WOMAN's life on it, but funny thing,
>your OWN life doesn't fit into the equation.  Pretty cheap rhetoric, Peter.

A thought just occured to me.  One that would make the pro-lifers "put their
money where their mouth is" in some respects.

If you're a pro-lifer, find some woman who is under 2 months pregnant, and
is planning on aborting, and offer her the following deal:

For the next nine months, you two will be chained together at the neck.  If
she needs to get up and go to the restroom 10 times a night, so will you.

Every time she is hungry, you have to eat the same foods.

Every time she has to go to the bathroom, you have to go with her.

You have to wear one of those "malemommie" devices in the same manner as the
z/e/f is growing, so that you can feel what she feels, to some extent.

Every time the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornBaby" kicks, she gets to hit you in an
attempt to approximate the feeling.

Every time she is sick, she gets to shove her fingers down your throat until
you throw up (you think morning sickness is something women _enjoy_?)

When the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornBaby" is born, you'll adopt it, right then and
there, no if's, an's, or but's.

If the woman involved dies, you die.

What do all you pro-lifer's think?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:15:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug25.144923.18092@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>Coming back for a short look, and while deciding what I
>would or would not read of the 600 or so posts still in
>the system a thought occured. The ratio of men to women
>in the pro-birth camp is amazing. So far, there only
>seems to be Ms. Forgach and Ms. Springer who are pro-
>birth, with innumerable males on their side.

	The question of one pro-choice activist [_The Humanist_,
Jul/Aug 1992]:

	4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?

	And a comment about one anti-abortion activist:

	2-4-6-8, Tucci doesn't ovulate!

	In Kristin Luker's study of pro-choice and anti-abortion
female activists, she found that the pro-choice ones were almost all
career women and that the anti-abortion ones were almost all
housewives. That fits very well with the profile of talk.abortion
posters. There are a lot more women on the pro-choice side here than
on the anti-abortion side.

>But are their views based on the teachings of that
>gentle man or are they based on a hatred of women?
>Interesting, however, not sufficiently interesting
>for me to read the hate filled garbage they spew
>onto the net.

	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
and Pharisees suffered.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:42:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug28.011747.16087@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <5240@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> > you did neglect to mention that the actual accusations
> > had been substantiated
> 
> 
> When?

Doogie, you just printed the accusations and deleted all of the
substantiation.  That is why your statements are not correct.
Ms Garvin provided numerous arguments that substantiated her
remarks about your veracity.  Your failure to include them
is perhaps understandable, but winds up supporting her
contentions that you are less than frank.  To say that her
remarks are unsubstantiated, then print the remarks without
her substantiation, which was present in the originals, just
adds to the stench surrounding your "integrity."  I might
add that, just because you don't agree that what she provided
as substance does not mean she failed to substantiate her
accusations (though I think of her remarks more as observations
of fact than accusations).

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: I gave at the office.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.210729.22561@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> 
>Hopefully I'm not taking this out of context.  I only saw this in a
>message that was J H Woodyatt reply to John Stevens.
> 
>>                                      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. [...] 
> 
>But then:
>
>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> 
>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>  
>So how are these two apparently contradicting statements resolved?

No contradiction, that's how.

>If
>the fetus's father has the right to deny the woman an abortion, doesn't
>that give him the say in when the woman gives birth?

Nope.  Let me ask you to work this out for yourself.  How does a woman
control when she is going to give birth?

>I'm also real curious how such an amendment could possibly work.
>How about spelling out for us what such an amendment would say.

Which is the reason that I consider banning abortion to be the more
politically expedient solution.

>>I don't want to make abortion illegal, but it does look like the
>>politically expedient way of achieving fairness in this area.
> 
>So you are saying since men are being treated unfairly, rather than
>fixing that problem, you want to make the law also treat women 
>unfairly.

Nope.  You said that, not me.  I said that I want to ban abortion to
achieve fairness.

>You want to do it this way because it is easier than
>working to make legislation fair for both sexes?

Not easier.  Possible.

>>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.
>
>So why not do it.

Sigh. . . Why not read what I post?

>Why whine about how terrible men are being treated?  

Why do women whine about how terrible women are being treated?

>Rather than making the system even more unfair, why aren't you working to
>make the system fair for both sexes?  

I am.

>Dan King

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Aug22.205019.12578@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug25.171746.26192@ncsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:34:27 GMT


In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
   newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
   on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup 
   dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.  

Is this an attempt to censor talk.abortion?

In article <1992Aug25.171746.26192@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   Yes.
...
   Yes.

   In article <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   The name would be something like "talk.abortion.moderated", and it would
   serve alongside talk.abortion as an alternate newsgroup.  No personal
   attacks, insults, or flames would be permitted on the newsgroup.  Everything
   else would be accepted unconditionally.  People who had their articles
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In article <1992Aug25.171746.26192@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
   We could limit the number of posts that any one person submits on
   a daily basis, or limit the number of currently active threads.  
   There could be other solutions.  

"accepted unconditionally" != "limit the number of posts"
"accepted unconditionally" != "limit the number of currently active threads"

Elizabeth asks:
   > How do you define "flame"?  

   Any personal attack, insult, or ad hominem attack.  
...
   This is the principal reason why I proposed a moderated newsgroup.
   I think many people are intimidated by the flames and the insults
   which appear on talk.abortion.  By removing the flames, we could
   get more people to participate, and they'd bring with them a wider
   range of ideas and opinions.  

The people that post on talk.abortion are constantly changing.  New
people post on a regular basis.  There is no barrier to having a new
person post.  I believe your "participation argument" to be a red
herring.  

What do you really want?

________  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
  \  /      \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon
member, T.S.A.K.C.

"Don't kick them when the lights are on!"
  Houston Police officer beating ACT UP protestors at the Republican
National Convention (source: Nightline 8/17)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:19:50 GMT

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
|> In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> > 
|> > I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
|> > begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
|> > against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
|> > while pregnant would be child endangerment.
|> 
|> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
|> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
|> - and my wife has said the same thing...
|> 

So, would you charge your wife with murder should she
spontaniously abort? Would your wife admit to the 
murder? Or do you consider a spontanious abortion to 
be a suicide and so you would only charge her with
assisting a suicide (after all the person that died
was in her care)?

Would you also file child abuse/neglect charges against
your wife if she were to smoke, take drugs or drink during
pregnancy?

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.152423.21573@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

>>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
  [deleted for brevity]

>Welcome, Cynthia. 
>Be seriously aware that pro-aborts will try and slam you off of this
>newsgroup with super flaming tactics. 

Please note, Cynthia, that Chaney frequently uses other people's worst 
behaviors to justify acting that way himself.  So the best way to 
gauge the flammage level in t.a. is to monitor Steve -- he always seems 
one step ahead.

>My assertion couldn't possibly be too far off; these people flamed
>one of their own pro-choice friends, named Siren, off of the
>newsgroup, and she was their most logical and peace-minded ally.
>(Maybe it was because of that, that she got flamed. For her peaceful
>attitude, that is.) 

Also, Cynthia, I thought it would be useful for you to see what 
Siren has to say about this (reprinted from an earlier post):

In article <1992Aug29.223747.25430@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
 writes:
#Siren wrote me from a friend's account.
#
#--- --- ---
#[deletia]
   [Siren's text follows...]
#
#       Also, would you post the following for me in t.a.:
#
#Mr. Chaney:
#
#       Please stop throwing my name at people as I have been told
#that you are doing.  I have enjoyed most of my stay, even though some
#of it is less than savory.  To most people who have any impression of
#me, I am sure they will be perfectly capable of judging my virtues and
#shortcomings without your constant harping about it.
#       I have disagreed with people, sometimes even vituperic and
#acrimonious people, during my year-long fling with t.a., but I try to
#forgive and forget, and assume that other people will of their own
#benevolence-- as James Steerforth said to David Copperfield:
#
#"Remember me at my best."
#
#       There are honorable adversaries and friends that I will not
#forget, and bitter enemies who I have yet to forgive or forget, but I
#sincerely hope that I have provided an example of someone who is not
#afraid to be true to her own self and fostered some decent discussion
#in my time.  Using my name the way I think you are serves no
#constructive purpose and violates what I think I stood for, and I
#beseech you to stop doing so.
#

Steve, will you honor Siren as she requests?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion