HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:42:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul21.165215.14616@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>The baby dies.  With all the rationalizations and renaming I've heard,
>still, no one has satisfied me that killing a fetus is any different than
>killing a baby.

A fetus (prior to myeliation) doesn't have the hardware for a
functioning brain.  A baby does.

A baby doesn't require service from a specific individual every instant
of the day to survive.  A pre-viable fetus does.

You may not think these are *important* differences, but they are
differences.  Did you mean to say that no one has satisfied you that
killing a fetus is different in any important way, or is significantly
different, or is different in any moral sense, from killing a baby?
Those I could understand.  Saying that you're not satisfied that 
there's any difference between killing a fetus and killing a baby I
don't understand.

--
Pro-Choice    Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act    - E. Elizabeth Bartley

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:18:03 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.164001.4246@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>#I've heard that the Schenck's fetus was actually a victim of a type
>#of late term abortion called a prostoglandin abortion. This is occasionally
>#used for late term fetuses. It is injected into the woman, and the
>#hormone then artificially induces abortion, resulting in a stillbirth.
>#If that's the case, then there is no deception. 

>Nyikos claimed that, since abortions can be either spontaneous
>or induced, there was no deception involved if the fetus were
>in fact stillborn rather than the result of an induced abortion,
>since the didn't say specifically that the abortion was
>induced.  I argued that the Schencks had indeed claimed that
>the abortion was induced.  You seem to be supporting my argument,
>yet you claim no deception.  Care to try again?

I would argue that there is no deception if the fetus in question
was the result of an any artificial abortion. If the child was stillborn
due to a spontaneous abortion, unassisted by an abortionist, then I
believe it would be deceptive to claim that the fetus was a "victim" of
abortion. So there, I guess I agree with you after all!

Nevertheless, one could argue that Schenck's primary purpose was to
impress upon people what a fetus looks like before an late term abortion.
No matter how deceptive his language may have been, it would never change
the fact that he was holding a real human fetus.

-ACF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- passing the savings on to you)
Subject: Doug and Me (formerly: PP executive says...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:19:25 GMT

What: <1992Jul25.205906.28359@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>>   = Jay T Stein
>>>  = Doug Holtsinger
>>>> = Jay T Stein

>>>> Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
>>>> Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
>>>> movement seems to have strong religious connections.
>
>>> In the second sentence, you insinuate that no pro-lifer can hold
>>> non-religious views on abortion.
>
>> Doug, Doug, Doug.  That conclusion does not follow from what I said.
>> I mentioned a correlation, I did not say that the correlation was +1.
>> In fact, I implicitly said that it is not.
>
>I saw no mention of "correlation". Are we reading the same sentence?

"Connection" doesn't mean correlation to you?  In this context, what else
can it mean?

>You said "the pro-life movement". That's inclusive of all pro-lifers.

You should know better than this.  Making a statement about a movement as
a whole is not making a statement about each member.  Be that as it may,
I'm telling you right now that I'm not claiming what you say I'm claiming.
Pleaase stop misrepresenting me.  (Or should I go back to including your
"birth is an event" quote in my .sig, which I deleted only because you
asked me to?)

>Promoting stereotypes of the pro-life movement is a pretty pathetic
>argument, Mr. Stein. 

I'm doing no such thing.  I present observations, and you misinterpret
and misrepresent them.

I'm still waiting for that retraction.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:52:55 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <42hm!x+.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
> dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes ...
>>What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
>>What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
>>after all.
> 
> For the same reason people drive cars, eat steak, ride bicycles, 
> ride in airplanes, swim, live in California, live in the midwest,
> live in the south, have children, and walk outdoors.
> 
> All these endeavors (and many others, besides) have an element of
> risk.  Do you propose making all of them illegal?

In all of these cases it is _your_ risk to take.  In the case of having sex
when you intend to abort if you do get pregnant, it is _not_ your risk to
take, but that of the child's, whom you might be conceiving and aborting.


Suzanne Forgach
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:33:01 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	Getting oneself neutered would be an even better solution. No
>willpower necessary. Jesus Christ himself recommended it -- read
>Matthew 19:12 on how there are eunuchs who have made themselves
>eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Really.  You would know.

Given this bible passage, why are Catholics like Forgach so against
vasectomies and similar stuff?                                        



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<NUGE.92Jul24114732@newport.med.ge.com> <!hjm5gn.ray@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:52:51 GMT

In article <!hjm5gn.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
writes:

> nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent) writes ...
> >In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us
> >> Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
> >> (I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
> >> penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
> >> sound like murder to me.
> >
> >  It appears that they considered the unborn as "property." Of course
> >to get to verse 22 you had to notice this (verse 21):
> >
> >  "If, however, [a man strikes his male or female slave witha rod and]
> >  the slave survives for a day or two [before dying] he is not to be
> >  punished, since the slave is his own property."
> >
> >  I think (hope) our standards of morality and "property" have evolved
> >beyond the Code of the Covenant in Exodus. What do you think?

> So then, you agree that the Bible cannot be used as a standard for
> morality?

	That's right. Not like a cookbook. Especially the O.T. You
have to read it critially and consider the historical framework as
well as author's intent and audience.

> >> My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..."
> >
> >  Yup. Early Church teaching, the Didache Apostolicae (Teachings of
> >the Apostles, ~ 100 AD) says:
> >
> >  "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
> >  already born."

> And 1200 years later the same church burned people at the stake for 
> possessing a Bible.

  How about owning a Didache? Was that bad, too?  Anyway, 800 years
after that, I took a Catholic scripture class, and even brought along
my Bible, a translation commissioned by the Catholic Church. Am I in
trouble?

> Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose and expect it to be a convincing
> argument.  

        Who's making an argument? I'm just telling you what they said,
and where. If I wanted to convince you of validity of a Church positon
I'd have to just that, not just quote it.

> Either the Bible and the Church are useful authorities, or 
> they're not.

       You're trying to make a black and white with no gray, no room
for thinking critically about it. Isn't that what you accuse us of
doing?
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:59:41 GMT

In <14krd7INNf2c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
In article <1992Jul22.185747.3417@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Jul21.152018.67042@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
>>>Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
>>>again.  (Can you say biased sample?)
>
>>Despite the bias of the study sample, should the adverse sequelae
>>experienced by these women be relegated to insignificance because 
>>such women seem to represent a minority?  Do these women deserve
>>a hearing or should we simply infer a "pro-lie" political agenda?
>
>Hmm.  Once again, I have to ask if this is a 'real' question.  (Bill,
>one of these days I'm going to have to figure out what it *is* about
>your postings that always send me down this path....)

Maybe it's my indefatigable wit?  My incisive analyses?  My good looks?

>I don't think anybody is saying that women exploited by abortion should
>be silenced, ignored, spat upon, or anything else.    However, on the
>basis of the minority viewpoint of these women, people *are* perhaps
>saying that this minority viewpoint probably isn't the best viewpoint
>upon which to legislate....

Right; I wasn't arguing otherwise.  The question (the *real* question)
is: what happened to these women?  If they didn't experience anything
resembling "post-abortion trauma", how should we characterize their
experiences?  Are such responses predictable contingent upon an iden-
tifiable (but atypical) set of predispositional factors?  

>I wouldn't necessarily say that, because I don't care about majority and
>minority viewpoints, period.  But the fact/belief/contention by a small
>number of women that something isn't terrific in a bad situation doesn't
>seem to be to be a good place to start in discovering how the bad situation
>affects *most* women.

Agreed.  The contentions of such women may elicit skepticism among pro-
choicers, given the obvious political implications.  Setting those im-
lications aside though (pretending they're non-existent), how should the
medical community define the experiences of these women?  I think we have
to admit that, for some small percentage of the population, there is an
identifiable risk of an adverse emotional reaction to abortion.  It may
be remote, but it nevertheless seems to exist.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:49:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article by dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>You noticed that too, did you.  (Although he was addressing deadbeat dads.)
>I guess whatever's _convenient_ to his campaign.

Like you using whatever interpretation is _convenient_ to _your_ campaign?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Enough of these lies (was Re: Creating Real Choices
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:12:39 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul30.005027.23920@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:

> <1992Jul23.184638.19161@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) said:
> ...
> >	First, both sides ignore one important question : Why do so
> >many women believe abortion is the only viable option when facing a
> >crisis pregnancy? And what can be done to make other options more
> >attractive and more viable. Nobody likes the idea of abortion (there's
> >a difference between being Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortions, and almost no
> >one is pro-abortion). 
> 
> How dare you imply that the pro-abortion movement *likes* abortion!  Just
> who the h*ll do you think you are?  All of us pro-abortioners on this net
> have stated at one time or another that we would categorically *prefer*
> that abortion wasn't necessary, but as long as it is necessary it should
> be legally available.

[lots deleted]
 
> Then why do you imply that pro-abortioners *do* like abortion?
> Gordon

  Typically such people call themselve pro-choice, and in fact he makes that
distinction, Gordon.  "Pro-abortion" does not mean to many people "I don't
like abortion, but I think it should be a legal choice to make."

  Nice to know you don't like the practice, but if you don't like being
called a duck, stop quacking.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* 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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Oh-no, not *that* one again!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:57:20 GMT

<1992Jul9.000055.25761@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
...
>My goal is simply to continue representing the simple truth in a badly
>confused world.  And that is:
>
>                            A B O R T I O N
>
>                               K I L L S
>
>                            C H I L D R E N

No it doesn't.  Except in those very rare cases when an under-age young 
girl is pregnant and dies during the abortion.  Something very rare
because abortion is legal.  Something far more likely to happen should
abortion become illegal.

Why do you want to kill children, Suzanne?

...
>Brian, don'tcha get it yet?  It's not a matter of intellectual scientific
>arguments at all.  

Pretty much sums up your argumentation style.

>                   The biological development of the unborn child is well
>known, and might I add, well ignored.

I couldn't find a reference to 'unborn child' development.  I found plenty
of references to "fetal development.

>It is precisely and only, a matter of the heart.  You either love and
>value your children at WHATEVER stage they're at, or you don't.  

I guess that's your problem.  You want to force *everyone* to love and
value their fetuses.  You just don't realize that it isn't possible.

...
>Zygotes are people because you and I both used to _be_ zygotes, Brian.

You used to be a sperm cell and an egg cell.  Does that mean you are still
a sperm cell and egg cell?  Does it mean that a sperm cell and egg cell
are people?

A tree can become a table.  Does that mean a tree *IS* a table?

>It's as plain as the nose on your face, but your "educated" glasses
>are so thick, you've lost sight of the obvious.   

Yeah, what we need is more illiteracy and ignorance.  Imagine someone on
this board actually putting down education?  Pretty weird isn't it.

>                                                  But maybe you can
>begin the process of opening and melting your heart, to the youngest
>and most vulnerable of our human race.

Yech, babies are messy, smelly, and noisy.  Not unlike some of my close
friends actually. ;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I'm new
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:55:18 GMT

<1992Jul8.163343.1909@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca said:
>In article <90504@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul6.163633.1901@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
...
>Lemme see if I have this straight:  The problem is overpopulation.
>The (partial) solution is birth control.  Abortion should be used
>as birth control.  Maybe you could lobby to have some group of scientists
>make an inexpensive easy to use home abortion kit that you could pick
>up next to the condoms and spermicides in the drug store.

Nearly there -- it's called RU 486.

>IMO abortion should not be used as a form of birth control.
>Call me silly if you like.

OK -- silly.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:46:00 GMT

---
tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
|since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
|got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
|child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
|it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
|pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
|end of discussion :-)

I'm sure all the married couples who don't want more kids
are really happy to hear that you've made their sexual
decisions for them.

But you do seem quite ignorant about sex.  Maybe you should
ask your parents to sit down with you & talk about birth control.
You know, contraception.  Ways to prevent pregnancy.  (You
learn something new every day, don't you!)  Some methods are
98% effective, when used properly or in conjunction with a 
second method.  Pregnancy is unlikely to happen to couples
using birth control.

Here's another fun new fact for you to think about.  (Now, your 
parents are probably too shy to talk to you about this, but
you can find it explained in books in your local library.
If they don't let kids take these books out, you can read them 
in the stacks.)  Ready?

There are some sexual activities which <gasp> don't involve 
penile penetration of the vagina.  In your talk with your 
parents, you'll have learned that it takes sperm to fertilize 
an ovum.  Without penetration, there's almost no chance 
that a sperm will get that far-- and hence no possibility of 
conception!  So pregnancy is unlikely to happen to couples 
who enjoy oral sex, anal sex, or mutual masturbation instead 
of intercourse.

So now you've learned something about sex.  Maybe you should
think about your statement above in the light of all this new
information.  Maybe you should rephrase, and say something like,
"If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse
without using birth control.  period."

Then we'll sit down & have a nice chat about compassion, which
is probably another new concept for you.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: K_WALLACE@unhh.unh.edu (Kristin   Wallace)
Subject: How is an abortion performed?
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:33:52 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.12

Is there a doctor, or a very informed person who could tell
me how an abortion is performed?
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: FUNNY PP
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:12:03 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
child you cannot have it."

Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.kevin-darcy