HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: A question for Suzanne.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 23 DEC 92 16:05:10 GMT

In a previous article, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) wrote:
>From article by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:

>>How do you feel about my father getting a tissue transplant from dead aborted 
>>fetuses?  
> 
>Were I he, I would refuse it.  To me there is a large difference between
>receiving a transplant from someone who died naturally, and receiving one
>from someone who was killed specifically to provide me with it.   You say
>it was to be aborted anyway?  Still, I myself would refuse to profit from
>the deliberate killing of someone else.

In my father's case, no one is planning on having an abortion for the sole 
purpose of providing tissue for him.  I understand that you would not chose 
fetal tissue transplant for yourself, but do you feel that other's shouldn't 
be allowed to choose such a procedure?

>>My family is hoping that after Clinton reverses the ban on fetal 
>>tissue research, 
> 
>Your whole family is terribly mistaken.  Fetal tissue research has
>_never_been_ banned.   Only the funding of it with our _tax_ dollars has
>been banned.   Your family should not blame the government.  Your family
>should blame the medical establishment that has been unwilling to undertake
>the research to fight Parkinson's without a government guarantee against the 
>financial risk.

Some researchers have gone ahead with their studies.  In the past month I've
read about scientists who used this procedure on 13 patients.  Many of the
patients experienced positive results. 

>>this procedure will be perfected and will be made available 
>>to people like my father who are suffering from parkinson's disease.
> 
>What I have read of the experiments in other countries, of Parkinson's
>patients that have been implanted with fetal tissue, is that if there are
>any improvements at all in the patient, they are very short lived - on the
>order of just a few weeks.   Then they revert right back as if they hadn't
>had the treatment at all.   Don't hang your hopes for your father on this
>treatment, or you will be sadly disappointed.

Even a temporary cure would be a big improvement.  The last time he fell, he 
fractured three ribs.  Next time he might not be that lucky.  Even a temporary 
cure (and by the way, I'm not convinced the results of these procedures are 
short-lived) could end up saving his life.

>>I'd be interested in hearing your opinions since we seem to be in a similar 
>>situation.
> 
>I feel very badly for your father, and your family, but I can't see fetal
>tissue implants as a solution.  I think the research should focus on more
>effective treatments.

Such as...?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:32:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.014655.18304@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Can you show me any textbook on embryology or obstetrics 
>> which mixes the terms 'woman' and 'fetus', instead of
>> using the terms 'gravida' and 'fetus'? 

> Here's some quotes for you 
>
>  [.. quotes deleted ..] 

None of the quotes which you provided contained the terms 
'fetus' and 'woman' together.  You did provide quotes which
contained the term 'woman' alone, but that's not what I
asked for.  Try reading my request *carefully* and *slowly*
so that it sinks in. 


>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:31:02 GMT

In article <1282@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> people are saying that your habit of quoting only part
> of what Tushnet said is dishonest

Please tell me what parts I should include with the
quote, and explain why they're relevant to the main
point.  I know you have access to the book, so it
shouldn't be too hard to point out the relevant
sections.

> Why do you keep harping about Roe, anyway?  

I believe the public has been grossly misinformed
about Roe v. Wade by the media, and I wish to counter
that misinformation with correct information. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Summary: Must be a slow day for Kebbin.
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1h4tcgINNoo8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Dec22.040403.24705@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.040403.24705@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

   In article <1h4tcgINNoo8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
   >
   > [...]
   >
   >>You didn't state your claims as a BELIEFS, however; you stated them as 
   >>**FACTS**. In one place, you said [...]
   >
   >You will note, won't you, clueless twit, the line above that says:
   >I have freely admitted to this net, and to Don, that I do not have the
   >archive to repost what I claimed that Don said.

   Admitting lack of substantiation is not the same as retraction, Adrienne.
   Confession != reparation.

   Stop scrambling for an easy way out -- retract your lie about Don.

So tell me, Mr. Wizard -- how do you retract an opinion, anyway?

--PLH (Kevin's been trying to fix things that ain't broke, and he's been
trying it for years)

--
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:23:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
## Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
## now -
#
#Have you any support for this assertion?  Does your support take
#into account the change in number of abortions?  Does your support
#also note any changes in the relative safety of abortion versus
#childbirth, and does your support take into account changes
#in the relative safety of childbirth from then to now?  And
#while you're at it, define "then" and "now."

He can't support the assertion.  It isn't true.

If he read books on abortion that were written in the U.S. before
1973, he'd see estimates of abortion-related deaths that far
exceed the numbers of abortion-related deaths after 1973.

If he read books on abortion in Great Britain, he would see
that the numbers of *reported* abortion-related deaths before
abortion was legalized there were much, much larger than
the numbers of such deaths after abortion was legalized.

If he read books about abortion-related deaths today in
countries where abortion is currently illegal, he'd realize
that the legality of the procedure affects its safety.

Jack Willke argues that no woman ever used a coat hanger to
abort.  Some people believe his argument.  The people who
do are usually men who can't imagine anyone desperate enough
to put something like a coat hanger inside her.  I've
known women who did just that.  People have stated publicly
that they did just that.  Willke claims it's all a conspiracy,
and that all these women are lying.  I wonder how he'd react
to the story that my best friend's grandmother, who believes
abortion is murder and watched her friend die from a self-
induced coat hanger abortion, tells.  Why would she lie?

I think the attempt by the right-to-lie people to pretend
that women don't die when abortion is illegal is an obvious
manipulation of the truth to spare them the embarrassment
of admitting that they simply don't care if their brood
sow lives or dies.

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a silly question from dodie
Summary: Did you expect anything else?
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:13:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <6bz277k@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#->Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?
#
#the only people i know of, dodie, who'd even speculate
#about something like that are the cowards who earned
#their net reputation(s) and, like cowards, need someone
#or something to blame for their failures.

Is DODie pouting because he doesn't know what the acronym means,
too?

I wonder how DODie blames the reputation that he has in 
alt.sex, alt.romance.chat, soc.singles, etc. on TSAKC members.
Maybe he thinks that we're controlling him.  Maybe he thinks
we're controlling the people who laughed him out of those
groups.  His delusions seemingly have no end.

Susan




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:03:50 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both "Pro-Choice"
>and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate labels
>"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.

Ah, yes, this debate again...

Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
"pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"?  Or maybe, just
maybe, do you recognize that open-heart surgery is not something you'd
want to see anyone put through, but rather something that necessity
calls for sometimes?

Myself, I've always thought that "pro-choice" and "pro-force" sums up
the two sides of the abortion issue better than anything else...

-- 
_/_/_/  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,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:13:35 GMT

In article <1h5ainINN1rq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BzMH6E.JxD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>I have made the "archive" publically available for your benefit, 
>>and you still can't support your outrageous statements.
>
>Uh, Don, how far back?  Back to the beginning when I began asking for
>clarification of what you meant by your arguments in the first place?
>No.

More smokescreens, Adrienne.

You never asked for a "clarification," so it can't go back that far.

It's just really too bad you're too proud to apologize for making
a false and slanderous statement.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: a silly question from dodie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:48:17 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->Does "TSAKC" do anything besides fabricating "net reputations"?

the only people i know of, dodie, who'd even speculate
about something like that are the cowards who earned
their net reputation(s) and, like cowards, need someone
or something to blame for their failures.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:11:09 GMT

I believe this "slavery analogy" discussion is getting
off track.  There are two possible purposes to the analogy
which I can see:

  1) To show that abortion is immoral just like slavery. 

  2) To show that the statement, "If you don't like abortion,
     don't have one", is not a solution for those people who
     believe abortion to be immoral. 

The analogy breaks down when considering purpose 1, but 
it works for purpose 2.  Some people believe that abortion
is not immoral, and likening it to slavery is not a proof
that it's immoral.  

The analogy works for purpose 2, because those people who
find abortion and slavery to be immoral must support 
laws against each practice in order to be consistent.  
(Or they could be consistent by opposing laws against
each practice).

These persons may also believe that while abortion is
immoral, anti-abortion laws may do more harm than good,
and so they might oppose abortion laws.  But they must
support certain abortion laws when it can be demonstrated
that they are worthwhile. 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53862 alt.flame:17546 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:669
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|>>I don't really think he considers himself a group either, but isn't it
|>>fun to watch him squirm?
|>
|>Are you here for rational debate, Mr. Cochran, or for "squirming"?

	(this about susan garvin):
        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
                      
mr. hypocrisy strikes again.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:59:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.173859.6029@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
># kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
># >
># >"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
># >of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
># 
># Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might
># not agree...
>
>Hell, I'm an agnostic and I definitely do not agree.  The last thing I
>want is some agent of the State coming at me with a scalpel telling me
>my right to decide what surgical procedures are to be performed on me
>are nullified by the fact that it's for my own good.
>
Good point. Any time the state interferes with the patients right to
control their own treatment, it is a Bad Thing (tm). It does happen
opccasionally though. For example, Jehovas Witnesses object strongly
to blood transusion. If an ADULT refuses one, and dies, it is their
right, but the courts have often intervened to force transfusions on
children, believing them incapable of making the choice on their own.
This is not as big a problem today as it was a few years ago, thanks
to some technical advances. Unless the need is caused by sudden
trauma, there are usually ways to avoid needing any blood that they
find objectionable. For planned surgeries, they can donate their own
blood ahead of time, which does not violate their religious beliefs.
It is also now possible to capture blood lost during a surgical
procedure, filter it, and return it to the patient safely.
All this has no bearing on abortion, though, except to point out that
the medical community does try to provide services that operate within
the personal and religious choices of all patients.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:49:51 GMT
Organization: NRL

Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
In article <1992Dec28.200350.23162@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
Kendig) writes:
> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
> 
> >If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both 
"Pro-Choice"
> >and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate 
labels
> >"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
> 
> Ah, yes, this debate again...
> 
> Yeah, let's do away with euphemisms!  Tell me, are you
> "pro-open-heart-surgery" or "anti-open-heart-surgery"? ...

(Flippant response)

> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig  

John - You've called a spade a spade.  Obviously Brian can't sleep with 
the pro-abortion label on his head.  Don't be suckered-in to this clap 
trap word game.
> -- 

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:07:18 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.725734675@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
>shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
>
>ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely
>resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.

Probably because your news server is always going down.

>2.  What bearing does *one* _alleged_ example of *one* abortionist acting
>like a male chauvinist pig have on the question of whether abortion
>should be legally restricted?
>
>To this I have no ready answer,

Then why do you keep posting them?

>but I do have a couple of comments.
>
>Comment 1.  Questions like these, with the use of "_alleged_" betray
>a leaning towards being pro-abortionist,

Or it demonstrates that the questioner is wise to the ways of the "pro-lie"
group.  E.g., your posting of allegations which had already been proven
to be untrue.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Labels (was Proposed definitions for FAQ )
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:08:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.160904.19902@wetware.com>
diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

>First off, the basic scale does not really have
>"pro-choice" at one end and "pro-life" at the other.

>It more falls out like this:

>|------------------------------------------------|
>^Choice                                     Force^

>First - the Force end can actually be split into
>two - with Choice between them.  This is an example
>of the old idea that politics are more circular
>than linear - if you follow an idea far enough, you
>wind up back to the other side.  So, we have:

>|--------------------------|---------------------------|
>^                          ^                           ^
>Forced Birth             Choice                Forced Abortion

The graph as you have it above implies that the decision wrt choice or
force is related to the decision wrt birth or abortion.  It would be
more accurate to have a two-dimensional graph:

---------------------------------------
|                                     |  
|  Pro-Choice               Forced    | /^\
| (prefers abortion)       Abortion   |  |
|                                     |  | Abortion
|                                     |  |  or
|                                     |  | Birth
|                                     |  |
|                                     | \./
|                                     |
|   Pro-Choice               Forced   |
| (prefers birth)             Birth   |
|                                     |
---------------------------------------
  <-------- Choice or Force -------->



-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.094453.13310@bsu-ucs> 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

[Massive deletia]

>only one thing to say....
>it's d&c, not d&e.  at least get your terminology correct before you
>go off half-cocked.
>
Not going off half cocked is a *wonderful* idea. Especially since both
Dilation & Curretage and Dilation & Evacuation are valid terms for
surgical procedures used to terminate a pregnancy. Please follow your
own advice. 

[Lots more deletia]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:34:10 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Summary: Ditto heads

Some text left out by me because I did not want to include it:
> your own conclusions from this about his marching legion of ditto heads.  (are you aware
> ditto means (a absolutre copy?)).
> I here by sign this
> Brad Polant

Brad and others, since this newsgroup is quoting from dictionarys these
days, I thought I'd fill in some information for you. I took your 
question mark as an uncertainty.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1981 (yeah it's old):
Ditto 1 : a thing mentioned previously or above - used to avoid repeating
          a word.
Ditto 2 : to repeat the action or statement of.
Ditto 3 : as before or aforesaid: in the same manner
Ditto 4 : having the same characteristics.

Rush L. (Not an exact quote):
Dittohead : A caller who agrees most of the time or rather all of the time
            with the host's (Rush) opinions.

I am not a Dittohead, but I feel you have to give some credit to Rush
and his sometimes blind mice for using words correctly. I wish that more
of us could do so. Then again, we are human and humans make mistakes all
the time...bla bla bla bla;-)

David
Newsgroups: talk.abortion