HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:45:55 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> #wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> #-> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
-> #-> immaturity with mental illness.
-> #
-> #i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
-> #really, that you don't think therapy might help.
-> #perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
-> #you've already lost.
-> 
-> I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't
-> criticize another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He
-> seems to think that it's reasonable for Holtsinger
-> to not expect to have his sources checked, even
-> though I had given advance notice that I would do
-> so.  He seems to think that it's only a sign of
-> immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
-> is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)

it's a consistent reaction for him, if that's what he's
doing now. he did the same thing with djr for a long,
long time. from what i read as the tone of his notes, i
think he tried to use this particular thread as an
extension of an older disagreement. of course, i could
be mistaken here. he seems to have jumped on what
appeared to be an opening and when that turned out not
to be the case, then things got convoluted for him.

-> Teenage women who want to make decisions for
-> themselves, on the other hand, are deemed to be in
-> desperate need of couselling.

nice point.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Feelings after birth/abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:03:18 GMT

In article <5756@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
#From martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 27 18:54:06 1992
##However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
##or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
##feel very miserable?  Why does it become such a hard task?  There are even
##group-therapy sessions for women who have had abortions.  Imagine having
##a group therapy session for people who have had their tumors removed
##wondering if it was the right decision to remove their tumor and feeling
##bad about removing it.
#
#Imagine, group therapy sessions for post-natal depressions.  Goodness, there
#must be something wrong with giving birth.
#
#Also, there *are* group therapy sessions for cancer patients.  Sheesh.

Actually, they're support groups.  This guy seems to think that
there is nothing traumatic about having a tumor, and that there
is no risk involved in surgery.  

#Get a clue, hon.

I'm sure that he much prefers his version of the world to reality.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Why the 5 week sentience point?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 04:18:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes ...
>Peter:
>> The first is sheer speculation.  Which part of the plant is the seat
>> of sentience?  With humans, you will hear it asserted that sentience
>> is only associated with the neocortex, which is lacking in most
>> animals.   

>> I was safe-siding with my 5 week figure.  Somewhere in the 6th week, 
>> simple reflexes can be elicited.  Whether that is enough for sentience
>> is a deep and abiding mystery, but again, I am giving the embryo the
>> benefit of the doubt.
>
>My biology books are in Chicago and I'm in New York (telnetting to my
>U of Chicago account), but if I recall correctly, reflexes are handled
>by the medula, which is sometimes considered the most "primitive" part
>of the brain and sometimes considered a part of the spinal cord.
>Certainly they are not handled by the parts of the brain considered
>the seats of sentient/sapient thought.

I should also like to point out that in a famous experiment of a couple
hundred years ago, a scientist discovered that frog's legs, bereft of
frog, were apparently able to exhibit movement in response to certain
stimuli.  Imagine that: reflexes!  A frog's leg that apparently qualifies 
as having all the intellectual capability of a person!

And it wasn't even named Propel...

Never mind.   :-)

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Contributions (was Re: Observations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:43:27 GMT

In article <4azn_6q.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep10.033903.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
[...]

>>And the woman only contributed 1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  So her share
>>in the decision is, Ummm . . . (click, click, click of mouse using X
>>windows Hp calculator program . . .) 1/3000000 of the decision.
>
>Please read any standard biology book.  Read the newspapers for crying
>out loud.  This is as pathetic as Suzanne claiming that breast milk is free.
>
>Get this:  The fetus gets it's nutrients from the *woman*.  

The fetus does not incorporate DNA strands from the mother to 
build its cells.  It constructs its own chromosomes, piece by piece.  
Neither man nor woman contributes any more DNA (other than the generic
acids themselves) than what was in the original gametes.

(Re breast milk, I didn't see that thread; but I would think that 
breast milk is "free" to the same degree that sperm is.  Neither are
easy to produce from scratch; both can be obtained without huge difficulty
in free-market conditions.)



>The only nutrients (if any) that the man contributes is whatever is in the
>head of the sperm cell(s) that penetrate the egg.  That's it.  Everything
>else comes from or through the mother.
                    ^^^^^^^
[...]
>>So the the other 2999999/3000000 worth of the decision is the babies, since
>>he/she grew those cells, not mom or dad.
>
>The woman contributed to *every* cell in the fetus's body.  The man
>contributed to one.

You are now distinguishing "contributing to" and "contributing."

If the man provided the woman's food (bought, hunted, gathered, cooked)
then you ought now to conclude that he contributed TO these cells.
In fact, since his contribution is *voluntary* whereas the woman's
is not, he perhaps ought to be given even greater credit for his
"contributions."


Actually, I find this sort of measurement of "contributions" 
pretty impractical, unscientific, and counterproductive.
In my not-so-humble opinion.  My point is you can argue it 
in any direction, with varying degrees of "science," and it 
only gets you to ridiculous and irrelevant positions.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36638 alt.abortion.inequity:3777
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 14:51:34 GMT

tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
[lots deleted]
: I don't want women to die.
: I don't want human foetuses to die.
: 
: What's tough is sometimes - sometimes - one *has* to die.

It's not a choice between a woman dying and a fetus dying.

Only very rarely is the actual *death* of a woman at issue.

Rarer still are people who, when presented with such cases, 
prefer the woman's death to that of the fetus.

No - most times, both fetus and mother _can_ _both_ live, 
and incredible though it may seem, that's where children 
come from.  

What's tough is, that sometimes the mother does not _want_ 
to have a child.  

So the woman you don't want to die usually _isn't_ going 
to, the foetus you don't want to die usually _is_.  What 
are you going to do now?  It's not that easy after all, 
is it?
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36562 alt.abortion.inequity:3756
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:29:54 GMT
 <1992Sep3.171653.8227@advtech.uswest.com> <1992Sep3.221028.288@bmw.mayo.edu> <1992Sep10.021229.11501@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>If the Freedom of Choice Act 'simply prevents the state from restricting
>adult females from aborting pre-viable fetuses' then it says that a
>pre-viable fetus is not human, and has not human rights.
>
>To make it really clear, it enforces the belief that a fetus is not
>human.

No it does not.  It denies the fetus LEGAL protection, but enforces no
belief.  There is NO required or forced abortions, and no required of
forced belief.   Everyone gets to <<GASP>> decide for themselves! 

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: To Be ForeWarned is to be ForeArmed!!!!!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:31:54 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  <1992Sep14.213443.5425@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> ] In  <1992Sep10.025606.2817@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.
> ] > In article <1992Sep03.204616.16372@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
> ] > writes:
> ] > >
> ] > >And watch out for that late-night snacking.  And I keep telling you,
> ] > >don't eat them in bed - it leaves such a mess.
> ] >
> ] > Women offended by this attitude are welcome to contact me.
> ] > And _I_ own a washing machine. ;-)
> ]
> ] That's what I keep telling *drieux*.  "Do as I say, not as I do".  :-)
>
>
> JUST because they say they want to come over and do
> some LAUNDRY!!!! Don't Believe THEM!!!!!!!
>
> HeteroSexuality, as my Most Unfortunate Hosemate has learned,
> is one of the Leading Causes of Dirty Laundry!!!!!
>
> ITS A FRONT GUYS!!!!!
>
> They do not respect you for your Washer/Dryers.....
>
> ITs just another excuse for them to try and take your clothes off!!!!!

And the worst part is, it works every time!  Some of us just won't learn
from our mistakes, eh?

> I just restructured my mail queue hierarchy and
> I can't do a thing with it.....

I thought that went, "I just Welched my hare..."

(Rarebit, rabbit - who cares; it's duck season anyway.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Anot
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:46:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep14.204915.22713@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288) writes:
|> In article 83928@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >In article <24987@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
|> >|> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|>  |>In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
|> >|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> >        Penetrating intellectual analysis at its finest.
|> >|> 
|> >|> At least you posted....
|> >|> 
|> >|>  |> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.
|> >|> 
|> >|> >        The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
|> >|> >tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Then why didn't you post it, or would it be shot down by recent experiments
|> >|> that show the interchangeability of certain types of tumors and all
|> >|> fetuses?
|> >
|> >	No, it's well-known medical fact.  I'll post it if you like.  BTW, where
|> >are YOUR sources?
|> 
|> [Sources provided]

	Thank you for providing your sources.  But your incredible
assertion that fetuses and tumors are interchangeable is a gross
overstatement of the evidence.  The evidence shows that in some
MOUSE teratoma cells, that these cells, when injected into mouse
uteri, will develop into mouse adults.
	The documentation you show does not prove that HUMAN
embryos are interchangeable with tumors; at most, it indicates
a need for further research.  Any statement more liberal than that
amounts to speaking beyond the available evidence.
	At any rate, a being which begins to develop into an adult
of a given species, an organism with all the necessary genetic
makeup for that species, is a member of that species.  You may
dislike that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
	To quote Dr. Andre Hellegers, former professor of
obstetrics and gynecology at the Georgetown University Hospital
and director of the Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute for the
Study of Human Reproduction and Bioethics in Washington D.C. says:
"...there is not any question of when, biologically, human life
begins...(it) is at conception and to say that it begins at any
other time is biological nonsense..."
	BTW, my challenge is still open if you dispute the fact
that a new member of the species homo sapiens is created at
conception: find me a doctor who will contradict this statement. 
If you're so darned sure you're right, it shouldn't be any trouble.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:54:43 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
# >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >> I'd be quite happy to overturn the "government fiat" known as 
# >> Roe v. Wade and have the abortion issue returned to the states
# >> where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people decide the issue.
# 
# > I take it this means Doug opposes the Republican platform's call
# > for a constitutional amendment banning abortion because it would
# > prohibit individual states from deciding the abortion issue.
# 
# At the present time, yes.  The Democratic platform of unrestricted 
# abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy and the Republican platform 
# on abortion are currently minority-held positions in this country.

Yes.  Mr. Holtsinger is on record.  He opposes the Republican party
platform on abortion rights.  One wonders why, though.  He doesn't
say.  I would like to believe it's because he feels that abortion
should be allowed in some cases that Republicans do not.

I'd ask him about it directly, but he stopped responding to my posts a
couple weeks ago, so I think he killfiled me.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:08:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.234553.18896@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
>> 
>> Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>> pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>> reliable.

>This, Mr. King, is garbage.
No, Ms. Forgach, it is not. The probability of rape is nonzero.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: ... regulated... (Was: legal definition of abortion in sc)
Summary: What the hell does "Regulated" mean? 
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.
Keywords: abortion, pregnant, intent, known
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:08:28 GMT

[Mega-Deletions.  Trust me on this one...]

In article <nyikos.715732264@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Abortion is one of the most unregulated activities in this state.  Not a
>single one of the abortion clinics is licensed, and they do not have to
>submit to regular inspections the way restaurants, beauty parlors, etc. do.
>Nor do the abortionists have to carry any malpractice insurance.

Ok, Peter, now tell us the REST of the story.  In SC, are ANY clinics licensed?
Does ANY clinic have to submit to regular inspections of any sort?  Does ANY
doctor in SC _HAVE_ to carry malpractice insurance?

Hmm????
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:47:25 GMT
Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing

original text
_____________________________________________________________________________
In article <19350rINN4jb@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.211646.8121@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>>As more and more premies are saved, I think we will all have to do some
>>serious thinking about acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  In the state of
>>Washington, a woman can have an abortion through the 24th week.  It seems
>>rather hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting to save a life
>>while in another a doctor is ending one.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________


>why?
>
>I don't see anything particularly hypocritical about it.  Perhaps you can
>tell us why you do?
>
>Adrienne Regard
>


Hummmm....

How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
value at all.  If a babies at 21 weeks are surviving, then it seems by
definition that they are persons, with all of the inalienable rights that
are guaranteed by our US constitution.  To purposefully take their lives
is wrong, just as it is wrong to take the life of a person at 2 years, 30
years, or 80.  I think it is hypocritical for people to decide that
someone is a person in one case, but not another.

You once asked me if I had an analogy for why abortion is wrong.  I
thought about it a lot, so here goes.  Do you think that it is ok to
remove a person from a life support system? (Many people say yes!).  Now,
however, do you think that it is ok to remove a person from a life support
system if you know that in 9 months they will be fully living on their own
again?

Your thoughts?

-Carol
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:49:47 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep10.212150.17272@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep9.203016.717@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> >> i didn't express any "concern," as you put it,
-> >> bill. i said i'd be pleased if the lad got help.
-> >> i'd be pleased if anyone i thought was crazy got
-> >> help. why do you think DODie is different?
-> >        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> >> Why would you be pleased if you weren't at all
-> >> concerned?
-> >
-> > why do you think DODie is different?
-> 
-> I don't.  I didn't indicate that I did.

then you agree that therapy for DODie might be a good
idea?

-> > now, to answer your question even though you
-> > avoided mine, concern does not generate pleasure
-> > nor does all pleasure result from concern. the two
-> > are not necessarily related. why would you think
-> > they were?
-> 
-> Seems reasonable to assume that your sentiment is
-> based on some rationale.  Concern seemed to be the
-> most likely candidate, though there are undoubtedly
-> other possibilities.  

it was pretty presumptous of you, then, to state my
motivations, wasn't it? one could almost assume that
you were plying your trade on the net.

-> If you'd rather not say, I will understand.

say what, bill?

what has you confused. i suggested DODie see his
therapist. is that not sufficiently straightforward?
what part don't you understand?





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:06:54 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
-> > dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to susan garvin:
-> > -> I also wish that you would display the same
-> > -> compassion towards the children who are going
-> > -> inside the clinic to be killed.
-> > 
-> > can you name one chile who walked into a clinic
-> > and was killed?
-> 
-> Can you say --- Becky Bell?

sure. "Becky Bell." you might want to say that
yourself, compassionate person that you are. becky bell
would no doubt be alive today had she a clinic to walk
into.

now, are you going to answer my question?


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36204 alt.abortion.inequity:3690
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:08:20 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
->      Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of)
-> proposes to enact state controls over the womb.


are you suggesting that you know of no single
anti-choicer who supports legislation to prohibit or
restrict abortion?

please.

mosogyny is one thing; out-and-out lying is another.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion