HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: control
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:26:59 GMT

From article <1992Aug20.161402.14153@nas.nasa.gov>, by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> In article <1992Aug20.134731.522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> 
> [Lots of way cool stuff that Galen writes so well]

Hardly.  He's all hung up on "control" on the wrong time scale.
Only the people who are unwilling to control their bodies _before_ conception
are the ones who are screaming about the "need" to control their bodies _after_
conception.

Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.


> Dan King

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:55:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.164427.14455@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>
>It is a federal offense to destroy the eggs of a bald eagle.
>It is a Constitutional "right" to kill a fetus.
>
	You probably could get away with destroying its eggs if you could
	show that you had the consent of the bald eagle to do so.

>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>
	Another profound'un.

						- Nagarajan
						  Anti-life and proud


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:54:36 GMT

In <28677@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>
>greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) does a great public service
>by carefully exposing DOD for the liar that he is.  Whenever I point
>out to DOD that one of his lies is not correct by directly refuting
>it, he just shrinks back quietly into the local sewer grating.  Just
>this weekend I asked DOD several questions.  Surprise, surprise: He
>hasn't responded.

>SJM

Maybe it's because you called him a sewer rat, or some such thing, on 
the same all-but-nonexistent provocation under which you called me
similar names, then also said that you are not interested in private
e-mail messages no matter how he is struggling with the "f" command,
and accused him of lies when he gave you data which you did not bother
to refute.

This time I hit "f". I even typed in "world".

 I hereby give you permission to re-post everything
I sent you privately, along with your replies.
If you're missing something, give a  holler and I'll send you all I have.

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:54:19 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  <nyikos.714317851@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug17.160630.23938@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mar
>
>
> >   The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
> >less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.
>
> Where do you get this information?  When last I looked at the FAQ,
> its breakdown only went as high as "over 21 weeks".

See the data I posted in article <1992Aug20.212437.17478@watson.ibm.com>.

> > It
> >is also a fact that practically ALL of them are medically needed.
>
> This would be news to me! What's your source of information?????

I originally got it off the net, it was reported recently that it
was also on 60 Minutes.

> Now, the FAQ says roughly 0.8% of all abortions in 1985 were past
> the 21st week, which fits the above description.

Are you claiming that the minimal recorded period of viability represents
the norm?

> > It suggests some
> >notions that are not true.  The first is that these abortions are
> >sigificant in number.
>
> Even if you go by the 3rd trimester figure, you get "less than
> 1,600 per year" [How much less?  I'd really like to know!]

There are about 100 abortions annually in the U.S. after 24 weeks.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:21:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.194600.15777@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}                                                The implication in 
}this thread is...

"I imply, you infer."  To Doug, however, it is more like "You imply and
infer -- what's that?"


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31544 alt.flame:12050
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:51:56 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>From: levin@bbn.com
>Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
>Date: 13 Aug 92 18:40:36 GMT

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|In article <l8iuokINN2e1@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>|>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|>|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
>|>|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
>|>
>|>But please don't ask him about his hatching.
>|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 

Is that human species or human feces?

>Yet to be proven.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                          - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se             "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: yoo-hoo DODie
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:08:21 GMT

i just noticed that DODie has reappeared. oddly
enough, he's claiming that some other t.a. posters
have said things that aren't true.

given that DODie has done just that which he's accusing
ofhers of doing, i thought DODie would be happy to see
the following post in its entirety.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:10:09 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
-> which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
-> is truly "choice".

i don't know about those "et. al."'s but i'll bet
you can't come with a quote from me that says support
for unrestricted abortion on demand is the only position
which is truly "choice."

i think, dod, that this is another one of those things
you post that simply isn't true. your ability to
produce a supporting quote will, of course, determine
if you're making things up again, won't it?


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Keywords: Chaney's school of idiocy
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:41:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.002753.7234@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) screams at someone is his own killfile:


#Hey Kaufman! Avoiding things again? 


I guess POC is going to keep reposting each one of his ravings until
someone replies to him.  I hope so, anyway.  A whole screen of Dennis
quoting himself will be more entertaining than his usual stuff.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:01:03 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>During most pregnancies, the woman's physical health is not harmed by 
>the presence of the child.  

This statement is not correct.

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Bush supports ban on ALL abortions (was Re: Misleading UPI story)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:13:20 GMT


   GHWB has repeatedly said that he would allow for exceptions of
rape and incest.  The fact that he avows support for the platform
does not invalidate this fact.  It is simple a recognition on his
part that to tinker with the platform to suit him would make more
trouble than it is worth.  The platform goes further than GHWB on
this issue.  That is all.  It does NOT mean that GHWB opposes any
abortions for women who get pregnant as the result of rape, or of
an incestuous liason.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:29:29 GMT

In article <skcy8vp@rpi.edu> james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu> writes:
}dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}-> Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
}-> which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
}-> is truly "choice".

}i don't know about those "et. al."'s but i'll bet
}you can't come with a quote from me that says support
}for unrestricted abortion on demand is the only position
}which is truly "choice."

As one of those "et. al"'s I'd like to respond that I doubt any of us can 
be quoted as saying that it is the one true position.  I'll admit I 
called it the "best" or "truest" or "most g[G](h)od[ess] like" or 
something like that, but even I didn't call it the only true way to 
be.

}i think, dod, that this is another one of those things
}you post that simply isn't true. your ability to
}produce a supporting quote will, of course, determine
}if you're making things up again, won't it?

I just noticed that this is indeed a response to Doug Holtsinger.
Knowing what I do about history, I wouldn't put it past Doug
to quote Bush saying something like "...no new taxes."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:43:28 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = DOD:
>> = (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?

>All human females would have the right to life. 

The woman's rights, Brickhead, not the right to life.  What would happen
to the *woman's rights*?

Man, take a reading comprehension class.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:33:15 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug21.185458.9411@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Cathi, even if you donated your
>children's outgrown baby clothes, your own used maternity clothes, it
>would be SOMETHING.

>Do it!

Nooooo!  That's a sure fire way to get pregnant again!  Suzanne, don't
you read Erma Bombeck?  :-)

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31725 alt.flame:12070
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:57:06 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

-> >Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to
-> >explain what the word "homosexual" means.  I'll
-> >even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate myself.
-> 
-> Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with
-> the Artimus Pages and Phil Stromers and Danny
-> Karneses of the world?

why do you ask someone to defend doing something which
they never did?

it almost seems like you're trying to divert attention
from some of your more despicable actions.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
-> 	Thanx for the info on "Dennis Hall".
-> 
->      I wonder why Steven Chaney is called the
-> "Propeller Boy" and the "Dirigible Boy"? Is
-> "Propeller Boy" an implication that he wears a
-> propeller beanie?

you could take it that way.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:54:06 GMT

In article <BsvE8q.Gzp@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: the issue is NOT clear  (was Re: Another good reason...)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:55:10 GMT

> = tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
> If one believes that the fetus
> is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right to life takes
> precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the woman does not have
> rights it is that they are subservient to the right to life of the
> fetus.  [...]
> The argument for women's reproductive right are based on the assumption
> that the fetus is NOT a human being.  [...]

Wrongo-bongo.  
Reproductive rights are based on the assumption that a woman has a right 
to bodily autonomy, specifically, the right to be, or not to be pregnant. 
A specific fetus (ie. specify the stage of development) 
may or may not deserve certain rights (a moral debate) and 
may or may not have certain rights (a legal debate). 
*IF* it is established that fetus morally deserves, or legally has, 
a right to life, then this right is probably IN CONFLICT WITH a 
woman's right to bodily autonomy -- which leads to a debate over 
which right takes precedence.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "human being".  
Does your definition of "human being" require any resemblance to normal, 
born human beings?  Is a zygote a "human being"?  If so, since it bears 
little resemblance (physically or mentally) to a "normal, born person", 
or to a "normal, born human being", it is definitely NOT "clear" that it 
deserves any rights at all, let alone a "right to life takes precedence 
over (*all*) other rights".

So, please clarify:
o define "human being"
o argue it deserves a right to life
o argue it's right to life supersedes a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

-Brian

PS: I'm starting to like this definition of "person" (or "human being"):
Defn. PERSON: anyone who is, or anything that is in essence like,
      a normal, born human, ie. anything that is essentially the same as 
      a normal, born human.  
The rational being that the rights that apply to normal, born humans 
would automatically and/or naturally extend to anything that is essentially 
the same as a normal, born human.  These rights might also apply to 
non-persons or even non-humans, but it may not be immediately clear that 
this extension applies.
I think this definition is faithfull to the normal usage of the word and
avoids the semantic slight-of-hand which is all too common in t.a.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Red Button Scenario
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:10:33 GMT

In article <Aug12.052533.54985@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:

You knew this was a crappy analogy all along so when someone, namely

}In article <1992Aug7.145900.23337@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
}kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

to point that out you can say:

}	Ah!  I knew it would happen!  Somebody would say "But nobody lives in
}her body; therefore the analogy collapses!"

You might also try "I have no recollection of that."  While no more 
believable, that excuse has worked fairly recently.

More seriously though, what we really want to know is whether a woman
has the right to expect a man in a cage merely by pressing a button.
Is the man naked or clothed?  Wouldn't this be more appropriate in
alt.sex.bondage?  Or perhaps alt.aquaria?  After all, there are fish
involved...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject:  Fetal personhood (Was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:19:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug5.211448.1926@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug  
Holtsinger) writes:
> I can't imagine fighting a civil war over abortion, can you? 

I don't, but some people on both sides of the issue do.

> I don't advocate using violence to force the citizens of a state 
> to accept the Human Life Amendment. Slavery ended immediately 
> after the close of the civil war; abortion is here to stay.
> 
> Anyways, my point is that a minority of Americans support a 
> Human Life Amendment which gives full personhood status to the 
> unborn. It would be fruitless to try and pass such an amendment now. 

This reminds me of a comment I wanted to make about the HLA, or
at least this particular version. This states that the life of
any person (born or unborn) may not be taken by _any other_
person (again, a person may be born or unborn).

So, if a woman is killed during delivery, is the baby guilty of
a crime? One born person's life has been taken by an unborn
person, hasn't it? Another example is that of unborn twins where,
because of competition for the mother's resources, one ends up
stillborn. Is the child who survives not guilty of a crime?

I remember from a few weeks ago (while my news server was on the
fritz) a debate on whether fetuses were "innocent." If this HLA
is passed, fetuses will become persons, and _all_ persons are held  
accountible for, or can be "guilty" of, taking any other person's 
life. Is this really what those in the pro-life camp want?

> I would prefer to pass an amendment which simply overturned 
> Roe, since that has a much better chance of passage. After Roe
> is overturned, then we can build consensus to get the HLA passed. 

While I disagree with you, I wish more people were as pragmatic.

> Doug Holtsinger

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:38:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)

>>>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a 
>>>> fetus?

>>> All human females would have the right to life.

>> This does not answer the question asked.

>It does answer the question if one believes that all human females
>should possess the right to life.

No, Doug; it answers the question if one believes that "all human females"
should ONLY possess the right to life.  As I believe firstly that all 
*people* should possess that right (fetuses do not qualify), and secondly
that people, women included, have a great deal more rights than just that
one, I find your answer grossly lacking.

Try again.

Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: DOD, Logically Impaired (WAS Re: More lies )
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:21:12 GMT

> = (Doug "DJR" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Stephen J. Mezias writes:

>> DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
>> is challenged.  

>Pro-aborts are pursuing the strategy of character assassination. 

We really don't need to, Dougie poo.

See that hole in your foot?  ...See the smoking gun in your hand?


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion