HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: TheNews 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:45:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
>and safe, but rare.  
>
>I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
>every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
>that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?
>
>I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
>22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
>thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
>more common?
>
>Sue Hasselbring
>hasselbring:guvax.georgetown.edu
>

Sue - 

I share your anxiety.  If you think about though, all Regan-Bush managed to do
was alienate everyone but those from the religious right.  I realize this is an
overstatement, but can you honestly say that Regan-Bush acutally saved one
unborn child?

If you were at the March for Life this past Friday, the right-wing religious
character of the event was overwhelming.  Its unfortunate, but Nelly Gray, the
march organizer, seemed more interested in furthering her personal values than
preventing the slaughter that's going on.  Liberal pro-life groups were
intentionally slighted.

Its ironic that the Democrats and main-stream feminists have taken up the
pro-abortion banner.  The Democrats are the self-defined party of 'compassion'.
Many of the pivotal early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were ardently
anti-abortion.  So what's going on?!

If you pay attention to the language used here you'll find that many of the
pro-abortion crowd feel compelled to insult and dehumanize the few pro-lifers
on the net.  To me, this defensive behavior sounds a lot like people who, deep
down, have unconcious nagging doubts surrounding the belief system they've
constructed.  

I've dragged all this in to make a point,( believe it or not:-) ).  I don't
even pretend to try and change the minds of the hard-core pro-aborts in this
group.  I go home and speak with my friends and relatives and find a tremendous
amout of confusion, pre-conceived notions and just plain denial. Forget the
religiously motivated pro-lifers; they already believe what they're going to
believe.  Join a group such as Collegians for Life or Feminists for Life, and
start reaching out to people on an individual basis.  Despite my trepidation
over Clinton, I'm very optomistic that the pro-life movement is going through
some very effective and major restructuring. Don't let it get you down!

- Paul
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:43:33 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
 <1993Jan25.232920.11654@ncsu.edu> <lm96bvINNh4d@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu>
 <1993Jan26.032126.20304@news.columbia.edu>

In article <1993Jan26.032126.20304@news.columbia.edu>,
rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Johnston) says:

>Sorry to say this Paul, but if you take anything Doug says as the truth,
>your thought has just flown out the window. Doug's rantings about Mark
>are merely the results of his slighted ego, and have no basis in fact.
>Both Doug, and Nyikos, who Doug sites, have credibility ratings of zero.

Well, gee, I'm convinced.  How about you, Paul?  Remember, in talk.abortion,
ALL allegations and flames and mean-spirited insults are 100% true!  Keep
that in mind, and you'll do well here. :-)

(Seriously, keep doing what you're doing: trying to find something that makes
 sense once in a while.  Most of the posters seem to enjoy stupid flame wars,
 but you may want to ignore those like I do.  Just a suggestion.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
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: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:11:59 GMT

In article <0fMQXS600iUy83bdEX@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 20-Jan-93 Re: Roe v. Wade is
>unrestri.. by Doug Holtsinger@eceyv.nc 
>> Many children are killed in the womb at a late-stage because 
>> they're mentally retarded.  Here's one woman suggesting that
>> she should have the right to have a mentally retarded child
>> executed in her womb: 
>>  
>>   "I'm suggesting we lift the veil of privacy and professionalism
>>    to explore issues of heath care, abortion, and the right to
>>    choose death, as well as life, for our genetically disabled
>>    fetuses."
>>  
>>    -- Rayna Rapp, in _The Choices We Made_, discussing her
>>       abortion of a Down's syndrome child in the 21st week 
>>       of pregnancy. 
>
>  After the second trimester, is it safer for the mother to wait until
>the deformed child is born to kill it?  If so, then I, like Mr.
>Holtsinger, would favor infanticide over a third trimester abortion.  
>
It is always safer for the mother to abort then to deliver. And
it should be noted that the story DODie related was about a 2nd
trimester abortion, not third.

>For Voluntary Motherhood,
>
I like that idea.

>ps Is there sufficient data to be able to compare the relative safety of
>third trimester abortion to childbirth?

There's not much data on thirs tris since so few are ever done, but
there's still data. And it shows that abortion is still safer then
birth. I'll look up the relevant figures if you're really interested.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 1993 16:41:12 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1HKFw.38v@hpchase.rose.hp.com> hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>  I guess my point is, why do we give a magical "right" to a baby outside
>  the womb, and none to the baby in the womb.

Because one is outside the womb and the other isn't.

Of what practical use is 'autonomy' when the fetus is necessarily confined
within the boundaries of a human being?  How does one practice a 'right to
life' when one is causing grave physical harm to it's host, who doesn't want 
it?

Check that:  one isn't merely outside the womb and the other isn't.  Rather,
one is outside the WOMAN and the other isn't.

The only way this *doesn't* matter is if the woman doesn't matter.

I happen to think she does.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:24:16 GMT

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes ...
>This is easy.  It is not "bigoted" to note that any group which clings
>so tenaciously to the ludicrous contention (and manifest lie) that
>aberrant sexual behavior represents in some sense a "viable alternate
>lifestyle" is bound to have substantial problems coming to grips with
>reality.

This would be a good point if you could show that homosexuality is, in
fact, "aberrant sexual behavior".  Apparently it is only your own
homophobia or bigotry that leads you to that conclusion since there is
little evidence to support that opinion and none at all from you.

About the only thing you've established is you own abberant social
behavior.  Get help.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:09:09 GMT

In article <C1JAnF.3FM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:


>If it is obvious to most people that a woman should not (would not?) go through
>nine months pregnancy and then get an abortion does that mean those people 
>would support legislation prohibiting that?
>
No. Why should we legislate a non-problem? Only a control freak would
want to legislate against something that is not occuring anyway.

>In addition, since babies are routinely saved ar being born at only five ve
>months, I would consider any third trimester abortion a late term abortion.
>
You are under the delusion that 20 week preemies are 'routinely
saved'? What world do you live in? A 20 weeker has less then a 10%
chance of survival. That is, if it's lucky enough to be born in a
major metropolitan hospital, with access to the latest NICU
technology. Consider a few minor facts. A 20 week fetus does not even
have alveolar ducts. How the hell do you expect it to breath? Put it
on a vent? Doesn't do much good when they don't have developed lungs.
At 24-28 weeks, when the alveolar ducts are developed (a little, they
don't finish until about 35 weeks) they still don't have a real good
chance. Why? Because they haven't started to produce surfactant.
Without surfactant, surface tension in the alveoli causes the, to
collapse at the end of each respiration. And once collapsed, the
alveolar walls stick together. Result: death, unless drastic,
expensive, and only sometimes effective interventions are begun.

It is also amazing how you jump from 5 months (20 weeks. do a little
math...) to the third trimester without touching on weeks 21-26 at
all. Are you also under the delusion that nothing significant happens
to the fetus during weeks 21-26 of the gestation?

I would *love* to see you try and document this claim that 20 week
fetuses are 'routinely saved'. I haven't had a good laugh all day.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:31:33 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>> I support the right to choose to have the _fetus_ _aborted_ (please
>> lose the emotionalist buzzwords).  If she wants to abort a fetus for
>> some reason that I don't like, then that's just too bad for me, but I
>> have no right deciding when abortion is 'okay' or not, and I have no
>> right putting the woman on trial to decide whether or not she's
>> telling the truth when she gives her reasons for wanting an abortion.
>
>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 

Of course not!  Because the mother can get rid of the infant by just
giving it up for adoption.  When you balance the right of an infant to
live against the right of a mother to not be bothered, it's rather
obvious that the infant has quite a bit more at stake.

But in abortion, we're balancing the right of a fetus to live against
the right of a woman to control her own body.  If she wants to get rid
of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
that this results in the death of the fetus.

-- 
_/_/_/  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,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:32:25 GMT

In article <C1G10G.G6v.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> He said that the protesters' purpose was "physical intervention"
>> between "abortionists and innocent victims", and their purpose was
>> not "directed specifically at women as a class". 

> Justice Scalia most certainly
> did not say "that the protesters' purpose was "physical intervention"
> between "abortionists and innocent victims"".  He quoted Jayne
> Bray et al as saying that, 

No, Scalia quoted a lower court's finding that the
protesters' purpose was "physical intervention" between 
"abortionists and innocent victims" to buttress his 
opinion that the demonstrations were not "directed 
specifically at women as a class".  Here's the passage 
in question:  

  "The record in this case does not indicate that
   petitioners' demonstrations are motivated by a purpose
   (malevolent or benign) directed specifically at women as
   a class; to the contrary, the District Court found that
   petitioners define their -rescues- not with reference to
   women, but as physical intervention -`between abortion-
   ists and the innocent victims,'- and that -all [petitioners]
   share a deep commitment to the goals of stopping the
   practice of abortion and reversing its legalization.-  726
   F. Supp., at 1488.  

I didn't mean to suggest that Scalia had said "abortionists
and innocent victims", and I apologize for any misunderstanding. 
But it is not at all clear that Scalia is quoting Jane Bray et al
as Ms. Garvin contends. 

> couldn't resist
> the temptation to make it appear that a Supreme Court justice
> had used the phrase "innocent victims" to describe aborted
> fetuses.

And Ms. Garvin couldn't resist the temptation to make it appear
that Scalia had actually used the phrase "aborted fetuses" in
the Court's opinion.  The word "fetus" doesn't even appear in 
the entire opinion, Ms. Garvin. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 17:52:01 GMT

In article <C19Fzr.7D8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Maybe this is a strange way of looking at it, but if it is not human, then what
>is it?  
What are you talking about? Sperm, ovum, cancerous tumors? Thy're all
as human as a z/e/f.

>If all humans have rights, then why does this thing NOT have the same 
>rights that all other humans do?  As to the "conceive and bear a son" line not
>showing humanity, what does it show?  Do women ever conceive and bear a table,
>or a monkey, or an apple?  
Women do occasionally give birth to thigns that can hardly be
described as 'people', yes.

>From the moment of conception the only thing that is
>added is food and protection.  
I suggest that you sign up for a remedial biology course, and find out
for yoruself how ludicrous that statement really is.

>All of the genes and dna that are needed, color
>hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  If humans deserve to be protected, AND
>THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?
Perhaps because lots of non-protected things are human. Perhaps
because it's leeching off a womans limited resources against her will?
Perhaps because it's very presence is a threat to the womans health,
ecmonomic future, and life? Perhaps because it takes more then dna to
make a human. Perhaps because your statement that 'color, hair, eyes,
sex etc., are all present' is false during a large portion of the
pregnancy, and certainly false of the embryonic period during which
most abortions are performed.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:07:09 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Jan.27.18.27.17.1993.11675@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:

>>Eventually, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions.
>Of course you do. Noone ever said that a woman should be absolved from
>responsiblity. 


Of course, 'responsibility' or 'taking'/'accepting' responsibility implies
one actually has a choice in the matter.  Were the government to force one
and only one outcome upon women, how can they be said to have 'accepted'
responsibility?

The women who make choices about their lives, be it to remain abstinent,
to use birth control, to abort and/or to bear a child *are* taking
responsibility.  Those who flap in the breeze, with an 'oh well!' at 
every unforseen occurance aren't taking any responsibility.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:24:58 GMT

falcao@felix.metaphor.com (Ronnie Falcao) writes:
] In article <9JAN199319341364@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
] >How many women of child-bearing age are members of these cults?  How many
] >of them are pregnant at any one time?  How many children do each of them
] >have?  Answer these questions, and see if you still think that "2.74/day
] >doesn't seem like an overly high number to me."
] >
] >Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
] 
] I have no idea whether or not the stated number is accurate,
] but if I were trying to get my hands on babies, no questions
] asked, I know how I'd do it.  I'd set up a Crisis Pregnancy
] Center in an area with a lot of teen pregnancies.  I just
] looked in my phone book, and there are two clinics listed.
] Do they each get one client a day who wants to offer their
] baby for adoption?  How accurately are records kept for
] adoptions across state lines?  What are the opportunities
] for babies to "disappear"?
] 
] Brokering babies for ritual abuse would explain why some
] anti-choice activists seem so much more interested in
] a baby's being born than in the baby's growing up
] happy and healthy.
] 
] I don't know if it happens, but I think it's possible.
] 
] 	- Ronnie
] 
] falcao@metaphor.com


Hum....

Maybe out friendly ProLifers can help US?

ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: EEGs, brainwaves, insults (Was Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer)
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: Mon, 25 Jan 93 03:03:06 GMT

In article <C1DxEH.Ep1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>Agrred. I suppose it relates back to that old saw about humans only
>>using 10% of our brain anyway. 
>>So: Is this all because the rest is redundancy, or is it because the
>>rest has no real function, or another reason of your choice?
>
>I thought it was 20%.  I think it has more to do with replacement capacity
>than direct backup.  (losses could be "fixed" by the more flexible unused
>part...)  Of course this is just a theory (actually a hypothesis).  But,
>after all, if it were a "backup" then it wouldn't be *unused* now would it?
>
We talked about this some more in a later article, Rob. The actual
fact of the matter is we don't know how much an individual uses, and
it seems to vary widely (without haveing any direct impact on such
'measurables' as IQ). That's why I was calling it an old saw. It's a
commonly held 'truth' that really isn't.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 20:18:49 GMT

In article <adams.727758932@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <root.727557692@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <root.727512141@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>I have one thing to say:
>>>>>>		    These people need a LOBOTOMY.
>>>>>Physician, heal thy self.
>>>>>
>>>>Hey! That's sort of an insult to physicians everwhere, you know? I
>>>>mean, it's really *icky* to think that Airplane Boy (he with the Fat
>>>>Black Ass) could be confused with a physician...
>>>
>>>Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...that's the second time.  First,
>>>Adrienne points out that I insulted 15 year olds by compaing Chaney to one.
>>>Now this.  Jeesh...;-)
>>>
>>Ego te absolvo. For your pennance say three Hail Usenets and four Our
>>Internet-Fathers.
>This place is overrun with ex-Catholics...;-)
>
>Hail Usenet, full of waste, the Lord is with thee.
>Blessed are you among nets, and blessed is the truth of thy man Drieux
>Holy network, sender of crud, display for us sinners, now and at the hour
>of Usenet death, Amen.  (x3)
>
>Our Internet Father,
>who art in Uunet,
>Network is thy name.
>Thy postings come,
>thy swill be borne,
>on modems as it is on backbones.
>Give us this day our daily news,
>and forgiveus our flamefests,
>as we forgive those who flame us.
>And lead us not into killfiling,
>But deliver us from alt.evil.
>
>For thine is the ethernet, and the power and the stories, 
>now and forever, Amen.
>(x3)
>
>[It's a joke, son!  Get it?]
>
I'm not following this up because I have anything to add, I just want
to see it again later, because it's about the funniest thing I've seen
in a long time. :)
Thanks Steve. :)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion