HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:49:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:

>How can you not be in pain, knowing that uncounted MILLIONS of children
>were murdered since RvW

Anybody have the figures on how many births per year? 10 million? 20
million? Let's say 10 million as that seems a low number. Then, according
to Dr. Len Howard's figures (he's an obstretician) that means that 20
million per year died because of spontaneous abortions, or failure to
implant. 

The sheer horror of it. You must be apoplectic.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:17:26 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <26431@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri

>>Fine. His were respected also. He is allowed to say what ever he wants.
>>He cannot force us to listen. At the Democratic Convention, he was denied
>>platform time, but he could have spoken outside, on the pavement. I
>>recall that this was MLK's initial way of speaking to those he wanted
>>to reach. Perhaps this is an indicator that he holds a very unpopular
>>opinion?

>So unless you're pro-choice, you have no right to speak in a PUBLIC
>place. You remember, Casey WAS speaking in a public place.

Actually, he did speak in a public place, according to someone else.
It was the sidewalk, and not at a sponsered event.

>Thanks for making that clear for us, Ron.

As mud for you, I guess.

>In your opinion, pro-lifers are fascist.
>So your opinion is, since asserted blatantly, truth, and now it is
>perfectly okay to go around terrorizing pro-lifers who speak.

Umm, extreme pro-lifers? Yes. You're average everyday pro-lifer who
keeps their opinions to themselves, no way. (There are some of those,
you know.:)

>Thank you for clarifying these points.

Thanks for attempting to muddy mine. I hope I've straightened out those
twists some.

>Right to choose never means right to take an innocent life. That's
>Casey's point.

Then I expect to see you demonstrating against meat packing plants,
hunting lodges, scope manufacturers,..., exterminators, and makers of
pesticides. If not, you're a hypocrite. (Or extremely discriminatory.)

>And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
>be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
>back once and for all.

So from your "ACT-UP must be destroyed" thread, I take it you have no
qualms about killing these innocents (except that they are guilty of
thwarting your little misogynist fascist schemes). HYPOCRITE.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:35:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>#c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>#
>##Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>##does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>##women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>#
>#Direct or indirect, you're still dead.
>
>No, Steve, you said it wrong.  It's, "Direct or indirect, *she's*
>still dead."

Yeah, but you got the point...

>If it were Guerrero who was at risk, he'd probably understand.
>Since it's some hypothetical woman, he could care less.

Thanx for the correction...;-)

 -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
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:32:51 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> What he says is that pro-choicers are scared to put abortion
> legislation to a vote.  He uses the abortion initiative 
> on the Washington State ballot.  He claims their were 
> more votes against the measure than for it, but it lost 
> because they counted the absentee votes.  Um, Rush, hate
> to have to be the one to tell you this, but absentee 
> votes count as votes.

It is true that pro-"choicers" don't want the people to actually
voice their Choice on the matter.  Proposition 110 here in AZ, which
we will be voting on Nov. 3rd, has already faced a court challenge to
keep it off the ballot.  They were alleging that this proposed
constitutional ammendment was "unconstitutional".  That's just plain
ABSURD.   Anyway, they failed to keep it off the ballot :-) :-)

Don't tell me it has escaped your attention that court fiat is the
prefered method of legislation by the supporters of abortion.
"Damn the choice if it ain't for abortion!"


> He writes about his brilliant idea to abort callers.
> He says on occasion he would abort a caller, by playing
> the sound of a vacuum cleaner and then a scream and
> then hang up on the caller.  He claims he received 
> tons of call and letters complaining about this and how 
> all these listeners were disgusted by this.  I find it
> difficult to believe there were really that many people 
> upset by such a lame stunt.  

Before I even knew his name, maybe it was a year or two ago, I happened
to have this real obnoxious call-in show on the radio as I was driving to
work.   As I parked my car, I heard him pull this stunt, and I just sat
there stunned, with my mouth hanging open.   (Good thing I was alone.)
Anyway, then I started to smile, and was glad that SOMEBODY in the media
was finally telling it like it is.

So yes, Dan, he really did it.


> He even claims a station 
> in Seattle cancelled his show over this.  Does anyone 
> know if this is true, and if so what station it was?  I'd
> love to talk to someone at that station to verify Rush's
> story and if it is true, find out their reason behind 
> cancelling. 

Rush is on all over the country.
 

> As much as I enjoyed the book so far, I might just have 
> to miss some of the baseball playoffs tonight, to get
> back to reading it.

Well, I'll see you at the debates Sunday night.

  
> Dan King

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Comparing abortion and maternal mortality (was Re: I had an abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:32:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.110051.15838@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>> Abortion definitely kills our fellow humans.  Abortion may also
>> cause some death for the mother.  But legal, or illegal, abortion still
>> kills.  Women still die as a result of abortion even after it has been
>> legal for quite some time.  And not that much of a difference too.

> At least an order of magnitude more women die carrying to
> term.  

As some people have previously pointed out, comparing raw mortality
rates can be misleading because some studies suggest a relationship 
between ectopic pregnancies and the presence of a previous induced 
abortion. 

But there are two other points to consider.  In some fraction 
of pregnancies, the woman decides to voluntarily bring the baby 
to term, despite indications that she suffers from serious medical
complications.

In these complicated pregnancies, it seems logical to surmise
that the woman faces a much higher risk of death than during
a "typical" pregnancy.  By including these complicated
pregnancies in the maternal mortality rate, you would be 
inflating the actual maternal mortality rate which would 
result from the situation where abortion was illegal except 
to preserve the woman's life. 

This observation is backed up by data from the CDC (Maternal
Mortality Surveilance, United States, 1979--1986, Vol. 40),
which showed that:

   "Women whose prenatal care was determined to be ``adequate plus''
    had a significantly higher risk of death than women receiving 
    any other level of care. The women who had received more care,
    however, were likely to have had complicated medical conditions
    that required these additional visits. Such conditions would
    increase these women's likelihood of having complications in
    pregnancy and ultimately, maternal death."

The other point is related to the paragraph above -- the relationship 
between the availability of adequate prenatal care and the risk of
death associated with pregnancy. The same CDC study showed that:

  "Women who received no prenatal care had a gestational 
   age-adjusted risk of maternal death 5.7 times that of
   women receiving care defined as ``adequate''." 

An abortion is very often performed by a licensed physician, whereas 
in many pregnancies, the woman never sees a physician.  Comparing
abortion and maternal mortality rates boils down to comparing the 
safety of a procedure supervised by a physician, to the safety of 
a medical condition which is not always supervised by a physician.  

By increasing the availability of adequate prenatal care, it would 
appear that the maternal mortality rate could be reduced.


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:13:11 CST
 <26018@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <grendel.718410870@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <grendel.718410870@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu>, grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer) writes:
> 
> Okay... here we go... I want to kill my roommate and eat him.  He makes
> me horny... but only when he's dead (I also missed lunch today).  Don't
> try and talk me out of it... that would be imposing your beliefs on me.

Real bad analogy...  I assume your roommate is a person with full legal
rights, therefore, your actions would be nasty and punishable by
whatever judicial system you may be forced to deal with.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: alt.test
Organization: AC Nielsen Co.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 13:37:14 GMT

In article <1b2is7INN1pd@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>>>I'm not on drugs, and it's not that late in the night.  Plus, I know I'm not
>>>stupid because I made it through graduate school with honors.  What in the
>>>heck does this say?
>>[...]
>>>there is simply no excuse for such wildly in-
>>>comprehensible messages as this.
>>	Hence, since you did not use words, and did not use sentences, you did
>>not convey any meaning.
>                         
>To you.  To you.  Make sure you completely qualify your sentences, ESPECIALLY
>when you are *preaching* about qualification and clarity, ok?
> 
>>time in writing your post, wasted the net resources in transmitting your post,
>>and wasted my time in attempting to read your post.
>
>drieux is one of the artists of the net.  These two fellows don't understand
>his stuff, which is too bad, and unfortunate for them.  However, I note from
>the enclosed replies that *both* of these fellows apparently own an 'n'
>key ('not on' and 'not convey'), so I'd expect them to use their sancti-
>monious right index finger and *use* the damn thing.
>
>You don't understand drieux posts, you can 'n' past 'em.  You can 'j'
>past 'em.  You can 'k' past 'em.  You can even put drieux in your kill file.
>
>There are a number of people on the net who not only understand drieux's
>posts, but actually appreciate them, thanks.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Too bad all these drieux fans can't edit the fucking Newsgroups: line.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41859 alt.abortion.inequity:4343 alt.birthright:533
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Minor Technical Clarification - Fornication
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:49:07 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:

] Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Oct-92 Re: Don't just whine about
] .. by Nadja Adolf@jetsun.weite 
] > OK. So GOD (Marca Registrada) is a hypocrite. First he tells us not to
] > fornicate, then he does it himself.
] 
] A question. When does God tell us not to fornicate? He tells us not to
] commit adultery which is (dun dun DA da):
] voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other 
] than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her
] husband. pg 58 Web. 9th New Collegiate Dict. 1988

Useful point for a Bad Theology.

If you will actually look at your BIBLE,
you will notice that one can lay with 
one's concubines, and the handmaidens
of one's WIVES.

So Just Because the New Collegiate Dict
is a Tool of Modern SeXularHumanism is
not Really New at all...

]
] As far as I've studied neither God nor Mary were married at the time
] of the divine encounter.

Ever Wonder why she was also Known as the Handmaiden of God?


ciao
drieux

ps: Now When Will the Religious Right Restore our
God Given Rights?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42453 talk.politics.guns:22105 alt.conspiracy:11255 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5337 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6810 talk.bizarre:34020
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:00:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Oct13.224059.29293@u.washington.edu> larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>>>In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>>>>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>>stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
>>>us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  

>>You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>>wants to reduce troops in Europe.


>Maybe that is what he is saying now, but it certainly wasn't what he
>was saying a month or so ago.  Typical Bill Clinton - if you don't like
>what he is saying, just wait a week or so.

>Depending on whether or not you consider the Persian Gulf a major war,
>the USA has fought 4 or 5 wars in this century (not including minor
>bloodlettings here and there).  Democratic presidents have taken us 
>into the first four.

I think the distinction between an official war and an unofficial war
is trivial.  I do count the Persian Gulf War, as well as the Noriega
manhunt, not to mention the myriad intrusions into Central America
by the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush.  Republicans.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:10:31 GMT

In article <BvzquD.LCF@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.033035.8768@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <BvwtIt.1JI@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>In article <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>>>>>Here's my blow-hard, simplistic, brutish (and therefore aptly suited to the
>>>>>alt.rush-limbaugh group) opinion on the abortion issue:
>>>>>
>>>>>The right of the woman to choose what to do with her body supercedes any rights
>>>>>the unborn parasite has to her body.
>>>>>
>>>>>There.  I have spoken.  This issue will never be resolved by consensus.  If
>>>>>people want to resolve it by majority-rule vote, that's fine.  I believe
>>>>>most of America is pro-choice.  My only regret is that as a male, I will
>>>>>most likely never have the opportunity to squash an Operation Rescue person
>>>>>trying to block my entry to an abortion clinic.
>>>>
>>>>Especially if the Operation Rescue people carried the appropriate hardware.
>>>>Try to squash someone who is armed...
>>>>
>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>
>>>Uh, Simon...before you go off to write your masterpiece, you might be
>>>interested to know -- it's already been written by Margaret Atwood.  Have
>>>you ever heard of "A Handmaid's Tale"?  :-)
>>>
>>I enjoyed the story, although I didn't like the slam against religion.
>>In the story I'm planning, things would be depicted much more openly.
>>Atwood's story dealt mostly with government control of reproductive rights.
>>What I am planning is more a more across the board depiction.  Basically,
>>I am planning a story in set in the future in which the people are so fed up
>>with liberalism that they elect a leader who pledges to erradicate liberalism
>>and its supporters. I can make Atwoods story look like a Sunday picnic.
>
>Be sure and let us know all about it, then -- I'm sure people will want to
>know who to avoid...:-)
>
You're worried about meeting a science fiction author in person??
Orwell (Eric Blair) worte 1984 and no one was afraid of him.



Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Keywords: kill, murder, translation, homicide
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:29:43 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>> COMMENTS:
>>> 1. For centuries, English translations of the bible (almost?) invariably
>>> had "Thou shalt not kill."  It is only in the last decade or two that
>>> translations have appeared putting "commit murder" in place of "kill."

>> Strange how I found out the actual translation 20 years ago when engaged
>> in bible study for a few years,

> How old would that make you, I wonder?  You seem remarkably immature
> in a lot of ways.

Now playing at Non-Sequitor Dinner Theatre:  Peter Nyikos as Willie Loman and
Gordon Storga as Ensign Pulver in "Inherit the Endgame," where Willie responds
to Pulver's invitation to put marbles in the captain's overhead by saying,
"I'm an excellent driver."

All seriousness aside, that was a rather snotty thing to say.

[--the rest of Nyikos' contentless snottiness deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Back into the religious fray...
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 23:09:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.210353.10040@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
>Listen closely.  One does not (as we've seen right here in 
>t.a) to profess any particular religious philosophy in order
>to recognize that human life is valuable and shouldn't be 
>subject to arbitrary termination.

Listen closely.  One does not (as we've seen right here in t.a) have
to profess to any particular religious philosphy in order to recognize
that the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornChild" is valuable, but the wishes of
the *PREGNANT WOMAN* are infinitly more valuale, and should not be
subject to arbitrary laws.

--
=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???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Defying Physics (Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:26:33 CDT

In article <1992Oct9.211051.16398@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>> = c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>Thus, since a human cannot exist as exactly two humans, we have a 
>>contradiction.  We can safely say that the assertion that eggs/sperm
>>are human life (members of homo sapiens) is false.
>
>Furthermore, following this line of reasoning, since a *single* fertilized 
>egg may very well develope into *two* or more distinct human beings, we can 
>safely assert that a fertilized egg is *not* a human being.
>
>After all, the twins John & Jack Doe are obviously not the same human being!
>
This is a true statement.
My egg split.  That's no yolk!

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: waddell@cs.scarolina.edu (Jeff Waddell)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:49:44 GMT

burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Spike Burkhardt) writes:

>>Jennifer
>Spike Burkhardt

>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>being

I'm probably jumping into the middle of some thread I should--if so, kindly
ignore.  Anyway,  my question when reading this post is--how is it that the
"inevitable result" of a fetus is a human being?  Last time I looked there
existed such a thing as miscarriage?!!!  Am I way of base here?

		Jeff Waddell