HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:50:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bu7uvK.GA5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
> In article <> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
> >stories of women who died due to septic abortions.
> 
> I have read similar stories of women who died of legal abortions.
> I have met two women who have long-lasting physical damage from
> botched but entirely legal abortions.
> I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
> women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
> 
> Legal abortion is by no means safe.

I also have read of quite a few women who died in childbirth.

Legal abortion is unquestionably far safer than illegal abortion.

The statistics indicate also that legal abortion is far safer than
pregnancy.

The point is not that there is anything wrong with continuing a
pregnancy to term.  It's just that a woman ought to be able to
decide for herself how much risk she wishes to endure.

As for Post Abortive Stress Syndrome, there's something similar
that follows childbirth.  I also question your claims about
Post Abortive Stress Syndrome since this is the first I've heard
of it being at all widespread.  In fact, your claim contradicts
the information that has been posted here in the past, as well
as former Surgeon General Charles Everett Koop's conclusions.
Just to re-iterate what has been said here many times, Koop,
whose personal views are pro-life, was pressed by the Reagan
administration to conclude that PASS was common and severe.  He
found no evidence to support that conclusion and said so.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:55:07 GMT

<BuF5HM.70J.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) said:
><1992Sep10.221324.27848@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>#Quite the contrary.  It is a mark of pride to have earned the temper tantrum
>#of an attention-starved, power hungry, deluded child who has become obsessed
>#with the fantasies he must turn to for comfort.  I am only sorry that I have
>#not intimidated him sufficiently to have received a barrage of petty, 
>#juvenile insults myself.
>
>All you have to do to induce a tantrum in Chaney/Hall is tell the
>truth.  Facts seem to drive the Airplane Boy into a frenzy.  Two
>other factors increase his rage - he attacks Jews more violently
>than Christians (or, rather, *perceived* Jews and *perceived*
>Christian), and he attacks women more violently than men.
>
>He did confuse you with rocker when he was bragging about his
>"KILLfile" a while back, though.  He'll probably get around
>to attacking you soon.

And if he can't argue with *you*, he'll soon attack members of your
family.  Preferably sick or near death members.  Witness his recent verbal
assault of Patrick's wife.  Chaney is a prideful little school yard bully
who, in the case of Internet, doesn't ever have to back up his words.  He
takes the "Nyah, nyah, your mother wears Army boots!" to new gutter lows.
I'm surprised that some of these loving, peaceful pro-lifers haven't asked
him to cool it with comments about Patricks wife.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 23:54:23 GMT

In <-cnnv-b.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>>Because there is often also another human being involved, the one that
>>is killed if the abortion is a "successful" one.

> what is a human being?

>I'd like to know what your definition of "human being" is so as to 
>facilitate my understanding.  It is a term that gets thrown about a 
>lot without anyone bothering with a definition.  And by the way, if
>you answer, please make sure that the definition you supply both
>includes everything you wish to be considered a "human being" and 
>excludes everything else.

I use the term in a lot of different ways, but in this context, it
means a member of our species, with a present or past in which some
conscious experience, however fleeting, has taken place or is taking
place, and which has the potential for additional such experience
(so as to eliminate a corpse).  And since it is humanly impossible
for anyone to empirically verify the conscious experience of another,
I propose as a working definition the existence of brain waves, such
as are currently used to distinguish the brain-dead from the merely
"persistently vegetative".

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney is unsupported
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:55:55 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  <29725@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>  smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.052927.33007@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >> >The term was used to refer to a portion of anatomy.  That some people
> >> >are unable to distinguish between "Get your ass over here" and "Get
> >> >over here, you ass" is unfortunate, but should not reflect on the
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >speaker.
> >>
> >> Our disagreement is minor, but proof positive that those of us on the
> >> pro-choice side do occasionally disagree.
> >
> >*Are* we in disagreement?  Do you not see the semantic difference between
> >the two statements?  At no point did I claim that what Patrick said was
> >*right*; I just pointed out that those saying he referred to Chaney *as*
> >a fat black ass are incorrect.
>
> I have highlighted the point of disagreement; it is not about a
> semantic difference.  Rather, it concerns an interpretation of the
> actual statement.

I think it's about both.  There's a definite semantic difference; in the
first case, a portion of anatomy is being referred to by a slang expression,
while in the second, the person is being referred to by that expression.
I see the second as being worse than the first.  The fact that I interpret
one as being worse than the other is why I point out that the rephrasing
is incorrect, and makes it sound worse than it was.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.191812.23052@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>In article <Bu8p8B.31n@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) 
>rites:
>>In article <1992Sep8.021225.6846@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (
>an King) writes:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>All joking aside, does this make you realize that many pro-lifers have
>>>no idea where a pregnancy takes place? 
>>
>>Sure, in the back seat of a Chevy, in bed, at work, in small towns,
>>in big cities, in nature, in hospitals, in cabbage patches, on planes,
>>at the beach, in the bathroom, ...   Various stages and various location
>.
>>Where it doesn't take place: abortion clinics.  If the "pro-lifers" don'
>
>>know it, they can read it here.
>>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you speaking of where *conception*
>or even *impregnation* occurs?  

You are wrong.  You missed:
>> ...   Various stages and various locations.

There are lots of stages of pregnancy; the moments after conception
are one, hence the Chevy example.  Pregnant women have been known to
spend some time in the locations I listed.

>Or maybe you forgot pregnancy lasts
>about nine months and tends not to be especially fun.  

I didn't forget it.  I disagree again, on the basis of personal
experience: for my wife and for me, some of it was not fun,
some of it was joyful, and some of it was just regular.
I'd hardly be as pessimistic about it as you.

>Are you
>under the impression that a baby pops out after intercourse?

There's the solution to ALL our problems...  (except overpopulation).


>at least fractions of a pregnancy may occur in an abortion clinic
>if a pregnant woman happens along (imagine that, a pregnant woman in
>an abortion clinic!).

I thought about that, but I took poetic license to claim that
the pregnancy is pretty much gone when the woman steps in the door.
No, it was not a sentence intended for dictionaries or for precise 
reasoning or for gaining debate points.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: padraig@astro.as.utexas.edu (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 5 Sep 92 08:47:57 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov>, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> 
>> 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>> rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>> and Pharisees suffered.
>
>Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.

That's pretty accurate. Since christianity asserts that by his own choice
Jesus came to an earth that he created, knowing full well in advance what
would happen, he must be held accountable for the various pograms  and
other cruelties and tortures mounted throughout history against 
the ("christ-killer") Jews. After all, they were merely the instrument 
of his plan. Of course I assume that you Suzanne, would stand by as 
Jesus was crucified even if it was within your power to thwart the execution 
(how else could you be saved?). On the otherhand, as an atheist, and a pro-
choice advocate, I'd find myself compelled to do the un-christian thing (i.e.
intervene).

Padraig Houlahan.
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:19:24 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department


> frank (twit)
>> mcbean (pinhead) 
>>> suxie (suxie)
>>>> ferrari (me)

>: >>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

>: > ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
 
>: Pro-choicers don't (necesarily) cannibalize.  Not even the abortionist
>: eats the aborted z/e/f/b/c.

>Pro-lifers don't coat women with breadcrumbs and MSG and sell them
>at outlets around the world, either.  Even Col. Sanders would have
>thought twice :-)

Could y'all please miss the point more completely?

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's rant letter
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 17:20:04 GMT

In article <Bu4swF.37t.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715735129@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <1992Sep1.175955.24063@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>#
>#
>##	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
>##how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
>##little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
>#
>#HOLD IT!  HOLD IT!  I thought this was all about Pat Buchannan.  
>
>Did you?
>
>"Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>like the one you say he suggested."
> - Peter Nyikos <nyikos.715285141@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>
>
>"Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves."
>Peter Nyikos - <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

I love you, Susan.  Let's run away and have 2.4 kids together.  I'll bring
the cat.
--
=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...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:10:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes ...
>Your definition of "person" is extremely bizarre ... why does a 
>functional _future_ not count for as much a functional _past_?  What 
>has memory got to do with personhood?  Sounds like an utterly abitrary 
>criterion to me.  Is an amnesiac a person?  

Well, since you think Ms. Bartley's definition of a person is bizarre,
perhaps you could share with us _your_ (presumably) non-bizarre definition
of a person?  Please be thorough in your definition; the definition should
both include everything you wish to be considered a person and exclude 
everything you do not consider to be a person.

Once you have accomplished this, perhaps then we can discuss whether a
fetus or embryo is, in fact, a person, and then go on to what rights
people should have.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36355 alt.abortion.inequity:3696
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:38:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.160117.1298@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes to Steve Chaney:

>>> What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
>>> Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
>>> perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
>>> personal religious views the law of the land.  

>> ...
>> 
>> Gloria Feldt   I do not believe that the fetus, although it has
>> value, is entitled to personhood status or to any other
>> citizenship guarantee under the Constitution, and therefore due
>> process for the fetus is not a legal right but a legal wrong.  
>>      My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>> we want to be precise) and that the well-being of the woman must
>> prevail [and on] the ... information I have gained from looking
>> at actual fetal life and at women involved in pregnancies,
>> childbearing, miscarriages, and abortion....
>>      * * *
>> ...

> Thank you, Doug.  Now show where what she says is somehow an
> attempt to make her religious beliefs a law.

I don't know if she's attempting to make her religious beliefs
into the law of the land, because I don't know whether or not she 
supports the Freedom of Choice Act.  But I think it's likely that 
she does support passage of the FOCA, as do most other pro-choicers. 

> Also, note that the earlier quote of yours, now that you provide
> more of the quote, demonstrates nicely how you take quotes
> out of context and change their meaning.  

I think a person would have to be rather naive to assume that
Ms. Feldt's views towards abortion could be based solely on 
religion, given that she's a Planned Parenthood executive. 

>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:06:15 GMT

In article <3x5y-pa@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#
#This was great.
#
#From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy v
#irus)
#
#Due to the way nn shortens strings (sufficient text is cut from the
#middle), this came up on my article list as 
#
#"Official virus"
#
#I like that.  It suits the Little Airplane Boy.
#

And he'll be so proud, too.

Susan
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:22:50 GMT

In article <a3kn0p-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>>In article <BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>>>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>>>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>>>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>>>woman and is affecting her health.
>>
>>If I swallow your pearls, are they mine, Susie? The "inside the woman" 
>>argument is simplistic and ill-formed. Please reformulate.
>
>Your conclusions are simplistic and ill-formed.  While the pearls might
>not be yours, she has no right whatever to go after them.  Even though
>they are her pearls, you still have the right to control your body and
>prevent her from cutting you open to get at them.

They are still *HER* pearls, however, held in "involuntary trust", I believe
is the legal jargon. I cannot, for instance, legally sell them after they've 
made their way back out of my disgestive tract. The legal status of the pearls 
does NOT, in a static sense, change just because they're in my body. Similarly,
the STATUS of the products-of-conception may be the same whether in the uterus 
or out, while the RIGHTS of the POC may be different, because of the need to
balance between its rights, and those of its mother. Bodily Autonomy is one 
argument -- one in which I strongly believe -- and "fetus status" is another. 
The two positions are almost completely independent of each other, though, and 
I reject the superficial "inside the woman" attempt to make a direct 
connection between them. It may be good rhetoric, but it fails to stand up to 
even cursory examination.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.133839.3909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
(dean.kaflowitz) writes:

}Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires. 

So what are you trying to say, that vampires suck?   Do you have
any documentation?  Besides Scientific American, that is, that sounds
like a pro-vampire publication to me...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:26:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloody likely!

In article <1992Sep04.115231.9627@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep4.000858.12970@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep3.001708.22093@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills
>> Yup.  And men must bear the pain, sickness, serious health risks and death
>> inherent in fighting a war.  Something that women are not required (in
>> fact, allowed) to do.
>
>And I say that the way to make that equal is by allowing women in combat.
>You're saying the equivalent of, since it's not fair, every time a man is
>killed in combat, take a woman and shoot her.

Did you strain something, stretching that far?

>It might be more fair, but it's not *right*.

And I never said anything of the sort.  YOU DID, not me.

>You can take part, but you don't get the deciding vote, since it's not your
>body that's affected.

Using that logic, the woman should not have the deciding vote, as the
babies body and life is MUCH more affected than the womans.

Or had you forgotten that a pregnant woman is no longer alone in her body?

>> Wrong.  Dead wrong.  Almost everybody who responds to me wants to deny me
>> ANY control of the process.  I'm supposed to sit idly by and let the
>> woman do anything she wants to my child.
>
>You can have a say, but we deny you control over the woman's body.

I don't want control over her body, I want control over what she does to
my baby.

>And that's what it comes down to.  You want the power to force the woman
>to do what you want; you want to be able to control her.

Wrong.  Yet again.  I do not advocate that the man be in control, or the
woman.  I advocate EQUAL rights, which means that your statement that I
want the power to force the woman to do what I want is dead wrong.

Will you never get this?  I've explained this to you a number of times,
and you still don't get it.  You repeatedly make statements of belief
and then ascribe them to me.  It might help if you realized that your
interpretation of what I say rarely (if ever) matches what I am trying
to say.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:27:52 GMT

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.

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

I don't entirely agree with her, but I see where she's coming from....
A doctor performing an abortion is implicitly saying that the life
he's aborting isn't worth very much.  A doctor fighting to save a
preemie's life is implicitly saying that the preemie's life *is* worth
a significant amount.  Once viability and legal-to-be-aborted overlap,
the difference between the two can be mostly in their relationships
with others, not in the z/e/f/preemies themselves.

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

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36283 alt.abortion.inequity:3694