HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Indoctrination of the Young
Summary: Fun Songs!
Keywords: contraception, education
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:36:07 GMT

One of the chief sources of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers is that
they suffer from the foolish belief that they are immortal and
invulnerable, and that nothing bad will ever happen to them, i.e. they
won't get pregnant/impregnate another, because they haven't been brought
up to believe this.

The chief cause of this disbelief is our own prudishness; we wait to
tell children these things when we think they are "old enough" to know
about it, but they haven't necessarily grown up with that knowledge.  On
the other hand, if they'd had it drummed into them the dangers of sex
ever since they could remember, they might just listen.

One fun way to do this would be to teach them to sing songs with catchy
tunes, which tell of the dangers of sex.  In the English folk song
tradition, there are a fair number of these, and if children sang these
songs for fun, they might just listen to what they are singing about.
Besides, most children would probably love the idea of singing something
"naughty" ;)  My personal favorite of these is a 16th-century ballad
with a very catchy tune called "Watkin's Ale."  E-mail me if you'd like
me to post or send you the lyrics; I have them someplace, but don't
have them memorized yet. 

								Beth
-- 
"Hold stick near center of its length.  Moisten pointed end in mouth.
Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: This MemberOfSpeciesHomoSapiens at Conception Thang
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:49:10 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
# 	BTW, my challenge is still open if you dispute the fact
# that a new member of the species homo sapiens is created at
# conception: find me a doctor who will contradict this statement. 
# If you're so darned sure you're right, it shouldn't be any trouble.

I don't see a need to challenge your statement, but one thing does
make me curious--

	why does it matter?

I don't think it matters one whit in the debate over abortion rights
whether the zygote is or is not a `member of the species homo
sapiens.'

Why are you even chewing on this bone?


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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:37:46 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <hbrng9+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>As evidence that 9/10 of women who get abortion suffer from 
>abortion-induced traumas, this is pretty poor.  While I'm going to reserve
>judgement on this, this "evidence" is some third party _claiming_ that PP
>has admitted that _as_many_ as 9 out of 10 women _may_ suffer "trauma."
>It is riddled with weasel-words and includes at least one erroneous
>interpretation.  Hardly a sterling reference.

One would expect Planned Parenthood to weasel as much as possible.
After all they have a buck to make, and god forbid that the truth
get in the way.

Don
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
|Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.
|Can this question be adequately answered?

I hope EEB reposts her stuff about brain development.  [Can
you consider this a request, Beth?]

Some people accept the premise that a brain capable of conscious
thought is a prerequisite for humanity.  If you do, you'll 
probably find the information about brain development to give 
you an adequate answer: the fetus is probably a person during
the third trimester.

This solution is insufficient for a couple of reasons:

1. There's a second fundamental issue, just as important as
   the question of the z/e/f's humanity:  Which takes precedence,
   the rights of the woman, or the rights of the z/e/f?  
 
   For example:
   If you think that the z/e/f is always a person, how do you 
   resolve the question of pregnancies that threaten a woman's 
   life?  health? mental well-being?  Even if you take the more 
   conservative position that the fetus is a person after 
   myelination begins, you still run into this question.  What 
   if the woman's health &/or life are endangered by a pregnancy 
   in the 3rd tri?

2. Some people take their abortion stance for religious reasons,
   and some more rigidly than others.  For example, a
   fundamentalist Protestant or a conservative Catholic who
   believes that the z/e/f has a soul from conception onward is
   unlikely to be swayed by medical evidence.  They hold their
   position for non-rational reasons.  Not that there's anything
   wrong with that action, but people like that aren't about to
   let others disagree with them.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:09:23 GMT

In article 5706@noao.edu, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean):
>> 
>> What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>> change the way pro-choicers think?  
>
>Not at all.  They're supposed to change the way you feel.
>

No, what you are hoping is that an intrepretation of the sonogram
will alter the way that one feels. Without intrepretation, a sonogram
looks like grainy white noise. I will be glad to email gif or jpeg frames
from a sonogram to anyone wishing to test this statement. All I ask is
that you post your intrepretation to the net, and the amount of training
you have had in using ultrasound equipment. I will follow up your post
with information as to what images the frames actually contain.

>
>> Isn't this the same warped
>> line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
>> science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
>> on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
>> abortions in the world?
>
>If each woman looked at a real time sonogram of her own baby, there
>would be fewer abortions in the world.
>

No, only if the intrepretation was along the lines of:
"ooo, looky there his wee little arm and his wee little head, isn't that cute..."

It would be different if the tech started out with:
"hmm, every see the fly ..."

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:16:42 GMT

In <vvyyfw@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

>>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

>>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.

>[An inflammatory paragraph deleted.]

>>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 

>>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?

>Is his hang gliding harness using his body?

No. His body is using the hang gliding harness.  Can't you follow
a simple analogy?

Peter Ny.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Date: 10 Sep 1992 10:34:21 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com


In article <lav1kaINN7u9@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
.In article 15914@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official researcher of USENET's Astro_Boy virus) writes:
.. 
.. Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon. 
.. What does Gloria Steinem have? 
.Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
.1.  Dignity.
 2.  The freedom to control the use of her body, for the time being at least.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:32:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
>
>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

Question, Galen: 

What part of a woman's body leaves her in childbirth? 

If the answer leans largely to "none," maybe because a woman's body
does not have: 

4 arms.
4 legs. 
2 hearts.
2 brains. 
2 different blood types. 

Until those 5 facts change, anyone who says a fetus is part of a
woman's body, is scientifically illiterate. 


=============================================================================
>##       "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>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:28:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715043800@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# [Dan King wrote] 
##Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
##child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
##because he performed abortions (A legal act).
# 
# Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
# abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
# even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
# trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
# clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.

I just noticed this.  Is this law enjoined, Nyikos?  Have you
checked?

I saw an idiot on the televised Lambs trial in Fargo who claimed
that he didn't know that a similar law there was enjoined, and
that he thought he was therefore entitled to break into the clinic
to prevent further violations of the law.  Needless to say, the
judge didn't buy it.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.religion.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: On the Nature of Ritual Cannibalism
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 21:32:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep8.200038.1155@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> HUM... interesting that few see the similarities
> between this and the use of Peyote.....

Why - is the peyote used at religious ceremonies poor-quality stuff that
you would never indulge in at a social gathering?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:47:16 GMT

In article <25056@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
>>aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
>>label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.

[...]

>I also believe that you're attempting to perpetuate a myth, that men
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have no choice. Men have always walked away from relationships when
>children are involved in the past, and I don't really see them getting
>dragged back in any significant numbers to be held accountable for children
>they've spawned, except in cases where there was some sort of promise
>made, either explicit or implicit. So let's lay that to rest, shall
>we? Men have always had a choice, whether legally granted or not, and
>now men like you wish to take a similar choice away from women, after
>they recently won that right back.


Bill Clinton, 7/16/92, Nomination Acceptance Speech:

  I do want to say something to the fathers in this country who 
  have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting their child support;
  take responsibility for your children or we will force you to do so.

  We need to get tough on child support enforcement with a
  nationwide crackdown on deadbeat parents. 

  In our state, if you fall more than a thousand dollars behind 
  in your child support, we report you to every major credit agency 
  in the state.


So you're voting for Bush, then?  Or do men like you wish to take 
a choice away from men that they (according to you) have held
until recently?

Or perhaps your exception for "explicit or implicit" promises 
covers most paternity cases.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35968 alt.abortion.inequity:3674
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:20:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes ...
>Sure; the baby is dependent on the mother for 9 months for nourishment and a
>protective environment.  Does this make it sub-human?!  Most people who choose to
>kill their pre-born children do so because it makes life easier for them.  Life
>would certainly be easier if we could kill everyone who makes it difficult for
>us - but then some people might not agree to being murdered without some sort
>of fight!

Hmmm.  This is guilt by association, I know, but complaining about abortion
making life easier for people from someone in S. Africa is just too ironic.

OK, so abortion makes life easier.  So what?  If people weren't trying for 
better lives we'd still be living in caves and dead by the age of 35.
Why should anyone be forced to suffer so that the z/e/f can have more rights 
than any other person?  Does the act of sex make women sub-human, so that they
may no longer have control of their own bodies?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:19:03 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> [...]
> With such murderous thoughts for women on your mind, I can reasonably assume
> you flunked your ethics and religion classes.

That's not necesarily true.  I find it easy to argue from most of
the abortion standpoints, but that doesn't mean I'm pro-life.
Right?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:12:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Sorry about all of the terrible things I said, Steve.  I don't
know what got into me.  But, thanks to you, I have seen the light
of day.  I am free of the sick, secular humanist, liberal, lefto,
pinko, environmento, animal-lover psychosis that stole my dignity
as an American.  I am now a pro-life member of the NRA...I mean a
life member of the NRA.  And I am cured of the vegetarian madness
that had held me in its grip.  I am eating a big greasy burger as
I type this.  I am selling my volvo to buy a Ford pickup equipped
with a rifle rack.  God Bless America.  God Bless Bush and Quayle
and Buchanan and Schlafley and Robertson and North and Reagan and
Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Mitchell and Stans and...most of all,

                   GOD BLESS YOU, STEVE CHANEY!

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dan King for Congress!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:54:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.014809.5957@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>Since the Microsurgical Vasectomy idea has come up, and I kind
>of like the subject heading, why not mandate vasectomys?  You
>know if the government can determine what your gonna do with 
>your body, why can't they force young males to get vasectomys?
>This would solve the problem of un-wanted pregnancy and 
>abortions.  The male would be allowed to get the Microsurgical 
>Vasectomy once he has written approval from his wife or SO.
>So all you pro-lifers who want governmental involvement in 
>women's bodies, would you also allow it in men?
Is the bottom line here that microsurgical vasectomies are
reversible? With reasonable success rates?

If so, would whoever knows be kind enough to send me contact info?
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:36:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.715733197@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
> hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
> I can see the context?

Didn't seem out of character to me.  And I read the article.  I saw
no evidence of satire at all, nor did Steeves claim later, when
many posted that they found what he said reprehensible, that it
was satire.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 05:12:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep7.185405.21784@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.191051.13478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com write
> >In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John St
> ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
> ># have babies without the kindness of a man.
> >
> >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>
> >I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>
> Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
> at all?
>
> Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?

Do you believe that if a man rapes a woman and a child results, that the
man performed an act of kindness?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Freedom of religion
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:04:24 GMT

>>> = chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>  = bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>   = ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
>>				     ^^^^^^^^
>>My "religion" states that an abortion must happen if the pregnancy threatens 
>>the life of the mother-to-be. It also requires an abortion in cases
>>where a new baby cannot be afforded or wanted, provided that in this
>>case the potential mother does not wish to carry this fetus to term.
>>
>>Would I be free to practice this religion in your world? You claim to
>>be pro-freedom of religion, after all.

>"Your honor, my religion requires that I shoot Ronald Bense 
> in the head.  Am I free to practice freedom of religion?"
>
>Freedom of religion does not give anyone free reign to harm other people.

This reminds me of something Cat Steven's said on a radio talk show while
he was touring the US raising money for some children's charity.  He 
rationalized his support for the assassination of Rushdie by saying something 
like [BEGIN PARAPHRASE] "Americans are hypocritical.   They *talk* about 
freedom of speech/religion, but when my religion calls for Rushdie's 
assassination..., well, then they're all against freedom of speech/religion.  
[END PARAPHRASE]

I could hardly believe what I was hearing.
What a true masterpiece of pseudo-intellectual rationalization.

People choose whatever religion they damn well feel like choosing, 
so if everyone is free to do whatever their religion says to do,
then  everyone is free to do whatever they damn well feel like doing.
Unless, of course, people are forced to accept whatever religion 
someone else can ram down their throat.

Maybe we could have a nation-wide vote (or political battle, or how about a
civil war), whatever religion wins is the OneTrueReligion and gets to define 
the TrueNatureOfGod.  Then we could have a world-wide play-off...

-Brian