HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:45:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.071617.2395@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com 
(Gordon Storga) writes:

}>I think it was written by Gordan Storga, known to Kevin Darcy as "Galen."
}                               ^
}Ahem!  At least Darcy could spell my name correctly when he used it.  I
}forgive you, Golen.

Darn, sorry about that.  I'm the same fool that has picked up the phone
at night and yelled:  "You've got the wrong idiot, you number!"

*sigh*

At least I didn't try to claim that it doesn't matter.  Thanks for
forgiving me Gordon.  I apologize again.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:09:00 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Dec30.220505.20592@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>Peter,
>There are more than FIVE bad apples being sued or investigated for botched
>births in California alone. By your logic, we should outlaw birth.

Now, count on Peter to totally ignore this, and then repost his pet horror
stories a month later.  Just wait and see.  This is getting old, Petesie.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Suzzie gets confused about sex...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:54:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.230127.21550@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>> Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.
>>
>> Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>> Or how 'bout best man?

> Despite your evident confusion about your sexual status, it is safe to
> say you could not be "best" man or woman.
> If your current sex is still in doubt, I suggest you check your mucus
> again. That always seems to reassure you.


Hey Steve Matheson!  Here's an excellent example of the pro-choice
game of "enrage the opposition" that I was talking about.   Ms. Forgach
makes some innocent comments, and right out of the blue, Mark Cochran
blithers out some trash and insults!  Of course, she'll get hammered
for being "wicked" if she responds with even the smallest flame.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: It ain't us.
	<1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
	<1993Jan11.171307.9379@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:00:26 GMT

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:13:07 GMT, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) said:

>In article <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|
>|>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>
>|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>|>>you wind up losing yours.....
>|>
>|>
>|>My, my,
>|>what a positive, nay
>|>                      pro-life
>|>                                sentiment.
>|>
>|>Adrienne Regard
>|>
>Please Adrienne....

>Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up getting hurt.
>I am very concered that he not accidentaly cross with the wrong por-lifer and
>wind up getting hurt.I am sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
>Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.

Well, child -- you said you hoped I lost my life, and you're now saying you're
*concerned* about my safety?  Two helpful hints:  one, learn to speak the
same English as the rest of us.  Two, buy a few IQ points and figure out
what you're trying to say *before* you hit the keyboard, okay?

Now go play on the freeway...

--PLH, NCSU -- it eats brains...



--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:39:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.183842.26144@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>> i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
>> of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
>> nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
>> anti-choice perspective, of course.

> I'm sure you believe that only "anti-choicers" post offensive
> material.  Not that I care what you think, James, but I'm more
> than willing to criticize other pro-lifers, and I've done it
> on several occasions.  The next time I see something offensive
> written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
> After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?

There was that incident when some pro-choicer said that he 
wished that pro-life females would get raped so that
they could get pregnant from a rapist.  You wouldn't believe 
the number of pro-choicers who *politely* explained to him why 
his remarks were inappropriate.  I remember hearing one pro-
choicer say that this guy's "heart was in the right place" 
or some such garbage.  I don't remember James Keegan
saying anything about it at the time.  Steve Chaney
probably remembers the incident better than I; he saved
that low-life's remarks.


>Steve Matheson 


Doug Holtsinger
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:11:59 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan11.064021.24124@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>In article <C0JyMu.LGB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kahlers@ncsa.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>> I think almost all of societies rules in some way address a collective
>>morality or set of ethics 
>
>I don't -- but then maybe I've done too much history.
>
>Saying that laws reflect moral ideas is *very* different from saying
>that all moral ideas should be made into laws.  

Nowhere did the poster say that all moral ideas should be made into laws.
Read it again, Suzanne.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: You'd never believe it.
	<1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:12:21 GMT

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:18:03 GMT, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) said:

>patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>|>In article <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>|>
>|>   How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?
>|>
>|>Not me -- I already *have* a life, thankyouverymuch...
>|>
>|>--PLH, I see enough of *those* yahoos while I'm defending clinics, anyway

>You are so noble Sir Patrick .. You defend clinics against those that wish
>to take a away women's choices...I commend you and here by Knight you Sir
>Pat. Ever thought that these "Yahoo's" are just defending life..Goosh so
>that means you are anti-life..You are not as noble as I thought..I here
>by demote you to a peasant of cannon foder quality you may charge the
>enemy line anytime you are ready just watch out for the archers and
>cannons..

I'm not in your army, kid.  Now, go back to the sandbox and play with the
other kids, and quit bothering us.  (A disconcertingly large proportion of
the yahoos that came out to try and shut down the clinics I was helping
defend were there solely to disrupt the clinics -- if they were so
dedicated, why did they cut and run like gutless cowards when they arrived
to see how many people they'd be up against?  There were an awful lot of
kids, too -- being forced to stand out on a treeless esplanade, during a
typical sunny Houston summer day.  *Real* fucking consideration, there, by
those supposedly "pro-child" parents, don't you think?  How about the
gutless parents who send their *kids* in to be arrested -- and cheer them
on, while they themselves make sure they don't venture inside the 30-meter
limit?  Oh, I forgot -- you and your fellow force fanatics don't give a good
goddamn about anyone once they're born...)

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.....

Nothing like that Christian "love", is there?  What a maroon...in case no
adult ever explained it to you, I'm going to wind up losing mine, one day --
just like all of us are.  I apologize for making you think *too* much,
though...

--PLH, where are those tactical nukes when you need them?  Raleigh needs one
right now -- *badly*.

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:31:50 GMT

Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>We are left with abortion on demand for the full nine
>months of pregnancy.

Gee, then why is it so hard to get a _second_ trimester abortion, much
less a third-tri?

>Marty Helgesen

                -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:24:22 GMT

In <30DEC92.16371945@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:


>There is plenty of evidence to support this.  Ever hear of Romania? 

It was clear to me that Paul's statement (about abortion deaths "then" and
now) referred to the United States. It's not surprising that under the
conditions in Communist Romania, women would lose hope and seek abortions.


Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:13:07 GMT


In article <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|
|>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>
|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
|>>you wind up losing yours.....
|>
|>
|>My, my,
|>what a positive, nay
|>                      pro-life
|>                                sentiment.
|>
|>Adrienne Regard
|>
Please Adrienne....

Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up getting hurt.
I am very concered that he not accidentaly cross with the wrong por-lifer and
wind up getting hurt.I am sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- keeps Eternity from blowing up)
Subject: Re: Looking for info on abortifacents
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:59:01 GMT

What: <1993Jan10.172652.16111@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>And to the original poster, I would like to suggest that they 
>can find people who are very willing to help them with an
>unplanned pregnancy.  You can start by looking in the Yellow
>Pages under the heading "pregnancy counseling".

And I highly recommend *against* pro-life CPCs.  I've been to three of
them, and you are taking your psychological health in your hands by
going to one of these places.  One of the centers had a rack full of
pamphlets, most of which focused on the immorality of sex before
marriage.  Two of them showed graphic anti-abortion videos even before
any pregnancy was confirmed.  These same two were very vague about
the services they provided.  When asked over the phone whether they
would provide any information on abortion, we were told simply just
to come in and talk about it.

In fairness, the third center (a Birthright facility) was fair and up-front
about their anti-abortion affiliation.

But these are odds I wouldn't bank on.  Better to go to Planned Parenthood,
where they *will* help you with an unplanned pregancy, fairly and without
deception.

The Pearson Foundation (which runs a chain of CPCs) publishes a book
on how to set up a CPC.  This book explicitly says not to tell prospective
clients that the Center is pro-life.  It also says, "Too much information
may sometimes cause her not to come in."  The manual also advises that the
office should look like that of an abortion clinic. [*]

--Jay T Stein

[*] Quotes from the Robert J. Pearson book, "How to Start and Operate a
Pro-life Pregancy Counseling Center" were shown on _Prime Time Live_.
I'm quoting the title from memory, so it might not be exactly right.
Pearson's foundation runs some 200 centers nationally.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:19:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.043340.25301@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[Lots of stuff deleted]
>>
>>>Where's the disclaimer about just how limited your "knowledge" is, Larry?
>>>And what's this "we" bit? Is that a royal "we", or are you (both) turning 
>>>schizophrenic on me now?
>>>
>>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.
>
>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
>people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
>personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
>journals, by all means do so...
>
Kevin, in the common parlance of t.a, you are a hypocritical lying
twit. Since you consider common parlance to be sufficiently accurate
for this forum, then you will, of course, stop trying to deny the
labels you have been given, correct?
Why don't you just admit you were wrong in the first place Kevin? You
wouldn't look half as stooopid if you did.

--
                  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: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:25:45 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|>If you feel that the risk involved with driving is too great, you have 
>|>a right to stop driving.  If a woman feels that her pregnancy is posing 
>|>to great a risk to her life, she has a right to have an abortion and 
>|>stop being pregnant.

>|Do you think any of this stuff through before you post it?  I do NOT have
>|the right to FORCE YOU to stop driving.  YOU might run me over when I'm walking
>|down the street.  YOU might slam your care into my kitchen when I'm eating
>|dinner.  YOU might kill my mother.  Hacking a baby into pieces amounts to the
>|same thing. [...]

>Meaning that you "do NOT have the right to FORCE [hsims] to stop"
>obtaining an abortion.  Quite right!

Are you for real?  The issue is whether or not Heather has the right to
FORCE her baby to die (ie. have it murdered).

>By the way, no babies are involved in abortion.  Babies haven't
>reached puberty, after all, and so can't possibly be pregnant.
>And I also assume babies aren't capable of being doctors.

"Hello, McFly??"  Did I dream this post?  Your ignorance is baffling.

>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
>cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Hmmm.  Maybe if teenagers were being raised with those mysterious
 things called "morals" then "no" would work.


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -  



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:13:14 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>
>>
>>But how can women approach economic
>>parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
>>unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
>>workplace?

>Pray tell, how would the mandating of certain abortion METHODS, e.g. 
>C-section versus D&E, "hamper women in the workplace"? This discussion 
>_is_ focussed on late-term abortions, isn't it?

Are you aware that C-section is invasive surgery, requiring a rather
significant incision?  The recovery time for C-section (as for any
surgery) varies widely, from out of bed in a few days, to a lifetime
of significant pain.  The D&E, on the other hand, does not require
the cutting and resewing of muscle, skin, and membrane that a C-section
does.

This is aside from any economic concerns, of course.

>								- Kevin

            -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:08:13 GMT

In article <C0CsEs.6GB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S.
Parker) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>
.  
>
>Maybe this guy is ignorant of medical definitions?  A "fetus" is "The
>individual unborn organism carried within the womb in the later stages of its
>development" according to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary.

So is "child" according to Webster's Ninth Collegiate.  Duelling dictionaries
can be fun but ambiguous.


>>                                                        In an ideal world,
>>say in 100 years, where all of society has accepted that babies are alive
>>and "human" from fertilization, we could THEN impose punishments on women
>>who pay for abortions.  In that society which has accepted abortion as
murder,
>>where that is taught in school and by parents, then your contention would
>>apply.  As it stands right now, most women are victims right along with their
>>babies that are killed.  
>
>Maybe you should have yourself frozen for 100 years so you can come out into
>this wonderful society you predict.  

Heather, you don't have to stoop to name calling to make your point.

>I love the way people have to be *taught*
>that abortion is murder.  I guess even you realize that it is not natural to
>feel so, but must be specifically taught that way for people to believe it.

I don't find this so contradictory, Heather.  There is a tremendous ignorance,
still with regard to human development.  Gut feel is not a basis for life and
death decisions.  

- Paul




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:41:59 GMT

In <29568@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29531@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>>Abortion is either wrong, or it is not.

>>Here's your mistake. No serious ethical questions are this absurdly
>>simple.

>I made it simple so there would be no mistakes in interpretation. You
>seem to move about in absolutes.

>>Compare: The use of force is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong,
>>you may not use force to prevent someone from killing you. If it is not
>>wrong, then anyone who wants may use force however he wants.

The point, Mark, is that taking nothing else into consideration - the
use of force may be wrong. However, not all functions are of equal
priority. The right of self preservation takes precedence over most
others, therefore I may use force to protect myself from a murderer.

A general failing in t.a, discussing a single point as if it existed
in a vacuum. Rights, responsibilities, laws, etc. are all intertwined
sometimes in ways no one intended.

>You said it was allowed in the case of rape. If it is ok there, then
>there is no logical reason to disallow it in other cases. (Recall that
>the fetus itself has no significant differences whether it is conceived
>willingly or unwillingly) In the above force case, someone is again
>trying to propagate something onto another (sounds a lot like a fetus
>usurping the mother's resources for its own needs, doesn't it) and something
>unsavory must be done to halt it. (I've never claimed that use of force
>or abortion is a "nice" thing)

>BTW, the force arguement, if you support it, also directly covers abortion.
>It is a much shorter step than the one between supporting capital punishment
>and banning abortion. It is also much more logical.

>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.

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:09:22 GMT

>sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>>I just can't go with you on this one.  Please help me understand.
>>What is it about being a fetus that renders one less morally
                                                       ^^^^^^^
>>significant than when one becomes a neonate?
>
>>Is it:	1) Dependence upon the mother for sustenance?
>>	2) Anatomical connection to the mother via the placenta?
>>	3) Occupation of (and expansion of) one of the mother's
>>		pelvic cavities?
>>	4) Alteration of the mother's metabolism?
>>	5) Danger to the mother resulting from impending parturition?
>>	6) Some combination of all or none of the above?

Notice the use of the word morally. This is key. Abortion is, IMO,
strictly an issue of morality, and as such, the government has 
no business placing any restrictions on abortion.

If you can not demonstrate that abortion has a deleterious effect
on society, then you have no business arguing against abortion, unless
you wish the government to legilate all morality. I certainly don't.

Robert Johnston



Newsgroups: talk.abortion