HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:00:23 GMT

From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
> 
>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  

1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.


> It
> is also a fact that practically ALL of them are medically needed.

This is garbage Mark.   Since we are talking third trimester here, post
viability by definition, and all third trimester abortions include either
inducing labor or doing a c-section (after the baby has been put to death
of course), there is NO MEDICAL REASON to insist on putting the baby to
death before inducing the labor or doing the c-section.

You loose.  Just by not using your head.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:36:21 CDT


In article <1992Aug18.140511.17562@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> I think you might be able to add Bill Clinton to your list of
> Democrats who have changed their positions on abortion.  Here's
> what my local paper had to say about Clinton's changing stance 
> on abortion:
> 
>   "Clinton's aides, meanwhile, also have used the word evolution
>    to describe their candidate's shift in views on abortion.  As
>    governor of Arkansas, Clinton declared that ``I am opposed to
>    abortion.''  In 1989, he signed state legislation requiring
>    parental notification.  As a candidate for president, Clinton
>    has moved to a more clear-cut abortion-rights position.  He
>    said he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions for poor
>    women." 
> 
>    The Raleigh News and Observer, Monday, August 17, 1992
> 
> It appears that the radical pro-abortionists in the Democratic party 
> have forced Mr. Clinton to embrace a minority-held position. 

Really?  Do you have any evidence to support your statement?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:21:18 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Larry Margolis writes:

>> Of course it is.  You asked what I was talking about, and I told you.

>Try addressing the substance of my argument instead of resorting to
>character assassination. 

Your self-assassination is hardly under Larry's control.

------

Let me try this one again:     

"I call on the resting soul
 Of Galileo
 King of Night Vision
 King of Insight                  (*not* "his time" :)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:24:18 GMT

> = (Wes Orr "Out of the Water" writes:

>Patrickkk:

>You are a jerk for not apologizing.  If your so tough why don't you 
>march your caucasian ass out here where we can "talk."  

Quite ironic.  Mr. Dipstick here responds to Patrick's already-admitted
mistake by...doing the same thing.  And forewarned, no less.

Go, Wes, young man.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: repost
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:32:29 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  <1992Aug21.165507.4104@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <nyikos.714165100@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>
> }                                                                  I still
> }say that a strong selling point was that
> }the overwhelming majority of illegal abortions were very safe.
> }In fact they were safer than all too many abortions today, since
> }abortionists have much less to fear from a botched abortion today.
>
> My recollection is quite a bit different.  I have no idea if there are
> statistics concerning the relative safety of abortions and the legal
> status of abortion, nor do I have the foggiest where one would begin
> looking for such.  However I am not sure I understand your point.
> Are you claiming abortion should be illegal because illegal abortions
> would be safer than legal ones?  I'll admit, I haven't heard that one
> before...

I don't know where Mr. Nyikos gets these bizarre notions, but if we look
at the mortality rate for *legal* abortions, we can see that they are a
lot safer today than they were 20 years ago.  Since *legal* abortions
today are a lot safer than *legal* abortions then, I don't see how he
can claim that *illegal* abortions then were safer.

MORTALITY RATES FROM LEGAL ABORTION AND CHILBIRTH

each per 100,000

_Year_ _Abortion_      _Childbirth_
 1971   11.0            14.9
 1972    4.1            15.2
 1973    3.4            12.5
 1974    2.9            12.4
 1975    2.8            10.3
 1976    0.9            10.2
 1977    1.3             9.8
 1978    0.6             9.7
 1979    1.2             8.0
 1980    0.6             7.5
 1981    0.4             7.2
 1982    0.8             7.9
 1983    0.3             8.0

Source: Universal Almanac, 1990.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.213604.21970@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

|> 
|> Premature infants that have been born between 21 and 24 weeks have
|> been known to survive.  The reported "third trimester" figures that 
|> you cite do not represent all post-viability abortions, but only those 
|> performed after 24 weeks. 
|>

Infants born prior to 24 weeks are refered to as "salvagable", "high risk"
and "critical" by the members of the obstetric profession that deal with them.
The cost for the  care required to keep them alive is measured in the 
100,000's of dollars. Also, for an accurate assessment of survival rates, you
need to look at the numbers that survive beyond one year of age not the 
number that are delivered alive.
  

...lines deleted...
|> 
|> The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood,
|> which is one of the largest abortion providers in the United States.
|> 

Care to support your statement that Planned Parenthood is one of the
largest abortion providers in the U.S.? A non-biased source (that is 
a source without a like to either side of the pro-choice/life debate)
please.  

-- 
--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: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.151939.28848@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bsz9nx.41y.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#
#I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
#In case you forgot, here it is again:

[text deleted]

I saw it, Holtsinger.  I also saw you provide the proof by fabricating 
evidence yet again

I guess it's part of your master plan to make a fool out of
yourself.  It's working, by the way.

Susan

(I can imagine what would happen if one of DOD's committee
saw any of his Usenet articles...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:16:09 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <23872@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Bir
>>mingham) writes: 
>>>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.
> 
>>So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
>>outweigh the damages?
> 
> What benefits occur to the woman, Nyikos? [remember, we're talking about
> those who don't want a baby] 

Well I don't mean to sound idealistic or mushy or anything silly like that,
but Lisa (my fiancee if ya didn't know) never ever wanted to have a baby,
but she had one anyway (yknow was an accident then she didn't abort
(but had considered it)), and she gained quite a few benefits.
She has found a lot of love and security in Zachary.  Zachary also
was the person who brought us together, so without her baby, she wouldn't
have her newly found family (family to be kinda since I'm not there yet),
she wouldn't have found new direction in life, and she would have lost
her identity (it was kinda disappearing, but then she found it again
(it was under the couch, eh?))....  Also she got a much bigger tax return...
Are those good benefits?

> Also, I noticed you never responded to
> rocker's post about various unkindly things that pregnancy does to the
> body. I also wish, at this point, that it was possible for you to get
> pregnant, and that you had this occur last week, as I'm fairly sure
> that when faced with the actuality of the postition, your colors would
> change faster than a chameleon's.

But no one can be 100% sure until it actually happens.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Inappropriate name-calling (was Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:06:43 GMT

In article <1684554D.HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> 
HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Get it *right*, Dennis.) writes:

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>>                Shhh, Scott.
>>                We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
>>                you both lie the same way.

> [...]
 
> Come on, Steve.  Let's see just how much of a boy you are.  March your
> fat black ass down here and tell me I'm a liar, to my face.  (I hope
> you don't mind doing it in the presence of a few witnesses, and I hope
> you like being humiliated.  On second thought, why should *I* care what
> you think?  What you get, you won't expect.)

I don't think this kind of name-calling is appropriate.  Your use of 
the phrase "fat black ass" is a highly offensive remark which carries 
racist overtones.  I think you should apologize to Mr. Chaney. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: L. L. BEAN & CONSERVATISM...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 19:49:08 GMT


   This woman is just one more example of the fact that there are
no more conservatives.  There are hordes of morons who call their
stupid puritanism conservatism, but they wouldn't be able to know
what a real conservative was, even if one fell on them!  They all
seem to think that conservatism is nothing other than a knee-jerk
hatred of anything that a liberal might like!  There is not a bit
of independent thinking on the political right in America.  Barry
Goldwater is the last of a dying breed.  And the reason that this
TRUE conservative opposed the republican platform on abortion was
that a true conservative knows that the issue of abortion is none
of government's business! 
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:52:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.204241.20106@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}              Since whether they live or die hinges on it.

Actually, nothing hinges on the politics of this year that we can do
much about, if you don't believe me just read my lips.

The life or death of the "unborn" should never hinge on politics or 
legislation.  Darned if I can figure out why some people who claim 
so much understanding think that is a clever idea...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:17:29 GMT

---
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|This is true.  But since the Democratic platform calls for
|public funding of abortions in Medicare, isn't it fair to call
|that a pro-abortion stance, since they are using tax dollars
|to support that act? 

Only if they actively promote that option over other options,
or cut funding from prenatal care programs & family planning
programs to fund abortion.  Simply enabling women who choose 
abortion to get access to their desired medical care isn't 
"pro-abortion".  It's just sensible health care.

---
cj@eno.wpd.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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Abortion: What does God say?
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:25:05 GMT

Be carefull kids, God/Jesus/Allah/Chrishna/Ra/Zeus/... 
(forgive me for failing to list all the equally valid concepts of "God")
may very well be pissed at anyone so arrogant as to assume that they:
1) comprehend the nature of God
2) know which translation of which Holy book contains the TrueWordOfGod (tm)
3) know how to interpret these words and can comprehend their meaning
4) can speak to other mortals on God's behalf

On the other hand, God may very well be indifferent to our clueless babbling.

Seems common that one person will inform another that God will judge them 
and what the judgment will be, because they know the correct concept of God, 
they know the correct Holy book (written in English, of course), and they 
know the correct interpretation.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Who was "Dennis Hall"?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:34:15 GMT

In article <Bsy4qz.9vE@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

		Shhh, Scott. 
		We know you're posting as Pat Harumphrey because
		you both lie the same way. 

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.163353.6443@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
>and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

And exceptions for his daughters and granddaughters.  They get to
decide, it's their choice.  The rest of American women don't.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: A FRIGGING BLAST HOLE! (Was Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.134958.28706@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes to chaneyhall:

[eeb1, as listed 7 months ago, was on my KILLfile]

>-> But take Kaufman's ravings away, whether or not you
>-> take away yours -- please!  I'm embarrassed that
>-> he's on my side.

WHAT IS THIS?! No more crack in the iron curtain - hell, this is a
hole big enough for even Mark Kaufman's mouth to fit in! 

>i don't believe he is on your side, ms. bartley.

He's on _your_ side, Keegmire. 

Well, I can't say that totally; he knows how to capitalize his
letters. Which makes him an INTELLEGENT raving lunatic hypocritical 
dog-piss sniffing elephant-shit maggot.  

You don't even have that going for you. 

>i believe mr. kaufman opposes legislation to restrict
>abortion.  you support such legislation.
>
>i don't believe mr. kaufman has ever posted that he
>would punish women who have abortions. you have.

REALLY? Bartles actually said that?! Wooooohh, I'd better drop her
outa the killfile NOW. I sense the sound of Ziggy being torn to little
shreds by woman turned skilled net.assassin...

>i don't believe that mr. kaufman has ever suggested
>that there should be fewer abortion rights for stupid
>woman than for other women. you have.

I've GOT to see this.

Popcorn, folks?

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:10:21 GMT

In article <ceZeicS00WBK42TGI7@andrew.cmu.edu> 
ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

> Third trimester abortion and infanticide involve the killing of beings
> not yet in the social order and not yet appropriate objects for ethics.

Why don't infants belong in the "social order"?  Do you believe that
infanticide is not inherently wrong?  

>Michael Loomis 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:40:31 GMT

From article <1992Aug15.203216.8998@csus.edu>, by chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney):
> In article <1992Aug12.224500.25686@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article <92215.152601ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, by Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>:
>>> 
>>> While the majority of the quotes are Canadian, I am
>>> sure Ms. Forgach if you did a little reading on the
>>> topic you will find that feminist organizations
>>> around the world have been lobbying and funding
>>> such initiatives as you described above.  
>>
>>No, Linda.  They've been talking the talk, but they haven't been
>>walking the walk.   Walk into ANY, and I mean ANY abortion alternative
>>organization ANYWHERE, and you will not find even one pro-"choicer" among
>>them.  It always has been and always will be the pro-lifers who provide any
>>non-abortive help to pregnant women in trouble.
> 
> I beg to differ. The Nurturing Network, run by Mary Cunningham ??? (I
> forgot her last name), which supplied a diligent and accomodating
> program to help women with crisis pregnancies (and which is dominated
> vastly by female workers), according to several sources, included
> pro-choice people. 
> 
> Since she's gotten directly involved in pro-life rallies and such,
> since then, I'm not sure if there are any left in TNN anymore. 

Let me make it clear, Steve.  Mary Cunningham is pro-life.  She contributes
to the pro-life movement by providing non-abortive CHOICES for women.  There
are hundreds of things an organization can provide a woman so that she will
not feel cornered into aborting.  Mrs. Cunningham's modus operandi is to shame
universities, corporations, and other organizations, who like to call them-
selves "pro-choice", into providing MORE than that one choice.   Under the
banner of choices for women, she convinces them to actually PROVIDE choices.

Don'tcha get it, Steve?  Most self proclaimed pro-choicers, say like
Rocker/Cathi Cook, are pro-"choice" in name only.   They do NOTHING to
provide women with any choice BUT abortion.   Mary Cunningham is truly
pro-life/pro-choice.  She has always been anti-abortion, but she was
galvanized into action by the miscarriage of her own child.

It was that simple.

Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32439 alt.flame:12185