HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 15:15:13 GMT

In a previous article, markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) wrote:
>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.


Plenty of women is this country would still seek abortions if they were 
illegal.  We don't all live in Happy Camper land, even here in the U.S.

And don't forget the Romanian women who died from complications of their
pregnancies.  Even today in the U.S., women die from such things.  If 
abortions were illegal the number would likely be much higher.  Even if you 
leave an exception for the life of the pregnant woman, there is no clear way 
to predict which woman will die and which won't.  Some women will die because 
their risk was considered too small to qualify for the exception.  Some women 
will die because of unexpected complications.  How can you call yourself 
pro-life when you're willing to sacrifice the lives of women?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:22:47 GMT

In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () 
whines:

}P. S. How come nobody hazes Mr. Cochran for his userid Merlin?

Because "Merlin" is way cool, whereas "vengeanc" is just plain
stoopid.  Now you know...


--
       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: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:27:59 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.180930.5328@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|> In article <1i9nd0INNsom@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>|> >   You won't mind, then, if I choose to go bludgeon to death a million
>|> >and a half baby seals tonight.  How I love to see the body parts fly!
>|> >
>|> I must have made a wrong turn someplace. I could have *sworn* I was in
>|> talk.abortion, not talk.animal.rights...
>|> BUT what the hell, I'll give it a shot...
>|> Those baby seals are not *your own* body either bozo...
>|> Why do you have such a hard time differentiating between your body and
>|> others?

>Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
>body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
>definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
>and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
>to grow to any given level of maturity.

Well, we will give you the right to kill any baby seals that are inside your
body and attatched by a placenta.

As for that zygote...I never heard that human gestation could now be done
outside the womb; I must have missed the big announcement of this amazing new
technology.

The truth is, there is no way that zygote could achieve much maturity at all
without drawing on the resources of the "mother" (possibly a surrogate).  If
you must make arguments about the future potential of things, at least try to
be realistic.

>// John Townsend

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:48:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.040842.13694@netcom.com> 
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>>In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> 
>>johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>>> Abortion, among other things, reflects and contributes to the cheapening of
>>> human life in society, the natural consequence of which is that individuals
>>> become more likely to take or abuse the lives of others when others are in
>>> conflict with the individual's other desires.  

>> There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>> about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>> of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  

> Excellent reasons for abortion to remain legal and affordable, and
> encouraged.  

It seems obvious to me that the availability of abortion didn't
prevent the deaths of these children.  These children were killed 
because their parents didn't place a value on human life, much in
the same way as people who support abortion rights. 

> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
> the woman had had an abortion.  

There are several errors in your statements; the most obvious is
that an 8 week-old child has a brain.  

Secondly, you offer a false dichotomy between killing the child 
when it's legal, and when it's illegal.  No child has to be killed. 

And what you would rather have happen, didn't happen.  You can
wish that these children had been legally killed, but your wishes
can't turn back the hands of time.  


>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:02:07 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
>body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
>definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
>and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
>to grow to any given level of maturity.

Oh, cool.  Since you believe this so strongly, I take it you'll have no
objection if a woman removes the fetus intact, and leaves you to provide
"adequate nutrition and a safe environment".  I mean, hell, if it's that
easy and it's not part of her body anyway...

>Given any thought lately to what might have happened if abortion had been legal
>and morally acceptable when Bill Clinton's father died while little Billy was
>swimming through his second trimester, leaving a single mother without any
>welfare or job skills?  There would have been no "Hope" for Billy.

Please spare us your fantasies.

>// John Townsend 

                     -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:15:05 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>pointless or self-contradictory?


Uh, no.

See, people who do believe in absolute ethical standards BELIEVE in absolute
ethical standards and don't need to get into debates.  From their point of
view, there is nothing to debate.

So, people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards are the only 
people left to debate ethical standards.  We provide a valuable service
to an otherwise silent world..... (-:

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:02:23 GMT

> = mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Some abortion statistics according to the Abortion Surveillance Report of the
>Centers for Disease Control:

>o  75,000 admitted having had at least three previous abortions.

Ie. about 5%

>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW in 
>1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in 
>World War II.

o "unborn infant" ?!  What is this?  Double speak?
   Do you make no distinction between a zygote and a new-born human (infant)?

o  about 88% of these "infants" were less than 12 weeks away from
   conception.  Care to explicitly equate these "infants" with born humans?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:17:01 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Well, first let my point out that lots of folks who are pro-life,
>are pro-life for purely NON-religious reasons.   There are plenty of
>non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
>lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
>I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>the human race, something of of great value.

And what about the people who have seen all the evidence you describe,
indeed have even carried and delivered children, and still do not favor
legislation against abortion?

No wait, let me guess.  "Their hearts have been hardened by Satan."

>Suzanne Forgach

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:12:18 GMT

No longer befuddling because of our familiarity with the dork, Dougie
AGAIN defends christianity as if his mother was herself an evangelist.

> = [Doug "Christian Atheist" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>> I know several people who reject nearly every
>>> aspect of the religion, except for the principle that they must marry
>>> a jewish person.  I really would appreciate an explanation for this.

>> Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.

>Why is that, Margolis?  What do you have against Christianity?  

He thinks it sucks, stupid.  What do you think he has against it?  

If Larry sees like I do:

He sees Morons for Jesus everyday on t.a.  He sees the religious
right-wing fucking up America.  He sees lying "atheists" like you
rabidly defending Xianity for his pro-life Frantic Fundies, and fundies
in general so cloyingly preachy it makes you want to puke. 

He sees "christian" fanatics as the large majority of pro-life forced-birthers.
He sees a theocracy being threatened ONLY by "christian" fascists.  He
sees some "christian" organizations - esp. the scary and silent Pat Robertson
movement - as needing their tax exemptions removed, and the terrorists
themselves investigated.

I know, for I am Larry's Optic Camera and Moral Grinder.  

And I, for one, am sick of these cowardly losers and their silent
agendas hiding behind the word "christianity".  There's NOTHING
religious about these smug assholes, and nothing we need in society from
them.

[I haven't commented on the aspects of christianity that are so silly to
me as to be laughable...but really, it's the way Xtianity is *twisted*
to fulfill hateful agendas that just PISSES ME OFF.  Not that people
practice it.)

Return Christianity to the Christians!  And leave the rest of us to our
own beliefs.  

(This slogan will join "54-40 or fight!" and "Remember the Maine!" as 
killer battle slogans.)

(Possibly not.)

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:20:58 GMT

Now you've done it.  Our Holy Father, the most Reverend Doug Holtsinger,
is liable to reprimand you and assert that Roe vs Wade allows unrestricted
abortion throughout pregnancy, or somesuch.  He is also known to disclaim
that he is more Catholic than the pope.  Then again, in his infinite
mercy he may choose to ignore your terribly uninformed and inaccurate
opinion.   

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: DODie attempts to smear me, and fails.
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:41:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.191843.19966@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.004814.17863@news.columbia.edu> 
>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
>>>> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. 
>
>>>  "The baby's organs were not being donated.  Doctors had said
>>>   Baby Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants
>>>   by the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>>>   found."
>>>  
>>>   The Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
>
>> Doug, this was AFTER several days of her organs deteriorating due
>> to her body being unable to sustain them. This is commonly known as
>> death.Lets kill you and see how your organs look in a week.
>
>The article clearly states that the baby's organs were not
>being donated partly because NO matching recipients had
>been found.  Mark Cochran appears to have manufactured
>his claim that there had been matching recipients. 
> 
No DODie, you are wrong. The court case determined that organs could
not be donated until after legal brain death had occured, by which
time the organs were no longer suitable. 
As for your claim that I manufactured the recipients, I will say it
again. I repeted information I got from people directly invovled in
the case, and I trust their word far more then I trust the accuracy of
your newspaper account.

--
                  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: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates the truth
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:07:20 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan9.234254.8883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

> Over 30 states have,
> in fact, passed laws which are still in force, regulating the
> performance of third trimester abortions. 

    "According  to  a  1979  survey  by  Jeanie  Rosoff  of  Planned
   Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 30 states have laws regu-
   lating third-trimester abortions. Some of these laws prohibit  or
   strictly  limit  abortions after the fetus has reached viability.
   Some require doctors to try to save  abortion  live-born  babies.
   Only a few states have both types of laws.

     In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
   tional.   Others  obviously  would  be, in light of Supreme Court
   rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
   tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
   individual doctor."

   Abortion: The Dreaded Complication, PART II
   Originally appearing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981
   by Liz Jeffries and Rick Edmonds
   Reprinted in The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621

   ----


>Mark Cochran          


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:05:52 GMT

In article <bob1.726512379@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>
>And what this young puppy can't seem to get into his head that even
>some former fetus' would have approved abortion. In my own case,
>had I been sentient and had I been consulted it would have been a
>simple choice. My Mother's health was poor, there were three siblings
>to care for, and there was my Father who would have been bereft.
>
>As it turned out, I'm here and Mother made it to her 91st birthday,
>but the last 40 years were in constant pain from Padgett's disease.
>I'll never know how much I contributed to that.

The desire to kill oneself is quite different than the desire to kill another.

- Paul



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:41:22 GMT

In article <C0FBv6.DnF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>The issue is the life of the preborn.
>The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
>protect their atrocities.  

It's very nice of you to admit to the entire world that you are a misogynist.
I'm sure your therapist will be pleased that you are at least facing your
problems.
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:22:49 GMT

In <1993Jan7.224938.4424@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>>
>>
>>Mark Pundurs


>In other words, the woman got caught doing something she shouldn't have, and we
>need to punish her for it.  If she wasn't "doin it" voluntarily, then there's
>no need for punishment.

Straw man alert! That's not my argument.

>If there was an effecient, effective, low-cost alternative to abortion, like
>some form of embryonic transfer, would you still be against it, if the woman
>chose it?  

No.

>Or does your punishment theory extend that far?

I have no "punishment theory."

>Face it, anyone who advocates "they woman had no choice in rape or incest"
>has absolutely no grounds arguing the "fetus is a person" theory 

Wrong -- as my initial argument showed.

>ond in
>only outfor revenge against the perfectly willing woman.  No two ways around
>it.  The argument is so thinly veiled it's pathetic.

Please demonstrate (you haven't yet).

>Jennifer

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:49:00 GMT

updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>
>If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
>fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
>and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
>OK to terminate before but not after ?)

Easy!  On the day before its birth, the fetus is still inside its
mother's body.  Physicially, of course, there's no real difference.

I never said it was OK to terminate the fetus on the day before birth,
though.  Why would you need to, and besides, how could you justify the
risk to the mother?  I support the woman's right to choose to remove
the fetus from her body at any time during the pregnancy.  If she
wants to have it removed a few days before it would normally be born,
then just induce the birth artificially.  (This is what Marilyn
Quayle, an avid pro-lifer, did.)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:48:50 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>
>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>*not* a person. As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?

Is a newborn sentient?  Is a person in a coma sentient?   Is a sleeper
sentient?  Is a mentally retarded person sentient?  

>>
>I see that in addition to not being able to define the limits of your
>own body, you don't under stand the difference between pro-choice and
>pro-abortion. Gordon is pro-abort, I'm pro-choice.

Conceded.  

>But since you claim you're looking things up and curing your
>ignorance, then post some of this mythical evidence that shows that a
>fetus is a person.

I really don't see the point.  It's all been said before.  Viability,
personhood, quickening, whatever...

If God himself plopped down in front of you and said abortion was wrong
you'd still find a way to ignore Him.  

[Lotsa Lotsa stuff deleted]  


>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -   

Newsgroups: talk.abortion