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, 27 Aug 1992 00:16:21 GMT

From article <1992Aug22.115838.2156@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> In article <1992Aug21.192541.10624@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>> Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
>> to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
>> to death!
> 
> What about the child which is produced?  

What about the child that IS?


> Even if s/he dies shortly thereafter
> it will suffer.  The family will have to endure his/her ensuing death.
> Someone has to pay the extra bills.  It isn't fun.  My second cousin
> Kirk was born with a terrible defect which was supposed to allow him
> less than a year to live.  He is constantly in excruciating pain, is
> always drowned in pain killers, more than enough to kill a child, but I
> believe he has produced some sort of resistance.  My cousin and her family
> still visit him, even though he can be nothing more than a vegetable,
> and if he's anything more than that then his hell is all that much worse.
> He requires the attention and time of hospital staff to keep comfortable.
> He just sits and drools.  I doubt he could think with the mix of pain
> and drugs.  
> 
> Kirk is three years old now.  He still hasn't died.  Had his parents
> known of this defect beforehand, I am positive they would rather have
> aborted him than to put everyone, especially Kirk, through this certain 
> hell.


I'll bet you anything that the nurses (not to mention his parents) love him
on a daily basis, and he knows it.   For you to second guess the "quality"
of his life is nothing less than Gestapo tactics.   For you to suggest that
your cousin would have reverted to killing her own baby is the biggest insult
you could have possibly slung at her.

Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".


> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.083433.6910@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# Patriarchal men need not give up control over women's reproductive
# systems to retain his ability to escape responsibility toward women
# and children, when women and infant children are expendable.

That would be `their' not `his' in the above sentence.  Check the
Date: line for the reason I allowed such an egregious grammar err to
get past the `Post Article?' dialogue.

Go ahead, Mr. Chaney -- flame me for it.  I dare you.

-- 
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: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:31:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug22.115838.2156@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> In article <1992Aug21.192541.10624@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forga
>ch) writes:
>>> From article <23919@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bens
>e):
>>>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>> Obviously Ron, you've just refuted yourself, since if the baby is going
>>> to die anyway due to some defect, there is no reason whatsoever to put it
>>> to death!

In case ou posting software was down, and you missed my response to
this, here it is:
In <24043@oasys.dt.navy.mil> I wrote:

Thank you for finally showing your true compassionate side. You would
will suffering, pain, and torment on others rather than relieving them,
especially when it doesn't buy them anything. You must be the coldest,
creulest person on the net, in seeking to force a woman to concieve
a child, carry it to term, the whole while knowing it will die shortly
after birth, while living in incredible amounts of pain, and pretty
much forcing additional suffering of extending this condition by an
unnecessary amount. You, Frau F, have just earned a spot next to Himmler. 
Enjoy it.

>> What about the child which is produced?

>What about the child that IS?

Scuse?!? What child? Fetus, maybe?

[...] (extremely touching story about Brian's cousin deleted)

>I'll bet you anything that the nurses (not to mention his parents) love him
>on a daily basis, and he knows it.   For you to second guess the "quality"
>of his life is nothing less than Gestapo tactics.   For you to suggest that
>your cousin would have reverted to killing her own baby is the biggest insult
>you could have possibly slung at her.

>Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

Frau F, from the above statement, and the earlier one from several posts
back, may you suffer all that which you wish others to suffer, as you
appear to lack any compassion at all. Leave the definition of what a
life and a reason for living it to those who have at least a drop of
compassion and reason, and let us decide for ourselves what we choose,
and for those in our care. How you torture those you're responsible
for will rest on your head.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:52:22 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep3.020451.11980@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
smccabe@longfellow.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep2.191744.26316@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> >In article <kzwy53m@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> >>
> >>>>Doug Holtsinger
> >>
> >>>>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> >>>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> >>>> we want to be precise)..."
> >>>>   -- Gloria Feldt,
> >>>>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
> >>
> >>>>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
> >>>>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
> >>>     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
> >>>     -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
> >>>     -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here>
> >>      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
> >       -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
>        	-- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)
          -- lefty@apple.com (Lefty)

> >>What is it about Judaism that bothers you, Doug?
> >
> >Yeah!  What Chris said!
> 
> Ditto

Do you intend to answer the question, Doug?  Or are you only wearing that
swastika armband in private?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:15:09 GMT

In article <adams.714926757@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

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

>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>> right to kill a member of the human species.  
>
> What you don't seem to understand is that the Constitution does NOT give
> rights.  The Constitution was designed as a document that was to limit
> government.  It assigned a LIMITED set of powers to the government and that
> was it.

Yes, the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the Federal 
government.  However it was not designed to limit the power of the
states, except as specified in the Bill of Rights. The states were
still free to enact legislation which was not prohibited by the
Constitution. 

Roe v. Wade took away most of the state's power to regulate abortion,
and in the process, it created a constitutional right to kill certain
members of the human species.  An unquestioned right to kill human 
beings is a very dangerous concept, in my opinion. 

>Steve Adams


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: BornBabies - legal - IRS
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:11:25 GMT

lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
] 
] 	Unless the tax laws have changed again, the IRS considers a fetus a

for the slow readers, a born baby is NOT a fetus.

an Unborn fetus is a fetus...

] person after delivery (whether by birth or abortion).  If a woman aborts
] and the child is alive when it comes out, she may declare it a dependent on
] her income taxes for that tax year.  Of course, the child will not live
] long so she also has it declared legally dead.  I am not sure if a birth
] certificate is needed on this or not, but it is the law.
 

Bryon

1. thank you for ending the abortion debate....

2. now we can all get on with life, no more reputable source
than the IRS can be found....

3. as Dr. len "PotentialAntiStateTerrorist" howard has pointed
out, if there is a 'live birth' from an abortion then yes there
will need to be a 'birth certificate' - and just as with PACCT[1]
records on Crays, this too will need to have an 'end of process'
record promulgated, in the manner of a 'death certificate.'[2]

ciao
drieux


[1] its that time of month again kampers, and my accounting
code is off and running again....

[2] persons, like programs and processes, should terminate
gracefully or they will leave Zombies around and annoy INIT.


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:25:39 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

cj@sgi.com threatens linda birmingham:
[...]
-> If you're going to do his dirty work for him, I will
-> reluctantly killfile you, too.

oh great! now we can have the killfile-size wars with
cj and chaneyhall. it'll be just like the old dick-size
wars.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:46:01 GMT

jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:

>I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
>and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
>people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
>wanted a boy instead? Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
>to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
>a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
>other countries.

>Joel

India advertises amniocentesis as a way to avoid female children, when
combined with abortion.  Currently, about 15% of the US population supports
sex-selection abortion.  By 1977, 30% of genetic counsellors said they 
would be willing to refer those who wanted to use amnio to select the sex
of their child to a doctor.  This was up from 5% in 1972.  To my knowledge,
no study of genetic counsellors involving this issue has been made since
1977.  There are no statistics being gathered on the prevelance of sex-
selection abortion in the US today.  Evidence to show that it is being 
undertaken in a significant way may or may not exist, but it would have
to be inferred from underlying statistical population studies involving
and accounting for a host of confounding factors.  

The long and short of it is, sex selection abortion could easily account
for 10% of abortions if we believe that people in national polls act 
a) on the advice of genetic counsellors AND/OR
b) as they say they would act when talking to national pollsters.
It is impossible to verify either assumption, however, without a tremendous
amount of work.  No one is doing that work.

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:35:52 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <nyikos.715469156@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <Btrrt3.4w5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >You have an open mind, but you repeat Willke's slurs in a public
> >forum.  Right.  
> 
> Well, how else am I to get at the truth?  You have a perfect right to
> post the coroner's slurs--sorry, cheap shot, let me start again--
> 
> You have a perfect right to post the coroner's account of what happened,
> and also why he considers Willke's judgment to be fantasy.  Let the
> readers judge for themselves who has the stronger case.  

Sounds good.  Does the coroner who examined the body and whose
job it is to examine bodies and determine the cause of death
have greater credibility when he gives his conclusions about
how Becky Bell died or does John Willke, who is quite clearly
biased and is known to have lied on at least one occassion to
further his cause, have greater credibility?

(As for Willke's lying, there was an anti-abortion rally in
DC some years ago where he was caught lying on videotape as
well as being overheard by several reporters.  One of his
minion had asked what figure to give out regarding attendance
and he said something along the lines of "We have about 50,000
here so let's say it was 200,000."  Now you can question my
veracity on this, but it would be easy to confirm.  Look up
abortion in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature and
check for stories in the NY Times, where I read about this
fable of Willke's, from a few years ago.  I can't remember the
year, but this one wouldn't take much time and fortunately
my local library would be up to it, so I'll try to get
over there.  Not this weekend, though.  I have to be in PA
this weekend.)

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:30:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.211935.12233@bmw.mayo.edu> 
bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>> right to kill a member of the human species.  

> Roe v. Wade did not create a constitutional right to
> kill a member of the human species. It expands the 
> boundries of the right to privacy.

Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain 
members of the human species by expanding on the boundaries
of the right to privacy. 

> The constitution empowers the government to wage war
> (organized killing of members of the human species).

People have constitutional ``rights'', governments don't.  

> The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
> each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
> not prohibited, it is a right of the people.

The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?


>--Bruce


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A little fatherly Advice...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:13:20 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] In article <1992Sep1.215256.15400@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
] >In article <78826@ut-emx.uucp>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
] 
] >>John, you DO realize that the fetus/embryo/baby/whatever is completely
] >>disjoint from the father's body, don't you?
] 
] >Nope.  Part of me now exists PHYSICALLY separated from me, but it is
] >still a part of me, and I have a GREAT deal of interest in what happens
] >to it.
] 
] But....  But "disjoint" and "physically separated"....  And "a part
] of" him....  Never mind.
] 
] Over to you, drieux.

Thank you Beth....

Once upon a time I told my father that I wanted to go to the USA.

He was a little distraught about it....

I asked my mother to kindly take that picture of me,
from when I was ten, wearing a 'smash hat' leaning up
on the reanault out of his 'date book' as I was no
longer that ten year old kid. 

I was now a brilliant 19 year old kid, who had survived
bombings, plagues, pestilence, secret police raids, cholera epidemics, and
had bummed around the PLANET and found him based upon a
message: "Meet Me in Bremerhaven." { can we say, 'uuh 
dad, a little more on the specifics would help... ' 
but I was still daddy's boy, and I'd find him... It was
not like he would be working a deep cover or anything...
and it was only one seaport  on the northern coast
of another country to find him in... [1]}

And then The HORROR of HORRORS occurred to me one night.

I was bunking david down for the night, and in his 
world view, daddy took second place to a cute little
stuffed bunny rabbit.....

You know, some times kids will just break their parents Hearts....


I had been the Sun and the Moon, The Dawning Light, The
central focus of His Existence! I had Read to Him! I had
fed Him! I had blayed with various colours of fabric and
textures... and... I had played Wagners Gotterdamerung!
{Ok, so he did eat a chapter of a Poli Sci Text, and I
basically agreed with him, that NO INSPERATION or commitment
made reading from a text book on cobol interesting....
And Yes, I should Have seen It coming.... }

You Know, they are not like Pets...

They grow and have a life of their own...

And the best that we can do is be friends...

ciao
drieux


[1] NO! its not like I am in the habit of misplacing
my parents... its just that, well, they have a habit
of wandering off and all.... 

'to lose one parent is regretable,
but to lose both of them is sheer negligence.'

{While we are down this way, Why Can't Parents be
respectable like they Use to BE! Why Grandfather
was running around with some mere sprite of a 
girl nearly 17 years his junior when he was 94...

They Just Don't Make them Like they Use to... }



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:38:52 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
	<BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu>

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes

>In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis
<ml3e+@andrew.cmu
>.edu> writes:
>[self-righteousness and included text deleted]
> 
>#In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
>#Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
>#yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
>#Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
>#why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>#a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
>#The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
>#reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
>#greater pain.
> 
>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>woman and is affecting her health.
> 

Legal reasoning on abortion has also often considered the concept of
viability.  Third trimester fetuses are usually considered viable.  Why
magic occurs at birth that suddenly makes killing a bad thing.

>[more included text deleted]
> 
>Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
>euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
>two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
>rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming

Ms. Garvin, I am quite aware of the difference between infanticide and
euthansia.  I am also aware that the difference can be quite fuzzy.  Why
can't you be aware that the line between third trimester abortion is
also quite fuzzy. Its fuzziness is not some plot devised by Mr.
Holtsinger to upset "pro-choice" arguments.

Perhaps, I should state my beliefs more clearly.  I believe infantcide
for severely deformed infants is appropriate if it corresponds to the
wishes of the parents.  I believe in the era before modern medicine,
infanticide was in some cultures the safest way for women to kill an
unwanted child.  I also believe it was an appropriate moral choice for
them to make.  I suspect that relative to the technology we have today
in the United States that it is legally appropriate to make infanticide
of babies without defects a crime.  I would also hope that the courts
would deal more leniently with a mother who commits infanticide than
other murderers.

MIchael Loomis