HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:04:16 GMT

From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>>football.  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
>>to be a remarkably cruel mother.
> 
> Maybe if Suzanne would assume the responsibility of rearing her daughter
> instead of foisting it off on others and using the time to post hateful
> messages to the net, she might learn something about courage, sacrifice,
> and risk.


Jim, you jerk.  I posted my article from home.  Ain'tcha never heard of
modems?  Or are women too stupid in your mind to know how to operate one?
Hell forbid her father and I should share raising our daughter!  Me thinks
you are one of those fellows Bill Clinton was addressing in his speech
who would need to be forced to take responsibilitly for his own children,
since you consider sharing parenthood being "foisted upon".
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:46:35 GMT

---
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
| Notice that Doug apologized to C J but not to Susan.
| Tell us, Doug.  What color is C J's tongue?

I am going to count to 10 before flaming you for this remark.
I'm sure you meant it as an insult of Holtsinger, and not me.
Yes?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Without scheming to do wrong, or to make others unhappy, there may be error, 
and there may be misery.  Thoughtlessness, want of attention to other 
people's feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business." --Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: BUSH
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:26:56 GMT

---
Dougie's doing it again... in newsgroups where he
thinks his reputation won't precede him.

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|In article <BryM3I.MDI@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
|
|>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|
|>>In article <Brt4z3.AKr@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
|>>> Pro-life: yeah right, he's just pandering to the religious right. "We just 
|>>> want to protect that cute little infant's life!" Funny thing how so many 
|>>> cute little babies grow up in the streets of America with no education or 
|>>> hope for a job.

|>>> And how many cute little babies are filling up america's prisons after
|>>> committing really heinous crimes like being black.
|>>> Some life. 

|>> Are you suggesting that black babies can be killed because they might
|>> grow up to become prison inmates? 

Only Holtsinger could take a bitter comment about racism in
American society, and turn it into an accusation that the
poster is racist.  Holtsinger-- master of the twisted words.

|> Please refer to my last follow-up to the same knee-JERK reaction that you've
|> submitted.
|
|Please answer the question directly. Are you suggesting that black babies 
|can be killed because they might grow up to become prison inmates? Your
|last follow-up didn't address the question which I am asking. A "yes"
|or "no" answer would be sufficient.

Actually, the followup did, but Holtsinger deleted it.
Nice guy, that Holtsinger-- really honest.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Who's really doing the Unwanting?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:44:17 GMT

by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>No, the discussion here is about pregnancies that maybe the
>>mothers want, but that _other_ people with agendas don't want.
> 
> Gee, Suzanne, please enlighten us as to who all these _other_ people are...


ANYONE who suggests that abortion will "solve" any third world "problem".
If Planned Barrenhood bothered to ask any of the mothers in those countries,
before presuming to promote abortion as the solution to everything that
maybe these women don't consider problems, they would discover that those
mothers LOVE AND WANT their children!!

The problems are simply food distribution and waste management.

         NOT "there are too many brownskinned babies".

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 12:44:42 GMT


   Since Mr. Jammer Miller has decided that the name of this game
will be "Evaluate the Other Guy's Religion", I'll play along.  If
The Spanish Inquisition, Jim and Tammy Baker, The Crusades, those
good Christians who bomb abortion clinics, Jimmy Swaggart, all of
those priests who have been molesting children over the years, an
indifferent Catholic Church that moves these molesters to another
parish so they can do it again, the good Christians who don their
sheets and go out to burn crosses, labling Jews Christ killers, a
certain Pope Pius XII who spent WWII kissing up to Hitler, and so
much more, is what the enlightenment of Christianity is about, we
prefer our primitive Judaism, thank you.
   And you also accused me of making generalizations about anti's
lack of involvement with REAL children.  So I ask Mr. Jammer what
HE HAS DONE for homeless children, abused children, orphans, kids
born with fetal alchohol sydrome, kids born addicted, babies born
HIV-positive, helping teenage mothers, or anything that resembles
helping REAL people, not just microscopic embryos.
   I do not presume to tell Christians what they should or should
not believe.  I would appreciate it if Mr. Jammer stops trying to
tell me what Jews believed yesterday, or what they believe today.
You don't know what you are talking about.  The fact is that what
you call the old testament happens to be the Bible that Christian
theology disregarded in favor of the New Testament.  There do not
happen to be ANY Christian bibles that have a good translation of
the Hebrew.  So if you want to know anything about what the Bible
of the Jews really means, you will have to learn Hebrew.  Or else
you could stop presuming that you know anything about Judasim, so
you might learn something.
   As a point of information, Judasim does not consider the fetus
to be a person, until childbirth.  Prior to that a pregnant woman
is regarded as only one person.
-- 
"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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Well, I lost that article...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:33:13 GMT


[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
use them against their wills.]

[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
teach about abstinance?]

If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.

If they're going to teach it in terms of "Saving yourself for your future
husband/wife, because sex is for marriage", then no.

If they're going to teach it in terms of "Six is ikky; be abstinant", then no.

If they're going to teach it in terms of "The Bible says..", then no.
--
=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???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:00:54 GMT

From article by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):

[referring to myself, Suzanne Forgach]

> Steve, I think someone so out of touch with reality cannot teach anyone
> anything, so it must be genetic, as all the public school system did
> was teach her how to write (the physical placing of letters on screen,
> not the logical connection of the words formed by those letters into
> whole ideas and sensible paragraphs) and how to do cursory reading,
> although in depth comprehension seems to elude her still.


Ron, I must protest here.   The public schools taught me nothing, as I
did not attend them.   In fact, I am insulted by the suggestion that I
did, knowing what cesspools they were where I lived, and which so many
generally are now.


> Ron

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kimberly@avignon.wri.com (Kimberly Michael)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 23:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul16.214957.1957@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust  
(John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Jul13.164700.20205@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>  
perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
> >>Obviously, after conception, the result has a complete set of genes.
> >>Human genes.  If you feel that more is necesary to make a human, then
> >>I would humbly request that you list the necesary attributes of a
> >>human being.
> >
> >Hmmm... The above definition of "[individual] human" applies to every
> >diploid cell in my body with a nucleus... I must be a mass-murderer!!!!
> 
> A common misconception is that a fertilized egg is no different than
> any other cell in the human body.  Please refer to any good text on
> reproductive biology, and one on genetics.
> 
> The difference is (to simplify it to absurdity) that in a fertilized
> egg, the DNA is not inhibited in the same way as any other cell.
> 
> In other words, all of the information is in both cells, but only a
> sub-set of the information contained in the DNA is allowed to express
> itself.  Different cells have their DNA inhibited in different ways,
> which is how you get different types of cells from the same DNA.
> 
> >Hell, if humanity is in the genetic code only, should identical twins
> >be legally considered *one* person? (*giggle*)
> 
> Obviously, DNA is not sufficient unto itself to differentiate two
> individuals.  At the very least, spatial seperation (and different
> locations) make for different people.
> 
> >.sig
> 
> John
> stevens@uswest.com

Since a woman and a fertilized ovum occupy the same space, then by your  
own reasoning, these are not two different people.  There is no point in  
bending to the will of something that is not a person.  If the woman seeks  
to rid herself of a few cells which are occupying her space, she has the  
right to do so, same as you.

kmbr
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:39:45 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
	<1992Jul22.132341.13407@menudo.uh.edu>

>Jim Miller
>In <1992Jul22.101440.23207@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU
writes:
> 
>> In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> >But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>> >In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>> >of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. I think  
>> >it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily autonomy 
>> >must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  
>> 
>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>> it was autonomous.[deletion]
> 
>  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
>someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
>sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.
> 
>  "Autonomous" can be defined several ways.

Autonomy is not the only issue in this case. With a fetus, the only
person who can nourish it is the pregnant woman, whether she likes it or
not. After the baby is born, anybody can take care of it, and it doesn't
necessarily have to be the woman who gave birth.  This is why I find the
argument "babies are dependent on their mothers, too" to have holes.

Big Al

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:23:49 GMT

In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:

[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]

>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.

Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:16:44 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

> In case anybody missed the beginning of this, Darcy managed to stop sucking
> the pus from his many facial zits just long enough to make a "joke" about
> the sexual molestation that Susan's SO went through as a child.

> He's now thrashing around in his own shit, desperatly trying to backpedal and
> save his ass.

You missed something, Keith.  In what passes for his own mind, Kebbin is
swimming gracefully in a tropical bay somewhere.  He can't recognize his
environment for what it really is, a septic tank brim-full of his verbal
diarrhea.

Hey, Kebbin, nice of you to float to the surface and share with us.  Would
you now hold this concrete block for me?

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Deaths of mothers
X-To: GORDON STORGA
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:29:00 GMT

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
GS> <1992Jun27.204006.4244@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
GS> :
GS> >gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
GS> >GS> Pretty funny stuff, Suzanne.  Why don't you try reading one of those ma
GS> >GS> books you claim to have on fetal development.  Check on when the nervou
GS> >GS> system is capable of transmitting pain and then get back to us.
GS> >
GS> >Eight weeks.

GS> Sorry Will, but myelination doesn't occur until about the 23 week.
GS> Without this the nervous system is a sputtering faltering system, unable
GS> to transmit signals of any significance.


The debate rages on...

Conceivably, we could argue about this until we all go blue in the face, but
I would prefer not to.

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29651 alt.politics.homosexuality:5251 talk.religion.misc:13083
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: where is a copy of 'evidence that demands a verdict'
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:40:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul28.134313.19779@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>It requires an element of faith to believe in current evolutionary 
>theory as well.  Some have labeled it "from fish to philosopher."

Wes makes the same error about science that just about all non-scientists 
and not a few scientists make these days.  Of course it would be an act of 
faith to believe current evolutionary theory was true in an absolute sense.  
This isn't what science does.  What science does is to say:  current 
<theory of X> is the best fit we can find to the facts and provides 
the best predictive power, but of course it's subject to change if we get 
new evidence.
Now if you look at religion, how good a fit to the known facts is it?  How 
much predictive power does it give you?  Are you willing to adjust the 
theory in the light of new evidence?
Incidentally, I hear only 3 miracle cures at Lourdes are recognised by the 
Catholic church - this must be well below statistical expectation od 
spontaneous remission: this God guy's not so nice, is he?

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:55:57 CDT

In article <1992Jul27.171037.6455@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>What strikes me as being extremely hypocritical of these religious folks
>>is that their "savior" told them that even thinking sinful thoughts is the
>>same as committing them (see Sermon on the Mount).  Yet they say it's ok
>>to have homosexual thoughts, just don't act on them.
>
>>The stench of hypocrisy gets stronger everyday.
>
>I'll explain what the Church teaches regarding the sinfulness of a person's
>thoughts. The Church understands that there is a distinction between thoughts
>which a person does and does not approve of. If the action someone
>is thinking of is sinful, but that person derives no pleasure in it, and 
>struggles to reject it, then no sin is committed. The Church has always
>taught that such temptation is to be avoided, but is not in itself sinful.
>When the individual consents to the sinful idea in his head, and derives
>pleasure in thinking about it, then he has committed the sin that Jesus
>spoke of when saying that "the man who lusts in his heart has already
>committed adultery." If someone is pleased with homosexual thoughts, then
>that person has most certainly committed sin. If he does not accept them,
>then they remain a temptation with which that person must struggle. There
>is no hypocrisy to be found here.

Maybe not, but the inherent dualism is enough to make you
crazy.  Not enough that we have good/evil, sacred/profane,
us/them, we have to set up barriers between ourselves and
our thoughts.  It would make a great SNL scene, would it
not, a person quarreling with his own thoughts and being
wrestled to the ground?  Has this been done?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life officer responds - part I
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:07:52 GMT

ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>	For instance, the morbidity (physical complication) rate
>	for abortion is at least 10 percent, as opposed to 2 percent for
>	childbirth.  

I'd be absolutely fascinated to know what Reardon considers a 
"physical complication" of childbirth to be.  Death?  Permanent
disability?  Clearly he doesn't consider major surgery to be any
sort of "physical complication", since I seem to recall the C-section
rate in this country is well over 30%.  (Although just yesterday, my
sister-in-law managed a VBAC! [If you don't know, it's not important]
I'm dying to talk to her.)  Would he even consider any side effects 
of C-section to be a "complication of childbirth", or would he place
it in a separate category as a "surgical complication"?

I'm sorry, but unless every woman who has ever had a "physical
complication" of childbirth is a close personal friend of mine, I
find the 2% number to be almost ludicrously low.

>RG
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Killing is killing... Isn't it?
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:43:16 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul13.095100.5543@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) said:
><1992Jul13.033421.22370@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU 
>><1992Jul13.012711.17989@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>}                                                        First, most
>>}"pro-life" people don't believe that life must be preserved in all
>>}cases, but only that an extraordinary reason is necessary for taking
>>}it.  
>
>>The definition of "extraordinary" is of course left to the woman involved.
>>If not, what consequences do you see others suffering?
>>(wrt abortion, of course)
>
>The unborn child is not the woman and the abortion has consequences
>for the unborn child.  

Of course the woman is not an "unborn child".  The "unborn child" is a
mythical creature created by active imaginations, usually restricted to
religious fanaticism.  I'm sure you don't need me to repeat the plethora
of postings recently refuting the term "unborn child".

>                       Even if it's granted that an unborn child is
>not a "person", legal protection is often extended to many things that
>are not persons (animals, for example).  

Not when said anumals are residing inside the body of a person who does
not want them there.

>                                         In addition, it's difficult
>to see an absolute difference between an unborn child and a newborn
>such that killing the latter is one of the most serious of crimes,
>while killing the former is an exercise of one of the most basic of
>liberties.

Well, let's see:  One glaring difference (that you seem to be blind to) is
that a fetus resides in the body of a person who does not want it there
and who may have never wanted it there.

Tell me, do you consider yourself an "undead corpse"?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion