HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:59:18 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

In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Aug30.040031.5439@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
->    (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>
-> >> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.
-> 
-> > denial is unhealthy doodie.  see your therapist.
-> 
-> Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.

that is is, bill, that it is.

-> Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  

what implication is that, bill?

-> Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your
-> respect?

i don't know where you'd get that idea bill. can you
tell me? do you think there's something unhealthy with
suggesting that a person may need help gets it?





-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35010 alt.abortion.inequity:3514
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:04:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Aug25.204749.4281@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>><1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>> <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer
>>> ><1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
>>> >
>>> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
>>> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.
>>
>>Is it partially inside your body?
>
>Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.

This argument has been used before.  My reply is this:  You contributed
1/2 of one cells worth of DNA.  At the eight week abortion point the fetus
consists of millions of cells.  For sake of argument let's say 3 million
cells.  You get 1/3000000 worth of the decision.  See how insignificant
your opinion is?

>>Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
>>decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.
>
>I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
>Getting it out, should also be a joint decision.

You haven't shown compelling evidence that we should accept your premise.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34957 alt.abortion.inequity:3501
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:06:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <lefty-030992145928@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust
>(John Stevens) wrote:
>> 
>> We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
>> fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
>> the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
>> picture.
>
>I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, John, but does the name
>Carol Anne Quinlan ring a bell by any chance?

No?  Well how about Karen Ann Quinlan then?  :-)
>
>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: More on People Concerned Until Childbirth
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) + /h: j, Susan.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:16:22 GMT


The Maury Povich show this morning had three children who
participate in clinic blockades as guests.  They were 
Rachel McGlade (8 years old, 12 arrests), Joshua Foreman
(9 years old, 6 arrests), and Laurel Foreman (13 years old,
41 arrests.)  The children spouted the usual propaganda 
(fetal parts are found in dumpsters, etc.)  

Rachel spoke of the physical pain involved in being
handcuffed, but she then compared it to the "pain
a fetus feels."  It sounded as if this were a lesson
that she had learned well, since she answered charges
of child abuse with the same response, as did the other
two children.  Joshua claimed that his involvement 
started when he saw a postacrd, but he also referred
to holding a "dead baby."  Povich did not bring out the
fact that Joe Foreman, the father of Joshua and Laurel,
is a high ranking member of O.R. and Ministers to the
Preborn.  The children claimed that they, rather than
their parents, were the driving force in their families.
(I've heard Joe Foreman speak before.  Interestingly,
he did no mention his children in that speech, nor
did he claim that his daughter had convinced him to
start blocking clinics.)

The parents appeared as well.  Foreman said that he had
been convicted of contributing to the delinquency of
a minor before.  (I am a bit surprised that parents can
retain custody of a child who has been arrested 41
times with her parents' approval.  I can't imagine
any other cases where this would be true.)
Sara Austin, executive director of PP-Wisconsin,
also appeared.

The parents defended their actions, saying that the
children had made up their own minds.  (I still wonder why
they claim that girls a few years older than Laurel are still
too young too understand enough to make an abortion decisions
for themselves, but no one asked them this.)

It was, to me, a disgusting display of unconcern for their
children.  They offered Chaneyesque excuses like "other
people have used their children."  The mother, at least, said
that she had agonized over allowing her young children
to be in dangerous situations, but that she "could not
hold them back."  

One young woman in the audience said that she was educated
in Catholic schools, and that she had been involved in
anti-abortion actions as a child, but her opinions had
changed as she matured.  She pointed out the advantage
of being exposed to other opinions.  (All three children
are home schooled.  Laurel Foreman stated that she had
heard arguments on the other side at blockades.)  Povich
asked Laurel if she would ever change her mind.  She
looked at her father and asked, "Could I?"  Povich
clarified that he had said "would."  She said no.

Susan

a
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Siamese Twins: How Many People?
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:05:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <l9kkn8INN6lm@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) wrote:
> 
> I recently had an ongoing conversation on the subject of what constitutes
> personhood. I contend that what we value in a society is the sapient
> being that we often label a "person." My opponent argued that any human
> tissue that has the potential for cell diferentiation is a person.

Ask your opponent his/her opinion on malignant teratomas.  By the test
described above, a teratoma would be a "person" and surgically removing one
would be murder.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34307 alt.flame:12473
From: levin@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Halfwit!!
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:35:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
|Steve wrote a paragraph that I'm having some trouble understanding.
|In article <BtvMtL.22B@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|>   Oh now - coincedence? I chose it silly fool. I suppose I should upgrade
|>my username, having undergone superpuberty, but I never really got around
|>to it. Incedentally, you know I'm 19 Lefty - why the hell won't you answer
|>me, and tell me how old you are (sorry, i just remembered to ask this question.
|>Been a whil ain't it?) you gonna answer?
| 
| . . .	 It seems Franklin is flaming Lefty for not answering a question
|that Franklin forgot to ask.  I would think Franklin would first ask
|the question and then wait to see if Lefty answers it or not. 

I don't think he will anyway.  Certainly Franklin hasn't proved he's
19 -- his postings are persuasive evidence that he's much younger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33579 alt.abortion.inequity:3290 alt.birthright:432
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:35:35 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug26094732@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>You are, of course, mistaken.  Just because you see the abortion
>protests and don't see the protesters' other actions, don't assume
>that they are not active in helping the needy.

Hmmmm.  This from Ray who figures just because women don't agree with his
assessments WRT pregnancy, that women 'inflate' the 'trauma' of pregnancy
and don't do detailed analyses, but 'automatically decide'.

But heck, don't anyone else out there in net.land go making any observations
themselves!!!   Only Ray gets to do that, and he's limited to doing it badly.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:57:16 GMT

H

DOD, you've ceased to make any sense at all.  Kathi said, roughly,
that states could enact legislation to protect fetal life in
the third trimester.  You say that they can't, and you cite
Colautti.  Colautti does not disallow such legislation.
You seemingly admit this, and then repeat that Kathi was wrong.
Your stance is absurd.
(I'm now willing to adopt Loomis' "amusing" terminology to
describe DOD.)

Susan,
who is surprised that DOD hasn't added his response to Kathi's
first statement to his .sig.  I guess when you're right as seldom
as he is, you want to make sure that everyone sees it.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:12:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>I'm going to have to post some of the relevant parts of COERCED
>ABORTION again.  One right that was lost was the right to have
>an abortionist prosecuted for felony sexual battery if he or she
> goes on with an abortion after a woman changes
>her mind and wants out.

What ARE you going on about?  How many women decide at the last moment
that they have changed their mind and are forcibly held to the table
while the doctor performs the abortion?

And (more importantly), how the hell does this justify forcing a million
women to give birth each year?

>The outrage that was committed on my friend would be a felony
>punishable by thirty (30) years in jail were it not for the 
>common understanding, in the wake of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,
>that abortion is a "medical" act.

Forget to leave out the details?  Or are you making up some
emotional propaganda to further your cause?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:27:05 GMT

In article <exukjb.112.715300667@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.223814.346@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
>>Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
>>Date: 26 Aug 92 22:38:14 GMT
>
>>Suxie reveals her utter lack of imagination:
>
>>>My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
>>>"non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
>>>now is it.
>
>>No wonder you have to play with yourself (I mean your mucus) i the bathroom.
>
>>-- 
>>"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
>>child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois
>
>>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
>
>Theory--: Talking about sex IS sex. (I love it when I enter into my 
>irresponsible moments!)

Yeah, that's the only way Kathi Mills could ever get it. If talking
about sex IS sex, that is. 

That's why I KILLfile'd that poster child in the first place. 

=============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
	        With the little girl's consent, of course. 
		 Don't you pro-choicers just _hate_ this? 
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
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. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.191307.6871@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.125614.20519@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >
> >First of all, how do you "know" this?
> >
> >And again, I am interested in learning how you "know" this
> >happens in other countries.  Also, is it widespread or are
> >we discussing a few, isolated instances?  See, there are
> >dishonest plastic surgeons, and there are people who have
> >plastic surgery for reasons I would not personally approve,
> >but just as your question implies a motive for banning
> >abortion based on a poor motivation for having one, it
> >likewise suggests a ban on plastic surgery for the same
> >reason.  You follow?
> >
> >Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> Well, as far as me "knowing" about this practice, I have read articles
> saying about the same things as stated by two followup articles on my
> original post.
> 
> As far as a motivation for banning abortion, I agree that there are better
> ones.

There are slicker ones, just not any good ones.

> Rather, I was adressing the aspect of some groups protesting gender
> tests, as a followup article described happening in India. You see, it
> seems to me inconsistent to describe abortion as a woman's right and then
> complain when it is used to weed out females. I think it's silly for

On the one hand we have the matter of women being able
to control their own reproductive capacities, and on the other we
have these same women doing so in a manner of which I do not
personally approve.  My argument about plastic surgery is still
quite apt here.  Because I say that peope should be able to get
plastic surgery as long as they can pay for it, and that I see
no reason to legislate against it, does not stop me from saying that
I think some people get plastic surgery for bad motivations.

> feminists to say that a woman has complete control over her reproduction
> but shouldn't use it to insure she bears only boys (quite an unfeminist
> and evil principle). So I wanted to see if anyone out there thought that
> way and was able to justify it in a way I so far have not anticipated.

I may not approve personally of her reasons, but then it isn't my
business to pass judgement on other people's motivations in such
matters.

I suppose your reason as stated above provides you with some
entertainment, but it does very little to provide an argument
with regard to whether or not there should be legislation
restricting abortion more than it already is restricted.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE ABORTION ON DEMAND MYTH.
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:16:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


The Freedom Of Choice Act states, "No state shall have the right,
prior to fetal viability, to restrict a woman's right to abortion."

"Woman" does not mean "girl."

"Prior to fetal viability" means BEFORE the fetus is viable.

I searched the wording of the Act, and I could not find one word 
about the government's obligation to provide abortions, or the 
money to pay for them.

If states want to impose restrictions on post-viability abortion,
they are completely free to do so under the FOCA.  If states want
to refuse to fund abortions, they are completely free to do this,
under th FOCA.  If states want to prohibit minors from obtaining
abortions, they are completely free to do so.

Steve Chaney continuously misrepresents the FOCA.  He has shown 
what a liar he is.  The Freedom Of Choice Act is so lucid in the
wording that Chaney's inability present it honestly is proof that
he is dumber than dirt, or that he is a completely corrupt hater
of women.  In either case, I reccomend that, after reading any of
his posts, you check out the facts for yourself.  Don't take my
word for it.  Just check out the Freedom Of Choice Act yourself.
See what it says.  And then see if Steve Chaney is a credible
source for any information on this challenging issue.  Since he
has misrepresented every aspect of this issue, anything that he
posts should be checked out.  As I said, don't take my word for
any of this.  Check it all out for yourself.  Once his lack of
credibility becomes obvious to you, you're free to ignore any
item that he posts.  It will save you a lot of time and a lot of
frustration.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34227 alt.abortion.inequity:3363
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:13:58 GMT
     <BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> 
     <1992Aug31.144116.12258@advtech.uswest.com>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
>other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
>have an abortion, the father and the child.

John, you believe the father is affected.  Fine -- that's your belief,
and you're entitled to it.  However, I am just as entitled to disagree.

I have thought about this, and thought about this, and frankly I can't 
see how the minor fact that your sperm fertilized the egg gives you the
right to control what a woman does with what is essentially a parasite
in her body.  Yes, your genetic material is in there.  So if you donated
to a sperm bank, and the woman who was impregnated with your sperm 
decided to abort her fetus, you would claim the right to block that 
decision?

If you can't see this argument, turn it around.  YOU are the one who wants
to abort the fetus; your wife (or girlfriend, or whomever) wants to keep
the baby.  Whose decision is paramount, and why?

>Guess what?  You are also on the side of those who want to make laws that
>*rule out* other people being able to practice their beliefs.  You want
>abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
>practice of other peoples religious beliefs.

There are many laws on the books which permit things I'd rather not see
permitted.  The fact is, a law permitting something to occur does not
mandate that it occur.  No one is going to force your wife to abort a
fetus, John, and no one is stopping you from espousing your views.  Why
does allowing some people to do something with which you disagree violate
your beliefs?

(We sing the national anthem before every major sporting event in the US.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in saluting the flag.  Should we stop
because the practice of singing the anthem goes against their beliefs?)

>When you admit that at the very least, the FATHER has a stake in the abortion,
>not just the mother, then we may be able to find a common ground.

Then it will never occur, because I will never "admit" that -- I find it
an abhorrent position to take, and I cannot possibly see the premises which
would allow any reasonable person to take such a view.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion