HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Gee, do we have a winner? (Was: Christian perspective)
Summary: Accident = no medical treatement... 
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 23:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.223741.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <-7tnp3.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> 
>> Good for you.  Would you feel the same way now had that pregnancy forced
>> you into bankruptcy, made your wife an invalid, and/or destroyed your 
>> marriage?  And if you are anything less than 100% sure of the answer,
>> how can you justify forcing that decision on anyone else?
>> 
>Thing is, I was willing to take that chance.  You can't make an arguement that
>it is ok to kill a baby because of worst case possibilities.  You're right--
>those things will sometimes happen.  But I would be pretty sure that, in over
>95% of the cases they won't.  If you feel that way about avoiding bad things,
>don't drive your car anymore.

Gee, do we *finally* have a pro-lifer who's going to admit that if you are
going to refuse women abortions, you also need to refuse medical treatment
for car accident victims?

And you thought you'd never see the day...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:18:01 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.222813.16609@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> From article by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>>>>
>>>> [story of his chronically hospitalized 3 year old cousin]
>>>> 
[...] 
>> Suzanne.  Imagine a baby who is born into a world of constant excruciating
>> pain, only to be interrupted by mind-numbing doses of powerful pain killers.
>> Do you really think that baby is capable of *any* thought whatsoever?
>> Capable of knowing *any* feeling but that of pain??
> 
> Yes, in fact I really do think so.   In fact, I have read several child care
> books that when dealing with the inconsolable screaming of a baby in pain with
> colic, parents should not assume that because they can't stop the pain they
> can do nothing for the baby.  They say that parents should hold those babies,
> and not leave them to cry in their cribs.  Sure the babies are still crying,
> but at least they are not crying alone.
> 
> And colic is generally over by 3 months of age, Brian.  Surely a 3 year old
> comprehends so much more about whether people care about him.

Kirk's pain doesn't stop.  There is no end to it, only in death.
  
>>> 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.
>> 
>> In your opinion.  Did you stop to think that her opinion may differ?
> 
> Did you stop to ask her before posting your own supposition to the world?

I stand corrected (?)...  still only opinions.

>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".
>> 
>> I'll take this as a sign that you don't approve of euthanasia in general.
> 
> You are very correct!

I wonder why there isn't a talk.euthanasia group!
 
>> I'm sure that either my fiancee (hopefully my wife by the time I'm
>> in the vegetative state) or my son could decide whether or not to 
>> "pull my plug".  If they were both gone, then I'd leave my life to 
>> chance.
> 
> Has anybody asked your young cousin?  Children have a way of clinging to
> life.  They seem to think it's worth living despite pain.

Kirk is unable to respond.  I'm not sure if he still cries, I think he
spends more time drooling.  I haven't been to BC in a number of years
(which is where he is btw).  I truly don't think he has ever had the
oportunity to think long enough to think his life is worth living or
not.  I agree that if such a question could be communicated to him,
then he would want to carry on, but he is in a non-communicative state.
Ever see the video for Metallica's song "One"?  It moved me, anyway,
even if it is a bit supernatural.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:43:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>In a previous article, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
>>Sure there's still rape and incest in the world.  I'll compromise with you,
>>Heather.  I'll agree to allow abortions for rape and incest if you'll agree to
>>prohit abortions done out of convenience.  I believe I'll save at least 10 
>>babies out of every 11 now being aborted.  Deal?
>
>No deal.  I am not interested in trading away women's rights with you.  
>Besides, women are already allowed to abort for rape and incest. 

Shucks, _I'll_ make that deal.  I insist on using _my_ definition of 
convenience, though.  But I promise you that you won't like it.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 07:20:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>Because there is often also another human being involved, the one that
>is killed if the abortion is a "successful" one.

Being a scientist by training and temperment, I like labels to be
testable.  Some way of testing whether something is or is not x I
find to be very useful when discussing whether x is this way or that,
especially if I'm going to look at a bunch of x's to determine whether
they meet some criteria or share some common attribute.

So then, this is rather wordy intro to the question: what is a human being?

I'd like to know what your definition of "human being" is so as to 
facilitate my understanding.  It is a term that gets thrown about a 
lot without anyone bothering with a definition.  And by the way, if
you answer, please make sure that the definition you supply both
includes everything you wish to be considered a "human being" and 
excludes everything else.

Thank you.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:16:46 GMT

In article <BuF5wC.7DG.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>Your point wasn't that she was tiny, though, Suzanne, it
>was that she was of an earlier gestational age than was
>previously thought to be viable.  
>
>I join the rest of t.a. in awaiting your comments on the 
>gestational age estimated by the doctors who attended her.
>Could you also provide us with the source of your erroneous
>estimate?

I am currently taking birthing classes and in our first session, the
class took a tour of the maternity wards as well as the infant intensive
care unit.  They (I was unable to attend) got to see a premie who was
born at 26 weeks.  This brought up the subject of how old babies have to
be to survive.  The instructor, commented that to her knowledge, the
youngest child to ever survive was born at 20/21 weeks down in Australia. 
In the US, a little girl in California was born around 23/24 weeks and
had just finally gone home with her parents. 

As more and more premies are saved, I think we will all have to do some
serious thinking about acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  In the state of
Washington, a woman can have an abortion through the 24th week.  It seems
rather hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting to save a life
while in another a doctor is ending one.

-Carol 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Sex, Sacrifice and the U.S.A. (Was: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 16:57:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.234553.18896@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
>> 
>> Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
>> pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
>> reliable.
>
>
>This, Mr. King, is garbage.

Suxanne!  For Shame!  How little you know of your Bible!

Mary was a *VIRGIN*.  Mary got pregnant.

And here I thought that blashmy was something that you wouldn't stoop to...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:42:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep11.152346.21670@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Sep10.114521.21248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
> In article <1992Sep9.231533.14559@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
>    (Stephen A Chaney) writes: >>
> 
> >> I proved my case and presented all the facts needed to prove it beyond
> >> a reasonable doubt. 
> >
> > Perhaps in the dimly lit theater of your mind you did.
> >
> > This boy is one funny little feller.  Keeps declaring victory
> > for himself no matter how stupid the posting he presents.
> > 
> > And Overpeck doesn't think this little feller needs a therapist?
> 
> Hmm.  Well, to me, it doesn't sound substantively different than 
> the following, which was written after I'd asked Keegan to defend 
> his diagnostic impressions by providing a list of symptoms that
> seem applicable to Holtsinger or Chaney (he didn't, though I 
> suppose he could still be at the library).
> 
>    In <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
>      (James G Keegan Jr) writes: 
> 
>    "perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point you've 
>     already lost."
> 
> :-)

Keegan had an argument with merit.  And Keegan, bless his evil
heart, doesn't think he's a cyborg or an airplane.  If you
read that entire article by Chahallney, you'll realize that
his declarations of victory demonstrate a separation from
reality.

And you didn't answer the question, Bill.  You just provided
an example of someone doing something that appears, on the
surface, to be similar, but which isn't for the reasons I
cited.

Come on now, Bill.  Taking his remarks about his home life,
his overweaning fondness for his imagined inheritance, his
postings in which he declares victory when his posting is
ridiculous, his pretending to be an airplane, a cyborg, and
I think there were a few other flights of fancy there that
have slipped my mind, you really don't think he needs
some serious counseling?  Maybe with a Freudian of the old
school who'll keep him occupied for about eleven years, all
the while nodding and saying "mmhmmm" and not much else?
Why, he'd still only be twenty-three when he completed his
eleven years of therapy, enough time to start a useful,
productive life.

Nah.  On second thought, don't answer the question.  That
would be prejudicial.

Dean Kaflowitz

I told my shrink that the reason I'm not more successful is
that my father was too approving when I was a child.
-Kelly Banning
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: GHWB and atheism
Date: 9 Sep 1992 12:32:02 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep4.165411.18062@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>I've been getting a lot of email from people asking, "did George Bush
>_really_ say what you quote in your .sig?"  The answer is yes.  Here's
>the relevant section from the alt.atheism FAQ:
>	GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
>	    nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
>	    God."


And only since Eisenhower.  The Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge of
Allegiance 100 years ago did *not* include those words.  They were added 
during the Eisenhower administration.  Info courtesy my am radio station.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 20:42:22 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep2.215733.10221@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
>>> that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
>>> the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
>
>> Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
>> ...forced into accepting ... abortion"  
>
>That's not what I wrote.  If you can't quote me properly, then don't quote
>me at all.

Doug, I did not intend to *quote* you exactly.  That's why I used
ellipsis, and why I left your original statement in my post.  I
intended to reduce your statement to what I believe was your real
point.  The Supreme Court edict at this time is basically - "make up
your own mind".  This doesn't *force* anyone into anything except minding
their own business.  Maybe you find that too difficult to deal with,
but most people would prefer that others stayed out of their personal
lives.

>> The supreme court basically said
>> that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
>> herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
>> on any one?  
>
>I believe the people of this country should not be forced to  
>accept the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.

That's nice. 

>                                                The people should 
>have the right to voice their opposition to abortion through the 
>state legislatures. 

Gee, maybe people should have the right to voice their opposition to black
people living next to them, or Jews, or those icky non-Christians (we all
know that *real* Americans are Christian Republicans).  Perhaps you don't
like it Doug, but bodily autonomy rights should not be left up to the whim
of the people.  Since the advent of abortion laws we've had politicians
decide that proper medical treatment *cannot* be prescribed by a doctor,
and we've had judges decide who can *get* pregnant.  Yet you still want to
get more legislation passed allowing the restriction of bodily autonomy.

People like yourself never cease to amaze me.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions? Dream on... 
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:44:38 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Elizabeth thought the umbilical cord was a part of the mother's body.

This is not what Elizabeth posted.  She said "that part of the 
mother's body which attaches to the umbilical cord", in reference
to what the mother might reasonably have removed.

>>Do you have reading comphrension problems, Peter?  You've just "waved away"
>>most of a woman's control over _HER_ body when you "wave away" her right
>>to obtain an abortion.

>I never waved it away under all circumstances.  And what sort of 
>units of measurement do you use in your "most"?  My mother hid her
>last pregnancy up to the day she went into labor, and went on teaching
>in public school all the way up to that day, despite a rule that
>pregnant women must quit teaching long before their due date.

Your little anecdote, while tedious, still does not address the
above paragraph.

>Peter Nyikos

                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Five questions for Doug Holtsinger
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:57:13 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  <1992Sep4.213636.17185@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.201631.5018@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> > I don't believe you've given answers to all these questions;
>
> Sure, I've answered all the legitimate questions -- you just don't
> want to accept my sources.

I wrote:
> > Oh yes - and please leave the preceding questions intact, if your
> > dishonesty doesn't prevent you from doing so.

I didn't *think* you'd be able to be honest.  Let's review the questions.

Question 1:
   Did Susan Garvin satisfactorily provide a crucial
   difference between a late-term fetus and a neo-nate?

Question 2:
   Why do you keep claiming that "only 3 doctors perform
   third-trimester abortions" is unsupported, in the very same
   posts in which you say you don't like the source of that
   support?  (Note that the question is not about whether or not
   you *believe* the support, merely about its existance.)

Question 3:
   What *is* your problem with the beliefs of Judaism that leads
   you to ridicule them in your .sig?

Question 4:
   Why do you continue to claim that Roe guarantees abortion "on
   demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy" even
   though the decision specifically says otherwise?

Question 5:
   Why do you rely on the description of a "pro-abort" regarding
   the organization, but then question the veracity of the
   organization's facts on the grounds that it's a "pro-abortion
   organization"?

The only one you've answered is question 4.  The only other one you've
even addressed is question 2, and you only talked about whether you
could believe the source - you didn't answer as to why you claim that
the statements are unsupported simply because you don't like the source
of that support.  I think the other three are legitimate questions;
why don't you want to answer them?

If you don't want to go over question 4 again, you can substitute the
following yes/no question - it's a "giveaway":
   Don't you think it's rather stupid to change the subject line from
      Five questions for Doug Holtsinger
   to
      Five questions for Larry Margolis
   when you're not in fact asking me 5 questions, you're simply running
   away from the ones I asked?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Next: Mark Kaufman
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:08:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   I could be wrong, but I think I've been insulted.

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:01:37 GMT

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> conradv@eng.clemson.edu writes:

> [repost's Steve Chaney's article, adding that he liked it at the end]

> Oh, no, Cinder's back.

> Planning to apologize for saying that the Holocaust "removed" Jews as
> opposed to abortion killing z/e/fs, Cinder?

Let's not forget his crack that the Jews somehow 'deserved' the Holocaust.
The net has a long memory, Cinder.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:03:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   The Pennsylvania descision stinks, for many reasons.  The bulk
of Pennsylvania's population is not urban.  It is rural.  So if a
poor rural woman wants to get an abortion, she has to use some of
her limited financial resources to get to a larger city that will
have an aborion clinic.  Furthermore, she now has to find a place
to stay overnight in this city, further adding to her money woes.
Assuming she is one of the nine of ten women whose abortions take
place in the first trimester, she is compelled to view a bunch of
photos of fetuses developed way beyond the one in her.
   The Pennsylvania law is, like every other restriction, nothing
more than a slap at poor women.  It will have no effect on people
who have the financial means to circumvent the restrictions of an
awful piece of legislation.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 05:05:58 GMT
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <11SEP92.20504070@vax.clarku.edu>, hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> In a previous article, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
>>In article <1992Sep8.204903.13891@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>> For those of you who are christians and also want to make abortion illegal
>>> in some/most/all cases, on what do you base this position exactly?
>>> 
>>> Just curious...
>> 
>>Whew! Thanks for the opening.  I've been reading this group for a couple of 
>>weeks now and haven't seen an appropriate place to jump in until now.
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
>>Choice?  We all have a choice before we have sex.
>              ^^^
> 
> Really?  Does this mean that there is no more rape or incest in the world?  
> This is wonderful news!
> 
Sure there's still rape and incest in the world.  I'll compromise with you,
Heather.  I'll agree to allow abortions for rape and incest if you'll agree to
prohit abortions done out of convenience.  I believe I'll save at least 10 
babies out of every 11 now being aborted.  Deal?

Heather, at what day before birth do you think it is too late to allow an
abortion, and why?  
  
>>Stokes McMillan 
> 
> 
>                              .... Heather.
-- 

"It is not the critic who counts...the credit belongs to the man who is 
actually in the arena." -- Theodore Roosevelt 

Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion