HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:12:39 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul23.235053.18601@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.205210.29363@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>If he's at their meetings and he tries to cause trouble, that'll be
>>>the last time we ever see Chris Long. 
>>>
>>>I hope. 
>>
>>What fine pro-life values you show here, Airplane Boy!
>
>Meaning what? 
>
>Pro-life has never contradicted itself by advocating a troublemaker's
>being put in prison for a long, long time. Especially terrorists. 

Weasel words, Airplane Boy.  And untruthful at that, or else we'd
be seeing you advocate long prison terms for those "Operation
Rescue" troublemakers (what else could you call people who unlawfully
block the entrance of a clinic and harrass patients, besides assholes).

By the way, are you implying that Chris Long is a terrorist?

Next time you look in a mirror, say "Hi!" to Dennis Hall for me.
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:57:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.

"According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 

Susan
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:29:33 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

jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> >-> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
-> >-> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have
-> >-> an abortion
-> >
-> >wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
-> 
-> Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as a
-> minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.

yea. i'll just bet he wouldn't. i suspect it would be called
something else along the lines of the same general methods the
roman catholic church uses to allow abortions; it just calls them
something else.

still, it's interesting to see republican strategists try to get
back some of the public support they've lost based on this issue.

one hopes the public is too wise to let themselves be fooled yet
again.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.203335.29132@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
> to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
> you delete from the PP quote, DOD?  

I sent you the entire article via e-mail, and it clearly
shows that I did not "doctor" the quote. Do I get an apology
from you for slandering me?  

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com (tim clinkenpeel)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Reply-To: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:54:42 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) belches some spook food:

>My mom saw the incident on the news, of the pro-lifers who approached
>Bill Clinton in New York to show him the body of the dead fetus.  She 
>said that such a dark cloud suddenly passed over his face, that she was
>immediately struck with the question of how many abortions Jennifer
>Flowers has had.

gee, lighting conditions is sure a solid fondation for basing political
decisions.
-- 
------+- acceptance not condemnation.  rehabilition not incarceration -+------
i exclusively represent myself.  WARNING: my messages are offensive to morons!
|`````````` for every grain of sand that is washed up on the land '''''''''''|
|_____ there's another mermaid smiling and another searching fisherman ______|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Subject: Re: SCARY C.C. (WAS Re: FUNNY PP)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
	<1992Jul27.165146.7915@advtech.uswest.com>
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:42:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165146.7915@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) writes:

> The Catholic Church didn't outlaw all abortions until 1869, and even
> then the C.C. in its ruling said of the fetus "...though not
> ensouled..." (Pope Pius IX).

  The church has condemned abortion as morally wrong since at least
the first century. The Didache (Teachings of the Apostles) contains
the following:

  "You shall not kill the fetus by abortion, or destroy the infant
  already born."

  In _Abortion: Development of the Catholic Perspective_, John
Connery, S.J. states that as early as apostolic times, abortion was
found to be inconsistent with the Christian message and was condemned.

  The _penalty_ for procuring an abortion was changed several times,
finally in 1869, but at no time was abortion considered "OK." It was
wrong. There are many, many things that the Church teaches are wrong,
but to which no penalty is attached. In fact, penalties for moral
actions are relatively rare. The automatic excommunication for
abortion is IMO inappropriate and it may well be lifted some day (It's
been changed before, as you so eloquently point out).

> Of course, the big difference is, the C.C. claims its pope is "infallible" in
> church doctrine.  The problem with this kind of goofy claim, given the C.C.'s
> flip-flop on this issue, *many* popes were wrong no matter what.


  Woa!

  The pope is not infallible all the time. The Church claims he is
infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" (literaly "from the chair"). He
has to _say_ when he is doing that, and then meet certain other
requirements. The last pope to speak ex cathedra was Pius XII in 1950.
Unless you are older than I am, no pope has spoken "ex cathedra" in
your lifetime. The teaching on abortion was never pronounced "ex
cathedra" (infallibly).  To my knowledge, no moral teaching has been.
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:09:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul21.181716.6940@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> From article by kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar):
> 
> > 	Mary Joe an airforce helicopter pilot goes to the gulf war and
> > is captured, tortured and sacrificed at Saddams altar i.e his bedroom.  
> > She is then released and comes back to the US and finds herself 
> > pregnant. Do you think she will in her right mind let the pregnancy
> > go to term. I think not. 
> 
> Ya know, if she did, we would then have a loyal U.S. citizen who would
> be heir to the Iraqi throne.

Excuse me.  I'm going to raise my voice now.

IRAQ IS NOT A _MONARCHY_, YOU INCREDIBLY ILL-INFORMED TWIT!

Thank you.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:11:40 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes ...
>>What about the much more simple solution to the entire problem?
>>What ever happened to abstinence?  That is a fool-proof solution 
>>after all.

>For the same reason people drive cars, eat steak, ride bicycles, 
>ride in airplanes, swim, live in California, live in the midwest,
>live in the south, have children, and walk outdoors.

>All these endeavors (and many others, besides) have an element of
>risk.  Do you propose making all of them illegal?

BZzzzzt. Thanks for playing.
None of them risk creating another human being.  Care to try the 
analogy thing again?

>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com

SK
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:45:45 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  <1992Jul24.034931.8710@wuecl.wustl.edu>  dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> >}<1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> >}> I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions,
> >}> there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.
>
> <1992Jul21.163226.12832@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
> >} My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll
> >} simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?
>
> <1992Jul21.190634.5054@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> > To be brief, the heart develops at a slightly variable time.
> > Exactly when it becomes a "heart" is dependent largely on
> > your definition of "heart."
>
> Of course.  I'd hoped to avoid playing semantic games, though.
> That's why I did not ask about the "heart" per se, but about the
> heartbeat.  You know, the rhythmic twitching of cardiac muscle that
> begins in the fourth week (i.e. after three weeks have passed) of
> gestation and doesn't cease until death.

In that case, I'd say you're playing semantic games - cardiac muscle does
not a heart make.

> Obviously, I can not speak for Gregory Clausen, but when I use
> "abortion" here and when I see "abortion" used here, there is
> no doubt in my mind that what is being discussed is induced
> abortion.

I can't speak for Mr. Clausen either (nor would I want to), and
my idea of what "abortion" refers to is what you described, but
*if* Mr. Clausen is also opposed to abortifacients (e.g., the birth
control pill and the I.U.D.), then the above objections do apply.
Something that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is clearly
not stopping a beating heart (no matter how liberally you wish to
define "heart"), and this would (I would hazard) constitute the
majority of cases.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.095627.27259@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

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

>> Are you offering a new definition of "autonomous"?  

> I have done so in another thread.  

I haven't seen your definition of "autonomous", can you repeat it?

> But it should be obvious
> that a nursing infant can survive without any one particular
> host. 

A viable fetus can be removed from the woman alive and it'll 
become a nursing infant. Is a viable fetus autonomous? 

> Your situation is contrived to the point of absurdity,
> because if there were no other food around, the woman would
> soon have no milk to offer, and both would die.

I didn't say that there was no other food around. If a woman
and an infant were isolated from civilization and the woman
could only offer her breast milk to the infant, then the
infant would not be "autonomous" by Mr. Tjoa's definition.

And my situation is no more contrived than the "famous violinist"
scenario. 


> It amazes me that you can come up with so many reasons for 
> denying physical autonomy to newborns.  Why do you do this?

I'm not intent on denying physical autonomy to newborn infants.
I'm trying to force pro-choicers to provide consistent reasoning 
for their arguments.

>muriel
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan's Devolution: Impossible, one can't devolve that far (was Re: Chaney's evolution
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:54:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul27.235328.11805@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> In article <3712@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> Shut up, Adrienne.  

Heh.  You're a funny fellow, Dennis.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:06:15 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul25.012149.15719@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> Oh for Pete's sake.  **I'm** a product of conception.

Based solely on your postings, this is a highly debatable proposition.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 06:53:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.040407.24647@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul23.021544.249982@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
###garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
####dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##### Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
##### fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
#
#### It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
#### remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
#### kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
#### woman.
#
### It is never necessary to kill a late term fetus during a purely
### elective abortion in order to remove it from its mother. Try again.
#
## Why should I?  I answered your question.  
#
#OK, then define "necessary". When is it "necessary" to kill a 
#late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman? Would it
#be "necessary" if the woman does not want to endure labor?   


You asked for "a rational justification for killing a late-term 
fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant."
I provided one - removing it from its genetic mother.

You may now claim that you are too stupid to understand this.
I really don't care.  If you continue, however, to claim that
the justification for late term abortion is the same as the
justification for infanticide, I will remind you of your
support for late term abortions which result in fetal death
in this thread.  (Not that I think that your credibility can
be further damaged.)

Susan



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29432 alt.birthright:142 alt.abortion.inequity:2720
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Side Question on Death and Dying
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:32:32 GMT

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
] 
] Absolute prohibitions are simply much easier to enforce
] than conditional prohibitions.  Granny's been a burden due to her
] long illness, and Hubby kills her.  Under an absolute prohibition,
] he's guilty.  Under the conditional one, he's well on his way
] to making reasonable doubt.  "Honest, your honor, I was following
] my wife's earnest last wishes.  I regret that we did not follow
] the regular legal procedures, but we were not knowledgeable about
] them, and my wife's suffering was great."  
] 
] It's similar to the trouble with rape exceptions in anti-abortion
] laws that is pointed out here frequently.  How do you determine
] if the woman really has been raped?  Again, an absolute prohibition
] would be far easier to enforce.

Just as a trivia question for clarification
for all the budding young corpsPerKin out there:

	Is it now totally Ikky to leave one round per wounded,
	with the wounded when the unit is obliged
	to abandon them for operational reasons?

{not a pleasant thought...}

	Is it honorable to shoot the wounded rather
	than leave them to be tortured?

{not a pleasant thought either.}

	Is it moral to have the whole unit massacred
	rather than to abandon the wounded?

{still not a pleasant thought}

	If Ordered, can one leave the wounded?

	If the person giving that order is wounded?

Ethics are clarified, not in the the pleasant surroundings
of the parlour room debate, but at the places where
the exceptions are written.


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth" 
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:18:41 GMT

> = (Jay T Stein -- now referenced to bars and tone) writes:

>What do these three words have in common?   beacon   potato   lousy

Um...none of them end in "e"?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:46:09 GMT

From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> -> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
> -> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
> -> abortion
> 
> wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.

Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would never turn
his back on his own daughter?   Hmmmm?   Hell, I could say the same thing.
I'd like to hear Garvin expand on the context, or I'm afraid I'll have to
go on believing she's misquoted him as badly as Doug's misquoted Clinton.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:37:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.145805.28460@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>> What's your point?

> The article is quite biased.  

All of the quotes are from doctors, abortionists, nurses, prosecuting 
attorneys, and other professionals in the field. I saw no reason to 
disbelieve their statements, especially since most of the statements 
were made independently from one another. I think it would be hard to 
concoct a story using so many professionals. And the article did win
a Pulitzer Prize.  

> Actually, not only the article, but DOD's
> transcript.  I perused the article as written in the Congressional Record;
> not only did there seem to be deletions, there also seemed to be an addition.

The first two paragraphs are from part I of the article, which I got
from another source. Unfortunately, the other source is incomplete. 
I'm not aware of any deletions from the article, and I'd appreciate
any corrections. I did correct some obvious typographical errors.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in ensuring that the article 
is correctly represented, and that the facts in the article are correct.  
I did type in the article by hand, so there's bound to be some minor 
errors (gosh, are my fingers tired!). 

Oh BTW, I have two more articles on the same subject; one from the 
New York Times, and another from the Congressional Record. I should 
get around to posting them within a week or so. 

> Btw, late-term abortions are almost always performed to safeguard the 
> life and health of the mother.

The term ``health'' could include any number of factors, including
"mental health", "emotional health", "family health", etc. 

Besides, if these babies are being born alive, why isn't labor
being induced? 

[.. rest deleted ..]
>Chris Lyman 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29751 alt.birthright:212 alt.abortion.inequity:2809
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:06:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
>In <q5pm8g.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>What you have failed to support is why anyone else should be 
>>constrained to follow _your_ preferred course of action.  Like
>>it or not, getting an abortion can be a responsible way of
>>handling a pregnancy.
>
>if you consider an abortion to be simply a medical procedure,
>like removing a tumor.  No matter how pro-choice someone is,
>they've got to realize there's a little more to it than that.
>If you don't think so, I'm sure I'll find out.  Be honest.  

Yes, any abortion which is knowingly an abortion may well have
more consequences than removing an appendix.  The consequences
of being forced to give birth are likely to be far worse.

>>Example: Mother, married, three kids already.  Her doctor told her 
>>after her last pregancy that another would leave her permanently 
>>disabled, possibly dead.
>
>>What's the responsible thing to do?  Avoid having sex with her
>>husband?  Get an abortion if the contraception fails?  Or end 
>>up unable to care for her children by having a fourth baby?
>
>answer:  vasectomy and/or tubal ligation

Vasectomies have a possibility of failure or reversal.  Given that
there is a possibility of such failure, what's the responsible thing
to do?

>still amazed at how little people value life.

Still amazed at how narrowly people define life.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion