HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:49:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.193241.15268@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
#In <1992Jul23.003014.180282@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
[lots of text deleted, some because I misunderstood Bill's
comments and some because we've seen it before and I don't
think either of us are going to quibble about what was
already said]
##Well, I was speaking of physical problems here, but since you
##obviously misunderstood, I'll just answer your questions.
#
#Yes, I did misunderstand that part...

That's understandable, since I switched topics in mid-article.

[text deleted]

##If you paid your colleagues who work in abortion clinics the
##courtesy of asking them what kind of counseling they offer,
##rather than just assuming the worst, you would know the
##answer to your last question.  
#
#I don't know anyone who works in such a capacity as there 
#aren't any clinics in Terre Haute that provide abortion 
#services.  And I'm not assuming the worst - you infer too 
#much, I'm afraid.

I guess I was assuming that you went to professional
meetings or some such.  

I can, if you would like, give you the name and address of
a psychologist who works in a clinic here.

##Clinic counselors make 
##every attempt to discover coercion, which seems to be the
##primary complaint of WEBA members.  Reputable clinics offer
##follow-up counselling after the abortion, and many sponsor
##groups for women who wish to talk about their experience
##with others.  
#
#Do you know whether most clinics employ degreed and licensed 
#counselors?  In the recent HBO special, the clinic counselor 
#seemed to be a volunteer (which is what we use at CPCs, as well).  
#Just curious.

The woman that you saw on HBO is a salaried employee of
the clinic.  (I am well acquainted with the clinic featured
in that program.  I'm a volunteer there.)  She is not
does not have a degree or a license as far as I know.
The clinic does employ two psychologists (PhD and licensed)
and six social workers (MSW and licensed.)  The paraprofessional
counselors work closely with the professional counselors, and
they are trained to refer any woman who seems to be having
difficulty with her decision to one of the professionals.
(There are at least three professional counselors on duty
on procedure days.)  In addition, all patients are asked
if they would prefer to see a professional before they
are matched with a paraprofessional.

The other two clinics here have similar arrangements,
but smaller staffs, since they serve a smaller clientele.

The clinic in Houston where I had an abortion had
professionals on staff.  I chose not to see one.

I cannot say that all clinics have professionals on staff.
You might call the National Abortion Federation and ask
if this is a requirement that they make.  

[book recommendations deleted]

#Thanks, I'll check them out.

Let me know what you think.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:06:07 GMT

<tgreen.712383496@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>| You've made your choice before you're pregnant.  If you can't live with 
>| that, don't have sex. period.  end of discussion :-)

<nti74do@fido.asd.sgi.com> (C J Silverio) writes:
> I'm sure all the married couples who don't want more kids
> are really happy to hear that you've made their sexual
> decisions for them.

It sounded to me like he was making reproductive decisions for them,
not sexual ones.  Abortion is not a sex act, is it?  He was forbidding
abortion.  Once he has done that, the rest of his comments are simple
facts.  If pregnancy is not acceptable, and abortion has been removed
as an option, then abstaining from coitus is the only remaining
option with certainty (except maybe sterilization).  That's not a 
decision made by Todd; it's a fact given by nature.

> But you do seem quite ignorant about sex.  Maybe you should
> ask your parents to sit down with you & talk about birth control.
> You know, contraception.  Ways to prevent pregnancy.  (You
> learn something new every day, don't you!)  Some methods are
> 98% effective, when used properly or in conjunction with a 
> second method.  Pregnancy is unlikely to happen to couples
> using birth control.

Yes, but over how long a period?  Any one act of coitus is very unlikely
to produce pregnancy, with or without birth control.  Extend the 
period of sexual activity to a year and both approaches become
less reliable, with use of birth control far more effective.  Extend
again to 30 years of fertile sexual activity, and that 98% effective
birth control method is down near 50-50 in its total effectiveness.
Far better than if no birth control had been used, but unreliable
enough that it is misleading to claim that "pregnancy is unlikely
to happen to couples using birth control."

> Maybe you should rephrase, and say something like,
> "If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse
> without using birth control.  period."

I think the period comes too soon.  Better would be something like:

"If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse without
using birth control, AND be prepared to have an abortion if/when
you become pregnant anyway. period.

The only certain outcomes are abstaining, abortion, and parenthood.
It is worthwhile to emphasize this, especially to anyone whose
personal preferences rule out any of these certain options.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Profaning the Sacred
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:15:55 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
] 
] >Well, I'll rush to someone else's defense here. I believe the argument goes
] >that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
] >meant to apply to innocent human life. 
] 
] Well, the Hebrew says 'You shall not murder,' implying a pre-meditated act
] of killing.  The question then becomes how one defines human life...does it
] begin at conception or not...The Bible suggests personhood while in the
] womb, and in fact before the womb in the case of Jeremiah.

And as you will notice, in all of those references there
is a specific divine mission. The matter is referenced in
regards to clarifying the nature of that divine mission.

Be Careful as to how you deal with profaning the sacred.

] Once again, even though being anti-abortion is a proper Biblical position,

A point I have yet seen to be established.

Save that those who wish to present it wish to
profane the sacred.

So if you have some new portion of the bible,
feel more than free to present this hidden revelation.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Summary: Waiting period vs background check
Keywords: guns abortions waiting periods sex
Organization: You see, Burke Lee
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.203800.20854@rice.edu> (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> (Steve Novak) writes:
>><other references deleted by the time it reached JMK>

>>We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.
>
>	We're talking about abortions that kill people, Novak.  

The state incapacitates those that it perceives as a threat to its well-
being.  (whiteflies, mosquitoes, people)  Can women have some sort of control
over their own physical and emotional well-being?
(Oh, and it's not the guns.  It's those damn bullets.)

>>>>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>>>>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>>
>>>The use of the term "control freak" is amusing in this context.
>>
>>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.  A waiting period for a woman
>>desiring an abortion simply makes it hard for, say, a poor woman travelling
>
>	Yes, a gun could be used to kill someone, but then again, so 
>   could a knife, an axe, rat poison, an automobile, ad nauseum.  On 
>   the other hand, the SOLE PURPOSE of an abortion is to abort a fetus. 
>
>	Since abortions kill, why shouldn't they have a waiting period? 

I kill mosquitos before they suck out my blood.  Should I put a little
"waiting period" in?  Besides, why do we need to make women wait?  Do we
need some kind of a background check?  "Oh, you've had 5 priors.  [Yeah, so?
Is she a slut or something?]"  And how long a waiting period do you want?
9 months?  Perhaps you need some time to get people down to the clinic to
traumatize the poor woman some more.  (Just what she needs, taunting!)  People
who know totally nothing about her background second-guessing her decision.
(Then again, I don't think that people who know her background should be
second-guessing her, either.)  [Hey, she's back...  Don't kill your child.
You'll regret it!  It grew some more in the past day!  Abortion stops a
beating heart!]
I really doubt women decide on a whim to get an abortion.  I hope no one
thinks that anyone thinks that lightly about it.  (We "posters" sure as hell
don't.)


-Richard
Get a life.  Leave other people alone.
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Keywords: statistics abortion
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Jul21.080224.5034@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>I was wondering...  Every time you used the word "abortion" to describe your
>statistics, did you mean induced/surgical or were there some "spontaneous
>abortion" stats thrown in there, too?  (Spontaneous abortion!  Time to
>prosecute someone!)

>Yes, there are substandard clinics out there, but I don't think that
>motel rooms and back-alleys would be better.

I was struck by the scarcity of sources from the last decade (i.e., 1982
or later).

Also by the qualifications he (Steve Kellmeyer, for those just joining us)
placed on many of his statements, for instance, the claim that based on
reported statistics alone, abortion is the fifth leading cause of maternal
death in the US.  Fifth out of how many?  Fifty?  Fifteen?  Five?  What
fraction of maternal deaths are caused by abortion?  10%?  1%?  .001%?  He
doesn't say.

While there is some useful information in there, most of it is quite old
(have there been no developments in the abortion industry at all since
1982?).  The article seems calculated to generate hysteria rather than be
genuinely informative.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

The difference between the radical right and the radical left is that the
radical right is scary and the radical left is silly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:50:53 GMT

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. 

>-- 
>Jim
>
>Once I was single.  Now I am married.


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Catholics on Vatican's Ruling?  (WAS SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS & PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:32:03 GMT

> = (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> = (John F Haugh II) said:

>...
>>In THEORY homosexuality is just fine.  Two people of the same gender
>>who just so happen to be sexually attracted to each other.  

So...what's the problem?

>>In PRACTICE homosexuality is an unmoral cesspool.  

Nice leap of un-logic, ace.

>>If you want loving Christians to
>>stop wagging their fingers at you, try keeping your damned pants on.

Get a life, you homophobic creep.  I hope you don't consider yourself a "loving
christian".  I hope REAL "loving christians" note what an embrassment you are to
them.

><snicker>  What about the Pope, who doesn't even *wear* pants.

Nor does he have a brain.  What the fuck is a pope doing issuing a proclamation to
*legitamize* discrimination against a group of people?

I expect Catholic membership to hasten its current steady decline.

What do other Catholics think?


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: conradv@eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court)
Reply-To: conradv@eng.clemson.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Clemson Univ.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:30:11 GMT

In article 20491@bmw.mayo.edu, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.155357.1654@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>|> Could there be no difference between the taking of the "life" of a
>|> human fetus and that of an animal one? 
>|>
>
>If we are avoiding religious and moral specifications, and looking 
>purely at the "science", then, we need to accept the idea that life
>is determined by a cell's ability to utilize energy (cellular
>respiration). A cell that is not using energy is not alive.
> 
>|> Well, is there a difference between killing an adult human and an
>|> adult cow? In America, there is: one is of the HUMAN species and the
>|> other is not. 
>|>
>
>Two minor points,
>	1) the fact that a human is a member of homo sapien and the
>	   cow is not holds true in places other then america.
>
>	2) again, if we are to look at this issue purely in a scientific
>	   manner, there can be no difference between the termination
>	   of a human life or the termination of a bovine life.


From a scientific viewpoint, each species looks after its own members.  You cant 
catch a cow advocating porcine rights.


Conrad C Vincent
 





" All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"
						            Edmund Burke

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jimh@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Jim)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Reply-To: jimh@aplcen (Jim)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:36:59 GMT

In article <5628@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>

May I suggest a book - Abortion; A rational look at an emotional issue.  by
RC Sproul - Navpress 1990.

As the title suggests, he avoids being emotional about the topic.  He also 
presents many biblical references in his book!!!

Jim



>Hello there, Bible scholars!
>
>A couple of weeks ago when I was defending the local PP clinic, a protestor
>and I were having a nice discussion about God's opinion of abortion (he had
>a sign that said "God says abortion is murder").
>
>Now, as far as I know, the only biblical reference to it is Exodus 21:22
>(I think it's that-- I just moved and my bible is still packed) where the
>penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is monetary compensation.  Doesn't
>sound like murder to me.
>
>My friend kept on saying, "The Church says... the Church says..." but that 
>shouldn't play for fundamentalists.  Where's the biblical precedent?  Oft
>times John leaping in Elizabeth's womb is cited, but even the Church claimed
>personhood only at quickening for centuries.  And "Before I formed thee in
>the womb I knew thee" is an argument for personhood *before* conception, which
>most pro-lifers would disavow (I hope!)
>
>So, quote to me, quote to me.
>
>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:26:38 GMT

From article by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
> In article dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
> 
> Excuse me, Doug.  I Have nursed three infants, and these 
> particular three precocious little darlings were able to
> pull away from the breast at will, and, of their own volition,
> decide to cry for awhile or take a nap instead of nursing.

I suppose you could have then just handed the baby to _anybody_ to nurse
when you didn't feel like doing it youself.    (And you darn well know as
well as I do that breastmilk is far healthier for babies than formula is.)

 
> Perhaps the ones you've nursed were different.

No.  I don't think so.


> muriel

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:57:33 GMT

<1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) said:
><92201.183901U58578@uicvm.uic.edu> U58578@uicvm.uic.edu (Mark Czarnowski) writes:
>> Just because abortion has been legal for "only 20 years" doesn't mean
>>that the right to abort is not "entrenched" in today's society.  True, abortion 
>>was illegal for a long period of time in the late 19th to mid 20th centuries.
>>The mothers' mortality rate, though, was MANY times greater then.  Now that mothers 
>>can feasably obtain safer abortions, that problem is eliminated.
>
>That simply doesn't follow.  High maternal mortality rates throughout history 
>were influenced by a wee bit more than abortion.

He may have meant 'the problem (death from childbirth) has a solution now,
but all women may not use that solution".

...
>           Abortion is extremely profitable today.  It is a multi-billion dollar
>industry which the mob has infiltrated in a few areas of the nation.

I find this fairly ludicrous.  If you could supply some support for this
assumption/assertion I would rethink my view point.

...
>> Is abortion murder?  Could there be no difference between the taking of the 
>>"life" of a human fetus of an animal one?  Does a human fetus have a soul?  
>>These questions are unanswerable and theological.  These questions are 
>>inherently religious, and to deny an individual's right to answer them may 
>>rock the foundations of the First Amendment.
>
>Well, yes.  It is legal to destroy the life of a human fetus at any time before 
>birth, but it is a violation of federal law to destroy the egg of a bald eagle.

This is not based on individual value.  This is based on the species value
as a whole.  Perhaps you aren't not aware, but the bald eagle is
in danger of *extinction*.  Besides, if bald eagles were abortion
themselves it would be none of our business -- it would be seen as
natural.

>Your last three sentences are somewhat fuzzy.  Are you suggesting that if it could
>be proven that man does not have a soul, murder would not be illegal?

I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion.  And please, set your
right margin to something less than 80.  Thank you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, 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.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:54:15 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Keywords: From: decay@

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <adams.711845329@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>More like 1900 for the New Testament, and as much as 3000 or more for
>>the Old.


>First off, fusco is clearly a new testament kind of guy.
NT means nothing without the OT...he'll figure that out someday.

>Though I am no biblical scholar, I do know that Jesus theoretically
>died in like 35AD.  
Actually, more likely sometime between 25 and 31AD (he was likely born
around 4BC).

>I was under the impression that most of the new testament was written several 
>hundred years later...

Nope...Pauls letters are dated in the 50's and perhaps 60's AD.  The Gospel
of Mark is from 50-70AD, the other Gospels from 70-100, and Revelation around 
100AD.

The range of dates reflects disagreement among scholars as to exactly when
they were written, and tries to reflect the extremes...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: OR conviction overturned
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:50:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.140309.27683@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
#<1992Jul23.012753.218622@cs.cmu.edu> (Susan Garvin) writes:
## The "necessity defense" has been used lots of times, with
## varying degrees of success.  Many anti-nuke protesters
## have used it.  O.R. almost always tries it.  
#
#Isn't the trouble with this defense that it depends on the 
#political views of the judge as to whether it works?  Then
#we have not rule by law but rule by judges.  I'm reminded
#of Amy Carter's acquittal after blocking access to CIA
#on-campus interviews several years back.  The "necessity
#defense" seemed incredibly silly in that context, but it
#worked.

That's the problem I have with it, too.  Just about any 
protest group could claim that they were trying to save 
lives by their actions, and, as you say, it's all up to 
the judge.  (I've asked anti-war protesters who I know
support legal abortion and anti-abortion protesters who
I know support war if they approve of the other group
using the necessity defense, just out of curiosity.  They
tend to feel justified using it themselves, but think
the other group is abusing it.  Ha.)

I hate the idea that a private citizen can violate my rights
as long as they believe they're doing the right thing.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality