HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:59:28 GMT

In article <6glmz_h.gordons@netcom.com> 
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

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

>> The only thing "assinine" here is your analogy. Killing a fetus is 
>> done intentionally, but deaths from traffic accidents are not intentional
>> killings. The government does not set permissible limits on the number 
>> of motor vehicle fatalities which can be caused intentionally. 

> As many of your fellow pro-lifers have stated on this net: dead is dead.

Yeah, who cares? (BTW, I'm not pro-life). 

> As far as "intentional" goes, many of the violent professional sports
> promote physical mayhem where deaths occur (boxing, football, etc.)
> Only when the number of deaths and injuries exceed acceptable limits
> does the government threaten to get involved at all.

These deaths are all accidental, an induced abortion is not accidental.
 
> [.. other silly analogies deleted ..]
>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: Professional Women's Network
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:46:24 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Ron Graham) writes:

>The Professional Women's Network (PWN) is a non-denominational, bi-partisan
>organization which unites professional women to work for the betterment
>of women and for the rights of all members of society.  

Oh, crap.  It's an anti-abortion organization.  Period.

Do you have trouble telling the truth, Graham?

>PWN currently focuses on the abortion issue, believing that the best way to 
>safeguard the rights of the elderly, poor, sick and disabled is to establish 
>the value of the most defenseless and voiceless in our society: the preborn
>child.

What a stupid statement.  Why not START with the "elderly, poor, sick and
disabled"?  Is that too logical?

I despise liars like you, and organizations too chickenshit to state their
real purpose.

>PWN members believe that abortion and abortifacient contraceptives 
>represent violent and unsupportive responses to real needs.

"Violent".  Birth control pills, violent.  Sure thing, Graham.  What're
these "real needs"?  Forced birth for all pregnant women?  Don't be
a*fraid*.  Spell it out.

It seems PWN members should consider organizational-wide therapy before
their crazed ideology results in forced commitment.

>Women in crisis pregnancies need family and community support, not the 
>violation of their bodies through abortion or the devaluing and destruction 
>of their children.

There's women that destroy their own CHILDREN?  Seems you oughta get on
that before you try enslaving women via anti-abortionism.    

Are you...all *there*, Ron?  Ron??  <knock, knock>  Hel-LO!!! 

>PWN's primary emphasis is to educate the public about the realities of 
>abortion - its negative effects on women, families, and children - and
>about abortion alternatives.  

Hmm...I thought you said "realities".  You wouldn't be telling only ONE
SIDE, wouldja, Graham?  

>We are committed to working for a 
>society that supports women and women's valuable contributions in both 
>the workplace and the home, a society that respects all human life.

When religious anti-abortionist creeps start worrying about more than
controlling the sexual lives of America, such as caring about the poor,
starving and oppressed in the world, then maybe you'll sound like more than
a goofy fanatic.

Until then - I am getting a kick out of the way you dance the Fundie
Two-Step in a dishonest attempt to obfuscate the pure anti-abortionism of
these..."organizations".


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:39:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
>Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 
>"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  To me, the

SO tell me how well does a week old embryo resemble a "little baby"

Oh...are you against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions??? 

>ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
>that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
>than human's.  I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
>Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
>last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  If this country

tee hee...you can't be serious..."before the homosexuals TAKE OVER"???? tee hee
you are wierd.

I don't know about Gore and Clinton...but I'll be glad to see the free spending,"The economy is turning around any day now" George Bush and "Potatoe" Danny
Quayle out of office...

Either this election or next...I'll be glad to see them go.

anne
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:38:33 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:

>In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.

>The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>recorded. 

      Pardon me if I'm wrong, but what about all these "abortion
survivors" the pro-lifers keep trotting out?

>steve

                                  MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:25:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
>since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
>got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
>child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
>it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
>pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>end of discussion :-)

Assuming that you're not parodying pro-life rhetoric ...

You are a sexist, hypocrite, and a coward.  

You're a sexist because you would punish women for having
sex while avoiding any consequence for yourself.

You're a hypocrite because you expect other people to live to 
standards you are unwilling to adopt for yourself.

And you're a coward because you're unwilling to support and 
defend your comments.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Silly protest signs
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:23:38 GMT

From article by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
> 
>      My personal favorite is a guy who marches up and down in front of
> Genesee Hospital with a sign that reads "Abortion: One and a half
> million U.S. consumers destroyed every year."
>      There's nothing like a really _patriotic_ pro-<insult deleted>


Hey, last year we pro-lifers picketed Dayton-Hudson stores for providing 
money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. 
My sign said,

              "Mervyn's Supports Aborting Future Shoppers"


Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only thing they understand.
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
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:08:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.090238.20698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

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

>>> Ok, four simple questions:
>>>
>>> Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>> Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>> Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>>> Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?

>> Since you're the one who's promoting the concept of bodily autonomy,
>> why don't you tell me how your questions should be answered? 

> I'm not going to tell you how those questions should be answered, but I
> will tell you how I'd answer them.  (Get the distinction?)

Yes, you're not going to tell me the justification for your answers.

> P-i:  No
> I:  Yes
> W:  Yes
> PW:  Yes

Why doesn't a fetus have the right to bodily autonomy? 


>>>-Richard
>Recycle old sigs!
<snigger>


Doug Holtsinger
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Who Says?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:50:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.201200.1604@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> alz@nestor.uucp (80122-zoble) writes:
>I cannot understand how the abortion issue has gotten so out of hand.
>
>Note that I have not challenged the issue of whether or not abortion
>is murder. I don't think that matters. Whether or not that is an
>issue is going to be part of the individual's moral/ethical beliefs,
>the one responsible for the decision.

Proving that abortion is murder proves that it can be quite quickly
banned by law. 

All other forms of murder are banned, whether or not someone believes
it's okay or not. For instance, some religions sanction human
sacrifice, but that doesn't let them do it legally. 

Your whole point is irrelevant. 

>Allison
>NOTE that this opinion is my own. Additional disclaimer just in case.
> 


===============================================================================
			   You are irrelevant. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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.
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Summary: hmmm
Keywords: ru486 leona controversy
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:10:51 GMT
Followup-To: Previous statements
Distribution: usa
Organization: 'Dis organization

In article <1992Jul21.192956.9021@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by nick@cmn10.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro):
>> 
>> Hi.  As a pro-choicer, I'm curious to know what people on both sides of  
>> the fence think of the "Leona" controversy. I'm from the same hometown as  
>> she so I have a different angle on this. I'd like to hear others'  
>> opinions.  Let me assert that I feel she did what was right for her, and  
>> that I was waiting for someone to do this, curious to know what the  
>> results would be.
>
>I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
>football.  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
>to be a remarkably cruel mother.

You're right.  I don't think she should be a mother (but then again, that's
her decision)

>
>> thank You
>
>you're Welcome.

No problem.

>
>> Sasha
>
>Suzanne.


-Richard
Just as obscene as the People's Republic of China forcing people to get
abortions would be the United States of America forcing people not to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Save document

Send, abort, edit or list?  (Ah, the freedom of choice...)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- sounds like Nirvana)
Subject: The MOB?! (formerly: Supreme Court)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:01:47 GMT

What: <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU>
Who:  vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)     [to Mark Czarnowski]

>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 demand support for this claim, lest you be considered just another
person who will say anything, no matter how wrong or hateful, to further
your cause.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:38:24 CDT

In article <1992Jul30.174853.18335@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.115822.7033@wetware.com> 
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi) writes:
>
>>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>> { its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>>>> you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>>>> level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>>>> the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.
>
>A man cannot be said to be "seeking to Kill" his partner because the 
>woman consents to the risks involved in sexual intercourse. Consent to
>sexual intercourse implies the consent to the possibility of pregnancy
>and all its attendant risks.
>
Excuse me, Doug. I know how crazy you are about women,
but, well, I'm just not totally comfortable with the
idea that you are speaking for all women, and that you
represent us fairly when you say what our consent implies.
Perhaps if every penis were tattooed with a message from
the surgeon general, your contention would stand up a
bit better under scrutiny.  If the tattoos could be made
to glow in the dark, that is.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Sexism by Susan Garvin?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:37:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>Ms. Garvin, not even LAWS could take away a woman's mind.   All laws can
>possibly do is protect human beings from harm by other human beings.

It is tough to take away someone's mind.  But many people give up their
minds to their country.  Or to their spouse.

And some people give up their minds to their church.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:00:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.163914.4908@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <p7nmgb-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >
> >Have you even once considered apologizing for your mistake?
> 
> I have offered to do so, with reasonable conditions.

Had you the slightest inkling of what you did, you'd beg Susan to forgive
you.  She'd be well within her rights to tell you to fuck off.

> >By defending your original comments you (and still are) saying that
> >there was nothing wrong with them, and that there is nothing wrong 
> >with being molested.  
> 
> I never made fun of a child-molestation victim. I made fun of the S.O. of
> an apparent child-molester. Different thing entirely.

I can't even comment on this, other than to say that you continue to sink
far, far beneath my worst expectations of you.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?)
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:47:45 GMT

In <1992Jul14.011239.21066@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >
In article <1992Jul9.210555.1652@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Jul8.010926.8658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>
In article <1992Jul6.210332.13220@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <1992Jul3.153144.2879@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>>>

>>>>>If "the state" has to teach anything, it should be extensive human biology/
>>>>>sex ed/why _nobody_ should touch you there from grades K-12...
>
>>>>This, of course, would be "value neutral" education?
>
>>>Not at all.  What it should be is fear-eliminating schooling.  When an 8 
>>>year old girl understands what "her privates" are for, the odds of somebody 
>>>being able to molest her falls to a low.  When a 7 year old boy understands 
>>>what "Uncle Timothy" is trying to do, and knows that he _can_ tell people 
>>>and be believed, the odds of him being sucessfully molested (multiple times) 
>>>falls drastically.
>
>>So you support the idea that values should be taught in the public 
>>school system?  Interesting.  Which values should we endorse?  What
>>criteria should we use to select the "right" values to teach? 
>
>The value that your body is your own, and nobody has the right to use it 
>against your will.

I don't disagree with your contention, but why is acceptable to include
the teaching of this value in a public curriculum, and unacceptable to 
include other values?  Abstinence, for example.

Bill
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:49:54 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
>># = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
>
>>[text deleted]
>>
>>#This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
>>#abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
>>#
>>#And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
>>#big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
>>#illegal abortion. 
>>#
>>#Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
>
>>Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
>>
>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
>
>Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
>Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).

Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
gave it to you guys on the chin. 

That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
bold-faced liar. 

That's a punch that ought to kill her, much less score a KO. 

>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>of your ass like Holtsinger does?

Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  

>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com


===============================================================================
		  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
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "Upon insertation, some pain may be experienced" (Was: CNN...)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:53:24 GMT

From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>> In article fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>> 
>>> #Prostoglandin abortions, which is a technique that is sometimes used
>>> #today, will result in the abortion of a stillborn fetus. That is the
>>> #fetus Rev. Shenck was carrying.
>>> 
>>> There is no way of proving your assertion.  A fetus aborted by
>>> prostaglandin is indistinguishable from one spontaneously
>>> aborted.  I doubt that we'll ever know what the truth is here.
>>
>>Unless the mother comes forth.
> 
> Oh, boy, I'm just waiting for this one.  The Pro-Lifers are going to get
> some woman to go on TV and claim that the Righteous Rev is the one who 
> aborted her baby; that's how she knows that it's the one he was waving 
> around.
> 
> After all, it has completly different DNA, etc etc etc etc etc...
> 
> How else would she make a positive ID?

Obviously he got it somewhere.  Is it so off base to think he simply got it
from it's mother?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Deaths of mothers
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:15:29 GMT

<1992Jul25.191051.25029@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
>GS> <1992Jun27.204006.4244@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
>GS> :
>GS> >gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes...
>GS> >GS> Pretty funny stuff, Suzanne.  Why don't you try reading one of those ma
>GS> >GS> books you claim to have on fetal development.  Check on when the nervou
>GS> >GS> system is capable of transmitting pain and then get back to us.
>GS> >
>GS> >Eight weeks.
>
>GS> Sorry Will, but myelination doesn't occur until about the 23 week.
>GS> Without this the nervous system is a sputtering faltering system, unable
>GS> to transmit signals of any significance.
>
>The debate rages on...

I'm not debating -- I'm stating biological fact.  If you have a problem
with it I'm sorry.  But your argument is with the researchers who
determined this medical information.

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

I'm not arguing.  If you believe that a nervous system without myelination
is capable of significant electrical activity that it your right.  Heck,
lot's of people believe that a fetus is a child so you've got lots of
company.  But your belief that it is so does not make it so.


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 all.
-- 
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