HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: What a difference ]20 weeks make... (Was: Observations)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.211740.16567@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
># So how can you justify [saving] 9 months of inconvience for the
># mother [at the expense of] a humans life?
>
>This is fairly amusing...

[Story deleted]

Time out for a SteveChaneyisInsensitive SensitivityPoliceAlert break...

I think this story was hilarious.

As for this part:

>__Oh, and by the way, you're going to have to go off your anti-
>depressants until after the child is born -- it's contraindicated for
>pregnant women.''

How often does this happen in pregnancy? Are you telling us that 50% of all
pregnant women are on anti-depressants and that this is indeed a
horrendously huge case?
The fact is, this particular situation is extremely rare.

This is indeed another one of your attempts to blow things up way out of
perspective, and to scare your anti-life friends so they can't sleep at
night.

And you go after US about propaganda?


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:28:21 GMT

In article <1ad7ldINNla@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.183713.3166@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>In article <1a9ruoINN4hq@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Somebody's lying to the kids?  Somebody's telling them there ain't no 
>chance?  Boy, that's bad news. 

You laugh, but it's true!  You are cordially invited to spend a day at your local HS, in a health class, during their sex education unit.  Do it.  It will be good for you.  

rlg
-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:09:07 GMT

In article <90391@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Only you can top Boboli) writes:
>Jennifer
>>Brian
>
>
>>Hey, Brian.  I think I can anticipate Kevin's response here....
>>"They shouldn't get married unless they want a child" or something similar.
>
>I never said this.  I never said they shouldn't have sex if they dont
>want a child.  I DID say that they take a risk of getting pregnant if
>they have sex.
>

Yes, and if they get pregnant, and they don't want to be, they can
terminate.


>>He doesn't realize that human beings ARE sexual beings and to deny that
>>is similar to denying that we breathe air.
>
>I never denied anyone the right to have sex.  This personal relationship
>lies in the heart of the 1st and 14t Amendments.

No, what you are doing is denying that humans are sexual beings.  

>
>>He also doesn't realize that
>>god intended it that way or sex wouldn't be so pleasurable.  And, he
>>also doesn't realize that sex is a very important part of a marriage.
>>All in all, Kevin doesn't realize much, does he?
>
>IYHO.  But I never stated anything of the sorts, Jenny.
>Juxtapose some truth with your assertions or some logical explanations derived
>from my statements, then your arguments can be considered valid.
>
>>Jennifer

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt--this time.

Jennifer
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:16:30 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct2.153605.25461@sniap.mchp.sni.de>, Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de writes:
|Karen, I feel rather ashamed that it's because of people like
|me that you felt you had to explain yourself in this way.

|If it's any small help, your post was not a waste of time, and
|at least I am now beginning to realise how foolish I have been.

Dude, allow me to give you a virtual handshake.

|So what should I do in t.a. now?  It's possible that I should
|just keep my fool mouth shut.  If I do, you may remember me to
|the next simpleton who comes along, and does not let compassion
|get in the way of a good argument.

You should tell other people about your experience here.
You can show them (with compassion) why you changed your
mind.  As somebody who can perhaps understand their state
of mind, you might be able to reach them.

Join Dan "Sky" King in the ranks of the converted.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Now I have to convert Galen to the cult of Eno.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS (Case 1)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:20:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.718177738@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Sep28.235818.19263@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
#
#I missed the question.


I'm sure that you did.

##Since Nyikos won't provide the name of the plaintiff, I will.
##According to "The Abortion Injury Report", Kathleen Marie
##Maki filed suit against Dr. Hanson, alleging medical 
##malpractice.  From the article, "Kathleen Marie Maki
##claims in the suit that Dr. Hanson committed assualt and
##battery because she inflicted excessive physical force
##during the abortion by having four staff members hold 
##Kathleen down on the table, one person holding each of
##her arm and legs.  Kathleen now suffers permanent and
##progressive numbness in her hands and feet." (AIR,
##July, 1990.)
#
#Actually a quote from a newspaper.

Yeah, right, it's from the Jacksonville, MS Clarion Ledger, 
or so the AIR claims.  Since the AIR does not bother to give 
dates for the newspaper articles that it cites, it's 
rather hard to check.

#BTW, Susan, Charles Wysong told me that they do give information
#about medical help, etc. if the woman leaves a name and phone
#number.  Did you do that?

Well, no, I didn't give my name and phone number to those
people.  I can imagine that many women would be hesitant
to do so.  The other women that I know who have called
their number said that they were pressed to identify
themselves.

I'm surprised that they'll admit that they would withhold
information from a woman in a medical crisis, though.

#He also said they would NEVER send a woman back to the abortionist
#for medical help.  

(And then they can claim that the clinic wouldn't
help the woman....)

#Do you care to dispute this statement?

Yes, I do.  (Does Wysong claim to be the only person who
answers the phone?)  You could probably call them
yourself to check this - judging by the experiences
of people that I know who have called the number, the
ARC folks are too witless to know that men don't have
abortions.

##I'd like to know the outcome, as well.  The AIR, as far as
##I know, never prints the outcomes of these lawsuits.
#
#Also, Susan, I have at least one other source for the Maki
#case.

I'm so impressed.  Can you provide it, or is it a secret?

Have you personally made any attempt to learn the outcome
of any of these cases?  Does Wysong follow up on these things?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 00:45:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bvo0B1.B5C@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >
> >Adrienne was obviously refering to an old joke involving Tonto
> >and the Lone Ranger.  It's a very well-known joke.  It was
> >clearly not a flame based on race, and if one knows the joke,
> >which I am sure most people reading this group do, there is a
> >point to using the punch-line here.  One can only construe it
> >as a racial remark if one is stretching pretty hard for an
> >excuse to flame Adrienne.
>
> I don't read misc.humor and I never heard the joke.
> Would you publish it?

Lone Ranger:  Tonto,
Tonto:        Yes, Kimosabe?
Lone Ranger:  We're surrounded by hostile Indians, and the situation looks
              hopeless.
Tonto:        Yes, Kimosabe.
Lone Ranger:  You've been a faithful companion to me for many years.
Tonto:        Yes, Kimosabe.
Lone Ranger:  We've gotten out of a lot of tough spots before.
Tonto:        Yes, Kimosabe.
Lone Ranger:  But this time, I think we're going to die.
Tonto:        What you mean, "we", white man?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 18:01:42 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  <nyikos.718165791@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep28.185424.11474@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) wr
>
> >You still haven't proven that PP clinics do not offer anesthesia.
>
> Note, I said, *as a matter of course*.  They do make it an option, BUT
> I would be surprised if there was anywhere near the range of options
> one gets with childbirth: general, epidural, cervical, pudendal.

I would be surprised too.  With childbirth, they're worried about doing
harm to the child.  In an abortion, there's no need to worry if the
anaesthetic will harm the fetus, since it's going to be aborted.

> > Remember
> >making that assertion and then dropping it?
>
> I never made THAT assertion.  I said *some* PP clinics do not offer it,
> then retracted even that statement, replacing it with the one you see
> above.  You just never saw the retraction.

You retracted it after a number of people pointed out that it was incorrect.

>   A pity, since you and
> Margolis have been claiming that I make all sorts of admissions I did
> not make, then missing the one I DID make!

1.  I did see your eventual correction.
2.  Please list what you believe I claim you admitted that you feel you
    did not.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Keywords: poor DOD
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:15:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.171032.17861@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <6692@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## double standards.  DODie has said publicly that he won't
## criticze another pro-forcer on the net - he'll only
## do it in e-mail.  
#
#This is a lie.

Okay, DOD, you just said that you "don't normally" do it.
Since you would prefer to have the exact quote re-posted,
here it is.

"I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
their views."
-dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) in <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu> 

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion is murder. I mean...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:42:22 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)

-I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
-that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
-"Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
-abortion is the outright killing of children.

If your definition of children includes the unborn type, that's fine.
That still doesn't mean abortion has anything to do with infanticide
or murder.

-With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
-that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
-is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
-capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,

You mean what?  You mean you don't understand that the laws of a nation/
world do not tend to follow your own personal warped line of reasoning?
Thought so.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:49:49 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->How many "weeks and thousands of lines of typing flaming [sic] someone else"
->was expended on my smattering of words posted in alt.flame re: child
->molestation, Susie?

->Look in the mirror.

i don't know why susan would do that, kebbie. as i recall,
she made only one post in response to your abusing a
victim of child abuse.

how many did you make? wasn't it something along the lines
of 25+ before you apologized and then another 25 or so
after you apologized as you tried to blame everyone else but
yourself.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38574 rec.music.folk:6582
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Indoctrination of the Young: Bawdy Lyrics
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:20:10 GMT
Organization: No, Never.  What, Never?

In article <1992Sep24.235944.6333@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>
>One two and three jolly coachmen,
>Sat in an English tavern,
>Three jolly coachmen,
>Sat in an English tavern,
>And they decided,
>And they decided,
>And they decided,
>To have another flaggon.

Hmm.  That scans, or can be forced, with suitable lubrication or
emollient, to scan, to a ditty entitled "Farewell to Grog", a
celebration (???) of the removal of the Rum Ration from ships at
sea in the US Navy  (In 1861 or so, I believe)

-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:34:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.173529.23311@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct3.165538.27752@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> saying, in essence, is "What's wrong with not riding as a means to prevent
>> motorcycle accidencts?" If I followed that kind of logic, I'd never
>> leave the house.
>
>It's a question you'd expect only from someone who's never ridden a
>motorcycle, isn't it.  :-)
Yep. I've never been on anything more responsive than the Nighthawk.
Heh.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:43:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.163418.12330@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep23.113706.20405@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

[..]

>> The fetus, be it person or be it fish,
>> has not 'broken into' anywhere, including the padlocked womb.
>
>Of course not; the sperm did.

If you knew a woman who has successfully sued a sperm for child support, then
I'd have to agree.  But you don't, and I don't.

[...]

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack Mcbryde)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:54:01 GMT

In article <Bv4x9H.Crz@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[lotsa stuff deleted]

>I don't know about Peter Nyikos, but I believe the proposition can
>be "exported into Law" in a consistent and meaningful manner.
>Rape/incest/unhealth changes the balance of rights between woman 
>and fetus, permitting her to remove the fetus from her body.

This sounds suspiciously like you are advocating murdering the fetus
for something for which it wasn't responsible. (The fetus didn't
rape anyone.) Hardly seems consistent with "Abortion is Murder".

jack
--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:53:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <3803@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

[everything deleted except...]

#If you were around during the sixties, the
#difference between feminism then and now should be apparent.  For instance,
#bra burning is no longer used to make statements.  


Bra burning was never used to make statements.  That was a media-
created myth.  No person who was truly informed about the 
feminist movement in the 60's would make such a comment.

(The current incarnation of feminism is known as the second
wave.  The first wave was that of the suffragists in the
nineteenth century.)

Susan
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:03:02 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct05.190925.119410@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
> >In  <nyikos.718168127@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >> In <1992Sep29.004310.110764@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ib
> >>
> >> >In  <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> >> >> In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> >> >> There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
> >> >> and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
> >> >> be terminated.
> >>
> >> >Does this mean you'll stop referring to the fetus as an "unborn child"?
> >> >:-)
> >>
> >> Could you please explain this apparent *non sequitur* of yours, Larry?
> >
> >Since "child", to me, implies "born", the "unborn child" has never
> >existed.  The fetus was terminated, but, according to Martin's logic,
> >the "unborn child" can never be terminated.

> Wrong.  The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
> the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
> you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
> right?

Right - if you buy your premise that the living human sperm/egg isn't human,
or that it isn't alive.

> Also, the unborn child exists as an unborn child.

In your opinion.  I believe that "unborn child" is a null set.  First,
note the smilie?  I didn't really expect you to agree.  Second, in my
explanation to Peter, see the words "to me"?  That explicitly allowed
for other people's beliefs.

You buy the premise, you buy the gag.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <adams.718032397@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.717882733@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>>>>>a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>>>>>and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>>>
>>>>Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>>>>at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>>>
>>>So, decide.  Whose rights take precedence here?  Isn't that what the
>>>argument is about?  A born woman's rights vs an fetus' rights to
>>>**POTENTIALLY** be born alive?
>>>
>>>NOTE WELL: pregnancy does NOT guarantee a live, healthy baby at birth...
>>>
>>
>>The unborn child exists as a human life.
>
>No.  It is *potentially* a human life...until the child is born (one way or
>another, live birth is only a probability, not a certainty).
>

So the existence of a human life, you would agree, is dependent of the
location of that human life.  I didn't know I would be less of a human 
if I were in a small jail cell compared to where I am right now.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:28:09 GMT

In <19knisINNg02@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Sep19.175913.6755@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>> Adrienne
>>>Frank's attempt at humor (with no smiley, yet again, *sigh*,) deleted.
>>At least Frank's projections are more amusing than Suxanne's, doncha think?

Yet another straw in the wind, on the matter of how far Adrienne
has come in 7 years on talk.abortion:

>I sincerely do not believe that Suzanne's postings are attempts at humor.
>While I may find them funny in the abstract, her stuff is really rather
>pitiful if we assume she means *any* of it.

Perhaps 7 years ago she would have asserted that Suzanne's posts
ARE attempts at humor.  If so, she has come a fair way, but her
use of *any* does not augur well for major insights along the way.

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion