HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh-no, not *that* one again!
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:54:13 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul30.003419.8862@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Jul23.185720.27575@coopsol.com>, by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> <1992Jul9.000055.25761@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>
>>>                   The biological development of the unborn child is well
>>>known, and might I add, well ignored.
>> 
>> I couldn't find a reference to 'unborn child' development.  I found plenty
>> of references to "fetal development.
>>... 
>> 
>>>It's as plain as the nose on your face, but your "educated" glasses
>>>are so thick, you've lost sight of the obvious.   
>> 
>> Yeah, what we need is more illiteracy and ignorance.  Imagine someone on
>> this board actually putting down education?  Pretty weird isn't it.
> 
> 
> Yeah, especially since that wasn't what I was doing, by a long shot.
> 
> What I was, and am, objecting to, is the practice of cloaking one's eyes
> with the garb of "education", insisting that people use Latin words like
> "fetus" instead of the equivalent English word "baby", in order to
> dehumanize another human being for the purpose of committing some cruel
> act against them, in this case, the bloody destruction of that human being.

The word "fetus" is an extremely useful medical and scientific term.
If you referred to every stage of human development as "baby" nobody
would understand what anybody else was talking about.  It has nothing
to do with dehumanization.

> You can try to sanitize it all you want, with "re-education", mental re-
> programming, redefinitions, and even insisting that English speaking Americans
> speak Latin.   

Ever checked out a book of taxonomy?  Latin is the language of the
scientific community, at least as far as naming goes.

Hmmmmmm...  Is there anything wrong with referring to your shoulder blade
as a scapula?  This is a similiar case.

> But you cannot make the underlying truth of the horror of what
> you are advocating, the bloody dismemberment of millions of unborn children,
> go away.   No amount of whitewash will cover the bloodstains.

No one is whitewashing anything.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:10:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.141808.11160@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (DearOldDoug) writes:
>The following article about the live birth of babies following abortion
>originally appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981. 

A pinnacle of journalistic prowess.  Gripping reading. Rife with emotional
impact.  Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up!

>It is reprinted in The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621,

Yet *more* credibility.

>and it is taken from the latter source. Unfortunately, the 
>Congressional Record contains only the second part of the article.
>If you have information on an accessible source for the first part
>of the article, please e-mail it to me. 

The moral, after reading this (hand typed!?) article, ladies, is "Don't have
a late term abortion if you have a weak stomach."



-- 
"Oh please, Lord, break the curse on women's hearts that says we don't need 
our men.  Break that independence...Help men to rise up to take positions
of leadership and authority that we might submit to them."  -Toni Denver,
 operation rescue member, as she is quoted in Life Magazine, July 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:41:46 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>>>> Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
>>>>> having abortions. 
>>>>> Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats.

>>>> Like, "If I ever find out that you're pregnant, I'll kill you?"
>>>> A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional family
>>>> values, wouldn't you say? 

>>> That's illegal. And it would prompt her to kill the baby by abortion. 

>> Of course.  But here you demonstrate more concern for the fetus than
>> for the daughter.

> The daughter ain't being killed; the fetus is. 
> So I show more concern for the victim who might die, than I show
> concern for the victimizer. Ooooh, gee, that's a _horrible_ principle!

'Scuse me, isn't the daughter more of a victim in your little scenario?
Let's recast your last sentence, using more accurate terminology:

*** So I show more concern for the fetus who might die, than I show
*** concern for the teenage daughter. Ooooh, gee, that's a _horrible_
*** principle!

I agree; that's a _horrible_ principle!

[--deletions--]

There's a lot of your family squabbles tied into the rest of the
article, Steve, and I don't feel comfortable getting into it.  For
what it's worth, I think that your willingness to make a daughter's
life miserable for the sake of a dubious-at-best principle stinks.

At a time like that, the last thing a daughter of yours would need
is a parent barking the party line in her face.  Repeatedly affir-
ming love and support is the way to go, Steve, especially if you
want her to visit you when you're old and gray.
-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: world  
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:04:20 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>>##		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

<1992Jul24.211316.19577@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) wrote:
>> Isn't he referring to a court case in the news a few days ago?

<1992Jul27.234140.11263@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Yes, I am. 
>
> Thanks for stabbing these pro-choice folks in the back. We pro-lifers
> will thank you heartily for it... 

Get this straight, Chaney.  I don't post in t.a. to stab anybody
in the back.  I post to provide facts where I have them and
they are missing from the discussion, and to express informed opinions 
when I think they're important.  I think abortion is an important 
issue to discuss, not a sporting event to be played.  

Had you simply posted about the recent case, we could have
begun discussing it.  But you didn't do that.  Instead you
posted a misleading hint in your .sig as bait and waited to 
pounce on whoever took it.

If you insist on game-playing, I suppose t.a. is a large enough
newsgroup that there's room for it, but most of the adults
here will get tired of it before long.  I'm tired of it now.

So long, Hall.

|   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._________________________________|
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28644 alt.birthright:105
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:35:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.234609.13510@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#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.

I don't have a transcript in front of me, but I'll do it from
memory.  (I'm sure that soon you'll have the chance to see it
on the nightly news.)

Larry King asked Quayle what he would do if his daughter were
pregnant.  Quayle said he would talk with her and counsel her.
King asked what if she wanted to have an abortion.  Quayle
said he would support his daughter in her decision.  King 
asked again, even if she were to have an abortion.  Quayle
repeated, "I would support my daughter."

"Support", to me, sounds a bit stronger than not turning
one's back.  I don't think that it's wrong that Quayle
would support his daughter in her choice, I just think
that it's despicable that he won't allow the parents of
other young women to support their daughters in the same way.

Susan,
who's glad to see that even Suzanne is on to DOD
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers"  Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:26:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.143715.23887@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.234906.936@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>
>>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.
>>A lot of these people are also against the use of fetal tissue for
>>experimentation to save people's lives.  And many of these people are
>>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>>spread.  These people are obviously Pro-Death.
>
>Jonathan:
>Please wake up and smell the coffee.  I haven't seen or heard a significant
>number of pro-life persons on this newsgroup argue for what you say.  It 
>certainly doesn't represent my beliefs.  I believe in quality sex education
>programs, AIDS education and free contraceptives to adults who want it.
>Also, I can see the merit of community centers giving out condoms to 
>young teenagers who request them.  

Oh, you have got to check out the earlier "more legal abortion -> more
lives saved" b.s. by Dennis Gall (well, his last name is really Hall,
but after all the 'Chaney = Hall' pranks he's spawned on USENET
against me, I'm calling him Gall even though it pisses him and his
girlfriend off). I don't have the article, but it was a more logically
evolved version of the article you responded to. 
 
>Wes
>
>-- 
>Wes Orr, Dude
>GVSU
>orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				   You know, some punk might 
				   pick on that statement. 
				   Which is why they're called punks. 

 
===============================================================================
		  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.
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:00:18 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul23.121020.9538@hemlock.cray.com>
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.225042.15548@ncsu.edu>
>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>Sorry, I should have said, "it's never necessary to kill a late term 
>^^^^^^
>>fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman during an elective abortion.
>>Try again."

What do you define as an elective abortion in the above sentence, Doug?

--
Pro-Choice                Anti-Roe                     -  E. Elizabeth Bartley
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29559 talk.religion.misc:13039
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:13:50 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

>In article <1992Jul26.162756.28068@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
>>>> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?
>>>
>>>Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,
>>>and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
>>>with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?
>>
>>Gee, I wonder what blood type it is?  RH Positive or Negative?

     Does that mean that if we test it, we could identify Jesus' DNA
type, and therefore God's?

                                                  MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: string@wrs.com (String)
Subject: Re: BUSH
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.005143.17050@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <nq9ug5o@fido.asd.sgi.com> 
>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>In article <BryM3I.MDI@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
>
>>>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>>In article <Brt4z3.AKr@wrs.com> string@wrs.com (String) writes:
>
>>>>>> Pro-life: yeah right, he's just pandering to the religious right. "We 
>>>>>> just want to protect that cute little infant's life!" Funny thing how 
>>>>>> so many cute little babies grow up in the streets of America with no 
>>>>>> education or hope for a job.
>
>>>>>> And how many cute little babies are filling up america's prisons after
>>>>>> committing really heinous crimes like being black.
>>>>>> Some life. 
>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that black babies can be killed because they might
>>>>> grow up to become prison inmates? 
>
>> Only Holtsinger could take a bitter comment about racism in
>> American society, and turn it into an accusation that the
>> poster is racist.  Holtsinger-- master of the twisted words.
>
>Where did I accuse the poster of racism? I did no such thing.
>(In e-mail, he finally answered "no" to my question).
>
>
>>>> Please refer to my last follow-up to the same knee-JERK reaction that 
>>>> you've submitted.
>
 string sez in follow-up: 
		blah blah blah...
		I do not advocate killing anyone.
		blah blah blah...

 this was too much info for Mr. H, and he didn't understand the key sentance.

>>> Please answer the question directly. Are you suggesting that black babies 
>>> can be killed because they might grow up to become prison inmates? Your
>>> last follow-up didn't address the question which I am asking. A "yes"
>>> or "no" answer would be sufficient.
>
>> Actually, the followup did, but Holtsinger deleted it.
>> Nice guy, that Holtsinger-- really honest.
>
>He didn't answer my question in any of his follow-ups.

My appologies to talk.abortion innocents.
Doug! here you are you little weasel! I heard that I might find you hanging
around these parts, and here you are. In my e-mail response I answered your
question with an answer you could understand - no. I then asked you several
questions reguarding your position w.r.t. gov't responsibility to children if
you advocate gov't regulation (ban) of abortion. If you are capable of
thought and reason, you should be able to answer those simple questions.
Just for the record, it goes something like this:
If you support a gov't ban on abortion, do you feel the gov't then has an
obligation to supply children with adequate (sp) food, clothing, and shelter,
as well as medical care, and education. I wouldn't mind answers from any/all
so called "pro-lifers" out there. Please try to take all emotional/irrational
"thinking" out of it, and give me your position(s) on this.

my appologies again to t.ab. innocents (esp. if this has been discussed before).

peace,
string.
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:51:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <64100@hydra.gatech.EDU>
>, >>> = rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>> = Keith Cochrane

>>>Let's say that 1% of abortions are third trimester ones.

>>Wrong again.  But, let's continue on...

>PICK YOUR OWN PERCENTAGE.  I've seen numbers like this before on
>t.o and they were not contested - I think the number was 0.5% or
>so, but that's on the same order of magnitude, which is similar to 
>saying that numbers around 1 (say the set [0,2]) could be considered 
>in the same order of magnitude, whereas, the number 10 is 
>not of the same order.

What???  The number .1 (and .1% is one figure I've heard for third-
trimester abortions, the other being 100 / year) is not of the same
magnitude as 1; it's different by an order of magnitude.  The number
.01 is different by two orders of magnitude, the number .001 by
three orders of magnitude....  The set [0,2] contains an infinity
of magnitudes.

>>Ok.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, less than 100 abortions are
>>performed PER YEAR after the 24th week of pregnancy.  These are done for 
>>life threatening reasons to the mother or because of severe deformities in 
>>the developing fetus.  There are only 3 or 4 doctors in the entire US who
>>perform third trimester abortions.
>
>I have not seen this in print anywhere - are these new statistics?
>As stated above I've seen numbers from 0.5% to 1%.

I've never seen a number above .1%.  Only .8% of abortions are performed
after the *21st* week (outdated figure - 1985 - but the trends were headedd
in the earlier-abortions direction, anyway), let alone the 26th week.

                    - Beth
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:02:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other 
>> person, an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; 
>> care can (and often is) transferred to other people.  
>
>But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
>the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
>the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
>kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
>could care for them.  

You're really reaching on this one.  Give it up.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):

>> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
>> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?

>Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,
>and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
>with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?

	Was the blood tested? And does it muck up the painting??

	The Watsonville was probably Watsonville, CA, to the south of
the Bay Area.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:03:27 GMT

In article <64007@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

Welcome back to talk.abortion, Richard!  Did you bring your handcuffs and that
shows that guy in the sling getting "stripped" that I like?

>In article <22dml=#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>   One of the techniques to abolish a woman's constitutional right 
>>to abortion is to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion.  
>>One favorite ploy used by the less intelligent pro-force fanatics 
>>is to evoke the subject of third trimester abortions.  They evoke the 
>>subject as if it were some significant part of the big picture of abortion 
>>in America.  It is usually suggested by these zealots that there are 
>>thousands of women in America who are daily aborting their about-to-be-born
>>children.
>
>4000 abortions/day - 1,500,000 abortions/year - these are approximations,
>but pretty good ones, correct?

No, but that's never stopped you before.  Tell me something.  Is it difficult
to breath through your duodenum?
>
>Let's say that 1% of abortions are third trimester ones.

Wrong again.  But, let's continue on...
>
>1% of 1,500,000 is about 15,000 per year or 40 per day.

At least you can do 5th grade math...
>
>Are these ok numbers?

Well, they're completly wrong, but if they're "just numbers", I suppose they're
ok.  I mean, you've got an awful lot of "0"'s there, and you seem to have
forgotten completly about the lovely curves in the number "8"...
>

Ok.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, less than 100 abortions are
performed PER YEAR after the 24th week of pregnancy.  These are done for 
life threatening reasons to the mother or because of severe deformities in 
the developing fetus.  There are only 3 or 4 doctors in the entire US who
perform third trimester abortions.
>>Religion stops a thinking brain.
>
>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.

Well, which is it?  Fear?  Reverence?  They're hardly the same thing.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: OR conviction overturned
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:27:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@



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.  

I doubt that this latest case will set any new precedents.

Susan