HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Children's Crusade (was Maury Povich & Brainwashing, or similar)
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:31:33 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> I'm surprised that people are focusing on the 13 year old -
> I was saddened by the fact that she felt it necessary to ask
> her father if she could ever change her mind, and I think
> that she's not really hearing both sides of the story, but
> she wasn't the one who really haunted me.  

> I wonder if anyone is willing to say that a seven year old
> child is capable of making the decision to get arrested, or
> of even understanding the abortion issue.  I think that
> this child is being abused.

I do too.

> (My position on the parental involvement laws/getting arrested
> while protesting debate is this:  many 13 year olds are
> capable of making decisions regarding their own personal
> safety and well-being, but fewer are capable of making
> decisions regarding the safety and well-being of other,
> unrelated people.)

Agreed.  And it should be said that children have a tendency to
rebel when we attempt to mold them like modeling clay into 
something _we_ want them to be.

For example, some years ago Joe Henderson wrote a column in Runner's
World about a teenager who had run dozens of marathons and had gotten
his best time down to around 2:30.  It seems that when this boy was
about ~4 years old, he told his dad that he'd like to run in the
Olympic marathon someday as they were watching the Olympic marathon
on TV.

The dad promptly put him on the 'marathon training treadmill' and kept
him on it, risk of permanent damage to developing bone structure
notwithstanding.  Henderson predicted that sooner or later, the boy
would rebel and step off the treadmill.  And that's exactly what he did;
within months of that column's publication.

Sooner or later, many of these children who are getting arrested at
pro-life demonstrations will run across a book, a magazine story or
whatever that will compel them to re-examine their actions or beliefs.
I predict that the parents of these children will have to cope with a
lot of anger and rebellion sometime in the future.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.002747.28086@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <xbnng8=.ray@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>>   As you may recall, the method effectiveness of the model was 99.6 percent
>>>in the Creighton-St. John's Mercy study conducted in 1980 (559 couples;
>>>4,957 couple months of use) (see Table 1).  In 1985, Joanne Doud published
>>>the results of her study at St. Francis Hospital of Wichita, Kansas.  The
>>>method effectiveness was 99.1 percent (376 couples; 2,463 months of use).
>>>In the most recent study, the largest to date, the method effectiveness is
>>>99.9 percent (697 couples; 7,238 couple months of use).
>> 
>> Very interesting numbers indeed!  Few questions though.  I'm not sure 
>> what they mean by "effectiveness" or how they  are measuring it.  With
>> "conventional" contraceptives effectiveness generally refers to how often
>> the woman can expect to not get pregnant each time she has intercourse.
>> (that is, if my memory is correct).  The information you posted doesn't
>> include any information about just what the numbers _mean_.  I'd appreciate
>> more data, as it could be useful.
>
>
>I've posted for you all I have on the matter, but I can tell you this, that
>the _expectations_ of a couple using NFP do _change_ during the course of a
>month as to whether participating in an act of intercourse will produce a
>pregnancy.   Certain times of the month they expect they will not get pregnant
>if they have sex, and certain other times of the month they fully expect they
>_will_ get pregnant if they have sex.
>
	This is, of course, pretty much the response we should have expected.
I assume the Forgach just posted a pamphlet that was at hand; there was no
reason to expect that she would have any idea whether the figures quoted
therein had any validity, and the fact that she totally ignores this rather
central issue in her response is not surprising.
	Obviously, if you're not told how variables such as "effectiveness"
are defined, you can't tell whether the figures are at all comparable to
those for other methods of contraception.  This is not a bug; this is a
feature - at least to the propagandists who wrote the original pamphlet.
	For the propagandist, all statistics are equally valid, and the larger
the numbers the better.  Questions of empirical validity are not only of no
interest, they are irrelevant.  Asking them for methodological details is
likely to produce little more than a flood of obfuscation.

>Suzanne Forgach

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: She moaned passionatly as he pressed... (Was: A modest proposal)
Summary: Peter thinks that his machine is the world? 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 17:16:48 GMT

In article <nyikos.715738492@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>You are just trying to gross me out, and as I said to Keith, it cannot
>be done in talk.abortion without getting so explicit as to bring the
>wrath of network censors down on your head, and bringing pressure to
>make ALL talk.abortion moderated, something none of us wants.

And as I keep trying to explain to you, Peter, "milo" is *NOT* the world.  Try
reading the "Welcome to UseNet" FAQ in news.announce.newusers, or the FAQ at
your local site.  This is a loosly controlled Anarchy, not the ThoughtPolice.

>
>Back in Wollongong I saw a newsgroup with a name like alt.sex.kinky
>but there's nothing like it here.  So you can't gross me out by
>posting there either.

Gee, since "milo" doesn't carry alt.sex.kinky, it must not exist anymore.

I guess I'd better stop reading it, then, and tell the alt.* crowd to remove
it from the net.

Wow.  You learn something new every day.

Tell me something, Peter.  Does "milo" carry the {following groups, or should
we remove them from the rest of the world also?

soc.motss?
alt.sex.beastility?
alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork?
alt.politics.homosexuality?
talk.christian.christian?
alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die?
>
>But as I said to Keith, I can't stop you from e-mailing me.

And as I said to you, I don't do E-Mail, honey. I also don't do Windows.  I do
do OS/2, OS/400, MVS/370, and MVS/ESA.
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 05:23:27 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  <16859C4D9.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>
>      No.  Just like we haven't tried to live with cucumbers
> stuck up our noses to rid ourselves of evil Heterosexual, Oxygen breathing
> mass murderers.

Of course not.  Wrong orifice.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:59:45 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep11.063737.5706@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean):
>> 
>> What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>> change the way pro-choicers think?  
> 
> Not at all.  They're supposed to change the way you feel.

I don't feel any differently.  I feel (because of my own warped
convictions) that abortion is wrong after implantation.  I don't
feel I should force my own values onto anybody else, therefore
I'm pro-choice.  I don't feel women seeking/gaining abortions
have done anything wrong.

>> Isn't this the same warped
>> line of reasoning held by that "I'm talking psychology not
>> science" guy, that if women had disgusting goo-people growing
>> on the *outside* of their bellies then there would be less
>> abortions in the world?
> 
> If each woman looked at a real time sonogram of her own baby, there
> would be fewer abortions in the world.

No doubt about that, but there'd still be plenty of abortions.
 
>> I'm still pro-choice.  Does that make me evil?
> 
> No.  Just unfeeling.

I am not unfeeling.  I thrive on emotion :)!
 
> (Unless, of course, you've never seen one yet.)

Seen plenty-o, thanks.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.040713.32172@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#In  <1992Sep10.004307.17436@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
##
## I've run you over with facts. Take the Gloria Feldt debate.
## You're about to be majorly embarrassed by my facts and your lies.
#
#Yes, like your "fact" that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion
#(at age 89???).  We're still reeling from the shock of that one.  (Or is
#that shaking with laughter?)

Now, Larry, she was only 83.  (Dennis will probably argue that those
six years *matter.*)  I don't think that anyone has explained the
facts of life to the little boy.

(I'm still amused that POC thinks that the 1st Ammendment prohibits
Ms. Feldt from practicing her religion.)

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:22:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>         Your advanced hang glider, the one you do not let anyone go
>> up in who has had no previous experience, has asked me to tell you that
...
>> inhabiting the hang glider, and not vice versa.  Your advanced hang glider
>> has asked me to tell you that it alone is qualified to speak of what it
...
>>         It says that, as Ms. Regard might put it, giving you and other
>> experienced hang gliders the right to inhabit it is giving yourselves
...
>>         Your hang glider tells me it thinks that's bogus.

Is it me, or are pro-lifers all looney tunes? We have forgach claiming
fetuses speak to her, chaney thinking he's a borg/airplane/hall/whatever,
Welch claiming that starvation doens't kill you, and now Nyikos thinking 
that an inanimate object talks. 

>Mr. Nyikos would give more credence to a hang glider than a woman, and that
>doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm not surprised by anything anymore. After all, with the above mentioned
weirdos, and claims they have made (and in one case reinforced today)
we wonder that a group of like minded insurgents have penetrated the
Republican party in an attempt to take over that party, which we shall
see if it leads to the election of another inept president, but at least
this one won't be led with a ring in the nose by the religious right-
wingers.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 03:47:52 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.715883539@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep04.162824.32187@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margoli
> >In  <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>
> >> >>  You mean it
> >> >>is simply a baseless speculation?  Gee, I wonder where I
> >> >>learned how to do that?
> >>
> >> >Maybe you read _A Handmaid's Tale_?
> >>
> >> An off-the-wall novel set in the future USA, in which women
> >> are enslaved, RAPED, made to bear children, and if they procure
> >> an abortion, they are executed.
>
> >(Note that you're responding to yourself here.)  Dean wasn't referring
> >to the anti-choicer's utopia presented in A Handmaid's Tale;
>
> As I recall, he was giving us all a tall tale about ultra-right-wing Christians
> artificially inseminating women and forcing them to bear children.

Analogous with the tall tales you've been spinning here.

> BTW "anti-choicer's utopia" is the first valid use of the term
> "anti-choice" that I have seen in talk.abortion.  None of us
> pro-life networkers look upon the world described there as anything
> but a dystopia [a term for which I am indebted to Elizabeth Bartley].
> It's even more horrific than 1984, and probably lacking all the
> sophistication of Orwell's classic.

Please realize that for many of us, forcing a woman to remain pregnant
against her will is equally horrific.

> > he was
> >referring to the example of baseless speculation that you've shown
> >with just about everything you've posted.
>
> When I quote from newspaper articles, magazines, books, is that baseless
> speculation?

No, but when you say that maybe the fact that more rapes are reported than
incest means that abortionists are covering up incidences of the latter,
you're engaging in baseless speculation.  When you suggest that the
"pro-life" lunatics caught bombing clinics are just claiming to be "pro-life"
in order to get a lesser sentence, you're engaging in imbecilic, baseless
speculation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:12:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep10.232928.9140@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
#In article <1992Sep10.230934.26108@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
#writes:
#
#}Well hey, harvesting fetal tissue for the bodily use of adults is certainly
#}a form of cannibalism.
#
#How so?  I was under the impression that cannibalism involved some sort of
#eating.  "Harvesting" may be disgusting, but a form of cannibalism?
#Do you think those who use fetal tissue actually eat it?  Darn, Suzanne,
#you seem to have some weird ideas...

Some pro-force publication must have spread this one.  I heard
it a few months ago from one of our local loonies.  She was
screaming "It's just like Jeffrey Dahmer is in there!"  I asked
her what she meant and she said that they were cannibalizing
fetuses to get their tissue.  (Of course, the clinic isn't
gathering fetal tissue for research, but I expect them to be
misinformed - I just waondered about her characterization of
it as cannibalism.)  

Susan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:50:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bu43LD.71q.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
wrote:
> 
> In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> #Anticipating a Yes answer, let me add: are men barred from 
> #membership in NOW?
> 
> Of course not.  Many men are feminists.  You can recognize them
> by their actions - they treat women as equals, and work to
> guarantee that no one is discriminated against because of
> their gender.  They don't refer to women as "bitches," nor
> do they claim that there are no women engineers when there
> certainly are.

I read a couple of days ago one of these 'manager wannabe' books,
it compared the social office cultures between various countries,
and one norm was defined on the polarity of feminine and masculine
cultures. For instance the Nordic working environment is very feminine
due to the general feeling of cooperation at every instance. While
the American working environment is masculine, where single heroic efforts 
are praised.

Now, it would not imply that all workers in Sweden are females, while
all workers in USA are men. I would take one step further and define
certain religions female, cooperation and sharing oriented, while
others are far more individual action oriented (masculine).

Christianity is a funny beast, the original Christianity I would classify
as feminine, especially the small churches where people shared their
belongings. I do feel that the future of Christianity is more and 
more masculine, this because the push is for personal experience, and
individuals experiencing and evangelizing the message. Anyway, those
are my own opinions. Feel free to critisize 'em.

Kent
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:38:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes ...
> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>[discussion of father's right to control woman's 
>reproductive system deleted.]
>>
>>For the logic impaired, the desire to control does not imply hatred of the
>>person being controlled.  I control my baby, and I love him more than
>>anything else.
>>
>Does anyone besides me find this analogy chilling?

No, you're not the only one.  It has echos of the Inquisition, when
the Holy Inquisator would have a person tortured and burned at the stake
in order to save their soul.  That too, was done in the name of "love."

But then, perhaps "control" was a poor choice of words, and "guide" is what
was meant.  Given Mr. Stevens' previous postings, however, I don't really
think this is the case.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What if???
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 06:38:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>I could tell you things about kangaroos that very few people, even
>Aussies, know about.  Please hold off on your epithets until you get
>a clearer picture of what I am getting at.

I don't know about everyone else, but to me this is one of the most
irritating things about your style of posting: you continually allude
to facts, data, experiences, and the like, without ever backing them
up.  I, for one, do not accept your mere word as evidence of anything.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't know diddly about medical ethics,
women, abortion, or 'roos and are just spouting off to look good.

Put up or shut up.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:29:17 GMT

Propellor Head expectorates:

> If everyone responded to pro-abortion flamefests like Steve Franklin
> did to Lefty, the pro-aborts would either be scared off of USENET,
> or would be more inclined to shape up and calm down ...

I nominate this as the funniest t.a statement of the week.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:17:08 GMT

In article <5774@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>Keep in mind that the Bible slaps you and the Elephant Party upside the
>head on this issue.  The disciples were constantly trying to hitch Jesus'
>wagon to a political star (overthrow of the hated Roman rule), but they
>failed to understand that Jesus had His own star-- to remake the world
>from within each human soul.  Not from without.
>
>You are such stuff as Pharisees are made on, Nyikos.  Face it, you have
>*no* *idea* what relationship these people have with Jesus Christ or any
>other deity.

I truly hope that you become a Christian someday.  You already know more about
the character of God than a good many Christians, like Mr. Nyikos.
If we could get the Pharisees out of the church and people who understand God
in, the church would be the shining light it was meant to be.  I thought I was
the only one who saw the Pharisees in the modern church.

As Tony Campolo says regarding the political agenda of the modern American
Christian church, "Why didn't Jesus ever think of that?"

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.