HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:47:06 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):

>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>> coincidentally is the the current viability age.

>Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week premie that just
>went home from the hospital?   The age is moving younger and
>younger all the time.  And you know what?  It's NOT the babies
>who are changing.  It's just our medical knowledge of how to
>care for them that is.

Did you miss my post that quoted a neonatologist familiar with the case
that said the gestational age was just shy of 26 weeks?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:46:34 GMT


It's a kinda funny feeling when folks start talking about the "right to kill
Galen"...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Bats don't suck blood was (Re: Hey, Ata Boy - outta here!)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:38:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.014759.10927@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <29705@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU 
> (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> 
> }(1) If Ronald Bense were occupying your body against your will, say
> }he were attached to your neck sucking your blood because he is a
> }vampire, you would have every right to remove him, and probably even
> }kill him.  That is provided you weren't enjoying it.
> 
> Vampire bats do not suck blood.  They make an incision, it bleeds, and
> they lap it up.  I'm not sure about other vampires, but I assume their
> mouth parts are similar.  I don't know of any documentation for that, but
> I expect I can dig up something from Merlin Tuttle (and if you don't
> know who he is, don't be surprised, but you don't know much about bats
> either).  This testimony is from an eyeball witness, is that documentation
> enough?

Mr Mezias did not refer to vampire bats, but to vampires.  I
feel secure in saying, given the context of the original discussion,
that Mr Mezias was refering to those human beings who have become
the undead and, in order to preserve their undeadness, must
drink the blood of living humans.  This behavior in turn causes the
victims of this ghastly imbibing to become vampires themselves.

As a side note, I recall reading a Scientific American article
some years ago (I believe I was still in high school at the time,
which puts it somewhere prior to the discovery of fire) that
speculated about vampires, George III, and porphyria.  The
hypothesis was that the legend of vampirism arose around people
suffering from porphyria, since such people are hyper-sensitive
to sunlight and to garlic, and their urine tends to become
the color of well-aged port, though there was no statement as
to whether or not it tasted as good as port.  I prefer the
Taylor '74 myself, but that's another matter.  Porphyria
also affected their minds adversely.  It has been a long time
since I saw that article, so I don't recall any more of the
details.

Dean Kaflowitz

Urine samples available upon request.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:49:21 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) induces tintinitus:

> Rush Limbaugh is DEAD serious. If you think he's not, then you're an
> idiot and he clearly said you are an idiot. The man is serious, he's
> making a lot of money, and little shits like you haven't stopped him
> yet. 

> Rumor has it, he's got a TV show coming soon.

Is he going to carry on like Peter Finch in "Network?"

> What does Gloria Steinem have?

A best-selling book, for one.  Heaps more integrity
than you, for another.

-- 
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
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: NWROC electronic address change (again ! :-)   )
Date: 12 Sep 1992 15:03:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


	Due to unforeseen problems, as of today, the Electronic mail address
for the National Womens' Rights Organizing Coalition (NWROC) will no longer*
be "aphillip@heartland.freenet.edu" and mail will no longer even be received there  
there.

	The "new" address for NWROC will be the original one.



	usr6418a@tso.uc.edu 





	Thanks for your time. Send all mail for NWROC to:

	usr6418a@tso.uc.edu







	The following has been posted on behalf of NWROC by......




		*
		*
		*
		*

	 *****  *  *****

		*
		 *
	      *   *
	       * *
		*

	W H I T E      R O O K
-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias:White Rook      |   NWROC E-mail:usr6418a@tso.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Peter, don't presume to talk for the pro-choicers. (Was: Badges)
Summary: Even Galen doesn't talk for the Pro-Choicers 
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 16:39:51 GMT

In article <nyikos.715734898@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep05.081218.12140@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>Let's see...  You're saying that if the hang glider was a person, it
>>would have the right to kill Galen if it wanted him out and that was
>>the only way to get him out?  I don't think the analogy holds, since
>>it's possible to just unbuckle some straps and get Galen out alive
>>and well without causing any trauma to the hang glider.  Did I miss
>>something?
>
>You're putting in a lot of implied restrictions to abortion.  Some
>pro-choicers in this group, assuming they can follow the analogy this far,
>might want to rake you over the coals for that.

Peter, "we Pro-Choicers" are quite capable of deciding who to "rake over the
coals" outselves, thank you.

And personally, if all an abortion was was unstrapping the "WarmCuteFuzzy
UnbornBaby", and not causing any harm to the woman or z/e/f, I don't think
there would BE an abortion debate.
--
=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...           =
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Remember me, Pete?)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney chokes again.
Date: 16 Sep 1992 01:38:43 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <nyikos.716584462@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 
>I can show you something pretty close to it.  _Regina v. Turnour_
>Assize 35/23/29 (Essex 1581). "Regina" means the charge was brought
>before the Queen's bench.
 
[_Regina v. Turnour_ case record deleted -- PLH]
 
>This record, and many others like it, are part of an *amicus curiae*
>brief which Joseph Dellapenna has generously provided me with a copy of.
>
>Peter Nyikos
 
Wonderful job of research there, Pete -- now, can you show us just what
that has to do with THIS country in THIS century?
 
Sheesh.
 
Patrick L. Humphrey (HUMPHRY@RICEVM1) Networking & Computing Systems
713 527-4989 at Rice, 713 776-1541 at home, 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub
 
  (Next, Peter will tell us that he was just asking a question.)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Children's Crusade (was Maury Povich & Brainwashing, or similar)
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:04:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


     In talk.abortion, Jammer Jim writes:

In <1992Sep3.203316.19589@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu writes:

> In <1992Sep3.160030.10916@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep1.130250.2197@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >>
> >>     I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
> >>watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
> >>interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
> >>to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
> >>being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
> >>arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
> >>and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
> >>if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
> >>to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
> >>I didn't put her up to it."
> >>
> >The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
> >old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.
> 
>     Not by the side her parents stand for, Wes.

  JJ So what?  This is an internal contradiction of yours on this issue.  She cannot be old enough to choose and yet not old enough to protest.  She is
both, or neither.

     Exactly my point. In other words, if I am being contradictory by
saying that thse children are old enough to decide about their own
reproductive systems but not those of others (and I don't think I am),
then surely the pro-lifers are being contradictory by claiming that
these children are old enough to make life-altering decisions FOR OTHER
WOMEN but not for themselves. Clearer?

> >How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
> >thirteen but not old enough to oppose it? 
> 
>    Of course she is old enough to oppose having an abortion if she
> became pregnant. The idea that she would have no say is disgusting. She
> is not, however, old enough to oppose OTHER WOMEN having abortions. And
> neither are you.

JJ  How old must one be to have an opinion?

     One may have an opinion at any age. However, not even Methuselah
was old enough to impose that opinion on other persons, and he was
definitely knocking on a bit. Geddit yet?

JJ semper fi,

     Intriguing. To what?

JJ Jammer Jim Miller 

                                                 MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 23:08:11 GMT

In <1992Sep03.171322.2864@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715471571@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> South Carolina
>> requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases
>> brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?

>Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
>100% of the time.

>What do I win?  :-)

I don't think so.  I have spoken to an experienced trial lawyer who
says he has seen many cases of rape brought to trial, but hardly ANY
cases of incest.  Now this was a general statement, not connected with
abortion, but it is certainly suggestive.  I intend to study this matter
a lot in the next few months.

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

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Summary: In which OurHero begins taking lessons from Kibbles... 
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: Tue, 8 Sep 92 03:04:25 GMT

In article <nyikos.715891740@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>We were talking about a very specific quote from a very specific post
>by Will Steeves.   I had seen a number of other posts by Will and this 
>seemed totally out of character with the ones I'd read.

Does Kibbles know you're taking backpeddling lessons from him?  How much is
he charging you?
--
=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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.211120.2720@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> I just found out that our school's Associated Students board supports
> a new resolution I've been drafting up. 
> 
> It bars CSUS from funding and advocating political issues outside of
> our on-campus education and funding. 
> 
> That, because of religious freedom in the First Amendment. 
> 
> And what will that knock off? 
> 
> It'll knock off last year's pro-choice resolution. 

Since all I have is Hallchaney's summary, I can't be sure of
the wording and implications of this "resolution," nor does it
sound like a binding document, since a resolution is not a
fiat, but if it applies as such it coul dwell knock off
the use of political discussion groups, such as talk.abortion,
as part of the school's computer network, since the school is
funding the groups, and the groups are a source of advocacy.

Could knock himself off the net with this one.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another gem -- this time from Peter Nyikos
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:45:46 GMT

In <1992Sep8.031904.124@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>[Note:  Deletions not marked...]

>In article <nyikos.715893475@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Not all women think the way Susan Garvin does.  Here are the words
>>of Frederica Mathewes-Green, president of Feminists for Life of America:
>>
>>  "A ... disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring.
>>Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats woman as weak, incompetent;
>>yet we are uniquely equipped for this role and strong enough to do much
>>harder things than this.  Every woman need not bear a child, but
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty
>>of birth.  To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power,
>>our bodies, ourselves."

>Gee, so the leader of the FFL supports abortion rights?

No, she was using the term "need not" in a different way than people
on this newsgroup use it; also, she was careless in her word order; what
she probably meant was, "Not every woman need bear a child."

>(Personally, with a name like yours, I'm not suprised that you have womb
>envy...)

The name `Peter' means `rock'.  Rocks are incapable of envy.
However, if they were capable of envy, womb envy would probably 
rank high on their list.


Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: boutell@cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Request for Reactions...
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:43:38 GMT

Having posted Voice Mag to the tune of a roar of deafening indifference,
I'm curious as to whether anyone read it, and if so, what they thought
of it. Please respond by email if you read it, or specifically
did not. It was posted to the group last week.

-- 
Tom Boutell, boutell@cshl.org

Clausthaler is the best non - alcoholic beer in the known universe.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What if???
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:09:20 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  <nyikos.716332756@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <yarnwc#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
> >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.
>
> This is false.  I do back them up, but people like you can always
> nitpick about my backups.

This is not true.  Many times, you've presented a lack of knowledge as
support, and claimed that this negative evidence proves that your
speculation must be true.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:41:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.123957.2004@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

> You claim that if Gloria Feldt supports the Freedom of Choice
> Act, and because she bases her reasoning about abortion
> partly on religious views, she is trying to make her religion
> the law of the land.  But the Freedom of Choice Act is not
> a religious law, nor is it based on religious law, and in
> fact, from what you quote her as saying about her religious
> beliefs, the Freedom of Choice Act runs counter to them.

Fine, then let's apply your reasoning to the pro-life side.
A pro-lifer who bases their reasoning about abortion partly
on religious views and who supports the Human Life Amendment
is not attempting to make their personal religious views
the law of the land, according to Dean Kaflowitz.  I'll
remember your reasoning the next Steve Novak or some other 
rabid pro-abortionist spouts off about "religious fundies" 
forcing their religious views on others.  I'll remind them
that Dean Kaflowitz believes that these people are not
forcing their religious views on others. 


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35634 alt.abortion.inequity:3631 alt.child-support:3093
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Logic Fault, core dump
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:52:15 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
] 
] Wrong.  If it can be proved in a court of law that the father refuses to
] work and pay child support payments, that father can be found guilty of
] contempt of court and either jailed or forced to work.


minor problem john, a comtempt of court citation
can ONLY put the Non_Custodial_Parent into prison... it can
not take the Non_Custodial_Parent out and get a job for them....

Please Try to remember that in spite of all of the Propoganda
about 'Dead Beat Dads' - NOT all Non_Custodial_Parents are MALE!

And Likewise not all Non_Custodial_Parents in default of
their court ordered child support payments are MALE.

I do hate to point out that these are the '90's - and that
there are Males who are Custodial_Parents....


ciao
drieux




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:01:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
>Although I'm not an expert in this, as I'm sure you're not also, I believe 
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                         ^^^^^^^
>you're wrong about the unborn not feeling pain.  If it can feel then it can
>feel pain, I presume.  Ever touch a bump on your pregnant wife's stomach and
              ^^^^^^^
>then have it move in response to your touch?  I have--the child felt me.  I've 
>talked in detail with my sister-in-law about the unborn.  She's an expert-an
>OBGyn, has worked on hundreds (or more) of pregnant women, delivered hundreds
>(or more) babies. She says they can feel pain. That's her business.  I believe
                                                                        ^^^^^^^
>her.

First off, your opinion, while interesting, is hardly going to persuade
many women to undergo the difficulties of pregnancy and birth unwillingly.
I'll also note that some 15% of the population believes Elvis is still
alive and many believe the world is flat.  Their evidence is just about 
as good as yours.

Second, we're not talking about babies.  Ever felt the belly of a 12 week 
pregnant woman?  Nothing much there, eh?  Late term abortions are only done 
in rare and necessary circumstances.  Sure babies feel pain.  But a newborn
baby is rather different from a 3 month fetus.

>> 5) Can you see how the pro-choice position lets you enjoy your beliefs,
>> while allowing others to enjoy theirs? (Unless of course yours involves
>> making decisions for others against their will.)
>> 
>If you were walking around and saw someone beating somebody a lot more   
>helpless than they were, wouldn't you feel it was your duty to help (or
>would you rather not get involved)?
>
>If you were walking on a sidewalk and saw someone drowning in a backyard pool,
>but there was a "No Tresspassing" sign on the grass, wouldn't you break that
>law to go render aid?

Well gee, most people in such circumstances are able to indicate that they
want help.  (Kind of like a pregnant woman asking for an abortion, isn't it?)
But a 12 week fetus has never indicated any objection to an abortion.

How about that?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity