HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer
Organization: NRL 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:30:22 GMT

In article <2579@blue.cis.pitt.edu> kmaloy+@pitt.edu (Kate Maloy) writes:
>I am a coauthor (with Maggie Jones Patterson of Duquesne University)
>of a recent book entitled BIRTH OR ABORTION? PRIVATE STRUGGLES IN A
>POLITICAL WORLD, published by Plenum Press.  The book received a very
>positive review in the Washington Post Sunday Book World (front page,
>October 4), and Maggie and I have also done numerous recent interviews
>for newspapers and radio throughout the United States.


Kate -

As a pro-lifer who is not merely interested in outlawing abortion but ending
it, I would look forward to reading you book.  I am very interested in the
decision processes people go through. People in crisis don't often have the
presence of mind to examine all the ramification of their decision.  The
unfortunate reality is that the abortion card is so often played because it is
perceived as being the only card dealt.  I place a good deal of the blame for
this on the past two administrations.  On the other hand, even the supposedly
pro-woman abortion advocacy groups themselves admit that their preoccupation
with legalizing abortion has left them taking a back seat to the pro-life
sponsored support systems.

I want this support system to be there, ready and waiting for the woman or
couple in crisis.  In DC there is a woman's shelter I've been involved with
called "Mom's House".  It is an unique arrangement since the pregnant woman may
remain as long as 18 months after giving birth.  Live-in counselling is
provided along with support for finding jobs, health care and child care.  The
goal is to 'graduate' a self-sufficient single mother who has been taught how
to make the best of her situation.  If you are interested in more detailed
info, please let me know.  Also, if you are aware of similar undertakings in
other cities I would be quite interested.  Also, Feminists for Life, an
organization that I belong to, might be interested in obtaining a copy of your
book for their library.

Thanks for your post

- Paul Lebow


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 20:28:22 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org

In article <markp.728246984@joplin.wri.com>,
	 markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>I'm sure I speak for most pro-lifers when I say that if we didn't think
>abortion was murder, we would support women's right to abortion. The
>REAL "hard question" here is: Does abortion unjustly take the life of human 
>persons? Get used to it.

	And here's the REAL "hard *answer*": Does abortion *unjustly*
	take the life of "human persons" (or even non-persons)?  NO.
	"Get used to it."
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:15:47 GMT

In article <1jkgjbINNeb0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>What do you think 
>>we have right now, Dennis? With the current laws, well-off single men are 
>>MAGNETS to the women you describe -- spend a night of pleasure, get 
>>impregnated by him, and rake in huge child support payments for 18+ years. 
>>What a deal! What a racket! *Any* child support scheme that's based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is going to affect people's choices of biological co-
>>parent to some degree, yet any child support scheme which ISN'T based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is pretty unfair to low-income parents. It's the 
>>eternal trade-off. I think my proposal is at least a better compromise than 
>>the current system, since the economic incentives/disincentives are 
>>quantitatively smaller, and thus _less_ likely to affect anyone's choice of 
>>biological co-parent.
>
>You make it sound like the man has no choice in the matter.

Does a man have MORE choices before conception than a woman does? Does a
man have ANY economic choices between conception and birth? Does a woman?
Spot the inequity.

								- Kevin
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:30:38 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Distribution: becka@leland.stanford.edu
 <1993Jan25.195007.11399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
 <93025.203043KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1993Jan26.105628.5863@leland.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1993Jan26.105628.5863@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling) says:

>Is war wrong?  Not according to most (in certain situations, of
>course).  Is it necessary in certain situations?  It can be argued
>that it is.  Does that make it good?  Not that I've ever heard.  Does
>war reduce population?  Hell yes.

OK, but the difference (as most pro-choicers see it) is that war
kills people, where abortion does not.  Abortion reduces population of
"potential people," theoretically killing nobody.  I think everyone here
agrees that killing people is something to avoid, and that killing innocent
people is wrong.

>See how inane this sounds?  Just checking.

Why yes, it does.  But your analogy is flawed.  I'm asking about the pro-choice
perspective, in which abortion doesn't kill innocent people.  This being the
case, there should be nothing wrong with abortion, and thus no urgent need
to have fewer of them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Here's my flame of Susan Garvin from alt.rush-limbaugh (was Re: THE REAGAN ERA IS OVER, THE END IS NEAR!
Organization: NCSU
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:23:33 GMT

In article <vbe19t8@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

> I've discovered Holtsinger's Secret Identity, and NO!
> it isn't David Rasmussen!  Check it out:
>
>  [.. one of my flames from alt.flame ..]

Gosh, CJ, I didn't realize you enjoyed my posting from alt.flame
so much.  I think I'll start posting there more often, and e-mail
you my posts so that you can re-post them here in talk.abortion.
How does that sound to you?  

Just to keep you entertained, I thought I would re-post
my flame of Susan Garvin from alt.rush-limbaugh.  I think I
might re-post all my flames here on talk.abortion.  Then 
everyone can keep track of my flaming. 

--------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!

In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>> I just had an idea!  Let's all lobby to get gays recognized as a 
>> bonified minority with special rights.  
>> ^^^^^^^^

> I know that Kreuger is just excersizing 
>             ^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^

I think Susan Garvin's misspelling of "exercising" and "Krueger"
is at least as funny as Ted Krueger's misspelling of "bona fide".  
Is anyone keeping score on this thread??   Do I win a prize??!! 
... huh, huh??... yuk yuk... (note intentional misspelling of "yuk").


----

> The Canadian fixation CLEARLY reveals that Holtsinger is
> really....
>
>		TED KALDIS!!!!!

Naw, it was just something I threw in to stir the juices. 


>C J Silverio	


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:41:35 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>
>>>You can tell that this is true by the way "pro-choicers" react any 
>>>time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
>>>abortions that occur.
>>
>>Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
>>good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
>>pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
>>that fetus was killed, that's great"?
>
>If not, why not?  If the fetus is no different than a hangnail, why 
>shouldn't pro-abortioners think that abortion was a good thing, and
>that in many cases, especially unwed mothers, that abortion would 
>be desired? 

Which is it:  do pro-choicers _actually_ react negatively to, say,
broader dissemination of birth control and sex education?  Or are you
now arguing that, according to the system you've got figured out in your
head, things could not possibly be otherwise?  (Or, are you feigning
ignorance?)

In any event, I'll explain to you.

An abortion is a medical operation.  Are operations, in general, "good"?
Yes--the patient wouldn't have it if it weren't.

But are more operations better than fewer?  No.  An operation is a cure
for a problem;  the more cures you have, the more problems you had in
the first place.  No one would deny that a quadruple-bypass is a good
thing, because the patient would be in big trouble without it.  But, to
make more of these good things, would anyone advocate clogged arteries?
Of course not.

Likewise, abortion is a cure to the problem of an unwanted child.  But
the problem can often be prevented by better sex education and so on.
And because an abortion is _not_ as simple as removing a hangnail--for one
thing, you don't have to wade through angry Bible-thumpers to get a
hangnail removed--it's better to prevent the problem in the first place.
I know it, you know it, and every Planned Parenthood employee knows it.
That's why they lobby hard for sex education in schools.

(I can't believe I just typed in that first-grade treatise on "problems,
preventions, and cures"...)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "We enjoy a patent portfolio second to none in the computer industry,
  with some 30,000 patents worldwide and more than 9,000 in the U.S. alone,
  and growing." 				     - An IBM advertisement
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 01:09:06 GMT

In article <C1462t.GJz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>I have stumbled into this group quite accidentally, yet a small sampling
>of the 1000 plus articles has brought something to my attention-
>everyone wants to talk about this subject from a human point of
>view(i.e. ultimate truths in this world.)  Yet I see nothing, except for
>a few articles, that deals with the fact that people  are trying, for
>lack of a more eloquent phrase, to "play God."  And without "thrusting"
>my opinion on others I would like to make this one observation to God
>fearing people and blasphemers alike:
>It seems to me that the last person to challenge the authority and
>the omnipotence of God (i.e. our dear friend St. Lucifer) got a one way
>ticket on the Quad bus to hell.
>**NOTE: before anyone rides me for judging others let me just say this:
>I codemn no one who has made the choice to have an abortion even though
>I am a pro-life advocate, yet I beg anyone who has made this choice, or
>is about to make this choice to put your fears of immediate future aside
>and contemplate where you will be spending the afterlife.  Can any
>inconvienience caused by unwanted pregancy compare to an eternity of
>pain and anguish?

I'm sorry folks. It looks like my pet gerbil has escaped from his
cage and had a go at my computer. I swear it won't happen again.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57106 talk.religion.misc:27125 alt.atheism:26691
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Date: 20 Jan 93 07:02:16 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre


>In article <1993Jan18.151446.8005@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
>>Anyway, *personally* I think that it's hard to be a good christian without
>>supporting abortion, death assistance and homosexuality.
>
>In your opinion, were Paul and the other apostles not "good Christians."

Yes, they were, because they were in no way enlightened by the knowledge of
today. 



>Christianity has opposed abortion for centuries.  Abortion is specifically
>condemned inthe 2nd century writings "The Didache."  The New Testament
>says that the body (of a Christian) is the temple of God.  How is that
>compatable with death assistance.  Christians should offer life assistance.
>And the New Testament also speaks against practicing homosexuality.  

Well, perhaps (and hopefully) that is about to change. 

On abortion: the Church will probably never hail the act of abortion, but rather
more accept it as a necessary Evil. 

On death assistance: It is just a matter of time before the right to die will
become a human right in equivalence with the right to live. The Church will
probably also adapt to this and perhaps even be pioneers in this field. 

On homosexuality: In the light of the scientific facts, that homosexuality to
some extent is inherent, the Church will probably accept these as equals to
heterosexuals. 


At this very moment you and I are dying. Slowly, but inevitably. In some sense one
can say that life is a suicide mission. By the time we are 60 the genetic clock
will have shut down all major activity to sustain life. From then and on we live
on our "spare tank", slowly burning up from the inside, rotting, disintegrating -
dying... For very, very many people this final stage of their life is a horrible,
painful and depressing experience. It's like running out of air and desperately
trying to breathe. God couldn't possibly demand people to go through anything
like this, could he? On the contrary, he would probably encourage people to avoid
this final stage if possible.


Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:33:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan24.233255.26799@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.180144.30378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>[Note that I've dropped alt.flame, since I'm only addressing the facts.]
>>
>>In <1993Jan6.064302.25323@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan4.020223.1283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec26.232007.13372@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec25.195604.13432@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>This is turning into your "it's not legal in every state to use lethal force
>>>>>>to stop a rape" thing, isn't it?  Why don't you stop waffling, and just
>>>>>>give us a situation (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>>>>>>dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>>>>>
>>>>>A 28-week pregnant woman, without any discernible medical complications,
>>>>>announces her wish to end her pregnancy by having her fetus sucked out through
>>>>>her spine, heart and cerebellum. Should she be allowed to abort in this
>>>>>manner?
>>>>
>>>>Kindly provide the name of any medical doctor qualified to perform abortions
>>>>who would perform an abortion in this manner under any circumstance, and I'll
>>>>get back to you...
>>>
>>>You are adding stipulations that weren't contained in the original question,
>>>Keith.
>>
>>Well, you did it first, Kevin.  Keith asked you to give a situation where
>>ending a pregnancy is more dangerous to the woman than continuing it.  You
>>did not - you gave a situation where ending the pregnancy *in the manner
>>you specified* is more dangerous, but gave no reason to believe that
>>simply ending the pregnancy in the normal manner would be more dangerous.
>
>The "normal manner" stipulation did not exist in the original question,
>Larry. It is a recent innovation. I have met my part of this challenge.

"In the manner specified by a suicidal patient" wasn't in the original
question either.  The question was:
   Why don't you stop waffling, and just give us a situation
   (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
   dangerous to the woman than continuing it?

You've given no reason to believe that ending the pregnancy in the situation
you specified would be more dangerous than continuing.  Certainly ending it
*in the manner* you specified would be more dangerous, but that was not part
of the question.  It seems you've failed to meet the challenge.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A snippet of evidence
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:10:31 GMT

In <0fJxwLC00Uh7016dcv@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>The entire post of netnews.talk.abortion: 15-Jan-93 A snippet of
>evidence by Doug Holtsinger@eceyv.nc 
>>   "In 1800, the average American woman bore seven children.  
>>    There was a slight decline in births during the first three 
>>    decades but between 1840 and 1850 there was the largest drop
>>    of the century.  This was the very time that abortion came 
>>    to public notice and services were openly advertised."
>>  
>>    _Abortion practice in Britain and the United States_, 
>>    Colin Francome, Allen and Unwin, 1986, pg. 31

>We should think Mr. Holtsinger for posting this snippet of evidence for
>how helpful abortion has been in reducing population growth.  We still
>have a long way to go before we achieve the zero population growth much
>less the negative population growth that the environment on this planet
>so desperately needs.  Abortion will continue to play an important role
>in this change, and hence in the betterment of this planet for all
>people and animals.  Safe abortion is one of the best gifts that modern
>medical technology has given us.

>Michael Loomis

Would you object to being added to the list of certified pro-aborts
(now 3, with plenty of promising candidates) in this newsgroup?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:37:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171126.11425@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <C0xMKq.AsE.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> In article <1993Jan15.213931.6687@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> #From article <uoj3dj4@zola.esd.sgi.com>, by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
>> ## "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
>> ## 				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
>> #
>> #"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
>> #                                --Pope Paul VI
>> #
>> #Terry's in good company.
>> 
>> 
>> It depends on your definition of "good," doesn't it?
>
>No.  Good is good.
>
>
>> I can think of a lot of other similarities between Terry and the
>> pope.  Both are misogynists, both are homophobes, both delight
>> in giving advice on subjects about which they know nothing, and
>> both teach their folowers to hate.  
>
>You have not shown _any_ of these to be the case with either man.
>Care to try?
>
>
>> (Thanks to Suzanne for illustrating
>> this last similarity so well.)
>
>Please explain to me how avoiding contraception or abortion is "hateful"?

It's not, Suzzie.
(You, to Patrick re his step-daughter):
'She's not yours, she's another mans. A man who has been with your
wife. I hope it drives you crazy.'
That is hateful.
'Any woman who has sex before marriage is lower then a prostitute. at
least a prostitute gets paid.'
That is hateful.

Anybody else want to provide some examples?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:21:38 GMT


OK, so how do I track down the original article?

I know about the C command to cancel, but I need to track down the
original.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:22:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.160628.11244@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.071723.22079@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>
>>>> Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] 
>>>> right to bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>
>>> For months now, I've been trying to get a pro-choicer to explain why 
>>> abortion is morally justified even when it violates the child's right 
>>> to bodily autonomy.  
>
>> Can you explain why abortion is morally proscribed even when it
>> DOESN'T violate the fetus's right to bodily autonomy?  
>
>As I told Ms. Regard, anti-abortionists generally have premises 
>which lead them to oppose abortion regardless of the failings of
>pro-choice premises such as 'bodily autonomy'.  I have always
>felt that parents should be held responsible for the well-being
>of their children.

Are you against parents giving up their child to adoption, then?

Oh, if you're ready to launch into a fine distinction between "abandonment"
and "giving up for adoption", perhaps you might consider that parents who 
decide to give up a child in their custody to adoption are generally required
to arrange care for it for only a few days or weeks (which they could pay a 
nanny to do), whereas an unwanted pregnancy lasts about 9 months, imposes much 
more burden, which is NOT, practically speaking, delegable at all. Furthermore, 
consider that this "transitional care" that a custodial parent is held 
responsible for, can be seen as something the parent(s) implicitly agree to 
when they take custody of the child, whereas it's highly-questionable whether 
ANY aspect of parenting is implicitly consented-to when a couple engages in 
sex...

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.religion.misc