HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Children's reaction to abortion
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:15:10 GMT

From article <m5wx3g-@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> 
>>In my experience, Mark, abortion scares and repulses children, as 
>>most don't seem too comfortable with the idea that it's ok to destroy
>>the contents of Mom's "tummy" if Mom wants to.
> 
> In my experience, the only things that "scare and repulse" children
> are things which are described in scary and repulsive ways.  <...>

I remember once when I was a child, my best friend moved away to Germany.
She was gone for two years, and when she moved back, abortion had been
legalized in our state.   We were walking along together when we passed
a parked car with a bumper sticker that said, "Abortion is Murder".  The
conversation, word for word, was: 

my friend:  "What's abortion?"    
me:         "It's when they kill a baby before it's born."

Now remember, we were both children and I was not yet aware of the
"fetus"/"baby" word games so common among adults.    I was certainly not
trying to scare or repulse her.   I _really_ didn't even want to tell her,
but she insisted on knowing.   So I explained it in the simplest, shortest
way I could, because I wanted to end the conversation.

Her reaction?  She was so stunned and horrified she refused to believe me!
She thought I must be mistaken!  (She knew I wasn't a liar.)   I felt like
such a wretch for smashing her childhood innocent belief that adults always
protect their children.  It's like proving there's no Santa Claus.  Anyway,
I just suggested she go home and ask her mother if it wasn't true.  That was
the last we ever spoke about it, that I recall.

------

What I really love though, is working the Right to Life booth at the county
fair, where families come by all day long to look at the lifesize medical
models of fetuses at progressive stages of development.  Children, especially
those who are soon to become big brothers or sisters, really love the models,
and there are big smiles all around :-)

I am mindful though, of the frequent arguments in this newsgroup that
children will simply pick up the attitude of whatever adult is trying to
explain it to them.  So one day at the models, without saying a word, or
any leading conversation whatsoever, I held my 18 month old daughter up to
where she could see the models.  She pointed with glee and said, "Baby!"

Out of the mouths of babes.  It's as plain as the nose on all your faces,
and that small child put you all to shame.


Suzanne Forgach
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:04:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul23.165522.1975@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca wrote:
> 
> But all humans are born sinners, dontcha know?

Really?!  In which sutra did the Buddha say that?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:22:05 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Jul24.034931.8710@wuecl.wustl.edu>  dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>> >}<1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> >}> I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions,
>> >}> there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.
>>
>> <1992Jul21.163226.12832@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>> >} My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll
>> >} simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?
>>
>> <1992Jul21.190634.5054@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> > To be brief, the heart develops at a slightly variable time.
>> > Exactly when it becomes a "heart" is dependent largely on
>> > your definition of "heart."
>>
>> Of course.  I'd hoped to avoid playing semantic games, though.
>> That's why I did not ask about the "heart" per se, but about the
>> heartbeat.  You know, the rhythmic twitching of cardiac muscle that
>> begins in the fourth week (i.e. after three weeks have passed) of
>> gestation and doesn't cease until death.

>In that case, I'd say you're playing semantic games - cardiac muscle does
>not a heart make.

>> Obviously, I can not speak for Gregory Clausen, but when I use
>> "abortion" here and when I see "abortion" used here, there is
>> no doubt in my mind that what is being discussed is induced
>> abortion.

>I can't speak for Mr. Clausen either (nor would I want to), and
>my idea of what "abortion" refers to is what you described, but
>*if* Mr. Clausen is also opposed to abortifacients (e.g., the birth
>control pill and the I.U.D.), then the above objections do apply.
>Something that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is clearly
>not stopping a beating heart (no matter how liberally you wish to
>define "heart"), and this would (I would hazard) constitute the
>majority of cases.

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

Look, the CDC only counts induced abortion, i.e. an abortion performed at
an abortion clinic or a hospital using suction curettage, D & E, etc.
It does *NOT* count uses of the "morning-after" pill.  The 1.6 million
figure that goes into the census books each year is for SURGICAL abortions.

No surgical abortion is done before the sixth week, due to the likelihood
of uterine puncture.  Notice that the figures provided in the earlier
post referred to 50.8% of the abortions being done "8th week and under".
Gestational age is hard to pinpoint sometimes, which is why the category
was classed that way.  NOBODY does surgical abortion before the sixth week.

By the sixth week, the heart has been pumping blood for fourteen days.
EVERY abortion (by the CDC counting definition) stops a beating heart.

SK
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Beware the DickSizeWars!!!!
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:50:08 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:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> The size of your speakers mean zip if the size of your driver doesn't
>> do them justice. Even *HUGE* woofers need more than a *wimpy* 50W to
>> get any decent response from them.

>In the forgettable words of K e n  R o b i n s o n, you are misinformed.
>Generally speaking, the larger speakers are more efficient than smaller
>speakers and require less power for a given acoustic output.  So take
>your pretensions of Technoid Knowledge to wreck.music.radio-shack where
>they belong!!!!

They are more efficient, but they require more power for that incredible
bass they can put out. those extreme low frequencies (the ones out of
hearing range) require lots of power. other speakers cannot even touch
those vibrant tones, so don't require the same power input. Try playing
a digitally masstered version of tubular bells on a set of Cerwin-Vega
D-15s, and watch the windows move. (Clue: it takes more than 5W :)

>Paul Klipsch himself, an audio god you are not worthy to cringe before,
>often said that what this country needs is a good 5-watt amplifier!!!!

For a good speaker, and audible tones, I'll buy that. Unfortunately,
the amp raters always choose to emphasize power over quality, so to
get a really good THD at 5W, you need a 50W, or even a 100W rated amp.

>> TechnoToyJunkies, these days, as even stereo-nerds are lost with the
>> advent of ComputerControlledWhatJaMaCallItJunkieHEavenToys.

>As if you could impress your girlfriend with your sorry excuse of a
>department store "hi-fi" console.

All depends what you want, these days. I was talking about the full-range,
audio-video center. (Mine's bigger than yours! Humphh! :)

>Just as soon as I get home, I'm firing up my baby Adcom and breaking
>every window in the house with Jongen's Symphonie Concertante for
>Organ & Orchestra.  That'll show ya!!!!

Try playing Tchaikovski's 1812 overture, that Adcom should do it justice.

>Humphh!

I hope it doesn't make "Humphh!" sounds, don't want to clip those tones...

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:46:19 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Jul19.220308.18477@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   One of the techniques to oppose a woman's right to abortion is
>to focus on some difficult aspect of abortion that, while related
>to abortion, is only an issue withing the context of choice.  One
>favorite ploy used by the less intelligent anti-abortion fanatics
>is to evoke the subject of third trimester abortions.  They evoke
>   Even someone as publicly stupid as Doug Holtsinger should know
>by now that third trimester abortions are fewer than one tenth of
>one percent of all the abortions performed in America.  Less than


lots of stuff deleted>>>
I find this post to be extremely biased and feel that the ad hominem
attacks are unfounded.  My major problem with abortions are when thwy
oops they are performed within the second and third trimester of
pregnancy.  I used to believe, strongly I might add, that abortions 
prior to this were the same as murder.  After much research and after
talking to persons with a more affable approach in expressing their
pro-choice views I came to a crossroads in my view.  It became clear
that while first trimester abortions, although still repugnant to me,
are still the killing of developing human life the wishes of the 
mother were very important at this stage.  If her attempt (or her lover's)
at contraception failed it gives her the first two to three months
to decide.  Also, the human within her has not developed to the point
of having a human form, a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.  This is still
a moral choice.  It is just not as clear to me that the unborn human
within her is developed enough to warrant unilateral protection regardless
of the health of the mother at stake.

Calling someone stupid for their views on issues does not accomplish 
anything but anger and hatred.  You will never win anyone over to your
side of the argument using mean-spirited tactics like the one above.

Wes J. Orr

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Keywords: POC
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:56:38 GMT

<1992Jul27.211358.5944@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> FACT: In Florida, the right to privacy which abortion is founded on,
>> has been expanded to the right of adults to screw little girls. FACT,

<1992Jul27.224733.24594@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> (susan garvin) writes:
> No, the case gave the right to consent to 15 year olds. 
> It said nothing about little girls.  Your church, on the
> other hand, seems to impose no age limits as long as
> the perpetrator wears a collar.

Susan, I understand your anger, but please, please confine
your counterattack to Chaney himself.  There really is no need
to demean every member of the Catholic clergy here.

|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In article <92201.183901U58578@uicvm.uic.edu> U58578@uicvm.uic.edu (Mark Czarnowski) writes:
[...]
	While debate with true believers is futile, I still think it's
worthwhile to insist that claims need to be backed up with something other
than strong belief. Therefore.....
>
>An abortionist does not have to be a Medical Doctor (M.D.) in all states.  
>Women die today from simple legal abortions performed by doctors who have their
>medical licences revoked but still may perform a "non-medical" procedure such as
>abortion.  Abortion is extremely profitable today.  It is a multi-billion dollar
>industry which the mob has infiltrated in a few areas of the nation.
	Would you care to produce some proof for that?  Sources?  Evidence
from some objective source?  Citations?  Or is this just more of the old
"Blatant assertion" game?

>--
>GSC
>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
	Cheap sloganeering stops a functioning brain.
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: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Beware the DickSizeWars!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:26:42 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>>>> Mr Lyman, you are here with, and here to fore,
>>>>> forewarned that any more postings of this sort
>>>>> will be construed as an explicit Call for a
>>>>> DickSizeWar, and that No Mercy will Be Shown,
>>>>> No Quarters Offered.

>>>> Mr. Hampe, let me inform you that, contrary to How Things Are Done
>>>> in YOUR particular Town of Iniquity, in MY Town of Iniquity, it
>>>> takes a lot more than QUARTERS to get a young man to show his
>>>> privates.  YOU have been living cheap for far too long!!!

>>> While I may not be worthy of participation in a DickSizeWar, my
>>> stereo speakers are larger than any of yours.  Except maybe cj's.

>> Bigger than Klipsch Choruses?!?[1]

> The size of your speakers mean zip if the size of your driver doesn't
> do them justice. Even *HUGE* woofers need more than a *wimpy* 50W to
> get any decent response from them.

In the forgettable words of K e n  R o b i n s o n, you are misinformed.
Generally speaking, the larger speakers are more efficient than smaller
speakers and require less power for a given acoustic output.  So take
your pretensions of Technoid Knowledge to wreck.music.radio-shack where
they belong!!!!

Paul Klipsch himself, an audio god you are not worthy to cringe before,
often said that what this country needs is a good 5-watt amplifier!!!!

>> I've often seen stereo-nerds try to pass off their mega-buck systems
>> as TinySexAnimalPlaceboes.[2]

> TechnoToyJunkies, these days, as even stereo-nerds are lost with the
> advent of ComputerControlledWhatJaMaCallItJunkieHEavenToys.

As if you could impress your girlfriend with your sorry excuse of a
department store "hi-fi" console.

Just as soon as I get home, I'm firing up my baby Adcom and breaking
every window in the house with Jongen's Symphonie Concertante for
Organ & Orchestra.  That'll show ya!!!!

Humphh!


-- 
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: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:22:52 CDT


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.

Heck, I would say the same thing (as Dan) too.  The difference is that
Dan is trying to make my daughter's actions a crime.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:15:31 GMT

In article <22868@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul25.085622.10954@chinet.chi.il.us>

>>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

>>> My position on abortion has evolved over years with lots of rational,
>>> and sometimes, irrational, thought involved. Emotions and philosophical
>>> beliefs have also entered into the equation. My position on the Pro-Fetus
>>> zealots came about after one afternoon
>>> [.. rest deleted ..]

>> You didn't really answer my questions. You started out explaining
>> how you arrived at your position, but you didn't go into much detail.
>> The rest of your post was not relevant to my questions.

> Doug, Doug, Doug (sorry, Dean, I had to borrow that) [...] 
> To state it at your level, No, her opinion was not derived in part from
> the actions of a few radicals. 

What business do you have telling everyone how Vickie feels about
the abortion issue? Butt out and let the woman speak for herself!

>Ron


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:39:08 GMT

In article <nse5nu4@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>From talk.bizarre & alt.sex, of all places:
>
>In article <Bs225t.LI5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>|This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
>|this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
>|their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
>|(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and

Maybe it's NOT irrational but it's DEFINITELY narrow minded. :-)
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Fischer's Down! (was Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:37:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
> Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion. 
> 
> Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw. 

That's what you keep saying.  But curiously enough, with all the
people who read this newsgroup and with all the many who agree
with you that abortion should be illegal, not one person has
said they saw the ads except you.  And you still have nothing
to back what you say except to repeat it over and over.

Considering your comments about the NY Times and Jews, one
can see the pattern in your behavior very clearly.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:18:16 GMT

In <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:

>[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]

>>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.

>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                             or maybe be born & be allowed to live.

since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
end of discussion :-)
-- 
Todd Greenfield
tgreen@iastate.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: ABORTION PILL
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:29:56 GMT

From article by nick@cmn10.Stanford.EDU (Nick Porcaro):
> 
> Hi.  As a pro-choicer, I'm curious to know what people on both sides of  
> the fence think of the "Leona" controversy. I'm from the same hometown as  
> she so I have a different angle on this. I'd like to hear others'  
> opinions.  Let me assert that I feel she did what was right for her, and  
> that I was waiting for someone to do this, curious to know what the  
> results would be.

I think it is horrible of her to be using her own child as a political
football.  And then she intends to kill it anyway.  She is proving herself
to be a remarkably cruel mother.


> thank You

you're Welcome.

> Sasha

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion