HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE IN THE MAKING
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:08:54 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul27.053531.19068@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >In <1992Jul13.164344.16840@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
> 
> >> In article <1992Jul13.103637.22104@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 

> >> and only a minority of the population supports abortion on demand. 
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Doug Holtsinger
> 
> >  Whoa there, cowpoke!  Whether I like it or not, I do know that approx 60%
> >or so of the US public favors allowing the choice
> 
> Whoa there, yourself!  Over 50% of Americans approve a ban on abortion for
> any reasons other than rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
> (1992 Wirthlin poll).

  Whoa there, everybody!  Is this true?  I mean, if it is, it represents almost
a sea change from all the polls I've ever read.  Who's this Wirthlin, and where
was this published?  This I gotta see.

> >to allowing abortions.  The "on demand" caveat may well make your statement
> >technically correct, depending on how you define it, but I think its awfully 
> >misleading.
> 
> On the contrary, it is what you are writing that is misleading.
> Peter Nyikos

  Come come, Peter, I don't like abortion either.  Just reporting what I knew.
It'd be nice to be wrong on this one.  I think.  I worry that some bozo would
simply ban it without bothering to consider the consequences.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:33:31 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.184638.19161@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:

> 	So why don't people from both sides get together and discuss
> these issues, and leave the discussion of abortion out so that we
> might discuss other ways of helping women, families, and children?  We
> might find that we agree more often than not, and we might actually be
> able to make a difference that cannot help but affect the number of
> women who seek abortions. We might be able to make life better for
> those born, and those yet to be born.
> Terrance Heath 

  Hello, another semi-rational human being.  I think I agreed with every
word in your post.  Maybe if we keep yelling enough for real solutions
somebody out there will listen.

  From one pro-life type who's into realism.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Reardon's "morbidity" defined
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:02:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <29JUL199213284211@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>I was asked to check on the definition of the "morbidity rate" cited by
>Reardon in _Aborted Women: Silent No More_.  Here is the result.
>
>Reardon defines "morbidity" as including any medical complications
>which necessitate treatment not normally required in the procedure (whether
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>childbirth or abortion), such as hemorrhaging, infection, etc.  

So by this definition, if 70% of women who undergo childbirth require
a certain medical treatment while 5% of women who undergo abortions require 
the same treatment, then treatment for childbirth would be "normal" and
for abortion would be "abnormal".  By this defintion, comparing "morbidity
rates" from different procedures and trying to draw conclusions about 
relative safety makes as much sense as comparing apples and fish.


Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 08:08:55 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

In article <1992Jul24.002523.21432@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
><1992Jul22.192636.26343@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
[article deleted]
>	Hmmm... Is it OK with you to cross-post on alt.pagan?

Go for it.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:31:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I would appreciate it if you could post the article.  Living
in a city without newspapers has its disadvantages.  (Ours
are on strike.  The NYT sells out fairly early in the day.)
Thanks for telling me what Hall was ranting about.

If the facts of the case are as you remember them, then Chaney's
statement is still not correct.  I support graduated
age of consent laws, but this support has nothing to do with
my support of legal abortion.  

(I wonder how old this "child" was, too.  I'll wait.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:54:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.004750.14804@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
>what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
Maybe it's just me, but I would have guesed that adult/child sex
was adults having sex with children.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health 
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:25:30 GMT


Jammer Jim Miller writes:

>In <1992Jul23.050807.9619@watson.ibm.com> Larry writes:
> 
>> References:  U.S. Surgeon General's Actuarial info, 1990
>> 
>>    Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000          [legal]
>>    Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000          [legal]
>>    Prescribed drugs  . . . . . . .  18,675          [legal]
>>    Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
>>    Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,390          [illegal]
>>    Heroin  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,147          [illegal]
>>    Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . .     986          [legal]
>>    Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . .       0          [illegal]
>> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
> 
>  Thanks.  A little math on the illegal substances brings that death rate
>to about 1.1 per 100,000 population, assuming somwehat less than 250 million
>population for the US.  It's only approximate, but I don't have a calculator
>handy.  Since not all 200+ million people in the US use illegal drugs, 
>I reckon it's safe to assume that the rate for users in considerably higher.
> 
>semper fi,

Just a couple of commments, Jim.  First, the point about rates being
higher for users applies to all the substances, not just the illegal
ones.  Second, I doubt it's safe to assume that the rate for marijuana
users is higher.  I don't have a calculator handy either, but I'm
pretty sure the rate will be 0, no matter what group is considered :->.

    Ken

Internet/CSnet  kjb@cs.brown.edu     U.S. MAIL  Ken Basye
UUCP            uunet!brunix!kjb                Box 1910
                                                Dept. of Computer Science
                                                Brown University
                                                Providence, RI  02912

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:22:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.224204.24015@crd.ge.com> 
james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

> you made another unsupported statement. i think, as i said, that your
> statement is unsupported because it's not true. and i think it's
> not true because you seem so intimidated by ms garvin 


intimidated by ms. garvin => not true statement => unsupported statement


OK, let's try out your reasoning above.

I am intimidated by Ms. Garvin, so by your reasoning, it is not true 
that I am intimidated by Ms. Garvin. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:33:39 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul24.161544.8180@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> Might I suggest that you refrain from blatantly misrepresenting
> other posters Ms. Garvin?  It doesn't help your credibility much.

"Mr. Kettle!  There's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"

Oh, by the way:

> Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test

Cute trick.  Did you invent it yourself?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:34:59 GMT

In <JBATES.92Jul23213332@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com 
   (John W. Bates) writes: >
In article <1992Jul23.213256.9671@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <JBATES.92Jul22181129@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com
   (John W. Bates) writes: >>>

>>>Before you start in about the rights of the unborn, though, let me
>>>just point out that until it can be shown incontrovertibly that a
>>>fetus is worthy of protection at the expense of the woman involved,
>>>any belief about that, positive or negative, *is* purely religious.
>
>> For the sake of argument, why can't such a belief have a
>> philosophical premise?
>
>For the sake of argument, let's assume that you hold "the fetus
>is worthy of protection at the expense of the mother" as a true 
>premise. 
>
>Now, you must either hold that as self-evidently true, or you must
>have a valid proof upon which to base it. 
>
>If you hold it as self-evidently true, you are doing so based on
>faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof).
>
>If you have a valid proof, it must also be based upon philosphical
>premises, ie "All human life is sacred". Again, these premises must
>be either self-evidently true or provable. And so on, and so on, ad
>nauseum, until you reach a mutually agreeable set of axioms. If you
>cannot reach these axioms, you must have, at some point, relied on
>faith to prove your argument. Finally, I hold that religion is a
>system of beliefs which rely on faith. QED.
>
>What's a mutually agreeable set of axioms? Well, obviously, that's
>the hard question. I think that, for the sake of the argument wrt
>US legality of abortion, we'd have to rely upon scientific evidence
>and the Constitution. The problems that we have in resolving this
>issue result from ambiguities in both. Until those ambiguities are
>resolved, the whole question boils down to personal beliefs, and
>the faith inherent therein.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, John.  My only real difficulty 
with your explanation involves the notion of rights.  Given that 
the objective existence of human rights cannot be substantiated 
by any empirical method, why are they (as an article of faith) 
compelling as a secular concept?  By your definition, they seem
every bit as religious as a belief in the sanctity of life.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What Are You Going To Do After The Election?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:59:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul25.040655.23187@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
> 
> The resolution to the abortion issue (on a nationwide scale) is quite
> simple.  If Clinton is elected, the Freedom of Choice Act will be passed
> and every woman will have the right to choose for herself whether or not
> to have to raise a kid for 18 years. If Bush is elected, he will choose one
> or possibly two Anti-Abortion Justices to the Supreme Court and Roe Vs. Wade
> will die.  It will then be up to each state whether or not they want to outlaw
> abortion.  I'm just curious what cause the religious fanatics will take up next.
> My guess is either:
> 
> 1.  Getting Forced Prayer Back In School
> 2.  Reinstating The Hollywood Production Codes Of The 1930's to 1950's
> 3.  Spreading Further Prejudice Against Homosexuals
> or
> 4.  Further Undermining American Democracy By Trying To Get The Entire Nation To
>     Adhere To Christian Beliefs
> 

WAIT just a second here!  This was posted from the same account in which
the "Abortion is murder!!!" article came from.  In that article, a fear
of homosexuals taking over the country was expressed because God
would strike the country down/show his wrath.  Isn't that slightly
like a religious fanatic spreading further prejudice against homosexuals
and further undermining American democracy by trying to get the entire
nation to adhere to Christian beliefs??

Was Mr. Sheir's password cracked?  Is this a charade?  I'm baffled.
 
> Seriously, if you consider yourself Pro-Choice, please please please vote for
> Clinton/Gore.  I admit they are not perfect (I think they are too Conservative),
> but they are the final hope for the Right To Choose.  Vote for Bush and Roe Vs.
> Wade is gone

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Summary: Reality is that abortion is possible and safe.
Organization: If I was organized my room would be clean.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:11:20 GMT

In article <tgreen.712465124@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>I don't expect people to follow my moral decisions.  As you
>said, you have to deal with reality.  

Reality is that abortion is possible, is very safe when done
correctly, and avoids most if not all further consequences of
pregnancy.  If one has an abortion because of this, one is
dealing with reality quite successfully.

Most other statements you can make about abortion are not
about reality, they are about religion/philosophy.

>yes, it is.  How about if you choose to have sex, be prepared
>to deal with the possibility of pregnancy.  If you know that
>you can't handle a pregnancy, avoid getting pregnant.  

And what if someone's method of "handling" it is to terminate
it in the quickest, safest and most convenient manner available?
That's certainly dealing with the problem, just like a mousetrap
deals with the problem of a mouse.

I bet that this analysis ticks off a few control freaks, who
want abortion controlled to suit their whims, and a few fanatics,
who can't abide anyone doing anything forbidden by their particular
flavor of religion/philosophy.

	"A fanatic is someone who does what God would do, if
	God only had all the facts."  (something I found.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: MEN FOR CHOICE.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:31:03 GMT

<1992Jul8.181917.12088@rhrk.uni-kl.de> weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) said:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>Everybody knows that a man who supports abortion is in it for his own
>>convenience.
>
>This is good enough to be sarcastic. But, assumed it were not,
>I don't agree. If you'd say "person" instead of man, it would be more
>consequent. But the "Everybody knows" still will make the statement false.

Just about any way you slice it the above statement is ludicrous.

>I doubt that there is any statement in the world, that would hold under
>a "Everybody knows" generalization.

Yup.

>Nevertheless I also think that convenience is one motivation for a pro-
>abortion position. And it is one of the worse motivations in a 
>moral sense.

Convenience might be one small motivation way down the line somewhere, but
speaking for the pro-abortion block on this net I'd say that risk, cost,
and freedom would be the three major motivations (in no particular order).

Risk: It is far more dangerous to a woman to go through childbirth than it
is to get an early term abortion.  The statistics range from 10 to 30
times more *deadly*.

Cost: It is far more cost efficient to support abortion on demand than to
support the welfare and social results of unwanted/unaffordable children.
Something on the order of $1 to $14.

Freedom: We currently have no laws which allow the subjigation(sp?) of
citizens to the slavery of others (the draft and encarceration are the
gray areas).  The slippery slope of bodily servitude is not something that
should be encouraged.  The 'right' of government to control bodily
autonomy is not granted to the federal government, and it has been
determined to be a violation of personal privacy.  And don't forget, lives
were lost gaining and maintaining these freedoms.

Given this list I see no valid reason why the offending of a small groups
sensibilities should be grounds for the oppression of all child-bearing
women.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:11:25 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul23.184523.4217@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) stuns us all:
>
>> =============================================================================
>>                  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>> =============================================================================
>
>'B.O.S.S.' means 'Better Off Shoveling Shit.'

So Chris Lyman challenges my historical fact with a joke. 

Yeah, I might be better off shoveling shit. The problem is, I might
end up accidentally shoveling you in the process. It's hard to tell
the difference, you know. 

>Hey, this is _fun_!
>
>-- 
>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


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:02:59 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.234103.5402@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com writes:

> In article <1992Jul17.020828.23369@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >  I don't know.  That, as a matter of fact, is just what I'm trying to find 
> >out.  Quite frankly, this a near-worthless point for you.  Allow me:
> >
> >  What's the worst thing that can happen if you have an abortion?  You could
> >die.  Not very likely, not likely at all.  But it has happened.
> >
> >  What's the worst thing that can happen if you keep the baby?  You could die.
> >Not very likely--more likely than dieing from an abortion, but still not
> >very likely.
> >
> >  What's the worst that can happen driving a car?  You could die.  Not likely.
> >But more likely than the first two.
> >
> >  What's the worst that could happen by doing drugs?  You could die.  Pretty
> >likely, depending on the drug.
> 
> Well, you're allowed, but your points are pretty worthless.
> 
> Let me paraphrase: What's the worst thing that can happen to you if you do
> *anything* (or even do nothing)?  You could die.  And it is 100% likely,
> eventually.  Only those people who are currently alive have avoided death,
[deletions] 
> Also, note that comparing the worst consequence of any action is a stupid
> way to compare actions.  Likely consequences are much more apropo than worst
> consequence, especially when the worst is very unlikely.

  That was, as a matter of fact, my point exactly.  Muriel had cast the debate
at that point in terms of "whats the worst that could happen, and how likley
need it be".  I pointed out that was not the way to go.  You have actually
supported my point, and my thanks.

[stuff I already know deleted] 
> Any woman who believes that abortion is wrong should not have one.  Any woman
> who feels that abortion is preferred to pregnancy should be allowed to make
> that choice for herself (and only for herself).  Just as the woman who believes
> that abortion is wrong should only be allowed to make that choice for herself.
> -Pete Zakel

  Guess what?  I agree with this.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29615 soc.women:14367 soc.men:13926