HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:11:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.004136.9063@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
>(Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>
>}Abortion is extremely profitable today.  It is a multi-billion dollar
>}industry ...
>
>I work in a part of the university here where a lot of doctors are trained.
>Among their concerns, indeed, among the concerns of the lenders, is how
>to best repay the loans that medical school seems to require.  Although
>several recommendations as to speciality are made, and none of them include
>abortion or even ob/gyn.  It isn't that we lack the low-calibre kind of 
>folks here that would make or follow such a recommendation, we have our
>sleezeballs too.  I think that the assertion that "abortion is extremely
>profitable" or that it is done for the "filthy lucre"  (I miss Joe 
>Applegate) is simply untrue.  No doubt a few scams can be noted, but 
>I seriously doubt that anyone can support this allegation with anything
>more than assertion.

I'm not sure what any of the above sentences, except the last, have to
do with my statement.  I simply said abortion is extremely profitable, I
didn't begin a treatise on student loans (I guess the above paragraph
defines a red herring).  As for the last sentence:

  OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
   $180,000 Guarantee
    $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
    brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
    part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
    medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.

Ad run in _Dallas Morning News_ on June 24, 1974.  The above salary guarantee
was four times the starting salary for regular obstetric practice.

>}which the mob has infiltrated in a few areas of the nation.
>
>Oh dear.  Where, pray tell?  And what "mob"?

I know, I know, Uncle Mario Cuomo has you convinced that the mafia
does not exist.

>}Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>
>I thought we went over this before.  In the majority of abortions, 
>there isn't even a "heart" to stop beating.  

The heart begins beating at 18 days and begins pumping blood, whose type
is different from that of the mother, through a closed circulatory system
at 21 days.
            J.M.Tanner, G.R.Taylor, et al.
            _Growth_
            New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p. 64.

>I am a bit disgusted by people who repeatedly make statements they
>know to be incorrect.  Unless, of course, they are too stupid to
>do anything else, in which case I pity them.  What should it be,
>Mr. Clausen, disgust or pity?

You're on a roll, I'll let you choose.

--
GSC
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Who's really doing the Unwanting?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:51:01 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:


>Just to throw some information on this topic:

>Total Fertility Rates:

       [deleted]

These are interesting stats, Steve.  Where did you get them from?
I'd like to look at the source.

>So what do these numbers mean?  That population control is becomming less
>necessary, in most parts of the world.  In fact, the population of Europe
>should actually see a decline, barring waves of immigration.

If these stats are correct, this is a Good Thing, IMO.

> -Steve

                         -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:24:55 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>      Why is a fetus a baby?  If you can't abort because the unborn are babies
>then you also can't use contraception.  Wet dreams become sinful (not to 
>mention masturbation, eh?) and what about the unfertilized ovum that
>is disposed of anyway?   Vasectomies become evil because you are forcing all
>the sperm to die without fulfilling their purpose to create a child.  What
>about all those other sperm that don't get to fertilize the ovum anyway since
>only one has the honour?  See, there's a slippery slope here, do you know
>where to draw the line?  Why do you draw it where you do?

Well, I'll rush to someone else's defense here. I believe the argument goes
that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
meant to apply to innocent human life. I know the Catholic Church years ago
logically concluded even a newly formed embryo to be innocent human life, and
so concluded that abortion was wrong. Everything you mentioned above, as a
matter of fact, is considered sinful - following from an argument that God's
purpose is being frustrated when people do these things. I think most other
Churches have either adopted or agreed with these beliefs. This discussion
could go on forever - basically, the "line is drawn" at the point where a
person no longer has control over what happens. 

Maybe someone should begin an alt.theology ?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>child you cannot have it."

>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.

From a period in time when abortion was illegal, and the government
decided what could be said.

Next......

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 22 Jul 1992 08:38:04 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul15.174711.17368@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I've argued that anyone who holds 
>that position must also condone infanticide in order to be consistent.

Unsuccessfully.

Adrienne Regard
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:17:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>I really believe that handing children condoms and training them to
>roll them on and off cucumbers and bananas is for the sole purpose of
>desensitizing them to casual, random, and public, sex,   so that they
>will be far more likely to participate in it.

OK, so that's what you believe.  So what?  Do you have any evidence
for this belief?

I'll point out that these "children" are capable of having children 
themselves.  And in countries where sex education is common the incidence 
of teen pregnancy _and_abortion_ is much lower than in the US.

So then, what do you consider to be more important.  Preventing
teen pregnancy and abortions, or preserving your notion of morality?

>(Anyway, what is pornography but public sex?)

For someone whose had children you should know by now that sex isn't 
putting latex on vegetables.  For starters, it's generally a lot 
messier.  More fun, too.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:32:26 GMT

<1992Jul20.192606.14167@uceng.UC.EDU> (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>} Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

<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.  

My sources say different.  Rather than argue the point directly, I'll 
simply ask you:  When does the human heartbeat begin?

>I am a bit disgusted by people who repeatedly make statements they
>know to be incorrect.  Unless, of course, they are too stupid to
>do anything else, in which case I pity them.  What should it be,
>Mr. Clausen, disgust or pity?

Hmmmmm.

|   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: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: No, it was his mother who screwed up... (was Re: Ahem...I Screwed Up.  (WAS PP executive says "personhood...)
Keywords: RUTHLESS!  
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:54:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.174731.24881@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>> = (Jay T Stein -- Cool World applicant) writes:
>>
>>[to Holtsinger re: Atheist Doug's defense of religion...]     
>>>>One more time Doug - it is okay for one's *personal* view on abortion to
>>>>be guided by religious beliefs.  It is *not* okay for abortion *legislation*
>>>>to be guided by religious beliefs.  This has always been my stated view
>>>>on t.a.
>
>>>*HEY*
>>>Don't you *DARE* try to impose *YOUR* personal views on me!!!!!
>
>>Geez.  Get a grip, and wipe that spittle off your lips.  Then remember the
>>intent of the majority of anti-abortionists.  Now, don't you look stupid?
>
>(The first of many insults deleted due to embarrassment.)
>
>OOPS.  Missed your smiley at the end of your posting.  Please enjoy
>raking me over the coals about this.  My apologies to Mr. Kellmeyer.  (When
>did he get a sense of humor? :)

This only proves that you are quite stupid... 

OOPS. Now, that's the second time we've heard that from the Novak
family, isn't it? The first time was when his mother looked at his
newborn face... 

You, Mr. Novak, are the type of person pro-choicers throw up as a hard
case example against banning abortion. 

But no matter how many OOPSies (Steve Novak's) we must face as a
consequence, we'll always fight for the right to life. :) 


===============================================================================
		  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.
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:30:07 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
-> Kevin, grow up.  You've already caused more than your lifetime
-> allotment of pain for Susan, by ridiculing and trivializing
-> the painful experiences of someone she loves.  You have hit
-> bottom, Kevin. Time to go for help.

interesting isn't it that the only other poster who has defended
darcy is franklin. (i don't count people who think they're
airplanes.)




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Garvin does horses (was Re: That Chaney Boy Lives in Fantasies
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:59:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.173735.124062@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

Cut it out, Adrienne. And stop fooling around with them horses; there're
plenty of men down skid row who'll do a much better job, or so I
heard... 

 
===============================================================================
		  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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Questionable Nature of Dr. Len Howard as a Source
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:43:53 GMT

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

] In article <1992Jul22.211723.18001@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] [proof that Len Howard is a criminal in Missouri deleted]

In specific Mon Ami, a DANGEROUS MindCriminal, and Most Likely
a Part of a SinisterPlotAgainstTheState to Corrupt the Morals
of Youths....
 
] #garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] #] 
] #] The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.
] #] 
] #] "According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
] #] positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
] #] action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
] #] methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
] #] fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
] #] use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
] #] auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
] #] by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
] #] detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
] #] to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
] #] fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
] #] menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
] #] heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 
] #] 
] #] Susan
] #
] #In Light of the Above, Ms. Garvin, do you still wish to use
] #the above Data, KNOWING that it has been hideously and 
] #Heinously Tainted By A KNOWN GenocidalMassMurderer and
] #AntiStateTerrorist!!!!
] 
] I thought that made him a better source.

So You would Prefer some AntiStateTerrorist to
WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues supported by the Court.

No WONDER there is the Continuing Decline in Morals in 
this country when people are willing to listen to AntiStateTerrorists
rather than Listen the WholeSomeVoiceOfTruth!
 
] #Are You willing to be Held Liable for AntiStateAgitation by
] #supporting this Clearly Discredited Source!!!!!
] #
] #You HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!
] 
] Before I can answer any more questions I need to know whether
] or not you accepted the papal nomination.

such negotiations, were they to exist, would not be open
to public discussion given the nature of the proprietary
knowledge involved, and so I can neither confirm nor deny the
above alledged allegation, as to so do I might imply that
there did or did not exist some substance to the alledged allegation.

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:07:32 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Get a life, Larry. Induced abortion is the subject of this group, not
>spontaneous abortion.  Your playing with words in an attempt to avoid
>looking stupid.  It's too late for that, so just give up.

Kellmeyer, is it really THAT hard for you to admit that you've been
proven wrong?  First you claimed induced abortions, and when that was
shown to be wrong, you switched to surgical induced abortions.

But the slogan doesn't say "A Surgical Induced Abortion Stops a
Beating Heart", does it?

So instead of conceding the point, you attack Larry.

Pathetic.

>SK

                      -rocker
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Suzanne doesn't get it.
Summary: one-handed
Keywords: From: decay
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:58:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul30.005703.9378@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## 
## Who knows?  I've never paid that much attention to Marilyn
## Quayle (or Barbara Bush, for that matter), so I don't
## know if she has a mind of her own or not.  I don't
## think that the mere fact that one married someone who 
## accomplished something makes one important.
#
#
#Oh for Pete's sake.   Everyone on the face of the planet is BORN with
#a mind of their own.  (That is of course, unless they die before birth.)

Some people understand figures of speech - unfortunately you
don't.  (Even someone pretending not to understand what I
meant should not forget anencephalic babies, wouldn't you think?)

#To suggest that any woman could POSSIBLY give up her mind on her wedding
#day, much less that she may have in fact done so, is utterly ridiculous,
#and completely counterproductive to the advancement of respect for women
#in this world.

Whatever, Suzanne.  You're babbling about your misinterpretation
of what I said.  

#Ms. Garvin, not even LAWS could take away a woman's mind.   All laws can
#possibly do is protect human beings from harm by other human beings.

I agree with your first sentence, but not your second.  (If you
want to play "literal interpretation, then you should realize
that some laws have nothing to do with protecting human beings 
from harm by other human beings.)

I still don't believe that one is important simply because
one is married to someone important.  Do you, Suzanne?  


Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:17:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: irony
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul27.214810.7132@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[text deleted, before and after - I just wanted to save some of
the tone of Chaney's rant]

#For pro-lifers, WRT joining these efforts, safety only comes in
#numbers, Mr. Miller. Those folks are out there to slam, humiliate,
#degrade, and downright make life hard for you. Make no mistake about
#it - when pro-lifers enter something new, they should go in numbers if
#they have any sense to them, or else they'll get chewed. 

Back in (I think) 1980, representatives of NOW and NARAL and
the NRLC and some other groups from both sides of the abortion
issue held a highly publicized meeting.  They agreed not to
discuss abortion, but to work on solutions to what both sides
agreed were common issues of concern - teenage pregnancy,
families in poverty, and other issues.  The meeting went well,
and the people there reported new found respect for each other.

The meeting was disrupted, sadly, by a group of anti-abortion
fanatics who could not restrain themselves from marching
to the podium and displaying a fetus.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: The C word
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:40:29 GMT

---
jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
|mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|>What about married persons who have all the children they
|>can support?  Do you think they should all be celibate?
|
|Depends on what the consequences of having another child would be.  If
|they would be bad enough to make them think abortion would be justified
|in case of pregnancy, then I think they should be celibate unless there
|is a method of birth control available that is reliable enough to stake
|a life on (surgical sterilization?).

This is ridiculous!  Here you don't even have the conventional 
crutch of christian condemnation of extramarital sex.  You're 
presuming to judge the sexual behavior of MARRIED COUPLES.

You do NOT get to make sexual decisions for other people.
Especially not when you blithely ignore human nature and
reality as you do above.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:27:32 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <lefty-220792144100@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <64100@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
>> 
>> I'm a little slow...
>
>This much is evident.

Do you care why?   Probably not, but I'll tell you anyway.  To me the
abortion debate is important to most of us on the net take seriously, 
but so many do not respond with arguments, but with pious superiority 
attitudes or with name calling.  Can we name a few??

Case in point - I told about a time I was sexaully abused on t.a as
a follow-up to a reply to me.  Someone gave me down the road about 
it, which would have hurt me terribly, if I had not already dealt 
with the my abuse, but did that person care?  Is this right, even 
if it is done sarcastically?  One other person replied and stated 
his amazement that one would stoop so to reply in such a way.   I 
personally replied to the person and they apologized, but the 
attitude is the norm here, is it not?  

So the point is that if I'm (or your are) speaking on a subject that
I consider to be serious and someone responds sarcastically, it
is hard to tell if they are trying to refute me or make fun of me.

By the way, I'm not really that slow.

>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:28:23 GMT

twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu  writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> 
> People aren't monogamous.  Welcome to the real world. 
> -- 
> ____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
> \  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
>  \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III

Tim, I've agreed with you a lot in the past; I just want to
correct you on one thing.

"People aren't" necessarily "monogamous."

Last time I looked, thank God, it's still a choice.

--->sej5g
--