HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:33:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.014047.9432@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.223147.9477@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.035312.21354@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between intentional
>>>ignorance, and simply giving somebody a hard time.
>>
>>I find it far more effective to "give someone a hard time" by turning the
>>spotlight on THEIR ignorance, than, as Keegan does, constantly turning the
>>spotlight on HIS OWN ignorance, and hoping I'll eventually get annoyed by 
>>the display of illogic.
>>
>What eventually Kevin? You rise to the bait every single time, making
>yourself look as petty as Kegan could wish. If you're so certain he's
>wrong, then ignorethe comments, and stand on your merits. If you can't
>do that, then perhaps Kegan is correct about you.

Yeah, child psychology... "Ignore them and they'll go away" only works to a
point, Mark. In particular, skilled propagandists like Keegan might be able
to convince impressionable third parties of his irrational views if they go 
uncorrected, and that process tends to have a cumulative effect which CAN'T 
be ignored.

Take this latest round, for instance. I'm not responding to any of Keegan's 
articles, so if Keegan were to spout his "'Kellmeyer and Darcy' are an
individual" nonsense, and all third parties were to ignore him, then by
default so would I. It was only due to the presence of an impressionable
third party -- you -- that I felt obliged to post yet another correction.
If you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have responded. So, while you accuse
_me_ of "taking the bait", it just so happens that it was you who 
unwittingly dangled it in the first place. Delicious irony.

>>>Kevin, I presume you realise that if you did not react so predictably
>>>to the baiting, it wouldn't be worth the effort of baiting you.
>>
>>I don't mind being baited, as long as each and every exchange shows the
>>baiter to be more ignorant and immature than I am. Every time Keegan insists
>>that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an "individual", he makes himself look stupider.
>>I find that faintly amusing. My only "reaction" to the bait is to gingerly 
>>strip the surface layer from his propagandistic phrasings so as to reveal 
>>the basic stupidity of his claim, i.e. that "Kellmeyer and Darcy" is an 
>>"individual". What a loser...
>>
>You seem to be a bit confused here Kevin. Your reaction is to come out
>screaming, reacting in *exactly* the way you are intended to. 

If you read my articles as "screaming", you need to adjust the sensitivity
of your "receiver", Mark, 'cuz it's _awfully_ touchy...

And here I was worrying that my refutation was too dry and academic. Harumph.
Trying to tailor my prose to ever-changing Usenet audiences sometimes seems
like trying to nail jelly to a tree...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:27:48 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Dec31085104@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

}<sigh> I knew I'd screw something up in that .sig...let's see, he's not in
}the union, but he's trying to act like a clown, thus taking jobs away from
}those of you who are in the union, thus...maybe you should teach him the
}fine art of hang gliding over major urban areas?  :-)

May I suggest LA during the last riots?  I hear there were some
great thermals.  Landing was a bit dicey, though.  Of course,
Dr. Giggles could just give those thugs detention, if he ever
got into trouble...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 02:29:44 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 <C05BC3.6GE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>1989 Ed. STATISTICAL ABSTR OF THE U.S. - Bureau of Census:
>  by 1972 180 women died from abortions in the US.
>  in 1972 there were 38,000 illegal abortions
>
>1978 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gyn.
>  study claims that the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact
>  on the number of women dying from abortion"
>
>"A Speaker's and Debater's Notebook" NARAL 1978
>  claims that before 1973 the maternal death rate from illegal abortions was
>  40 deaths per 100,000 with 200,000 illegal abortions per year.

From HBO's America Undercover edition about abortion:
   But criminalizing abortion did not stop it - it merely drove it
   underground.  By the mid-twentieth century, over a million women sought
   illegal abortions annually.

From _Abortion_in_America:__the_origins_and_evolution_of_national_policy,
_1800-1900_, by Mohr, James C., Oxford University Press, 1978:
   Fifth, a substantial number of American women continued to seek and
   have abortions despite the statutes designed to make them unavailable.
   Frederick J. Taussig, in a classic study published in 1936
   estimated on the basis of vital statistics and medical
   questionnaires that over half a million illegal abortions were
   then taking place in the United States annually....By the late
   1960's estimates of the number of illegal abortions performed in
   the U.S. each year ranged from 200,000 to 1,200,000.  In the Roe
   decision the Supreme Court openly acknowledged the existence of what it
   called "illegal abortion mills" in the United States....

>For crying out loud, Heather, I can't believe that you would use stats
>on a government run by that butcher dictator, Ceaucescu to support your
>claims. Talk of mitigating factors - am I to ignore forced pregnancy

It seems you'd have to ignore what forced pregnancy did there,
since you want to institute forced pregnancy here.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Date: Fri,  1 Jan 93 11:33:43 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Brian, you say "the more cluelessly loud pro-life newbies (hey guess what-
ab0rtion is murder) have piped down".  Then you ask for pro lifers with
whom you wish to civilly and intelligently discuss abortion.  This seems
odd to me.  You lament that the pro-lifers here make ad hominem arguments,
while at the same time expressing your approval that you're glad that people
who believe abortion is murder, who are obviously clueless, have shut up.

I am (hopefully) a reasonably intelligent person who is pro life.  However,
I am pro life because I believe that abortion is murder and so the foundation
of my position has already been labelled clueless.  How can I carry on a
discussion with you?  I think that you will find the abortion-is-murder
argument to be the mainstay of virtually all pro life people.  What you're
doing is like saying "I want to discuss the equal wages for equal work issue,
but not with anyone who believes that women are as competent as men."  It
declares 90% or more of the basis of potential debate partners' arguments as
unfit for consideration for discussion.

I suppose you may have meant your remark to be ridiculing the style in
which the "newbies" made their arguments rather than the abortion-is-murder
argument itself.  If so, disregard what I said above...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 05:28:04 GMT

---
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|As I have little experience either pregnancy or abortion is there anyone
|who has been in such a circumstance who thought that this was slavery?  
|Is there anyone who thought that this reminds them of slavery?  Not in a 
|frivolous sense, but a serious enough sense that would allow one to frame 
|legislation.  [...]

Why, Kevin C. Welch, of course.  He felt pregnancy enslaved women.  
And he wanted to outlaw means of escaping from this slavery.  

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch,
a pro-lifer in talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:46:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C05BwG.Gnz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
#Sources please.

As I said, I'll post them next week.

#Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
#support his statements.  Would you actually think they would? 

So, you were lying when you said "They have since admitted they were
lying through their teeth?", weren't you?  Did you think it would 
help you in the debate to simply make something up?

(The whistling sound you hear is your credibility flying out
the window.)

#Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
#be manufactured to support almost anything.

Are you speaking from experience?

Susan
  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Was Mezias dropped on his head during his childhood? 
Followup-To: misc.test
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:12:57 GMT

In article <34634@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to
><1992Dec24.170437.15166@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com(>>): 

>>> When are you going to answer my question about why you refuse to take
>>> a position on legislation 

>> How many times do I have to repeat myself?  I am undecided.
>> Try reading those three words slowly.  Hopefully it will sink in.

> Didn't [Mr. Holtsinger] just post his opposition to FOCA?

Allow me to explain something to you.  When people on talk.abortion
discuss ``legislation'', they are usually talking about legislation
to restrict abortion.  Most people understand that.  Obviously you
don't.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: A question for Suzanne.
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:08:44 GMT

From article by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:
> 
>Suzanne,
> 
>It was really interesting to find out that you and I have something in common. 
>We both have fathers who are ill and who would greatly benefit from having a
>transplant.
>
>You mentioned that your father is waiting to receive a kidney transplant from
>a dead human being, and you didn't seem opposed to that.  I hope he will find 
>one soon.

Thank you.   I hope your father finds an effective treatment soon too.

 
>How do you feel about my father getting a tissue transplant from dead aborted 
>fetuses?  

Were I he, I would refuse it.  To me there is a large difference between
receiving a transplant from someone who died naturally, and receiving one
from someone who was killed specifically to provide me with it.   You say
it was to be aborted anyway?  Still, I myself would refuse to profit from
the deliberate killing of someone else.


>My family is hoping that after Clinton reverses the ban on fetal 
>tissue research, 

Your whole family is terribly mistaken.  Fetal tissue research has
_never_been_ banned.   Only the funding of it with our _tax_ dollars has
been banned.   Your family should not blame the government.  Your family
should blame the medical establishment that has been unwilling to undertake
the research to fight Parkinson's without a government guarantee against the 
financial risk.


>this procedure will be perfected and will be made available 
>to people like my father who are suffering from parkinson's disease.

What I have read of the experiments in other countries, of Parkinson's
patients that have been implanted with fetal tissue, is that if there are
any improvements at all in the patient, they are very short lived - on the
order of just a few weeks.   Then they revert right back as if they hadn't
had the treatment at all.   Don't hang your hopes for your father on this
treatment, or you will be sadly disappointed.


>I'd be interested in hearing your opinions since we seem to be in a similar 
>situation.

I feel very badly for your father, and your family, but I can't see fetal
tissue implants as a solution.  I think the research should focus on more
effective treatments.

>				.... Heather.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Susan misses the point of my :-)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:50:49 GMT

	Penn Jillette described the smiley as 
	"the hateful :) which means 'just kidding' 
	and is used by people who would dot their i's
	with little circles and should have their eyes 
	dotted with Drano."
		San Francisco Chronicle, 10/06/92
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A child's guide to lying with statistics
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:14:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C05BC3.6GE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

#1989 Ed. STATISTICAL ABSTR OF THE U.S. - Bureau of Census:
#  by 1972 180 women died from abortions in the US.
#  in 1972 there were 38,000 illegal abortions

Note the lack of primary sources.

Note the first number is "by 1972" and the second number is "in 1972."

Note that there is no explanation for the methodology used to determine
the number of illegal abortions.

#1978 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gyn.
#  study claims that the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact
#  on the number of women dying from abortion"

Note the lack of specific reference.  (Does anyone remember the guy
who cited Lancet and then went away?)  

Note the carefully chosen quote (and lack of context.)

#"A Speaker's and Debater's Notebook" NARAL 1978
#  claims that before 1973 the maternal death rate from illegal abortions was
#  40 deaths per 100,000 with 200,000 illegal abortions per year.

Note the lack of evidence to contradict this statement.

Note the lack of evidence that a NARAL official admitted this number
was false.  (Not even Bernie Nathanson's old lie, I'm surprised to
see.)

#Spin away folks!

Note the complete lack of documentation for the "90% of all illegal
abortions were performed by doctors in their offices" claim.

## There is plenty of evidence to support this.  Ever hear of Romania?  
##check 
## out the October 1992 issue of the American Journal of Public Health 
##(volume 
## 82, issue number 10).  An article titled "The Public Health Consequences 
##of 
## Restricted Induced Abortion - Lessons From Romania" begins on page 1328. 
# 
## 
## Some of the findings: 
#
# [ long list of stats deleted - PL]
#
#For crying out loud, Heather, I can't believe that you would use stats
#on a government run by that butcher dictator, Ceaucescu to support your
#claims. Talk of mitigating factors - am I to ignore forced pregnancy and genocidal programs he instituted?

No, idiot, you were supposed to realize that what happened in Romania
is an example of what happens when abortion is illegal.  There were
suction aspirators in Romania, you know.  If an abortion is so simple
that any idiot could perform one safely, then why were there so many
deaths in Romania?  Why are there so many deaths in Brazil?  (I could
go on and on naming countries.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Fri, 1 Jan 93 04:01:33 GMT

In article <C05BC3.6GE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <30DEC92.16371945@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> In a previous article, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) wrote:
>> >In article <1992Dec29.175100.20873@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
>> >decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> > 
>> >Yes Dean I can support my assertion,
>
>1989 Ed. STATISTICAL ABSTR OF THE U.S. - Bureau of Census:
>  by 1972 180 women died from abortions in the US.
>  in 1972 there were 38,000 illegal abortions
>
Should read 180 women died from those illegal abortions reported after
the fact. Most estimates suggest it is more likely you need to add a
zero to the end of your figures there Paul.

>1978 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gyn.
>  study claims that the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact
>  on the number of women dying from abortion"
>
Certainly a valuable citation, considering it's age...
We shall see how valuable it is after comparing numbers of deaths from
your next citation.

>"A Speaker's and Debater's Notebook" NARAL 1978
>  claims that before 1973 the maternal death rate from illegal abortions was
>  40 deaths per 100,000 with 200,000 illegal abortions per year.
>
As you post, it is a claim, and one made by a group with an axe to
grind. But let us assume that your propoganda is actually accurate. It
states there were 40 deaths per 100,000 aboritons performed. Current
figures indicate a mortality rate of 0.004%, or 4 deaths per 100,000
abortions performed (source provided the last time I responded to you,
go look it up Monkey boy).
So, according to your own statistics, there were *ten times* as many
deaths per 100,000 abortions as currently.
So what does this do to your claim that more women die from legal
abortions then from illegal ones Paul?
I'd say it shoots it straight into the trashcan.
Go dig up something else Monkey boy.

>Spin away folks!
>
Looks to me like your head is spinning quite well on its own Monkey
boy.

>For crying out loud, Heather, I can't believe that you would use stats
>on a government run by that butcher dictator, Ceaucescu to support your
>claims. Talk of mitigating factors - am I to ignore forced pregnancy and genocidal programs he instituted?
>
Why not? Forced pregnancy is exactly what you are advocating in *this*
country. You might as well feel free to ignore the results of them in
others.
Try again Monkey boy.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis shows his expertise at innuendo, again
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:37:35 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Dec28.063751.2980@watson.ibm.com> <nyikos.725748406@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <nyikos.725748406@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.063751.2980@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>
>>>In the meantime, I hope you can help me correct an entry in
>>>Dr. Willke's _Abortion: Questions and Answers_.  Here it is, as
>>>it appears on p. 108 of the Fourth edition.
>>>
>>>       Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage
>>>       rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5%
>>>       rate in a non-aborted group.
>>>               Richarson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination
>>>         on Subsequent Pregnancy," _British Med. Jour., vol. 1,
>>>         1976, pp. 1303-04.
>
>>Perhaps I can help.  How about adding the following note:
>>   Of course, it should be noted that is from a British journal from
>>   16 years ago, and describes a problem with techniques that are probably
>>   no longer used in the US.  There is *no* evidence of problems with
>>   later childbearing among women who have an early abortion performed by
>>   the most common method used *today* - vacuum aspiration.
>
>Vacuum aspiration predates 1976.

The article was published in 1976; there's no indication given of when
the data is taken from, or what type of abortion was involved.

>Can you give me a reference?

Certainly.  "Facts in Brief:  Abortion in the United States."
published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.  If you want further
information, you can contact them at:

111 Fifth Avenue
New York NY   10003
212-254-5656

2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington DC   20036
202-296-4012
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:35:58 GMT

In article <C0301K.5nL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

}Apparently somebody has never heard of military conscription.

Been there, done that.  It isn't quite the same as trying to legally
ban abortion.  'Course, I've never had (or been denied) an abortion.
I suspect that the number of people who have had abortions (or even
tried to have them) and have also been drafted to approach zero.  
Being as how I doubt we can have an experienced person comment, I
suppose we will have to rely on the Thinkers, of which you are 
obviously not one.

}The over 90% of illegal abortions performed before Roe v Wade  were done
}by licensed physicians in good medical standing in their own offices.
}The number of deaths before and after Roe v Wade showed no statistical
}decrease in deaths resulting from abortion.
}
}Stop perpetuating these lies.

Good advice.  I think those figures are rather foolish myself.  I doubt
you could find any reliable source for any percentage of illegal abortions.

}Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
}to bodily integrity and personal autonomy.  

Darn.  I thought she just consented to have sex.  Where is it written that
she did all that other stuff?  In your Big Book Of The Way I Wished Things
Worked, perhaps?

}Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  

How do you know?  Were you there?

}Murder is murder.  

Murder is not abortion.  Abortion is not murder.  

}Morally and scientifically life begins at fertilization, and so does
}citizenhood.

You seem to have a different concept of "life" than many of the scientists
I have talked to.  I don't know about your morals but mine tell me
that life began long before fertilization was even thought of.  As
for "citizenhood,"  I couldn't find it in a dictionary, so you may
be correct in asserting that, although to what end I can't imagine.
 
}Edward Simmonds


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion