HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:43:37 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <24500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>Hear that, Dougie? Don't even think of quoting from a pro-life source,
>you can see plainly how much they will believe you ("pro-lie").  Meanwhile
>they feel perfectly justified in quoting from the Alan Guttmacher
>association, etc.  Since they have us outnumbered, they feel they
>can go on treating us this way.

Well, if honest reporting, like Koop, who is pro-life btw, makes you
think it is all biased because it doesn't show what you want it to show,
too bad. Thanks for admitting the hopeless stance you've adopted by
admitting you're "outnumbered". But don't tell, as we want you to continue
to pressure the populace with your "superiority" in numbers, so that
we can actually rouse up the populace and pass some laws that show a
little common sense wrt personal rights. An aside, "Dougie" is intended
as a demeaning form of Doug, amazing that you don't think any better
of him.

>>, which we all know to
>>be ever so thoughtful in trying to show everyone the truth. After all,
>>they only claim pregnancy is wonderful, and that you should be estatic
>>about that miracle in your tummy (even though it is going to nearly
>>kill you or at the least cause you to be partially paralyzed)

>Now, if we had them outnumbered, we could call this last parenthetical
>statement a lie, and make it stick.

As for the parenthized portion of the statement, it is obvious that
Kathi Mills' post just blinked in front of your eyes. (That was the one
where she described in detail how the abortion she had was necessary,
and why, and the ramifiacations if she hadn't had one.) As to how you
could ever make it stick, when there are actual facts to dispute it,
beats the hell out of me. That's why the Pro-life argument is so weak,
because there are so many holes in it you can't stop them all with your
fingers and toes.

>> whereas
>>the pro-choice organizations openly admit that abortions are dangerous
>>as is carrying to term, and are generally honest in their presentations.

>Given that Ron considers himself to be generally honest, I'm
>not surprised to hear him making this claim.

And you are the paragon of truth and honor.

As you indicate here that I'm dishonest, a liar, and worse, please indicate
where I've said anything dishonest, to at least prove one point in your
implications. Not that anyone except your fellow pro-lifers believe
you to begin with anyway, but just to indicate how hollow your integrity
really is. Not only are you an ignorant misogynist oaf, but a malicious
liar to boot. (Note, implications are as good as an outright lie, subtlety
does not change the fact that a lie has been made.)

You must sleep well at night.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:04:36 GMT

In article <adams.714845380@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:

Both wrote very interesting, thought-provoking articles.

Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
every single human being in the world (well, I know that it would be
considered *nice* if everybody were a Christian, but then, I'd like
everybody in the world to be Kate Bush and Happy Rhodes fans :-))

I have been *very* angry at Christians lately, since I've become 
aware and concerned about the terrorists harassing health care workers,
and *especially* since the Republican convention. I've been bashing
Christians at every opportunity, and your posts have brought me back
to the realization that I have been unfair. 

My brother is a born-again Christian. He's somewhat lapsed, but still
holds the basic beliefs. He's a truck driver, so i don't talk to him
very often. That's been good, because if he'd been around within the
past few weeks, I'm sure I would have dumped all my anger on him.

Whenever I feel the urge to lash out at all Christians, I will think
"Steve" and "Cameron" and re-think what I'm thinking, writing, saying.

Thank you.

Vickie

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: The Mad Bomber and the Pregnancy Simulator Scenario
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:43:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.200124.1597@eco.twg.com>, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
# Stoopid analogy time: Suppose I packed one of those strap-on 
# "pregnancy simulators" with dynamite and strapped it onto you.
# I explained that it would detonate if you tried to remove it,
# unless you disarmed it first. Suppose I then laughed maniacally,
# waved the circuit diagram in your face, and told you that I'd mail
# it to you in three months.
# 
# If the only other way you could get the diagram was to kill
# me and take it, would you be justified in doing so? After all,
# you'd only be suffering three months of discomfort and inconvenience,
# with little risk of permanent damage.
# 
# So, what does everyone think? Is this as stoopid as "The Red Button
# Scenario" or "Diary of an Unborn"? I do try...

Almost.  The Palo Alto judge rates it a 9 -- that's `stooooooooopid'
(with 9 `o's) -- on the 10 point scale, with the Red Button Scenario
receiving the full 10 points.

The Mad Bomber needs to be played by Robin Williams and guy with the
pregnancy simulator absolutely *has* to be William Hurt.

This doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with your essential point,
however.

(Someone send me `Diary of an Unborn' -- this I haven't seen yet.)

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

...rapidly becoming the t.a analogy commentator of doom, a position
probably heretofore unoccupied.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Date: 31 Aug 1992 13:52:10 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug31.165949.13667@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <17tdcuINNnej@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com writes:
>
>> >In fact, all I'm saying is: abortion, for women who choose it,
>> >is a Big Deal.  They will be affected by it for no little time.  
>> >I find *your* claim about "most people" reveals very little 
>> >understanding of human nature.
>> Upon what grounds do you make this claim?
>> There have been studies performed on these issues, you know.  Do you know
>> what the bulk of these studies have found?  Upon what knowledge base do
>> you decide that women will be 'affected by it for no little time' (and,
>> by affected, I'm thinking negatively affected, given the thrust of your
>> previous writings on this topic.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

C Everett Koop, when asked by his president to come up with evidence that
abortion is a bad thing, could not in conscience do so.  He reviewed the
existing literature and decided one couldn't come to the conclusion that
abortion was a bad thing.  He felt more studies needed to be done.

Some were.  In one, (which I don't have the citations for at hand, unfortu-
nately -- this is from memory) a sampling of inner-city girls were studies.
Those who became pregnant and aborted ended up more successful on the various
scales used in the study than those who either didn't get pregnant in the
first place, and that those who did get pregnant and carried to term.  I don't
recall the actual scales used -- as I say, this is from memory -- but my
recollection was that this brush with sexual activity, unwanted pregnancy,
having to deal with the abortion itself, and then getting one's life back on
track served as an object lession that actually made these girls more 
successful in dealing with their lives.

Not that I'd necessarily go out and encourage everyone to try it, but.......

There have also been studies on groups of women who have had negative 
responses to pregnancy, and some of them are bandied about regularly in
this forum.  These aren't bad topics of discussion, because the discussion
itself can help people understand the limits of such studies, and the notion
of sampling error. (-:.

But, frankly, since I don't have the references for these studies at hand,
I've just posted flame bait, and it's likely that will be exactly what we
see.

>  Have you seen my post on contraceptive failures, btw?
 
I've copied it to disk to read later.  Too busy at the moment  but I thank
you for taking the time to type it in.  I hope to comment later, if I have
a comment to make.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 01:30:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)

In article <BtCHLr.7Kr@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Sorry. I don't like your .sig. However, being the all around nice guy that
>I am, I figured I'd suggest a few modifications so that was clearer for
>all of us concerned readers.

Why does the title "Control Freak" instantly jump to mind when reading 
Steve's changes to Gordon's .sig?  I guess the urge to control women's
bodies, just isn't enough for Steve.

Steve, there is no possible way short of a book with very little writing,
but many pictures that much of anything could be made clear to you and your
ilk.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to include pictures on the net, and
words are difficult for you to understand.

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:34:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.174556.14019@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BtoJJo.GH7@chinet.chi.il.us> 
#katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
#
## Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
## there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
## That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
## Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
## every single human being in the world 
#
#I find your remarks very offensive.   

Are you *positive* that you're not DJR?  

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:23:19 GMT

In <1992Aug29.144832.19929@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>Mills
>>Nyikos
>>> Rick Kelly
>>>> Suxie

>>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
>>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
>>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved.

>>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
>>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
>>>you stopped.

>>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
>>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur". 

>Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
>be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
>"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
>more specifically, for YOURSELF?

>In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
>procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?

This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
non datur" -- "there is no third way."

One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly 
unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

Also, have you forgotten that en route to the  nth  of  n  children
there is plenty of opportunity for sex for non-procreative ends?
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:24:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.165122.20732@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Susan Garvin) writes:
### = ( Steve Novak) writes:

###Hey, *I'm* an extremist.  I'll bet others would "acknowledge" it.
#
##I'll acknowledge it.  I'll also express my admiration for it.
#
#Thanks, Susan.

You're welcome.  Now that Loomis thinks that we're the same person,
I'll be complimenting you more often.
#
#[re: Fascist Fair in Houston...]
###'Course, if you're white, well-off,
###loudly Christian, and bigotted as hell, you *may* be under the illusion
###that you're OK.  Heh heh.
#
##I've been away - did DOD denounce Pat Buchanan's racist and homophobic
##speech in Houston, or is he trying to ignore it?  
#
#No. Way.  Good point, though.  Another question might be, does our
#heartbroken little Propellor Pouter, busy playing that racist trump card
#to the hilt, want to comment on Buchanan?  Whaddya think, Chaney?

The silence is telling, isn't it?

##Did he comment on Bush's praise of the cops who attacked the ACT UP 
#protesters?
#
#Could you expand on this, Susan?  I haven't heard much about it (I
#watched little of the R.C.; it made my blood boil.)

There was an ACT UP march last Monday, that ended with a flag
burning.  HPD freaked out at the fire, and charged the crowd.
Unfortunately, the police were on horseback when they charged.
Several of the ACLU neutral observers were trampled along with
ACT UP people.  They showed a clip on Nightline, in which you
can here a police officer saying, "Don't kick him with the
lights on."  There is an investigation pending, but old
GHWB made sure that he praised the brutality right up front.

##Susan,
##who walked into the Dome just in time to hear Dan Quayle say, "Bill
##Clinton is no Ronald Reagan."
#
#Naturally; _Clinton_ has an IQ in *3* digits.
#
#Bentsen really burned the Republicans' asses to a CRISP,
#didn't he?  I mean, first Reagan then Quayle ripped off ol' Lloyd.

It seems to have really stuck with them.  I thanked Dean (and
my friend thanked God) when we heard Danny's comment.  It was
the only comic relief in his speech.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Zen and the Art of Restricting Third-Trimester Abortions (was Re: Third party request
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 18:36:10 GMT

In <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in 
>Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
>reasoning to me, please?  

It's a Zen kind of thing. I can recommend some mental disciplines
that might help you understand it, but you'll have to be prepared
to spend years practicing them before you get any results.
          _
Here's a koan to get you started:

                    _
A disciple said to Mu-mon, Does Roe v. Wade permit the states
to place restrictions on abortions during the third trimester?
 _
Mu-mon said, I have no idea.

The disciple said, But you have mastered the 17 Principles and
the teachings of the 23 Patriarchs. Nothing on the Earth, or 
above or below it, is hidden from your sight. How can it be that 
you have no idea?
 _
Mu-mon said, I just want to keep my no-idea.
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34733 alt.abortion.inequity:3448
From: orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:44:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Sep2.010201.11352@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>> ray@netcom.com
stuff deleted>>
>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>- and my wife has said the same thing...
>	Well, you've got to admire the boy's honesty, if nothing else.
>	But see here, Mr. Curley:  if you believe that, then you must also
>believe that any woman seen to drink a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette
>while pregnant is guilty of force-feeding these substances to a minor child
>and therefore guilty of child abuse.
>	You must also believe that all miscarriages and spontaneous abortions
>must be subjects of criminal investigation, to assure that no murder has
>occurre
You know I used to believe this way.  I'd like to think I have made progress
by altering my belief to consider personhood at brain activity.  Anyway
sentiance is hard to define by using I.Q. or other scores of intelligence.
It would seem by reading some of you people's (got that from Perot) flames
of each other that accusations of non-intelligence abound.

It really is impossible to describe murder as the killing of a newly
conceived human being.  Yes, you are killing a human being (which has
many moral ramifications and should be limited) but the essence of 
what we know as a human being or "person" are not present yet.  If we
wanted to bring God into it one might say that one's soul is not 
present until brain activity starts.  That, at least, is what I believe.
I cannot and will not try to prove the existence of a soul.        

Obviously the best option is to prevent the conception from ever occurring.
That is what I support first.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge  (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 19:42:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>>> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>> we want to be precise)..."
>>>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>>>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>
>> I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement.  
>
>That's going to make a lovely quote. 

You mean you object to people believing that personhood begins one
month after birth?  How is this different from your belief that 
personhood begins 10 months earlier (aside from the fact that you 
apparently insist that everyone should believe as YOU do)?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34950 talk.religion.misc:15577
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: The sin of Bean consumption
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:56:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

And it is said that Zaratus forbade men to eat beans because he said that
at the beginning and composition of all things when the earth was still
whole, the bean arose. And he says that the proof of this is that if one
chews a bean to a pulp and exposes it to the sun for a certain time, it
gives out the odor of human seed. And he says that there is another and
clearer proof: if when a bean is in flower we were to take the bean and its
flower, and putting it into a pitcher moisten it and then bury it in the
earth, and after a few days dig it up again, we should see in the first
place that it had the form of a womb, and examining it closely we should
find the head of a child growing in it.

                        BEANS ARE ABORTION!


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 19:39:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.211903.25718@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug31.150147.12678@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >>
> >> Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.
> >
> >Nope.  One cell was produced by your body, but is no longer part of
> >your body.
>
> So what?  That is the equivalent of saying that after birth, parents have
> no rights to or over their children, just because a child is no longer part
> of either parents body.

No it's not.  I was pointing out that saying it's partially your body is
incorrect.  I didn't say anything about rights there.

> Point of fact, only one cell was producde by the mother's body, as well.
> So counting cells does not help.

It's inside *her* body, however.  Posession is nine points of the law.  :-)

> >And if you didn't want to donate it without strings attached,
> >you should have contracted for what uses that cell could be used before
> >providing it.
>
> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact.  My belief is that the
> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.
>
> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.

Naturally.  As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.

Note that I said *should*, not *must*.  Just like if you wanted to give
someone a gift, but control how they used it, I'd say you should come
to an agreement *before* giving them the gift.  You're free to do what
you like, but if you give them the gift with no strings attached, then
whine because they threw it out, I'm free to think you're a fool for
doing so.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34445 misc.legal:16818