HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:54:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.145805.28460@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
[text deleted, before and after]

#The article is quite biased.  Actually, not only the article, but DOD's
#transcript.  I perused the article as written in the Congressional Record;
#not only did there seem to be deletions, there also seemed to be an addition.
#Imagine that!


No.  You mean Doug Holtsinger altered quoted text?  You've
got to be kidding.  

<sarcasm off>

I'm still looking for explanations on just why DOD thinks that
he can get away with this.  Ideally, Holtsinger himself would
explain his justification for his actions, but I don't think
that he will.  I just cannot, try as I might, understand the
mindset that continually engages in the same dishonest
technique, knowing that someone will check the facts.  Is
DOD (and for that matter, are Chaney and Kellmeyer) really
trying to discredit the anti-abortion movement?

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:14:09 GMT



Poor DOD.  He "feels slandered."  I point out that he has
a history of changing quotes (which is true), and it
hurts his feelings.

Perhaps you should have considered the consequences before
you began your efforts to misrepresent what others have
written, Holtsinger.

I'll reach my conclusion about whether you changed the
PP quote when I read the original text.  I called 
CFC, you see, because I really wouldn't believe you
without verification.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 08:56:22 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Jul23.151556.11145@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.065831.8735@chinet.chi.il.us> 
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>> You hear about Pro-Choice activists who protect and escort women who
>> are going to clinics, but is there a similar program to protect
>> doctors? I feel *SO* sorry for them, and it's this tactic, more than
>> any other, that has made me despise the Pro-fetus movement.
>
>Is your position on abortion derived in part from the actions of a 
>few radicals? If so, do you think that's a valid reason for holding
>a particular position on abortion?
 
My position on abortion has evolved over years with lots of rational,
and sometimes, irrational, thought involved. Emotions and philosophical
beliefs have also entered into the equation. My position on the Pro-Fetus
zealots came about after one afternoon of watching them scream and yell
at women entering clinics. Some of those women weren't even there to
get abortions. Clinics *DO* offer other services, though PFs don't want
to think about that. Dislike and distaste for the PF movement turned
into outright hatred the first time I saw a feature about them going
to a doctor's house and harrassing the doctor. That goes far beyond
"the right to protest" at a public clinic, it invades the doctor's
private, off-duty home life. I can tolerate, understand, and even accept
the point of view of someone who is against abortion, but I will never
tolerate, understand or accept them invading a doctor's (or any other
health care worker they target) privacy. Abortion is *LEGAL* in this
country and doctors have the right to perform them.

Even the most hard-core PF zealot should realize that common decency
dictates doctors have as much right to privacy as they do.

I wonder how the PF people would like it if they were followed home and
harrassed unmercifully for something they did. Or if their children or
other family members were harrassed? Say what you will about the Pro-Choice
movement, at least they don't follow the PFs home and make their lives
miserable.

I've never heard of an instance where Pro-Choice activists chained themselves
to Fundimentalist church doors, or in front of Randall Terry's home.

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education

                 **** PRO CHOICE ****



>Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.011954.16225@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>Recently I implied that Mr. Clausen was either disgusting or stupid for his 
>assertion that "abortion stops a beating heart."  I pointed out that in the 
>majority of abortions there wasn't even a heart to stop beating.  The 
>initial intent of my reaction was one of being a bit tired of assertions that
>have little basis in truth, since then it has exposed that many of the people
>who read and/or post to this group are woefully ignorant as to what constitutes
>an abortion.  

For the nth time.  The heart begins beating at 18 days, and by 21 days it is
pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different
from that of the mother.

J.M. Tanner, G.R. Taylor, et al.,
_Growth_,
New York:  Life Sciences Library, 1965, p. 64.

If you have difficulties with this, please write Messrs. Tanner and Taylor.

>I looked in a bunch of medical dictonaries, and several regular ones at that,
>and without execption none of them mentioned a heart even in passing as a 
>condition of abortion.  The most common description was one of "expulsion of
>products of conception."  

Of course it wouldn't.  A "product of conception" by definition does not
have a heart, or any other human characteristic for that matter.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Willing to discuss with Novak, off-line only
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:57:47 GMT

> = Ron Graham writes:

>Mr. Novak has criticisms of the info I posted to this newsgroup yesterday.
>I will discuss them with him one-on-one.  He must provide a valid e-mail
>address.  

I do.  It's in my .sig, as my sysadmin hasn't fixed my auto reply path.

Until he does, I'll try and remember to add a "Reply To" line in my
headers.  

>It serves no purpose to holler and scream that I am not listening
>and then dodge a response.  I dodge no-one, and even Mr. Novak should know
>that by now. 

Hmmm....where did I say you "weren't listening"?  How can I have dodged a
response when _you_ are now responding to my _original post_?  

Or did you make the silly mistake of not noticing my e-mail path in my
.sig?

The only thing I insinuated you "dodged" was providing false flowery "main"
purposes for organizations which are obviously just plain pro-"life".  

To e-mail, it is.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:35:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul24.155801.7456@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> if you deny rights to the late-term fetus, then you will
> automatically deny rights to the newborn infant.

Patently false, since newborn infants have numerous rights that a
late-term fetus does not.  E.g., if the newborn was born in the United
States, then it has the rights implied by citizenship.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:01:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, thssapk@iitmax.iit.edu (<[{((|-|))}]>) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.133040.11862@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) w
>rites:
>>In article <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Fran
>klin) writes:
>>|> In <q0cm=rj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>|> >The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.

>>|> The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
>>|> recorded.

>>Following this logic(?), one needs to point out that the U.S.
>>(or for that matter the World's) death rate is 100%. It's
>>one death per one life.

>Oh, how clever!!

>It's too bad you forgot one thing:

>Exactly how much of a 'life' does an unborn child
>get to experience, before he is killed?

Absolutely none. Which brings up a point - should it be considered alive
in the context of independent human beings, persons, or not? I say no
for the very reason that it has experienced 'zero' life, therefore
ending it doesn't change anything except preventing the misery that forcing it
on a woman would cause for the next 20 years to life for the woman,
not to mention the unwanted child.

>Ironically enough, your silly statistic, if turned
>around, gives the perfect reasoning against abortion.
>We should try our best to make it 100%, one LIFE
>for every DEATH.   We should make sure that
>EVERY person (and almost-person 8) gets a chance
>to experience this world, as fully as possible, before
>they dissappear, all too quickly, back into the void.

Now here's a really nonsensical statement. Are you proposing that the
2/3's of all conceptions that are spontaneously aborted should be attempted
to be brought to term somehow? (After all, they are all almost-persons,
not to mention the almost-person sperm, and the almost-person eggs that
go to waste by the millions every day...)

Ron

Charter member - R.O.a.C.H.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: IS COMPROMISE POSSIBLE... YES?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:36:45 GMT


I posted this a while ago, but it ended up in dead.letter instead.  Here it is  
again:

<BrGJuw.Mn3@cs.dal.ca> <1992Jul16.152859.7720@pwcs.stpaul.gov>  
<BrHvB7.8s9@cs.dal.ca>

>> = Chris A Lyman
>  = Steve "edified" Franklin

>>Fine and dandy for families that truly love their daughters.  Not so good for
>>dysfunctional families.  I remember reading a post written by STella, saying
>>that her father would have killed her if he found out she was pregnant. :-(

>Thats' not the unborn child's fault, but her father's. Why should the
>unborn child suffer? Stella (how old is she? is she telling the truth?) 
>should not be staying in a home with such an archaic and potentially 
>violent father. Maybe if Stella isn't old enough to choose for herself
>then Stella wasn't old enough to have sex.

OK, Mr. Franklin, enough already.  I don't doubt STella's story, having
read her posts for several years now on several groups.  She's a mature,
truthful and no-bullshit lady.  Taking this at face value, and imagining
STella pregnant at age 16, we have two possible scenarios:

1) STella tells her parents, or pregnancy continues until it's obvious
   Her father beats and kills her

Result: 1 dead STella
        1 dead fetus/embryo

2) STella doesn't tell her parents
   STella has an abortion

Result: 1 live STella
        1 dead fetus/embryo

As far as I can tell, you'd prefer scenario 1 to scenario 2, which is
ridiculous if you value human life.


--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:44:23 GMT

> = (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (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.

>>These two assumptions concerning health are wrong today, with safe, legal 
>>abortions (so far) still available.

>Would you care to define "safe"?

I'd say the medical stats posted the other day, showing abortion is
safer by a factor of 10 than live births, pretty much sums it up, hmm?

>>The third assumption meant to say "fetus", instead of the erroneous "baby".
>>Obviously, Planned Parenthood has learned.  I suggest you do the same.

>Planned Parenthood has learned that they can make millions in the
>abortion industry.  

Gads, you keep belching up these lies.  Jesus will smack you silly for
this.

One more time:  how is P.P. making "millions" from $200 abortions?
Wouldn't you say (if you were being honest, for once) that this is just 
a _tad_ under the cost of giving birth?

>All those stupid obstetricians who continue to tell
>pregnant mothers that they are carrying "babies," it's just shameful.

Hey, we agree!   

>As to your suggestion, thanks, but no thanks.

Yeah, it's tough replacing religious fanaticism with actual facts,
huh?

>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

So does a sprung mousetrap.  I'm confused as to your point.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:02:15 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

Susan:

You are a crafty one aren't you?  You like posting thingso out of
context.  I'm glad you stated that I don't control you.  You are
right.  I wouldn't want to.  For that matter you don't control me
either.  My right to free speech doesn't stop with you.  If you
continue to lie and misrepresent what I say then you can expect 
a reply.  No question about it.  If you don't want replies then
don't misrepresent what I say or comment on them.  I, in fact, 
wouldn't mind if I never heard from you again.  You are a waste 
of people's time when you misrepresent and take things out of 
context.  Also, your vieled threats to post my replies against
my will are arbitrary and mean-spirited.  Not that I have anything
to hide but I don't give you permission to post personal messages  
to you.  Anyway looking at your prior and continuing behavior I 
wouldn't put it past you to try and make it look like I said something
by using my name and organization in the sender and organization 
header.  I don't know if it is possibly but wouldn't put it past
you.  As I said to you in my personal note grow up a little and stop
lying in order to support your viewpoint.  The pro-choice argument
itself has enough moral implications on its own without you detracting
from it with your lies.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:26:28 GMT

In article <22795@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> = (Doug Holtsinger):

>>>>   "Take responsibility for your children, or we will force you to do so."
>>>>    -- Bill Clinton, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

>>> You noticed that too, did you. [.. somebody deleted Ms. Forgach's
>>> acknowledgement that Clinton was speaking about "deadbeat dads" ..]

> This displays the ignorance or malicious deception that both DOD and
> Frau F. will go to. 

Oh please, can't you pro-choicers take a little ribbing? Are you all
humorless gits? Think hard now... isn't it ironic that Clinton would
force parents to take responsibility for their born children, but
not their unborn children? I thought so.   

And BTW, Ms. Forgach *acknowledged* that Clinton was speaking about 
child-support, but somebody (either you or Novak) deleted her acknowledgement.
There's some "malicious deception" for ya. 


> [.. rest of garbage deleted ..]
>Ron


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29707 alt.birthright:193 alt.abortion.inequity:2792
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:50:33 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.712421943@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
>>Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
>>disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
>>tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

>I can understand your moral trepidation, but while people like yourself
>"think things over" more people are contracting or dying from possibly
>curable diseases.

Again, all I said was I don't know how to respond to this issue.  I didn't
say I was going to stop it or condone it....Even if I oppose it on moral
grounds, I'll put it in the same class as I put abortion, so long as the
conditions you laid out (and I deleted) such as restricting payment for
fetal tissue are in place.  That means that though I might not approve, I
won't deny scientists the availablity of the tissue for research.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Punishing women...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:29:21 GMT

In <7888@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> smithmc@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu 
   (Lost Boy) writes: >
In article <1992Jul20.182518.19957@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov 
   (Chris A Lyman) writes: >>

>><extreme satirical mode ON>
>>
>>Gosh, maybe this is an effective way to promote
>>wholesome traditional family values!
>
>><extreme satirical mode OFF>

>You ever notice how parents who want to encourage family values usually
>do it by beating the Hell out of their children and mentally torturing
>them in to submission? 
>
> Many people who I met who come from conservative
> Christian households are in therapy because they were beaten so badly;
> in many cases these people were also sexually abused by their parents.

Most victims of abuse that I've dealt with in therapy come from families 
with no religious affilition whatsoever.

> Don't believe me? 

I certainly believe you know such people (as do I), but to even imply 
that they represent a majority of those in treatment for abuse is in-
correct.  The most common theme in abusive families is alcohol and 
substance abuse, not religious "disclipline".

> Just ask your local homeless teenager how s/he ended
> up on the streets. Or ask your local teenage prostitute how they ended
> up as a prostitute. They're the victims of many people's Family Values.

What a ludicrous assertion.  You really have no idea.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.religion.misc,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: totally misplaced posts...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:55:22 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

] fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
] 
] >I know the Catholic Church years ago
] >logically concluded even a newly formed embryo to be innocent human life, 
] 
] Whatever happened to Original Sin?  (for drieux, that's OS/1)

I think that you want alt.religion.misc, wherein you
can attempt to establish to the gathered multitude that
DOS, being daemon free, must therefore be the OS of the Gods....

] I believe you would be wrong in thinking that "most other churches" have
] condemned all these things as sinful.  In fact, in the fundamentalist
] philosophy I grew up with, DirtyIkkySweatySexForNoOtherReasonThanOrgasm
] was considered a Good Thing between husband and wife. 

I think this part belings in alt.sex where they are
willing to talk about, well...

those things....


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,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: GALEN J. HEKHUIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:20:00 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
GJH> In article <1992Jul3.234153.21850@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
GJH> <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
GJH> }judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes...
GJH> }JA> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
GJH> }
GJH> }Hmmm... perhaps so.  But that is ALSO quite one-sided.  Now try...
GJH> }
GJH> }When a woman loves a man, she respects his feelings and doesn't destroy a
GJH> }wanted child without even letting him into the discussion process.

GJH> Nope, it doesn't fit on one line, and doesn't have quite the same ring.  Tr
GJH> "Whether or not a man loves a woman, he considers her capable of choice."
GJH> 'Course, that may not fit your agenda...

'Course, that depends on what you think my agenda is...  :-)


GJH> }P.S.: Yes, I AM thinking about starting a support group for men who have b
GJH> }through this traumatic experience, but there are too many men who still tr
GJH> }to deny their emotions and act like nothing happened.  And if THAT doesn't
GJH> }stop them, they are afraid to come out about it because they will get ridi
GJH> }by friends and perhaps even threatened by the woman involved.

GJH> If there are so many people in denial, maybe you could make it illegal not
GJH> join your organization.

Hmmm.....  I'll give it a try, Galen.  :-)


GJH> That should appeal to both your lack of membership and your notion of
GJH> the purpose of the law!

That almost sounds a lot like Woody Allen saying "I wouldn't join any club
that would have me as a member".

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                  "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * realprogrammersdontusespacespunctuationorcaps
Newsgroups: talk.abortion