HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: adopting females
Keywords: females adoption sex selection
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

I haven't been following the "aborting females" discussion as closely as
I would've liked, so this may have been brought up already; if so, my
apologies.

The original poster seemed to think that aborting female fetuses because
the parents wanted boys is somehow wrong.  What if the parents are adopting
instead?  What if they turn down several perfectly fine young girls 
because they wanted to adopt a boy?  Is this a different situation, and 
if so, how?

Comments?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."
                                                  Au revoir, *ma* cherie.
                                                  (Sorry, kiddo.)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Heather Fobbs off RadFemSpeak
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:50:11 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
] 
] A question for Mr. Curley - what sort of punishments would you order for _men_ 
] who endanger a fetus?  Would a husband who smokes around his pregnant wife be 
] thrown in jail for endangering the fetus with second-hand smoke?
] 
] What if a sexually active man is using medications (legal or otherwise) that 
] mess up his sperm, and as a result a woman impregnanted by him has a 
] miscarraige.  Does the guy then get charged with endangerment/murder/whatever?
] 
] Just looking for consistancy...

Oh, Like SURE!!!!

Try to Blame it on a MAN.....

Why is it when Women BRUTALLY MURDER PersonsFromConception
they start to Toss around and find a Way to BLAME MEN!!!!

The Woman Had the PersonFromConception in her CHARGE,
as HER PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and she needs to LEARN
to be HELD MORALLY and LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for HER ACTIONS!!!!!

It seems obvious that what this country needs are
STRONG LAWS that will protect the LIVES of PersonsFromConception
from the Moral Degeneracy of WOMEN!!!!

We Need Safe Places where we can put women who have
engaged in HeteroSexuality, and thus have Established
a MORAL OBLIGATION to their PersonsFromConception!!!!

It should be ILLEGAL for any woman who has engaged
in Heterosexuality to be in any OTHER PLACE than
a State Sponsored Home For the Protection of PersonsFromConception!!!!

Failure to Comply will be construed as Intent To Commit MURDER!!!!

Only at Such time as a Certified Member of 
a State Sponsored Home For the Protection of PersonsFromConception
has Established that said woman is in point of fact NOT
gestating will she be released on her own recognizance.

ciao
drieux


ps: Better Living through Over Regulating....

-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: only xxx more shopping days.......
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:08:34 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep11.010927.15110@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>        - Propeller Beanies -
>
>Bright multi-colored poplin, with a working
>propeller sitting atop an animal figure.
>Guaranteed enjoyment. Made in USA.
>
>Sizes: M (child's head to adult size 7); L
>(adults to size 7 3/8); XL (adults over 7 3/8)
>
>Choose style ....... $11.95/any one
>Brimmed Beanie ........ Item #H-070
>No Brim Beanie ........ Item #H-071
>
>(800) 545-0933
>[reprinted without permission from Kaufman's
>Army & Navy 1992 catalog]
>
>===end reprint=======
>
>if you don't know who this is for,
>don't ask.

Memememememememe!

Is it...er...uh...duh....drool...slobber...oh, yeah...

Kebbin?

Kebbin Darceeeee!!?!?!

Ohgoodohgoodohgood!!  

Do I win a cookie?

Oh, please, oh, pretty please?

cpk
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:42:40 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>In article <> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>>I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>>women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

>	Oh *really*?  You wouldn't care to actually provide a source for that
>little claim, now, would you?  I'm sure we'd be most interested to find out
>about this one.

Happy to oblige

From the October, 1991 issue of a magazine called 
_New_Dimensions_:_The Psychology_ Behind_the_News_.  
On page 21 it reads:

In a shocking admission, Planned Parenthood recently acknowldeged what the anti-abortion camp has been insisting for years: Nine out of ten women who have
"safe and legal" abortions suffer from abortion-induced traumas.  "A number of
anti-choice studies and surveys (including the Reardon/WIC Study and the Grant
Survey) have shown that the incidence of post-procedural trauma for abortion
clients may be as high as 91 percent of all cases," says Planned Parenthood.
"While recent unpublished reports from the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned
Parenthood's research division] indicate that the scope of the problem may have
been accurately tabulated in these studies, the effect of those same anti-
choice forces in creating the trauma in the first place has not yet been
effectively measured."  *  In other words: We admit that nine out of ten women
who have abortions are traumatized by the experience...but the pro-lifers
are to blame.


*Planned Parenthood's "Department of Education 3-Year Plan and Long Range
Program Goals, 1990-1993," page 29.

Don
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:49:15 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep11.010953.12017@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
><1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>><SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
>>> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
>>> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 
>>Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
>>for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
>>can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
>>occasional exception.
>Unbelievable. Let's examine the logic here:
>1) So many gays are pro-abortion. (Unsubstantiated premise).
>2) Abortion is harmful to respect for women and for mothers. (Unsubstantiated
>premise.)
>3) Abortion is physically harmful to women. (Unsubstantiated premise)
>4) Therefore gays as a group hate women.(non sequiter)
>
>If this logic were true, we would be forced to conclude that anyone who
>is pro-abortion hates women. I'm not sure who SF considers to be pro-abortion.
>Conservatively, we would conclude that Gordon Storga hates women.

And how wrong that conclusion would be.  I can't really think of any
person I *hate*.  Heck, I don't even hate Suzanne and she's basically
called my wife a prostitute.  See how benevolent I am.

>However, I find it improbable that most gays are pro-abortion in
>the sense that Gordon Storga is. Therefore, let us be charitable and
>assume that Ms. Forgach means what we normally refer to as pro-choice.
>Therefore we come up with the funny conclusion that Adrienne Regard,
>Susan Garvin, rocker, and Kathi Mills hate women. (Must be because
>they're straight and won't have sex with them.) In fact, a very
>large number of women in this country seem to hate women by
>Ms. Forgach's definition.
>
>Questionable logic indeed, Ms. Forgach.

It's the same logic that she uses when she says that she is pro-life
because she was once a fetus, as if there is any connection.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:11:23 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep9.105054.24501@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>Uh, Tommy, you haven't shown that any law would be either necessary
>or effective.  Let's decide what to vote on before we vote, ok?

At the moment I suspect that there are candidates that are so "pro-life" that
they would advocate sweeping laws banning most if not all pregnancy termination.
I also suspect that there are equally extreme "pro-choice" candidates who
would not consider any legislation whatsoever to restrict abortion at all.

The debate is often so polarised that it is relatively easy to vote without
suggesting specific legislation.

All things being equal, I will not vote for a candidate who is a "pro-choice"
activist.
I will vote, all things being equal, for a candidate who regards abortion
as a moral evil, and who is willing to consider further legislative 
restrictions.

So that narrows the vote down quite significantly.

I suggest that many people in the US already vote on the basis of their
canidates' *principles* as opposed to suggestions for specific laws.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES, NFP SUCCESS RATES
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:21:16 GMT

In article <xbnng8=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>   As you may recall, the method effectiveness of the model was 99.6 percent
>>in the Creighton-St. John's Mercy study conducted in 1980 (559 couples;
>>4,957 couple months of use) (see Table 1).  In 1985, Joanne Doud published
>>the results of her study at St. Francis Hospital of Wichita, Kansas.  The
>>method effectiveness was 99.1 percent (376 couples; 2,463 months of use).
>>In the most recent study, the largest to date, the method effectiveness is
>>99.9 percent (697 couples; 7,238 couple months of use).
>
>Very interesting numbers indeed!  Few questions though.  I'm not sure 
>what they mean by "effectiveness" or how they  are measuring it.  With
>"conventional" contraceptives effectiveness generally refers to how often
>the woman can expect to not get pregnant each time she has intercourse.
>(that is, if my memory is correct).  The information you posted doesn't
>include any information about just what the numbers _mean_.  I'd appreciate
>more data, as it could be useful.

Not only that, but most studies that check the effectiveness of a procedure
disqualify from the numbers those participants who do no adhere properly to
the procedure -- only counting those who PROPERLY follow the procedure during
the entire time of the study.

One of the problems with methods such as NFP is that a HIGH PERCENTAGE of
people using the method fail to use it properly 100% of the time (this is also
a problem with most barrier methods, and one of the main advantages of the
pill).

I'd like to know if the study disqualified from the numbers participants who
did not follow the method properly (or preselected for participation those
couples who they had a good chance of always following proper procedure)?

In any case, even a .1% failure rate means 1 of every 1000 women using that
procedure will get pregnant against her will.  I am not willing to force any
woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy for any reason.  The fact that there is
no 100% method of birth control, abortion must ALWAYS be available for the
times when birth control fails (assuming the woman wants to abort).  And even
if there *were* a 100% method of birth control, I would still favor abortion
on demand during the first two-thirds of pregnancy.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all."
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:40:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.225124.20051@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Lar
>ry Margolis) writes:

>        A fetus is a living member of the human species.  On t.a, a common
>distinction is made between "person" and "human being" (a distinction, of cours

Mighty big of you to unilaterally decide what goes on in t.a. I take
person and human being to mean one and the same thing, unless one starts
to use them in a fashion to describe things as one of the two for mostly
emotional reasons, with little validity.

>which I do not believe is valid).  A human being is any organism which is alive
>and which is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Unborn children, all of the
>fall into this category.  A "person" is a human being who is recognized by some
>group or another and by some standard or another to have human rights, includin
>the right to life.

You think so. You've yet to show any reason for this except that there
is a good chance that they will meet the criteria given time. Baby Theresa
never made it to this stage, and was merely human, not really a human
being, although a being that was human. Semantic play.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 07:01:36 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<1992Sep10.030109.11724@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
><1992Sep2.172727.4011@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Aug31.150632.12762@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>><1992Aug25.220041.15875@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>We do not make laws against irresponsibility.
>
>Yes, we do.

Not across the board.

>>Ex: It's irresponsible to
>>forget to water your houseplants - should it be illegal?  It's
>>irresponsible to not balance your checkbook - should it be illegal?  It's
>>irresponsible to not check the oil level in your engine resulting in 
>>damage to it - should it be illegal?
>
>Nope.  But has anybody else realized that the above examples are all
>examples of irresonsibility to objects or possesions, not towards
>people?

That's right.  And there is no *law* against these occurances of
irresponsibility, is there?

>It is irresponsible to not fix your brakes, get in an accident, and
>kill someone.  The penalty for this would most probably be
>a conviction on the charge of manslaughter.

It is not irresponsibility that is punished here.  It is the effects of
it.  The effect is that a person was killed.  Tell me Steve, in the USA if
the person hit by the car in your scenario was a woman who was 4 weeks
pregnant, would the driver be charged with *two* counts of manslaughter?

>>You may expect all people to act completely responsibile.
>
>I do not.  If I did so expect, then I would see no need for law.
>
>>You can not enforce it without establishing a police state.
>
>Wrong.  We do enforce responsible action on our citizens.  And the only
>result has been a huge upswing in the number of liability suits.

I didn't water one of my houseplants Steve. It died.  Are you going to
call the police on me?

>>I suggest you just reread what you are writing, and learn tolerance for
>>other peoples opinions and lifestyles - it will improve your health.
>
>I believe in tolerance as applied to individual choice or action.  Ex:
>homosexuality.  It is a personal decision.
>
>Abortion is not an individual choice.

It sure is.  I don't see how something that only effects the body of the
woman should be anything but her personal decision.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:41:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep3.195638.27981@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.165321.25266@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> >Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
|> >right to kill a member of the human species.  
|> 
|> Lying again, eh, Doogie?
|> 
|> [...some material deleted...]
|> 
|> Note that Congress has the power to declare war, which give Congress the power
|> to allow members of the human species to be killed.  Note that one of the
|> traditional punishments for treason is death, which Congress has the power
|> to declare.  Note that members of the human species may be held to answer
|> for capital crimes, and further note that "capital" means specifically that
|> the punishment is death.
|> 
|> Pretty pathetic attempt, DOD.

	Quite right.  In fact, Taney in the Dred Scott decision clearly granted a
right of slave owners to kill their slaves, and asserted it to be a
constitutional right.  Dred Scott is as valid constitutionally as Roe v. Wade:
they were both dreamed up out of nowhere and established as the law of the land
by judges who felt that despite their vows to "uphold the Constitution," it
would be better if they just legislated from the bench.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HUMPHRY@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The use of fat black ass to describe Chaney
Date: 16 Sep 1992 01:50:03 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <nyikos.716589687@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
 
>
>In <BuDIvH.ALx@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>>In article <29674@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>>Personally, I would never use fat black ass to describe an African
>>>American.  I believe that Chaney is deserving of all the put downs and
>>>contempt directed at him; nonetheless, I think the use of this
>>>terminology is an inappropriate racial slur.
>>>
>>>SJM
>
>>So do I -- and I was the one who first used it, in the article that started
>>this whole sorry mess, and I apologized for it -- but you should note
>>something:
>>I did not describe Chaney in such fashion.  I told him to get his down here
>>and see just how hateful he'd be to me in person.  There is a large difference
>>between the two usages,
>
>Granted. Are you saying that you ONLY wanted him to bring down his
>[expletive deleted] and didn't care whether the rest of him was
>attached?  And just what did you have in mind to do with that particular
>piece of his anatomy?
 
I think you know perfectly well what I was talking about when I said that.
Not even a damned carpet-bagger like you can be *that* ignorant of the
English language.
 
>[As you can see, I am done with "whining" to you, which is your
>term for my efforts to be diplomatic.]
 
Some effort -- you've been about as diplomatic as Dzhugashvili was towards
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in 1940.  (Just like your hero in
Sacramento, too, wouldn't you know...)
 
>> and Chaney is lying through his teeth as usual when
>>he says I described him as one -- so you can see why Chaney isn't going to
>>be getting an apology from me, when he deserves it more than anyone else.
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Do I see a ray of hope in this last clause for ending this vendetta?
 
Well, gee, Pete, I've only been saying *that* much for a month, now.
(I may have overestimated your capabilities after all.)
 
>>He had his chance -- and he threw it away.
>
>Big fat chance.
 
You said it, not me...but that doesn't change things a bit.  He had
his chance, he blew it big-time -- and that's all, folks...
 
Patrick L. Humphrey (HUMPHRY@RICEVM1) Networking & Computing Systems
 
 
                        (neat Zen .sig, huh?)
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:36:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Bu7uvK.GA5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>In article <> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
>>stories of women who died due to septic abortions.
>
>I have read similar stories of women who died of legal abortions.
>I have met two women who have long-lasting physical damage from
>botched but entirely legal abortions.
>I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
	Oh *really*?  You wouldn't care to actually provide a source for that
little claim, now, would you?  I'm sure we'd be most interested to find out
about this one.
	This should be good.......

>
>Legal abortion is by no means safe.
>
	No medical procedure is "safe", at least in the sense of "absolutely
free of any possible complication".  Are you seriously suggesting that
anything that isn't 100% safe should be banned, hm?

>Don

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: smccabe@longfellow.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Burning Their Own Clinics! (formerly: Item for Chaney's study...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:48:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <191t47INN3qk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>   Pro-choice folks bombing abortion clinics?  Next they will try
>to claim that Steven Chaney is a plant by the pro-choice movement
>to discredit anti-abortionists.

Hey! That was my theory.  All mine and no one else's.

Now, would you like to hear my theory on dinosaurs?

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity