HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:57:27 GMT

In article <3728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

> It is much safer (for the woman) to do a D&E than it is
> to perform a hysterotomy or a saline or prostaglandin 
> induction.  D&E's require the dismemberment of the fetus
> in order to remove it vaginally.  Quite obviously. the
> steps cannot be reversed.  

I have seen claims that a D&E is safer for the woman and that
it's the "preferred" procedure for late second-trimester abortions,
but I have not seen anything to suggest that it is "much" safer
for the woman than prostaglandin. And in some of the obstetric
medical texts which I've perused, they often list "possible
fetal survival" as a disadvantage of a prostaglandin abortion,
indicating that a physician might select a D&E over prostaglandin
since a D&E ensures fetal death.

Even if the D&E is a safer procedure, I don't see why the 
fetus should have to be killed. There is a certain risk of
death to both parties using any method of removal, and in the
case of prostaglandin abortions, there's more risk to the
fetus than to the woman. It seems grossly unfair to the fetus
to sacrifice its life during a D&E so that the woman can 
enjoy an insignificant reduction in the risk to her own
life, especially when the risk is already low.

And it still doesn't explain why a woman should be entitled
to kill a fetus with Down's syndrome. The Down's syndrome 
child is killed because the child is retarded, not because
the abortion procedure is safer for the woman. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:44:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul23.175956.18589@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>If a pro-choicer is to avoid embracing infanticide, they 
>must offer a rational justification for killing a late-term
>fetus that would not also justify infanticide in similar 

Its simple.  An infant is autonomous.  A fetus is not.

Now that I've answred you quesstion, perhaps you can explain to
me why many pro-lifers think its OK to kill a murderer but not
a fetus.  Blatent assertions like "its innocent" have no rational
justification (I'm using "blatent assertion" as you appear to use it).

>circumstances. Blatant assertions like "because it's inside
>the mother" have no rational justification.

You must use a non-standard definition of "blatant assertion".  It
would appear to me that the location of the fetus is a fact, and
its location determines its autonomy.

I notice your postings are alot like David Rasmussen's postings. 
Do you know him?  
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29077 alt.sex:25167 soc.singles:21181 alt.peeves:12543
From: mayoff@austin.eds.com (Rob Mayoff)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Neccesary and sufficient conditions
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:01:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: austin.1992Jul27.020103.27355
Organization: EDS Research;  University of Texas at Austin;  Talisman

In article <1992Jul21.085621.10456@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>ok, but the Pressing Question is:
>
>Is an Orgasm a Neccesary or Sufficient Condition to Sex,
>and is there an Objectively Verifiable Method of Analysis
>that contains its own means of Falsification?

[ stuff Deleted ]

>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.

Please answer me This: How do You decide what to capitalize?  I can See
neither Rhyme Nor Reason To Your Upper-casement.  At first I Thought
that Perhaps it Indicated Emphasis, But I Am Losing Faith In that
hypothesis.  Then I considered the Possibility that you Simply
capitalize Words with A Certain Number of letters, But I See that That
theory has flaws as Well.  So Do you have filter through which You pass
your posts, which randomly raises The Case of letters Which have the
distinction of beginning words (I Have engaged Such A program Here), Or
is It that Your Space Bar and carraige-return Keys are Linked In some
Random Fashion to your shift Key?  I am unsure Of The likelihood Of this
last possibility as well, since I now Notice That Sometimes Letters That
merely Begin syllables, and not Words, Are Capitalized As well.  Look's
Like I'll have To revise My Program.

eighteenth letter, fifteenth letter, second letter

P.S.  Here's the aforementioned program.
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$/=" "; srand; while(<>) { s/^./\u$&/ if(rand(2)>1); print; }
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:58:00 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.172539.13189@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

[terminalogy diatribe deleted]
> 
>    Why don't you fanatics get real, and understand that there are
> children in this world that are ALIVE!  They have been born!  And
> they need our help.  Can you imagine what these children probably
> feel when they see you anti-abortion freaks obsessing the way you
> all do, while disregarding their plights?  They most likley think
> that you are crazy, or at least indifferent to REAL children!  If
> you are REALLY pro-life, then get off this anti-abortion nonsense
> and do something for the children that are HERE NOW!  They need a
> hand NOW!  Why don't you stop pretending you are pro-life?  It is
> a sham!

  I've read this several times, and it never fails to amaze.  I doubt you
have ANY idea what most of those people do besides work against abortion.
You MOST CERTAINLY have no idea what I do.  If you can point out and prove
those hypocritical individuals, you are welcome to it, and I would join
you in the effort.  Meanwhile, keep your blanket generalizations to
yourself--they do not apply to me.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:12:59 GMT

<1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> The parents, once again, don't have to strike a single blow: the blow
>> they strike is with the pen, signing her into an unwanted children's
>> home.

<1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov> (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> You know, it occurs to me that consigning a teenager to a foster home is
> a little more complicated than just signing a form.  Any juvenile law 
> experts want to clarify things here? 

I can't say one way or the other, but let's assume you're right
and parents of teenagers have more than trivial hoops to
jump through in order to rid themselves of their parental obligations.
Do you have any opinion about such an anti-choice government
policy that forces parents to conform to a state-imposed moral
view of their duties to their children?

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:18:04 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul25.004750.14804@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

#If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
#his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child sex,
#what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!

Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
adult/child sex involves so that you will no longer feel a need
to misrepresent this crime as an innocuous action.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: Abortion is Murder!!!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:36:44 GMT


I don't understand how you people can even debate such a clear cut issue.
Abortion is murder and there is no way to deny it.  These supposed 
"Pro-Choice" people are supporting the killing of little babies.  To me, the
ironic thing is that many of the Liberal supporters of abortion are the ones
that oppose the death penalty and believe animal rights are more important 
than human's.  I just pray to the Lord above that those Liberal tax and spenders
Gore and Clinton do not get in the White House. George Bush is this country's
last hope before the liberals and the homosexuals take over.  If this country
is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, and it will not be pretty.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guttmacher - The Preferred Choice
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:01:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <64773@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Has anyone else heard the statistic that AG informations
>points to the fact that 90% of those who have had
>an abortion would have picked another option, if 'a good
>alternative' was available or something like that?
>
>Sounds like the great desire for The Choice (The Right) does 
>not mean that the ones who are making the choice think that
>abortion is the The Preferred Choice.
>
>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts

I would be very interested in this survey.  It is hard to tell from
what you know so far what exactly the respondants consider "a good
alternative".  One interpretation would be that they were being
asked if they would choose a *surgical* abortion if a good alternative
existed in which case a large majority may be referring to choosing
RU-486 if it were available.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW and A&I
Keywords: roe wade abortion autonomy sex
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:43:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.004811.22058@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.163715.12871@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I think Mr. Miller's reading of Roe is correct. The Court ruled 
>> that the privacy right involved "cannot be said to be absolute",
>> and that the state does have an interest in protecting the woman's
>> health.

> At least her physical health.  An issue that "privacy" would cover,
> but does not usually come to mind (I'm very surprised that I haven't
> seen anyone talk about it!), is the woman's MENTAL health.  Surely
> any kind of pregnancy (carried to term or (spontan./surgic./etc.) aborted)
> is extremely trying on her mental health.

As any parent can tell you, children are a definite strain on their
mental health. Should we allow parents to abort their children to
preserve their mental health? 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 22:18:54 GMT

<1992Jul8.214931.24675@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) said:
><2609@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes: >
>>So, anything that god does is OK, because he is god?  He can take away
>>everything someone has, and then justify it by saying "That is OK, he
>>still has his faith in me, never mind that his life is ruined?"
>>He can order someone to kill his own son as a sacrifice?  He can
>>demolish entire cities?
>
>Why does God have to justify His behavior to us?

Because I say so.  This reason holds about as much water as your assertion
that he doesn't have to justify it to us.

>>Sorry, it does not wash.  No one, not even the creators of a law, are to
>>be held above the law.  
>
>Whose rule is that?  Why would it apply to God?

Because I say so.

>>If your god will start living by the rules that
>>he has (supposedly) made for us to follow, then he _might_ get a bit of
>>respect from me.  
>
>Why should an infinite God be subject to the same set of rules that
>apply to you and I?

Because I say he should be.

>>I really don't care if you choose to revel in these delusions in your
>>home/fantasy life, 
>
>Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute delusions, at least  
>according to the American Psychiatric Association.  

But they are an indication.

>Your complaints proceed from the premise that God simply isn't there.  

That is the base premise.  Now you need to provide proof that a god *is*
there.

>It's easy to be flippant when you're measuring your ethics against 
>a myth.  Yet if (for the sake of argument) God is there, your criti-
>cisms are insignificant.  

Why?

>So, since it's obviously easier to simply say "I don't believe in
>God" than to spend time arguing that He doesn't exist, why bother?

Because so many want to impose their morals on the basis of the existence
of an all loving god that will destroy us if we misbehave.


Gordon
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Segmentation Fault Core Dump
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:40:09 GMT

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
] 
] Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  I would appreciate it
] if you people would just admit that.  Saying that killing the fetus is
] not killing a baby is exactly the same as saying that murder shouldn't
] be illegal.  If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
] baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
] adult?


starting in reverse order:

1. Obviously John Here is new to the notion of Deficiet Spending,
wherein the Current Government spends the Taxes of My UnBornGrandChildren.

2. John seems a little confused about the difference between
the born and the Unborn. And while we are playing this record,
again, How UnBornIsUnBorn?

3. Excuse please John, by BabyKiller[tm] is a reserved word,
and these BleedingheartWimpLiberalNonVeterans are not card
carrying members of the Club.


Which brings me to trivia question time:

How will OutLawing Abortion Change the Nature of the
Inequity of Child support laws, and the presumption
that Men are NOT parents, should not be awarded
child custody, that women should NOT pay Alimony and
child Support.... 


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.
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Creating Real Choices
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:16:21 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

There is a group in Minnesota, I think, who are pro-lifers and
pro-choicers together. They call themselves  Common Ground, and work
on reforms like the ones I mentioned in my post. They have one ground
rule: They do not discuss abortion, because I would detract from their
reform efforts.

I'll have to do some research on this....












-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Preservation of Ones Species
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <92361@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

> I remember Suzanne Forgach arguing that all (at least mammalian) species
> do not kill their young, and that as humans this should be natural to us
> as well. All as an argument against any abortion.
>
> Apparently, the male pecking order in lion prides is so competitive that
> when the honcho dies or leaves the pride, the second-in-command male kills
> all of the newborn cubs of the former leader. 

After a male lion drives out a rival male lion from the pride,
the new male lion will often kill the rival male lion's cubs 
because that's the only way to get the lioness into "heat".
After the cubs are killed, the male lion can mate with the
lioness and pass his genes onto the next generation of lions.
Since the victorious male lion will often be stronger and braver
than the loser, this will have the effect of removing the
weaker lion's genes from the gene pool and substituting
the stronger lion's genes. 

I don't think you want to apply this idea to the human race.

>Brian.


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Reardon's "morbidity" defined
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 29 Jul 1992 13:28 EDT  

I was asked to check on the definition of the "morbidity rate" cited by
Reardon in _Aborted Women: Silent No More_.  Here is the result.

Reardon defines "morbidity" as including any medical complications
which necessitate treatment not normally required in the procedure (whether
childbirth or abortion), such as hemorrhaging, infection, etc.  

The source of his 10% vs. 2% figure is no longer available to me - my wife
took the book back to the library.  But you'll know where to find it if you
need it.  For my part, it's enough to know that neither procedure is 
perfectly safe - and that no advocate on either side should bill their 
procedure as such.  

You might also come back and say that even if abortion has a 10% morbidity
rate and childbirth a 2%, that's all the more reason to keep abortion legal
- to keep that discrepancy from rising further.  I would say, on the other
hand (not the same subject being addressed), that any discrepancy would be
a sign that abortions should be medically regulated more than at present,
that standards should be applied to facilities, practitioners, devices,
and medicines used, for consistent treatment of women.  

One person who appears to dispute Reardon's comparative rates is biologist
Garrett Hardin (per Omni, 06/92), who makes the statement that natural
childbirth is up to ten times more "dangerous" than abortion.  Now, Omni
being a popular magazine, I don't expect the article to go into detail on
exactly what Hardin means by "dangerous," or in which societal contexts
are which dangers most prevalent (and it doesn't), but it would be 
interesting to know the answers to those questions.  

RG

Coming soon: Feminists for Life Mailing List
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: RAPE/INCEST MYTH
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:43:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes ...
>In <22dml=#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes ...
>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>>Religion stops a thinking brain.
>
>Thanks for conceding my point, but Pascal did not concede yours.

Hello!?!  Are you aware that we're now in the 20th century and that
a heartbeat hasn't been any measure of humanity for quite some time
now?  Heart surgery stops a beating heart.  McDonald's stop _lots_ 
of beating hearts.

Are you actually trying to say something?  Or are you just trying to
be another right-to-lie jerk?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An abortion decision?
Summary: More like a slow night in Terre Haute.
Keywords: Fnord.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.063033.14767@cs.rose-hulman.edu> catapjcm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Joshua Christopher Marshall) writes:
>
>Abortion should be mandatory.

After you, Gaston...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

        Beware of being the Roller when there's nothing left to roll...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Context Check For Kellmeyer
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:03:58 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

] slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
] > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] 
] >> Just keep in mind that your version of Third Reich reproductive policies,
] >> no matter how well annotated and documented, is propoganda, pure and simple.
] >> It will remain such no matter how many times you post it.
] >> [--my reference to Ralph Winston and banished-cpu deleted--]
] 
] > I.e. the facts, while interesting, are irrelevant, huh?  Man, I can't
] > believe you can post the two sentences above and expect anyone to 
] > continue to take you seriously.  I certainly don't.  Goodbye, Chris.


1. You Still Do Hold that Poland Invaded Germany, as the Nazi Documentation
so indicated that this is the case.

2. You still do not wish to be honest about the nature of the Dachau
camp as this puts your whole mental imagry of your Fantasy to the test.

Now When you wish to resolve those two minor test cases,
then your notion of Objective Standards will be considered.

As you do not wish to address the fact that your citation of
Nazi Propoganda has failed, time, and time, and Time, 
ad nauseum, to be construed as Germane to the Debate does
not change the fact that recitation of nazi propoganda is
not a strong reed to lean upon.

] Goodbye, Ralph, er, Steve.

amen, and preach it.


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