HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Keywords: abortion prisoners sex
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:53:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <BrwzD7.C2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>
>>In article <BrwCst.2nA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>>>And many of these people are
>>>>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>>>>spread.

	I think that safe sex is legitimate, in the way that safe
driving is legitimate. Does one outlaw seat belts just so that people
may experience the consequences of their actions? And the same for
lightning rods, which were once denounced as ways of defusing God's
wrath. One eminent clergyman even attributed an earthquake in Boston
to people using lightning rods.

>>>"These people" teach chastity.  If you don't engage in sex, you have an
>>>extraordinarily small chance of getting AIDS.  True, many of us are 
>>>against the use of contraceptives.  But claiming that condoms offer
>>>protection against AIDS, is like claiming that schools should teach
>>>"safe" Russian roulette - always wear a Kevlar vest.  After all, teenagers
>>>are GOING to play Russian roulette, theirs no way to stop them, so we
>>>really ought to show them how to do it safely.  

	And if one doesn't drive, one will NEVER get into a car
accident.

	And if one never crosses streets, one will NEVER be hit by a
car.

	And if one never eats, one will never get fat or suffer from
food poisoning.

	As Bertrand Russell commented, it is no good to regard sex the
way that certain hermits in the desert have regarded food.

>>So, when will people be taught about sex then, if ever?  (Who'd want to learn
>>about it anyway?  It's dirty and disgusting and... [extreme sarcasm])

	That's what "chastity education" boils down to in practice.

>Teaching chastity involves teaching what sex is so that the students know
>what it is they are reserving the use of (pardon the dangling preposition).
>The whole point of chastity teaching is to explain that sex is so special,
>and filled with so much meaning, that it should be reserved for the special,
>enduring love of marriage.  It's obvious that you've never been taught
>about sex or chastity by the response you've made.

	That sex is so great that it should be done as little as
possible, making oneself act just like a eunuch most of the time.

	Sheesh.

>And it is still the best way to avoid sexually transmitted disease of
>all varieties.

	Bullshit. Neutering is even better in that it requires no
willpower.

	Neutering is also absolutely idiot-proof.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:00:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>Why doesn't a fetus have the right to bodily autonomy? 

This has been going around a few times, but I'll give it just _one_
more shot.

Because it isn't autonomous.

Clear?

Now, a question for you.

Why do you demand that the z/e/f be given _more_ rights than the mother?

Why do you demand that the z/e/f be allowed to injure the mother, possibly
cause her death, cause major changes to her body, use her food and her
breath, while allowing the mother _no_ recourse?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:36:07 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul22.185747.3417@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Jul21.152018.67042@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
>
>>The study of psychological aftereffects in members of Women
>>Exploited by Abortion (the Reardon study) is not worth refuting
>>again.  (Can you say biased sample?)
>
>Despite the bias of the study sample, should the adverse sequelae
>experienced by these women be relegated to insignificance because 
>such women seem to represent a minority?  Do these women deserve
>a hearing or should we simply infer a "pro-lie" political agenda?

Hmm.  Once again, I have to ask if this is a 'real' question.  (Bill,
one of these days I'm going to have to figure out what it *is* about
your postings that always send me down this path....)

I don't think anybody is saying that women exploited by abortion should
be silenced, ignored, spat upon, or anything else.    However, on the
basis of the minority viewpoint of these women, people *are* perhaps
saying that this minority viewpoint probably isn't the best viewpoint
upon which to legislate....

I wouldn't necessarily say that, because I don't care about majority and
minority viewpoints, period.  But the fact/belief/contention by a small
number of women that something isn't terrific in a bad situation doesn't
seem to be to be a good place to start in discovering how the bad situation
affects *most* women.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Daring CatchPhrases From the DickSizeWars!!!!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:39:30 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> go play 'fetch' with your tiny sex animal.

> Don't Let this become a NewCatchPhrase[1].

It's out of my hands, drieux.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: secret life
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:39:32 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Jul23.160237.2022@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) s
>aid:

>>object to religious help for our side. If they want to break the
>>rules, I will, too, and as good as we are in the ring, pro-choicers do
>>not want the devastation of a no-holds barred debate. There'll be
>>Bibles flying like cannon shells in WW-II...

>Strange how someone who claims that honor is so relevent to him can
>easily toss it aside when it suits his needs.

Gordon, even stranger that someone who claims to be a Christian compares
bibles to "cannon shells" and proclaims that they will be flying, indicating
violence, killing, and maiming which is a stark contrast to the supposed
teachings of said bible (the latter half, anyway) of peace, love, and
kindness. I'd say hypocrit, but schizophrenia must have some allowances...

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
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: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:02:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
> woman.

It is never necessary to kill a late term fetus during a purely
elective abortion in order to remove it from its mother. Try again.


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
|<1992Jul23.050807.9619@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
|>References:  U.S. Surgeon General's Actuarial info, 1990...
|>   Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
|
|Whoa!  That's a shocker!  Do you have more info?  I'll be waiting
|with shaking hands.

Here.  Have a hot cup to tide you over while you wait.
"Heart of Darkness" from the Santa Cruz Roasting Company,
made in a French press.  Bitchin' stuff.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"For one thing, herbs can be eaten, which puts them right up there on the
positive reinforcement scale. If someone invented an edible decimal point,
most of us would be able to do our own taxes." -- From the Murky News 
gardening section
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.191902.8860@cshl.org> boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell) writes:
>I continue to be amazed at the incredible volume in this group, in light of
>the fact that when offered the chance to write articles for a magazine
>doing a special issue on abortion, only one person has done so.
>(A small additional number have sent poetry.)

I continue to be amazed how you are trying to drum up material for your
magazine by pushing people's competitiveness buttons -- "If Chaney can do it, 
why can't you?". That may work for controlling the behavior of elementary-
school children, but I don't respond to such slimy tactics, sorry.

If you REALLY cared about getting some decent material for your magazine,
you'd comb t.a for promising authors and lines of discussion, and send
them a complimentary note something like

	Hi! I read your talk.abortion article <xxxx.xxxx.xxx@foobar.com>
	and I thought you made some really good points about the YYYYY 
	and ZZZZZ facets of the abortion issue. Would you be interested in 
	taking some of that material and turning it into an essay/treatise/
	story/poem for publication in VOICE magazine? If so, then please 
	contact me at boutell@isis.cshl.org for more details.

That might be a much more productive strategy than pitching to people's
rivalry/competitiveness/shame or whathaveyou...

								- Kevin
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 08:58:45 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul17.010146.7369@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>>It's the pro-lifers who want to involve the court in all of this; I don't.
>>I think courts have better things to do.
>It was pro-choicers who decided to go to the Supreme Court to give
>abortionists rights that none of the 50 states ever gave them.
>It is pro-choicers who bring court injunctions to prohibit picketing
>outside abortion clinics.  I could go on and on.

I think that's a pretty skewed reading of history, Peter.  Here's some woman
who seeks to gain control over her physical body by virtue of medical 
treatment, and the legislature figures it's their business.  I think she
was right in approaching the courts to make a judgement on whether or not
the government has any business sticking their nose in.

Certainly, it's wrapped up in the courts and the legislatures now, and it
will ultimately be settled there, 
                                  BUT
                                      it might (and to my way of thinking,
rightly) be settled by the legislatures deciding it AIN'T THEIR BUSINESS to
make personal decision for individuals.
Adrienne Regard
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:13:38 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul24.185004.16938@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>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.

Once more, then, Mr. Clausen. If abortions, ipso facto, stop a beating
heart, does this mean that neither the birth control pill, the I.U.D. or
the morning after pill act as abortifaecents?

                                                     MP.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:22:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul21.163722.16219@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Jul20.203335.29132@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## We need more pro-forcers like Holtsinger who are willing
## to doctor quotes that are easily checked, too.  What did
## you delete from the PP quote, DOD?  
#
#I sent you the entire article via e-mail, and it clearly
#shows that I did not "doctor" the quote. Do I get an apology
#from you for slandering me?  

You must be insane.  Do you really think that I would
believe anything that you typed in, given your record
on selective editing?  


To slander you, I would have had to have told an untruth
about you.  I haven't.  

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:39:36 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>Pregnancy can also be avoided "if you're motivated".

If you're speaking of voluntary abstinence, it's not 100%

>Bill

                              -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Children's reaction to abortion
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:05:10 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <m5wx3g-@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>> 
>>>In my experience, Mark, abortion scares and repulses children, as 
>>>most don't seem too comfortable with the idea that it's ok to destroy
>>>the contents of Mom's "tummy" if Mom wants to.
>> 
>> In my experience, the only things that "scare and repulse" children
>> are things which are described in scary and repulsive ways.  <...>


>my friend:  "What's abortion?"    
>me:         "It's when they kill a baby before it's born."

>Now remember, we were both children and I was not yet aware of the
>"fetus"/"baby" word games so common among adults.    

>I am mindful though, of the frequent arguments in this newsgroup that
>children will simply pick up the attitude of whatever adult is trying to
>explain it to them.  So one day at the models, without saying a word, or
>any leading conversation whatsoever, I held my 18 month old daughter up to
>where she could see the models.  She pointed with glee and said, "Baby!"

>Out of the mouths of babes.  It's as plain as the nose on all your faces,
>and that small child put you all to shame.

My nephew has spent the first 2 years of his life in Oman.  When he was 
in the States this summer and saw a horse he said "Camel."  He just must 
not be aware of the "horse"/"camel" word games so common among adults.



>Suzanne Forgach


Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

standard disclaimers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:35:35 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <nkjqhb8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>fusco is not part of the real world.  He is living in the world of
>his bible, which is about 1500 years ago.

Nope, sorry, he isn't even living in the world of his bible, since there
was some sense of decency there, and his beloved christ hung out with
prostitutes and tax collectors in an occupied state.  I bet fusco can't
even begin to grasp that.


Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:14:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.185004.16938@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu 
(Gregory S Clausen) writes:

}                        A "product of conception" by definition does not
}have a heart, or any other human characteristic for that matter.

Huh?  Is this another disagreement in terminology?  Have I just stummbled
into an incredibly rich area in which to conduct my "semantic safari"?
I think even Suzanne Forgash will disagree with this one.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: nuge@newport.med.ge.com (James A. Nugent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:20:31 GMT
	<1992Jul22.132341.13407@menudo.uh.edu> <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com>
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI

In article <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
writes:

> Try carrying a newborn everywhere you go for nine months.  _Everywhere_,
> _all_ the time.  No breaks.  You, and you alone, are responsible for
> the care of the infant.  You sleep together, you go to work together, 
> you eat together, you live together.

> Now, let's consider making this required by law.  From birth until nine
> months of age the father _must_ be exclusive care giver for the
> infant.

> Have any problems with this?

  I know from experience that taking care of a baby is a lot of work,
and it really does change your life. Pregnancy is also hard on both
the mom and the dad (especially high risk pregnancies like ours were).

  You present an interesting analogy to pregnancy. Let's say for some
biological reason only the father could provide such care for a
newborn during the first nine months after birth. It would be rough,
but I certainly would not consider killing my kids to avoid it.

  And, sorry, I would not support making it legal for other fathers to
kill theirs to avoid the burden.
--
Jim Nugent

nuge@med.ge.com

nugentj@med.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.171608.7421@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Jul25.054019.15284@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul24.234126.4841@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>> >In  <BrwyvJ.BuM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellme
>> >
>> >> Induced abortion is the subject of this group, not spontaneous abortion.
>> >
>> >When did they rename it to "talk.abortion.induced"?
>>
>> Larry, put a sock in it.
>
>Funny, but I don't remember you telling anyone else to "put a sock in it"
>when previous discussions of abortifacients arose.

Persecution complex, Larry?

>> in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an intentional, deliberate act.
>> Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related aspects of abortion here,
>> "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.
>
>It would also be incorrect, since it would rule out other discussion which
>is appropriate for this group.  

In your opinion, that is. You've been wrong about t.a "appropriateness"
issues before, Larry. How quickly you forget the big child-support fiasco...

>As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I
>agree that *generally* when we talk about abortion, we're referring to
>induced abortion.  However, it's important to remember that when many of
>the Fanatic Fundies refer to banning abortion, they're including banning
>the use of abortifacients - e.g., the birth control pill.  

Why must we reduce ourselves to their level of semantic violence, Larry?
Banning abortion and banning the pill are two separate issues. I know that.
You know that. If we allow them to control our semantics in this fashion, 
then we concede them a small victory, just as we concede a small semantic
victory when we allow crap like "abortion kills a child" to pass without
comment.
 
Besides, Kellmeyer was AGREEING with you that "abortion" properly means
"induced abortion". Why look a gift jackass in the mouth?

								- Kevin
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:19:22 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul23.223210.8435@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Fine. Is any pro-choicer willing to answer my questions above?

I'll take a stab at them, if you will first answer the following
questions:

1. Are you also David Rasmussen?

2. Do you know David Rasmussen?

3. Do you know David Rasmussen's mother?



-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.