HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: That Silly Connection (formerly: Abortion and Infanticide)
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy 
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.
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.033057.4795@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.213122.25498@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- soft-sectored) writes:
>>What: <1992Jul13.190320.22457@ncsu.edu>
>>Who:  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>>
>>>> = Charles Don Hall
>>
>>>> It isn't all that effective to try to force your opponents to defend
>>>> a position that they don't hold [...]
>>>
>>>I'm not trying to force pro-choicers to defend infanticide, I'm asking
>>>the "liberal" pro-choicers to provide consistent reasons for their
>>>arguments. If their arguments do not call for distinguishing between
>>>newborn infants and late-term fetuses, then they must condone infanticide 
>>>to be consistent. 
>>
>>And to you, the same question I asked Kevin Darcy: Give me the name of *ONE*
>>Pro-C'er on t.a who does NOT distinguish between newborn infants and late-
>>term fetuses.  If you can't, your argument is worthless.
>
>Just because they don't admit to it doesn't mean it's exempt from being a
>logical and reasonable extrapolation of their views, Jay. Not every 
>conviction requires a confession...

As Kevin starts squealing like a stuck pig, caught once again in the quicksand
of his own lying hypocrisy, and begins furiously trying to backpedal his way
to safety...

[Rest of article deleted.  Followups set to alt.fan.kevin-darcy.  Plese note
this so that when Kibbles decides to re-direct it back into talk.abortion,
we can try to get it out again.  Kevin, of course, is going to scream about
how I'm a "net.cop" for trying to control what he posts where...]
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:52:53 GMT

> = (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>Calling someone stupid for their views on issues does not accomplish 
>anything but anger and hatred.  You will never win anyone over to your
>side of the argument using mean-spirited tactics like the one above.

The other side of the coin, Wes, is if someone seems truly brain-dead and
unable to comprehend anything but their narrow views (i.e., "all 3rd world
women LOVE and WANT those unborn children!"), then what else can you do but
have fun with them?  They obviously _are stupid_; should we pretend they're
rational?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150016.3608@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

> And secondly, DOD was not making a slippery slope argument
> when he said he hoped that women who have abortions don't have parents
> in nursing homes--he was saying that abortion and involuntary euthanasia
> involve the same kind of moral decision. 

Sorry "DearOldPrice" (DOP), but that was Steven Kellmeyer that you
were responding to, not me. I'd have to disagree with Mr. Kellmeyer
on this, because I think abortion is closer to "nonvoluntary" 
euthanasia in which the patient is unable to give consent.

"Involuntary" euthanasia implies that the patient can give 
consent, but refuses. Still, I think he's correct to say that 
abortion and (nonvoluntary) euthanasia often involve the same 
kind of moral decision. 


> MP


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:15:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>Well, I'll rush to someone else's defense here. I believe the argument goes
>that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
>meant to apply to innocent human life. 

Well, the Hebrew says 'You shall not murder,' implying a pre-meditated act
of killing.  The question then becomes how one defines human life...does it
begin at conception or not...The Bible suggests personhood while in the
womb, and in fact before the womb in the case of Jeremiah.

But, none of this has any relevence as to whether or not abortion should be
legal or not.  The Bible counts for me because I accept it.  If you don't
accept it, it means exactly nothing to you, and doesn't rule your life.

Once again, even though being anti-abortion is a proper Biblical position,
it is untennable as a political position in a society that is meant to be
secular.  In fact, the Bible commands believers to subject themselves to
the laws of the land, and to disobey them only when they contradict God's
will.  Noone is forcing them to have aboritons, therefore they have no
biblical standing to disobey the law that permits abortions.

Religious convictions do not make law...thank God.

 -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
From: ggs@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Gary Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What To Do About The Evils Of Divorce
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:14:04 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

>
>Skin cells belong to your body. Other persons should not have 
>the right to kill your skin cells, or to kill any other part of 
>your body. 
>
Ahhhhh Poor misguided Doug.  My skin cells belong to me, as does the rest of my
body ( a fetus included ).  What I do with my body is my right.  Why is it 
that because you belive with all your "heart" that I should follow your
advice.  Many great minds have been put down by well-meaning people such as
yourself.  Think of how a great astronomer was excommunicated from the church
when he said the earth revolves around the sun.  ( can you guess his name ? )
What you belive in is your right, this country was founded on freedom
( NOW GET THIS )  OF and FROM religion.  I know you mean well, but I'll bet
you have never really truley seen what goes on in the real world.

Ahhhhh The real world.  Yes, there are places today where woman are raped
and they don't bother reporting it because it is just an everyday occurrence.
To them, it is a part of LIFE, DOUG.  And, as for the men who perpetrate these
crimes, ( and to them it's just a part of being a man ), they call babies
"trophies."   I only wish that enough of you people would step out of your
sphere of influence, and experience life as many other people do.

I know you mean well, but your decisions effect those whose lives you know
nothing about.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Subliminal Psychology Talent Scout)
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:06:37 GMT

What: <Bs3wn8.BLz@cs.dal.ca>
Who:  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca [Steve Franklin]

>>  = james g keegan jr

>>bigots and homophobes have been flocking to darcy since he
>>arrived on the net. you're no different, it appears.
>
>[...] I do not consider myself a bigot OR homophobe, [...]

You've yet to recover from your rather embarrassing assertion that functional
families never beget homosexual children but that the presence of homosexual
children doesn't necessarily imply a family that isn't functional.

I, and at least one other poster, told you that the two statements are
equivalent.

I also think that the claim qualifies you as a bigot, and a homophobe.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
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: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:05:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.015748.2834@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

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

[.. on the differences between mortality rates in D&E abortions
    and prostaglandin abortions ..]

> Hmmm....You have documentation?

These figures are a little more up-to-date than yours.

-----------
CDC Abortion Surveilance, 1981

Death-to-Case Rate (Deaths per 100,000 abortions) for Legal abortions
by Type of Procedure and Weeks of Gestation, United States, 1977-1981

                            Weeks of Gestation
Type of
Procedure     <= 8    9-10    11-12    13-15    16-20    >= 21    Total
---------     ----    ----    -----    -----    -----    -----    -----
Curettage      0.5     0.8     0.9      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.6

Dilatation     0.0     0.0     0.0      1.7      7.6      8.3      3.4
and Evacuation

Instillation   0.0     0.0     0.0      0.0      6.2      2.1      3.6
  (Saline)    (0.0)   (0.0)   (0.0)    (0.0)    (6.4)    (3.1)    (4.3)
  (Prostaglandin
   and other
   agents[1]) (0.0)   (0.0)   (0.0)    (0.0)    (6.0)    (0.0)    (2.8)

Hysterotomy/   0.0     0.0    154.8     0.0     198.4     0.0     59.0
 Hysterectomy

Total          0.5     0.8      1.0     1.4       7.5     3.3      1.0

[1] Denominators for rates include abortions reported as "other"
type of procedure (1% of all abortions with procedure known).
------------

Note that the difference between the mortality rates associated with
the D&E and prostaglandin/other has dropped sharply since the period
1972-1977 (i.e. the figures you provided).

And I noticed an irregularity in the figures which you posted. 
I looked up the CDC's mortality rate figures for abortion during 
the period 1972-1977, and all of the CDC's figures matched your 
figures except for the abortions performed using prostaglandin/other. 

Here are the CDC's figures for the period 1972-1977:

                     <=8    9-10  11-12   13-15    16-20  >=21
Prostaglandin/other   0.0    0.0   0.0     32.6     6.1    40.5 

[1] Denominators for rates include abortions reported as "other"
type of procedure (1% of all abortions with procedure known).
-------------

Note that these rates are almost twice as low as the figures which 
you provided. 

> I think relative magnitude is what is important here.

The question is "how important are the differences"? I think the 
differences in the mortality rates are not large enough to be 
significant.

> [...]
>> Then what is the justification for aborting a fetus with Down's syndrome?

> That the woman's choice to have an abortion should not be interfered with.
> I.e. A woman has a right to an abortion, period. This then implies
> the right to abort a fetus with Down syndrome.

Then what is the justification for abortion?


>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: the Popeye Controversy (ooooooo!)
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:03:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.212250.1979@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>      I noticed that no one has posted this yet, so maybe I was the only to
>hear of it...
>     See the guy who does the daily Popeye comic strips has been fired over
>a cartoon he drew.  Olive Oyl (is that the right spelling?) has this Brutus
>doll, and she obviously does not want a Brutus doll, and she is speaking
>about "getting rid of it" with Popeye.  Some priests overhear the conversation
>and think she has Bluto's *baby* and she wants an *abortion* (gasp!).
>Anyway, the priests try to talk her out of it, and she tells them she can
>do "whatever (she) wants."
>     Anyway, the comic stripper was fired since he alluded to portraying
>Olive Oyl as a pro-choicer.  Reminds me of the designer for Pepsi that
>was fired a few years ago for making Pepsi cans with neon designs which,
>when stacked on top of another can in the right way, would plainly spell
>"SEX" in big letters.

It was also a blatant expression of religious bigotry, trying to show
up priests as being ignorant and stupid.

Funny, how pro-choicers abhor mixing church & state, but how they
_love_ to insult religious people. 

That and the artist was working for King Features, Syndicate... one
of, if not _the_ most conservative of the comic strip companies. 

>     Who needs laws to control other people's lives?

Say that to the Ku Klux Klan. I'm glad to have laws controlling their
lives - especially when they come a-callin' in my neighborhood with
their lynch mobs. 

And besides, what can _you_ do about that pro-choicer being fired?
He's gone - kinda like Dan Bredy - and there ain't a thing that can be
done about it. 

>
>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:43:23 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <64100@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> 
> I'm a little slow...

This much is evident.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:08:07 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  <1992Jul20.180232.18740@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't think to look up deaths due to illegal drug use.


   Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000          [legal]
   Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000          [legal]
   Prescribed drugs  . . . . . . .  18,675          [legal]
   Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
   Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,390          [illegal]
   Heroin  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,147          [illegal]
   Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . .     986          [legal]
   Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . .       0          [illegal]

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:33:40 GMT


franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) 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. 

This statement is not correct.

>steve

                              -rocker

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: I have given up trying to engage in Rational debate with For
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.
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:50:09 GMT



No one is required to answer your questions.  If Suzanne (note
the spelling, please) doesn't want to answer you, that's her
right.

(Are you Steve Chaney in disguise?)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:57:47 GMT

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?

>The evidence which supports the safety of legal abortion is
>overwhelming.  Unscrupulous anti-abortion people attempt to
>fabricate evidence to refute it, but these attempts have been
>exposed as frauds over and over again.  

So are you saying that no one ever experiences any emotional trauma
subsequent to abortion?  Or just that those numbers are so few that
it's an insufficient reason to restrict the practice?  Even if the
latter is true, we're still left with some number of women who do
report serious emotional consequences.  Should anything at all be
done (prior to the procedure) to preclude the possibility of such 
reactions?

Bill
Bill
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Third Trimester??  Statistics
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:03:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Originator: rpitts@emperor

This is modified repost of mine from another conversation - just in case
you wondered.
------------------------------------------------------
What is the definition of third trimester?  Abortion in Georgia is
advertised in the paper upto and (I believe) including the 27th week.
Abortions after the 27th week, which is about 5 weeks past the current
medical ability to sustain life, are possibly lumped into the third 
trimester statistics.  (One clinic's ad in the yellow pages says 
'abortion thru 26th week'.)

Georgia law says abortions in third trimester (viability, >= 27th week)
are restricted to 'hospital' environments.  But the statistics I have
from the Georgia Department of Human Resources lumps all abortion
that occur after or during the 21st week into one number - I wonder why.

At what week of gestation does Allan Guttmacher classify third 
trimester abortions?

I again ask - do they publish '24th week of pregnancy' or 'third trimester'
statistics?

Georgia statistics for 1990 show 746 abortions at or after the 21st week
out of a total of 39,245 for the year.

That is 1.9% - Can someone else post some numbers.

Abortions in Georgia are available readily up to the 27th week.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:12:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul23.144228.9845@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[text deleted]
#Yes, and you said it was "sometimes necessary" to kill a late term
#fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman. When is it "necessary" 
#to kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman?
#
#Is killing the fetus necessary if the mother does not want to 
#endure labor? That's a simple question to answer. Why can't you
#answer it? (My answer is "no", what's yours?)


No, Holtsinger, I entered this exchange for one reason.
You made an incorrect claim.  I proved that you were wrong.
(You proved that you were wrong, too.)  I'm through with it.
You may find people who are willing to answer your 
simplistic questions on complex issues, but I am not
one of them.  

Quite frankly, you disgust me.  I am willing to do
others in talk.abortion the service of pointing out
your errors, but I am not willing to engage in your
version of debate.  I'm not here to do you any favors.

Susan
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:17:36 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes to
susan garvin;
-> Susan:
-> [...]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.

interesting insinuation, mr. orr. do you have any evidence that
ms. garvin ever posted a forgery to talk.abortion? or this this
just an example of how you treat women who hold views different
than yours?

i wonder why it is that people like you and darcy seem to have so
much difficulty with women. 






-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.