HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:03:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep08.035811.28123@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> In  <nyikos.715899124@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> > In <1992Sep6.225636.17167@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt
> >
> > >So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
> > >abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
> > >it wasn't enforced?
> >
> > I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
> > trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
> > may be a long time coming.
> >
> > I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
> > case.
> >
> > I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for
> > refusing to report an incest case.
> 
> Now for the $64,000 question - do you know of a single case of an
> abortionist learning of an incest case?  If not, can you think of
> a better expression to describe what you're engaged in than
> "baseless speculation"?

He doesn't know either if abortion providers have been reporting
suspicions regarding incest.  There may very well have been many
such instances, but dear Peter doesn't know.  However, lack of
knowledge of something is sufficient for him to hint at
misbehavior and criminal behavior.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:57:40 GMT

In article 25747@u.washington.edu, cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>
>How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
>value at all.  If a babies at 21 weeks are surviving, then it seems by
>definition that they are persons, with all of the inalienable rights that
>are guaranteed by our US constitution.  To purposefully take their lives
		                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is wrong, just as it is wrong to take the life of a person at 2 years, 30
  ^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>years, or 80.  I think it is hypocritical for people to decide that
  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>someone is a person in one case, but not another.
>

Do your statements also apply to capital punishment and war? If
not, then why is it acceptable to take life in those instances?

Also, any baby regardless of the gestational period is guaranteed rights
and protections under US law (it is a citizen, since it was born in the
US). If a fetus is to be granted rights at 21 weeks irregardless of
its having been born or not then shouldn't the state be responsible for
the cost of insuring that those rights are protected if the parent(s) are
unable/unwilling/unfit to (after all the state has a compelling interest
to insure the well-being of its citizens)? Now, would you agree that
a parent that wishes to kill their offspring is unfit to care for that 
offspring and that once that parent's intentions are made public, the
state should assume responsibility for that offspring?  If so, then
shouldn't the state require that if a woman wishes to abort a fetus
after the point in time when it becomes medically possible to salvage
that fetuses life via massive intervention that fetus should be delivered
by whatever means necessary and that the state will assume the
care of that fetus and will be responsible for the payment of all medical
bills required to keep that fetus alive? Do you care enough to have
a large increase in your taxes?

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:33:58 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Ferrari
> Nyikos
>> Ferrari

>>>CONTRACEPTIONN IS BESIDE THE POINT!! Abortion "prior to the end of the 5th
>>>week" is basically beside the point also, since paltry few women know
>>>that they are pregnant by that time,

>>If so, sex education has done a lousy job of teaching about menstrual
>>cycles and pregnancy tests, and about the desirability of EARLY abortions.

Pregnancy tests cost money and take time.  Expecting women with
irregular or long cycles to take them every time it's been four and a
half weeks (to allow time to actually get the abortion) is asking
rather a lot.

>>> AND get to the abortion
>>>clinic, when antis keep passing abortion restrictions and generally making
>>>it extremely difficult to get to a clinic. 

>>This is a bogus argument.  What's a 24 hour waiting period compared to 
>>5 weeks?

It's a day for variants of Operation Rescue and Lambs of Christ to
track you down, call your minister, call your family, show up on your
doorstep, etc.  Pro-life groups are *already* doing this places where
there isn't a waiting limit and they're just harrassing women who've
already had their abortion (if indeed that was what the women were at
the clinic for).  Can you imagine the lengths they'd go to if they
thought that stopping the women from returning to the clinic would
save a "child's" life?

>Gee, if the woman's 34 days pregnant, it means a hell of a lot.  And a 24
>hour waiting period is only the smallest part of what the antis are trying
>to do.  They are trying to shut down clinics entirely.  What if the woman
>is only ONE DAY pregnant, but there's no way inn hell she can scrape up
>enough cash to get from Utah to California in five weeks?

Is this another "slippery slope" argument, or a problem with lack of
abortion clinics in Utah?

>>Well, I can't know when sentience occurs, but there seems to be a 
>>prima facie case for it beginning some time between the end of the
>>5th week and the end of the 8th.  Like I said, I am open to moving
>>up the cutoff point to the 8-week point.

What case is this?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:45:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 

<1992Sep9.034022.4931@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (??)  writes:
...
>Everyone now knows just how severely I've pounded you, and it would
>really be luney for me to continue to heap more verbal and emotional
>abuse on your already troubled self. 

Excuse me, perhaps you'd better list everyone who you consider to be
"everyone".  I've never seen you "pound" anyone or anything.  I have,
however, seen you heap scorn and abuse on anyone who disagrees with you.

Your tirade against Patrick's wife speaks volumes about your morals and
"honor".  Remember when you posted here that "honor" was very important
to you?  I've asked you before, and you've neglected to answer, but what
did you mean by that?  I see nothing honorable in attacking a person's
spouse and wishing bad things on them.  Do you?

Can you give us an example showing us how "important" honor is to you?


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What if???
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:59:23 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <nyikos.715541196@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <ywxyd5c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
>>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:
> 
>>>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>>>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?
> 
>>It would be even that incredibly MORE difficult to be pregnant.
>>Also, the fetus would be vulnerable to the slightest bumps,
>>temperature changes, and infection, and it's not likely we'd
>>GET many newborns.
> 
> Not necessarily.  Kangaroos do develop outside their mothers
> (mostly in the pouch, true, but still visible) starting
> at a stage where humans are still called embryos, rather than fetuses, 
> and they've been around many millions of years longer than humans.

Ummmmmm...  When was the last time you opened a mother kangaroo's
pouch to look at the embryo?  My guess is she'd be a bit peeved
unless maybe if you were a close friend (?don't know that much
about social aspects of kangaroo life!)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Germany Abortion Law
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:19:37 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <24685@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

[...]
>I have liked very much about the German system is that it stipulates
>that the fetus is a person (ending religious debate) and +then+ says,
>whose rights prevail?

I still think it was arbitrarily chosen, and was based on religious
issues, but they did effectively throw out any further debate on the
personhood of the fetus and now are faced with having to look at the
mother as a party, again, not all bad in my opinion. I would take exception
that it ends the philosophical debate, however, as I'm sure that many
still think a fetus is or is not a person based on religious views,
but for legal issues it is at present moot.

>That balance seems to have swung in favor of the voter.   ;-)

And that voters got to decide was a good thing, in this case, as the
status quo was definitely undesirable to many.

>The death of a fetus then becomes something that can be decreed,
>like the death of a convict (well, not in Germany) or the death
>of a soldier.  It seems more consistent with the rest of our
>bodies of legal principles.

Yes, but does this make sense? Is that tumor that was just excised also
declared dead (it could have been a fetus, just was in the wrong location)
or does it only apply to certain globs of tissue in a certain locale?
(I know the answer to this one, I'm presenting it as another thought.:)
Why is it more consistent? It appears if it is, then our legal principles
are illogical, or based on false or incorrect pretenses.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:52:11 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep11132525@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.221722.8254@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>   Uh, you don't smoke it, you eat it, and I'll bet you only do that
>   once.  Talk about a self-limiting drug.  Come to think of it,
>   I've never seen a peyote addict.  I hope I never do...
>
>Thank you for the correction.
>
>Scott

I'm kind of ignorant on this, but can you also drink it?

I was watching a TLC special about American Indian culture,
and I could've sworn they were drinking peyote out of a wine-
skin-like container.

-- Mike
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Suxanne Does Seattle! (Was: More Bush Stuff...)
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.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 17:06:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.235020.19042@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Sep1.172707.10759@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>> -> What annoys me is that, although the
>> -> "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem to think that
>> -> their arguments are superior, they evidently do not
>> -> trust women to see this for themselves.
>
>Of course not.  Not with 1.5 million of them aborting their babies a year.

Yea.  We're just gonna have to lock those stupid cows up in the NewImproved
MommyReEducationCenters and show them just how being BreedingCenters is
there OnlyTruePurposeInLife.  And they're _gonna_ like it...

[More crap from Suxanne deleted...]
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:00:29 GMT

In article <43661@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
}In article <1992Sep10.131023.29242@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <43640@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
}>
}>}If one supports the prevention of a certain type of legislation (e.g aspects
}>}of the US constitution) - then one is effectively supporting a form of 
}>}legislation.
}
}>...I heartly disagree.
}
}Isn't it the case that the US Constitution has been used to make invalid
}certain laws which restricted abortion?

If by supporting the constitution you believe I support legislation I
guess you could come to that conclusion.  It seems a bit far fetched
to claim that if I support the constitution in that we should have
no state religion that I support any pro or anti religious legislation 
whatsoever.  Even if I make reference to it in overturning such laws.
Nah, I don't think that by supporting the constitution I support
legislation.  

Yes, it is the case that the constitution has been used to overturn
laws...I don't think that is any kind of legislative support.  
I gave it the "old college try" Tommy, but I can't swallow that one.

}>}          But I believe that some laws restricting abortion could work.
}>
}>Do you have examples?  Projections?  Estimates?  Or is your belief
}>based on faith?
}
}Partly on faith, yes.

Care to divulge the other part?  The part that comes with examples,
projections, estimates, etc.  

}If I was convinced that the law was going to be bad, I'd assess the "badness"
}and may vote contrariwise.

But that is not what you said.  You said that if all other things were
equal, you would pick the candidate that would consider a law as opposed
to one that would not.  You made no distinction as to whether the law
was appropriate or not nor of the "goodness" or "badness" of the law.

}So far however, the current situation is so horrific, that I can't imagine
}getting a law which made things worse.

I think you lack imagination...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:49:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep3.200533.29752@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.012112.2026@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> >Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"
|> >and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the 
|> >human species. 
|> 
|> Dougie, you simply do NOT understand how the Supreme Court operates.

	Peetie, it is YOU who does not understand how the Supreme Court operates.
 You do not even seem to understand how it SHOULD operate.

|>  The
|> Supremes CANNOT create rights, they can only RECOGNIZE rights.

	Wrong!  The Supreme Court CAN and DOES create rights.  It should not. 
Constitionally, it should recognize and enforce only CONSTITUTIONAL rights. 
Nevertheless, it has created rights many times, usually right out of thin air.

|>  In Roe v. Wade,
|> the Supreme Court RECOGNIZED that a woman's right to privacy unconditionally
|> overrides the government's power to regulate abortions in the first trimester,
|> mostly overrides the government's power to regulate abortions in the second
|> trimester, and sometimes overrides the government's power to regulate
|> abortions in the third trimester.

	In Roe v. Wade, Harry Blackmun decided that the reforms you mention ought
to be law in the U.S. and he made them so.  There is nothing in the constitution
to protect a right to an abortion.  If you want such an amendment, you're welcome
to try to pass one, but right now it just isn't there.

Steve
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:14:24 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Suxie
>> Elizabeth Bartley

>> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
>> coincidentally is the the current viability age.

>Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week premie that just
>went home from the hospital?   The age is moving younger and
>younger all the time.  

Fine.  Then let the woman remove it from her body, sinnce accordinng to
you, the kid doesn't need her body anymore, and YOU pay $100,000 to save
that kid.  NOT her.  NOT the taxpayers.  YOU.

Gee, that's asking her to put her monney where her mouth is!

-- 
I feel like a gay man trapped inside a woman's body.

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: SOUTH CAROLINA INCEST-ABORTION LAW
Summary: Did him.  HATED IT! 
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: incest, consent, emancipated, abortion
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 01:56:06 GMT

[Note:  Deletions.  Deletions.  Deletions...]


In article <nyikos.715968465@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>	One bottom line to the South Carolina law on abortion is: it is
>perfectly legal for an uncle who has gotten his underage niece pregnant
>to bring her in to an abortionist and have an abortion done on her
>without the consent of her parents and WITHOUT HER OWN CONSENT.

Stop lying, Peter.

>
>	In 1990, South Carolina enacted a law, Section 44-41-31,

Section (1) says it all, liar.  You have to get the consent of the PREGNANT
MINOR AND...

Now, "Dr" Peter, you've said you're a math dude.  I would expect you to
understand such things...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:22:27 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep11.181122.28314@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:

> In article <1992Sep11.144108.10600@menudo.uh.edu>
> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> 
> >  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
> >this guy.  Ditch him."  This can happen when there are too many casualties to
> >treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  Then the deciding 
> >factor is usually time and medical resources.  Time spent on saving 1 per-
> >son could cost several others their lives.
> 
> >  Somehow, I think this mind-set will meet with some resistance when you 
> >include money in the criteria.  Shall we then dismantle MD Anderson hospital?
> >Cancer costs a LOT of money to treat, and its not even contagious.
> 
> Are you under the impression that public funds for health care are
> unlimited?
> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu                              E. Elizabeth Bartley

  Hardly.  Just pointing out the money arguement slices BOTH ways.  I've always
been into prevention, myself.  No unwanteds = no debate.




semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* 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, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject:  I just thought this needed to be repeated... (Was: AOANPW)
Summary: In which Susan says everything I want to, in words I could never find 
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:45:32 GMT

[Note:  I've basically deleted everything but Susan's words here...]

In article <Bu4qGG.1Ho.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the dead bodies of
>the women who would be denied abortions by people like
>you.  I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the shattered
>families created when the wife and mother is permanently
>physically impaired by a pregnancy that people like you
>would force her to carry to term.  I'd find it a lot more
>repugnant to watch an infant die in pain because you
>would insist that it suffered needlessly.
>
>I saw photographs of one of the cancerous tumors they
>removed from me.  I am not comparing a fetus to the tumor,
>understand that.  I am saying that the operation and the
>results of that operation were disgusting to look at.
>On the other hand, I would surely be dead if that operation
>had not been performed.
>
>You continue to miss that point, though.  Many life-saving
>operations are hideously ugly.  
>
>I would strongly doubt that there is a single person who reads
>this group and supports legal abortion who does not know
>what a late term fetus looks like, and who can't imagine
>what happens when such a fetus is aborted.
>
>The abortions done in Dr. Tiller's clinic are tragic, Nyikos.
>The alternative to those abortions, though, is even more
>tragic to the women who undergo them.  Why you would force
>them to suffer even more is beyond me.
>
>Susan
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion