HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:06:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>In article <BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>>woman and is affecting her health.
>
>If I swallow your pearls, are they mine, Susie? The "inside the woman" 
>argument is simplistic and ill-formed. Please reformulate.

Your conclusions are simplistic and ill-formed.  While the pearls might
not be yours, she has no right whatever to go after them.  Even though
they are her pearls, you still have the right to control your body and
prevent her from cutting you open to get at them.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:07:56 GMT

From article by andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>And I'll tell you, wearing a sign around your neck that says
>><"Former Fetus"> at a protest picket in front of a Right-to-Choose
>>fund raiser REALLY shakes up the people going in and out.
> 
> I'd be shaken up too, but then blatant stupidity always shakes me up.
> Of course he's a former fetus; the important thing is that he no longer
> is, and therefore has legal protection.

That was the entire point exactly!    It is WRONG that our unborn
brothers and sisters do not enjoy the same legal protection the rest
of us do, through no fault of their own.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:01:03 GMT

orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes
about children being arrested at abortion protests:

> The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
> old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.
> How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
> thirteen but not old enough to oppose it? 

Or, how can she be old enough to decide to participate in clinic
blockades, be civilly-disobedient and be arrested, but not be old
enough to decide to have an abortion?

> Furthermore, parental influence goes both ways on this issue.  If
> a minor cannot be  expected to protest something that she believes
> from her own heart I don't see the logic of saying that she is old
> enough to condone it or act upon it.  It is almost implying that
> the pro-choice movement is more honest than the pro-life movement.

Bingo!  Give the man a kupie doll. :-)

> Both sides use extremist tactics and make it difficult for adults
> let alone children decide for themselves.

Excuse me, Wes, would you have any documented evidence that pro-choicers
bombed pro-life offices or shot rifles through pro-lifers' windows or
distributed leaflets at the schools of pro-lifers' children?

I didn't think so.

If my children had pro-life leanings, I would encourage them to
correspond with representatives of _both_ sides of the issue as
well as our congressmen and the newspaper.  You know what this
is all leading to, don't you?  A CFD for k12.talk.abortion!!!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Speaking of Missing Posts....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:17:19 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] 
] For those who haven't been following my posts too closely: "Killer
] Tiller" as the Operation Rescue people call him, is the Wichita
] abortionist who is one of the three in the country who still do
] 3rd trimester abortions in non-life-threatening cases.


So I miss you point here.

ciao
drieux


ps: either you are asserting that 'abortion is not murder'
and hence there is some other problem that needs to be
addressed.... or allowing abortion in the case of 
potential life threatening cases is to be catagorized
differently.....




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism? 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: net 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:49:23 GMT

Coming back for a short look, and while deciding what I
would or would not read of the 600 or so posts still in
the system a thought occured. The ratio of men to women
in the pro-birth camp is amazing. So far, there only
seems to be Ms. Forgach and Ms. Springer who are pro-
birth, with innumerable males on their side.

But are their views based on the teachings of that
gentle man or are they based on a hatred of women?
Interesting, however, not sufficiently interesting
for me to read the hate filled garbage they spew
onto the net.

REB



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:36:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.000710.10699@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
   [Re: Roby]
>This is the same person, Peter, who claims that I posted as Dennis Hall.

Not exactly.  I've actually talked to Chaney's sysadmin (after he called 
mine).  He told me that the "Dennis Hall" account was issued to 
Steve Chaney.  I, therefore, consider it a fact rather than a claim.

>Ignore him.

Peter, do whatever you wish.  As far as Steve Chaney's credibility goes, 
Steve supplies his own advertising on that issue.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 19:14:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.211505.23998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug31.145104.12528@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >>
> >> If the pro-aborts get their way, this is EXACTLY what they will be doing,
> >> 'trying to legislate their beliefs as though they were facts'.
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't know of any pro-aborts with a legislative agenda.
>
> I take it you are unaware of the attempts to get either law enacted, or
> to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion.

Oh - you're confusing pro-choice with "pro-abort".

> >Who are they trying to force to get abortions?
>
> The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
> belief that abortion is not murder.

(Abortion, by definition, is *not* murder, since murder refers to unlawful
killing, and abortion is legal.)

And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
of other people.

> The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
> who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.

I assume this is simply emotional rhetoric, and you realize that fathers
are *not* having abortions, forced or not.  If not, you need to take a
biology course...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:12:50 GMT

In <17s3a0INN70v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715040173@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu> (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <1992Aug18.002226.21765@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>>>>   Is it possible to enslave a person more than to force a woman,
>>>>>against her will, to bear young?
>>>>Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, [...]
>>Don't get hung up on details.  I was being satirical. The original comment
>>of Kauffman is one of my pet peeves.  Literally, it would refer to raping
>>a woman or forcing her to have sex with someone,
>>and continuing with this until she gets pregnant,
>> and then forbidding her to use an IUD or morning after pill, 
>>and forbidding all forms of abortion at any time.

>I don't think so.  Funny thing.

>Lots of other women don't think so.  Funny thing.

>Maybe you need to examine a few more of those pesky details before you go
>off being satirical.

>For instance, I don't consider raping a woman to be forcing her to bear young.
>I consider it to be rape.

It can be both.  Don't you know much about slavery, how it worked in the
antebellum USA?  

Say...

Haven't YOU read the Handmaid's Tale either?

Maybe there's hope for you after all!!

>I don't consider forbidding her to use an IUD or pill to be forcing her to
>bear young.  I consider it to be forbidding her to use an IUD or pill.

Sheesh.  All this either/or talk.

>Both of those things kind of happen well removed from the activity of
>proscribing abortion, don't they?  Pesky little details.....

Well, as I recall, Kaufman never used that word in his post.  Pesky
little details...

>>Had Kaufman expressed himself in a rational
>>manner, I would have responded in kind.

>Why don't you show us?  We can all see how Kaufman posts -- we don't need
>your satire.  Why don't you all show us how you can post in your rational
>manner?  It would be ... refreshing.

Or boring for you, since you have not responded directly to any of them,
except privately.  Don't worry, I haven't forgotten that it's my turn to 
respond to your responses.  All in due time, and I already did respond
to one thing there, your little misunderstanding about what Linda
meant by "You cannot..."

>Adrienne Regard
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:48:12 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

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes to DODie
-> Liar!

this is certainly true.

-> I am pro-choice.

i'm glad to see that. gosh, just a few weeks ago you
had posted that you supported the views of someone who
wants to legislate against choice and who would
imprison and/or punish women who had abortions. it's
nice to see that you've thought this through.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:17:52 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep3.203316.19589@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu writes:

> In <1992Sep3.160030.10916@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Sep1.130250.2197@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >>
> >>     I would just like to say that I also had the opportunity to 
> >>watch that Maury Povich episode yesterday, and Susan Garvin's
> >>interpretation was quite accurate indeed.  It was frustrating
> >>to watch the pro-lifers on the panel spew their arguments without
> >>being able to tell them what was the matter with them (their
> >>arguments that is).  Brainwashing put aside, those children were
> >>and will continue to be abused by their parents.  I'm not sure
> >>if it's good parental practice to allow your 13 year-old daughter
> >>to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's ok, she wanted to do it,
> >>I didn't put her up to it."
> >>
> >The thing is is that these same thirteen year old's are supposedly 
> >old enough to decide to have an abortion without parental consent.
> 
>     Not by the side her parents stand for, Wes.

  So what?  This is an internal contradiction of yours on this issue.  She 
cannot be old enough to choose and yet not old enough to protest.  She is
both, or neither.

> >How can she be mature enough to decide to have an abortion at
> >thirteen but not old enough to oppose it? 
> 
>    Of course she is old enough to oppose having an abortion if she
> became pregnant. The idea that she would have no say is disgusting. She
> is not, however, old enough to oppose OTHER WOMEN having abortions. And
> neither are you.

  How old must one be to have an opinion?

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, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:44:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Aug30.172801.7718@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu# 
#mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

[text deleted]

## Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
## attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or older.
#
#No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
#employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
#for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
#Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  

Holtsinger is being willfully dishonest again.  Kathi's statement
is correct.  As more than one person has pointed out, Colautti
v. Franklin struck down the law because it was vague, not because
the prohibition was unconstitutional.

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989, for example, has
a clause which prohibits abortion after 24 weeks except to
save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman.
This portion of the law was not challenged in PP v. Casey,
since such prohibitions are allowable under Roe, Doe, and
Webster.

Susan
From: deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:44:38 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <5752@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>, tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Sti
mpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715045629@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
 (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
>>clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
>>despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
>>(for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.
>
>What I find highly offensive about this little tale is that there are a
>bunch of serious accusations without a shred of evidence, and you're
>asking us to swallow it whole.
>
>>      "One woman came to the clinic forcing her daughter [...]
>First of all, a forced abortion is just as heinous as forced childbirth.
>
>> [fetus falls into toilet]
>Well, I'm confused.  Was the procedure done on her and this is what happened?
>If that is true, this is a malpractice case.  Keep in mind that if someone
>screws up a triple bypass, the solution is to go after the doctor and not
>make heart surgery illegal.
>If it was that she miscarried, she would have miscarried anywhere!
>The whole gloss-over nature of this tale leads me to believe that this is
>spun out of whole cloth.
>
>> [...She doesn't want to see abortion results because she's beginnin' to
>>  See The Light[tm] ... she becomes chemically dependent because of Satan's
>>  Work... she gets an abortion when she isn't pregnant, which leads to PID]
>
>Oh, honey, given this level of incompetence, you have a *definite* case
>for malpractice.  Go get 'em!  Oh, no evidence?  I guess she didn't sue 'em,
>huh?  Why is that?  Could it maybe be that she made the whole thing up to
>please her new pal Lord Jesus?  Kinda like the "revelations" people have of
>being involved in Satanic rituals with their parents long ago even though
>the evidence says something completely different?
>
>Give me a break.  I'm surprised she didn't say that the doctors would take
>the discarded fetuses' blood to scrawl pentagrams on the parking lot during
>Satanic orgies on Halloween with Elvis.
>
>--Teddi
>----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
>
I'm also confused (and not taking sides for this post):  How can anyone
possibly have an abortion while not pregnant?  What would be the point?  Or
don't I understand the semantics involved here?
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:06:29 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <nyikos.715284833@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Aug30.035846.40919@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
>>In  <1992Aug29.180604.13845@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>> a) Mr. Margolis claims that only three doctors in the United
>>>    States perform third trimester abortions, but 60 Minutes
>>>    claims that only three doctors specialize in late-term
>>>    abortions.
>
>>>  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
>>> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
>>> willing to track down the source.
>
>>That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  If you can
>>list more doctors that perform third tri abortions,
>
>"List more doctors?"  I'm still looking for someone to complete 
>the list of three.
>
>So far there is George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas.  Who and where are
>the other two?

Oh, okay, Peter. You win. As far as I know, only *ONE* doctor in the USA
performs third tri abortions... :-)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:34:33 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# > The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
# > abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
# > reproduction.  
# 
# The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
# so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
# responsibilities towards women and children.  

You underestimate the screwheadedness of patriarchal thinking.

Patriarchal men need not give up control over women's reproductive
systems to retain his ability to escape responsibility toward women
and children, when women and infant children are expendable.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 21:08:10 GMT

In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>> Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
>>> Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
>>> letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
>>> feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

>> Interesting use of the word "suggesting."  Just how strongly did he
>> suggest it?  Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
>> like the one you say he suggested.

>Funny you should say that.  I came across the AP report about an hour
>later and posted it.  He said pretty close to the following:

>	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]

Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
of it, like Wicca.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:20:42 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug24.234841.9377@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Translation: we aren't kicking each other's asses like the way you and
> Darcy, Keegan, Garvin, Bartley, and others, do. We don't take a hold of
> one of our own people, like you did Siren, and pluck them, feather by
> feather, until they decide to go away forever.

Umm, weren't you pounding away at Don Porter last week, Mr. Chaney?  I know
you have a hard time remembering what you're doing from day to day...

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33356 co.politics:1346