HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Article to read
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:27:20 CDT

In article <1992Oct7.222806.4995@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <26091@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>
>>>This topic is important to me, because I teach special education
>>>students.  I want to know how some of the rest of you feel
>>>about this issue, and an important related one: that of
>>>sterilization.  Should the parent of a mentally retarded child
>>>have the right to sterilize their child, without his/her consent?
>
>>Here come de flames. de flame, boss, de flame!
>
>>Yes, they should.
>
>This is an issue that I haven't yet come up with an answer on. It would
>seem that it would be wrong, and yet one has to weigh the impact of 
>retarded parents on their children...
> 
This issue can be more complicated than mere reproduction.
In the case of a severely retarded child, it may take many
years for toilet training to be effective.  A child who has
only recently become independent of caregivers in terms of
body wastes may be totally incapable of coping with the practical
hygeine that accompanies the onset of menses.  In such cases,
there are only three alternatives:

1. Return to a dependent state, in which caregivers must 
   accompany the child to the toilet, often many times
   each day.  This has a negative impact on the child, who
   may have worked very hard to attain independence in this 
   area.
2. Suppress menses with hormone injections.  I am not certain 
   whether there are long-term dangers in this treatment.
3. Surgical sterilization, which probably includes removal
   of the uterus.

Sorry if this offends any delicate sensibilities out there.
I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, and I would
not presume to judge any parent in that position.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:08:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.002301.12568@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>> Does this pro-life woman claim that fetuses are nothing
>> more than a "clump of cells"?  If not, then I'd suggest
>> your point is irrelevant.  

> Uh huh.  So you're saying that when a pro-life supporter
> brings suit agaist a politician for showing pictures of
> abortions on television, that's the fault of pro-choice supporters?

No, I'm saying your point is irrelevant, and I never made
the argument which you have assigned to me.  

>> Several pro-aborts on talk.abortion have expressed their 
>> opposition to the display of aborted fetuses on television.
>> These are the same pro-aborts who label the fetus a mere 
>> "clump of cells".  What are they afraid of? 

> Maybe they don't like looking at clumps of cells.  I tend to
> turn the channel when I see those brain surgeries on the
> PBS channels.  Not all of us are cut out to be pathologists.

Fine, that's your choice.   

>> [.. irrelevant material deleted ..]

> Must have been something you said then.  Ah yes, it was the
> stuff where you claimed that because a doctor is dishonest,
> that field of medicine should be eliminated.

I never made that argument either.  Talk about dishonesty. 



>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (The Old Man of Benham Spur)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:17:32 GMT

In article <7143@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.014733.6876@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>## krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>## 
>### No one is asking the baby.
>## 
>## D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?
>#
>#Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.
>
>This must be more of Suzanne's New Age beliefs in action.
>She honestly thinks that she can commune with zygotes.
>
>
>Tell me, Suzanne, do you talk to them directly, or does
>someone channel for you?
>
>Susan
>(Galen?  How about you?)

Lotsa luck -- I'm still waiting (as are quite a few others) for her explanation
of her part in an exorcism conducted at a clinic...

--PLH (she's perfectly welcome to try and exorcise the cats out of our 
apartment, though...)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:24:15 GMT


In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
perhaps flawed:

I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.

Simon    Awaiting Garrett's electronic napalm on this one.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- drop frame, 4 field lock)
Subject: Re: health care
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:50:58 GMT

What: <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Who:  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)

># = Ted Krueger

>#87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>#care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
>#to pay for th[text deleted]

>Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
>comprehensive health care plans"?  

I used to work in a canvassing office, and they had statistics galore
on insurance and health care.  I shall research this tomorrow and post
a more exact figure, but for now I'll just say that that 87% figure
is not even close.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:26:32 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes ...
>As for abortion, what are the arguments for abortion concerning? That it
>is a woman's right to do whatever she chooses with her body, including
>the termination of pregnancy.

Is it your right to do with _your_ body as you wish?  Are you
proposing to change this?

> But then the arguments blur: the woman
>should abort the child because she won't be able to take care of the
>baby, or all her career plans will be destroyed, ... etc. These answers
>seem a very convienient way to avoid the consequences of consentual sex,
>that she or the baby would otherwise suffer so abortion is better. Why
>don't these questions arise before she consents to have sex in the first
>place?

The odds of getting pregnant while using contraception are in the same
general ballpark as the odds of getting injured in a car accident.
Are you suggesting we forgo medical care for such people?  After all,
it _is _ reasonable to expect such an outcome, and medical care _will_
end up being taken away from other people.

> This pregnancy is shown to be so inconvienient for the future of
>the expectant mother that the only way to get her life back on track is
>aborting the pregnancy. Sex without consequences and avoiding the
>consequences of one's actions is the problem. Everyone has the right to
>do whatever good or bad to one's body as long as they accept the
>consequences of their actions.

Do you impose the same standard of behavior on yourself?  Do you have
medical insurance?  Do you heat your home because you're too 
irresponsible to live in a warmer climate?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche


-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos, Net.Accountant!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:14:19 GMT

<1992Oct7.002852.6713@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.718390470@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>><1992Oct2.080742.24002@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) :
>>>Sorry, but I'm unable to publically discuss the terms of my contract.  If
>>>I told you, I'd have to kill you.  And that would be unfortunate for both
>>>of us.
>>
>>>Gordon, with tongue firmly in cheek.
>>
>>I figured that out even before I saw the last line, just as I saw through
>>M. Price's deception immediately.  Alas for you, you have done many other
>>things without tongue in cheek, and for those I will hold you accountable.
>
>Watch out, Gordon!  Peter Nyikos, Net.Acountant, is about to hold you
>accountable for things!
>
>I guess he got tired of threatening people with net.censors, and "de facto"
>killfiles...

He doesn't worry me.  He huffed and puffed and implied he was actually
going to refute my statements wrt Suzanne's hypocrisy and ignorance by
numbering the first one "#1".  Since it was the only one he bothered to
respond about he could have saved himself the trouble (he agreed with my
facts).

He'll tire of this and go back to his abacus.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth 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,talk.politics.misc
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:59:25 GMT

In article <BvqAu6.AwA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>	Which could also boil down to:
>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. 
First, all civil liberties are equal.  None have predcidence over the others.

>I certainly
>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
>because they have "invaded your privacy". 

Shoot an intruder in your bedroom sometime.  You won't get convicted of a 
crime.

Second, you have no "right to life" under the Consitution.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41440 talk.politics.misc:50385 alt.sex:32373 alt.rush-limbaugh:6898 alt.politics.elections:15696 alt.politics.clinton:9142 alt.politics.bush:8244
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:29:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ld6402INNoom@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Mark Wilson) writes:
>So if we redefine the fetus as someone who steals nutrients, sucks blood,
>assaults the bladder, causes illness, blocks access to the work place,
>denies travel, etc.  will it make you happy.


Hmm, sounds a lot like a brother in law. 8^0

You still have to get past the fact that except in cases of rape or
incest, you are dealing with an invited guest.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:32:10 GMT

From article <1992Oct2.020800.22401@ncsu.edu>, by dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
> In article <1992Oct2.004310.953@noao.edu> 
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>  
>>>         "All fetuses _are_ white.  "White" means lack
>>>         of pigment.  Black newborns are born white, and
>>>         turn black shortly thereafter."
>>> 		Suzanne Forgach <1991Jun13.232919.9128@noao.edu>
> 
>> This was once again validated in a medical tape I watched recently of
>> women who'd just delivered newborns.   The black woman's baby was, you
>> guessed it, white.   (Yes, her husband was black.  The baby did have
>> black facial features, so of course it turned black later on.)
> 
> You can't be serious here.  I've seen pictures of black women
> who have just given birth (holding the infant) and those 
> babies were black.  I can't believe you could make such a 
> statement.

When the subject first came up a couple of years ago, it was in
reference to the little plastic "young ones" model of 10-11 week
fetuses that a group of pro-lifers were handing to women as they
walked into an abortion clinic.  (I know you've seen them, Doug.)
Anyway, one of the women going in was black.  When one of the
pro-lifers said, "Here, see what your unborn child looks like!",
the woman said, "That sure don't look like MY child.  My child's
black!"

To which I originally pointed out that all fetuses ARE "white",
"white" simply meaning "lack of pigment".   Surely you will not
claim that any fetuses at 10-11 weeks, have well developed
pigment yet, do you?

If you have seen black newborns that were already black, then I
take back my statement that all blacks are born white.  However,
I still hold that MANY are born white, because I've seen them
myself.  And I still hold that ALL first trimester fetuses are
white.

Perhaps our resident African-American, Steve Chaney, could
contribute to this discussion.

> Doug Holtsinger

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Summary: Pity the poor people of West Lafayette. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:20:34 GMT

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.163134.17826@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
>>dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're
>
>	I am not talking about taking away anyone's rights - I am talking
>about giving people the rights they deserve - formost of which is the 
>right to live.

You're talking about giving people the rights *you think they deserve*.
Might as well be honest about it, don't you think?

>>A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
>>check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it 
>>your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
>>stands.
>
>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.

'sokay -- a lot of us are just as sick and tired of listening to your
ranting, too.  The difference, which you apparently are incapable of seeing,
is that we're not advocating making holding your views illegal, as you'd
gladly do to us if you had the chance.

>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

Just how do you know?  Have you ever owned slaves?  (It's pretty obvious
what you think of womens' rights -- you don't think they have any.)

>	Just because you do not see fit to respect the rights of others
>to live does not mean that I have to agree with you. Don't like my
>choice of words? Don't like me calling a fetus a child, and calling
>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??
>
Not at all.  Your calling it "truth" doesn't make it so.  You can call it
anything your pointy little head wants, and for those who already have it
sussed, you'll just be providing a good chuckle, if nothing else...

--PLH, wondering just what the really loud pro-force folks want to be when
*they* grow up...


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:47:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.181453.15047@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
>>>>
>>>>Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
>>>>know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
>>>>unborn females directly.
>>>
>>>Read it again.  Carefully.
>>>
>>I did and the logic goes around in a circle before hitting the wall.
>
>Sigh.  I wrote "making abortion illegal _will_ kill women".
>You read "abortion will kill women".  Abortion doesn't kill women.
>Making abortion _illegal_ will kill women.
>

Nope.  I knew exactly what you meant.  If my tone was confusing, sorry.

But abortion will kill women is a true statement, btw.

>>>>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>>>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>>>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>>>
>>>Your level of compassion strikes me as being more than a little
>>>hypocritical.
>>
>>I sure hope compassion != allowing the woman to kill her unborn children.
>
>I sure hope compassion != allowing you to kill women.
>
Make your next step by saying pro-lifers abort women's lives.

>>Exactly!  Guess who uses the self-defense arguments for getting rid
>>of fellow humans?  Where have I heard something to the extent of being
>>allowed to kill the parasite within the mother because the fetus
>>is trespassing, causing pain, using someone else's body without their
>>permission, etc.  And because of this, the mother should have the right
>>to kill to defend herself.
>
>So then, what's _your_ excuse?
>

I don't think you can really apply this to my views, thank you.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Webster says no child before birth
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:08:46 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <warren.718988042@beloved>, warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
> In <1992Oct12.194739.2480@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
[...]
> 
> If you are interested in what Noah Webster really said, I will post it
> tomorrow.  I have a 1st edition Noah Webster's dictionary at home. 
> From the early 1800's.  Very enlightening looking at some of the
> definitions he wrote, and what the dictionary says today...

Sure, go ahead.  the point I had meant to make was that some dictionaries
say one thing and some say the other, so we should just conclude that
the full meaning of the term "child" is not concrete, and should only
be used if you wish to sound wishy washy (at least in the context of
this group where words seem to mean quite a lot).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-forcers who reduce women to fetal containers
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:56:38 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct13.230118.19500@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.202849.41991@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>> There's a difference between *refusing* to take notice of her reasons,
>> and *not forcing* her to *disclose* or *justify* her reasons.
>
>Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
>an abortion,

See above.  I don't ignore them; I just don't demand them.

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41310 talk.politics.guns:21881 alt.conspiracy:11059 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5083 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6463 talk.bizarre:33280
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:45:53 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu> kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com  writes:
>> It makes me just Shiver all over....
>> [...]
>> ps: a right to bear arms is constitutionally guranteed right.
>> So also is a woman's right NOT to bear arms, legs, feetsies,
>> or WarmCuteFuzzies merely as some AntiChristianDogma has been
>> generated to the opposite....
>                                                           ... What in the
>heck does this say?  It rambles on and on without any meaning like some
>weird piece of Zen poetry. ...

Bingo!  And for having the correct answer, here's Johnny to tell you
what you've won.

Thanks, Monty! Today's prize package includes a big bag of lovely live
chickens from the Der Spiegel Catalog (retail value over $5.00!) and
an all expenses paid cross-post in talk.bizarre, complete with cave
newts, volcanoes, toasted newbies, and more in jokes and cascades than
even alt.slack.  And when you go on your trip to talk.bizarre, you'll
be wearing.... this!!! (Audience gasps).  Yes, Kurt, you'll be wearing
the Emperor's New Clothes, spun from the finest gossamer, so that only
Rich people can see them.  For a manufacturer's suggested retail price
of over... uh... over... well, it seems that you owe us five hundred
thirty-five dollars and thirty-two cents and your firstborn (or a ton
of flax spun into gold by a brownshoed dwarf in the dead of night).
Quite a haul!  Now back to you, Monty.

Thanks, Johnny.  We'll be back with round two, the Tautology
Challenge, on the net's favorite game show "Stating the Obvious,"
right after these messages...

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc