HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: repost
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:41:55 GMT

Much as it may look like I am following up my own post, I am actually
following up a post I made for Peter.

In article <1992Aug18.122206.650@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}I got this note in my mailbox, and am reposting it intact, so the
}attribution lines remain somewhat intact.  You should regard this as
}coming from Peter.  I have not edited it or anything.

While I did write the above, the following words (demarked with lines 
beginning with the "}" character) are those of Peter Ny.

}I tried to post this follow-up, but something is wrong with my network
}server, so I'm mailing it to you personally via e-mail.  Your comments
}appreciated.
}
}In <1992Aug10.011014.5711@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>What we face, when the rhetoric and fluff is removed, is a set of
}>laws or regulations which would affect (by biological necessity)
}>females alone. 

}A textbook case of begging the question.  Approximately one-half
}of all fetuses are male.

I suppose you could see it this way.  My textbooks all conclude that
females (alone) get pregnant and it is only females who request
abortion.  I can agree with the "textbook case" part of your statement,
but I hardly was "begging the question."  (I have enough of my own without
having to resort to begging, thank you.)

}>"Ah Love, could thou and I with Fate conspire,
}> to grasp this sorry Scheme of things entire
}> Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
}> Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire?"
}>                       - Fitzgerald, rather loosely translating from
}>                         Omar

}I too am a fan of Fitzgerald.  

Perhaps you assume too much when you say "too."  I am not a fan of 
Fitzgerald.  I am not a fan of the tentmaker either, however I do 
like a few of the things he said.  I am not good enough at Farsi
nor am I knowledgeable enough about the Sufi to say whether Fitzgerald
caught the essence of Omar's thought above or he did not.  There are
many who contend that Fitzgerald's translation had little to do
with Omar, except serve as inspiration.

In <1992Aug8.145011.7837@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU 
(Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>In article <Aug08.050616.50240@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
}>sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:

}>Uh, Steve, a lot of pro-choice folks would consider legal as included
}>in safe. 

}Not before 1967, they did not.  

I was there.  I was pro-choice then.  I considered then, as I do now, that
legal would be included in safe.  I had the same feelings in '66, '65, '64,
'63, etc.  Of course, if you go back far enough, I can't claim to be
a counter example.  Then I'll get a note from my mother...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:48:18 GMT

In article <l8iuokINN2e1@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
>|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
>
>But please don't ask him about his hatching.

I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 

You must be one of those rare birds Steve Franklin discovered while
chatting with Lefty...  

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Lynch's Imaginary Friend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:40:16 GMT
     <1992Aug11.230144.17687@csus.edu>
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Our family isn't dysfunctional. 

Though we make no claims about its constituent parts.

>We, unlike you, have ways of dealing
>with dysfunctional and disobedient elements who have no sense of right
>or wrong. 

So do we.  Education works wonders, as the pro-forcers keep claiming.

>Such as telling one's parents off whenever they so pleased
>to do so. 

And as I've said before, this is hardly a felony.  It needs to be taken
care of, but throwing a kid out for backtalk, especially a young teen...
well, I can forgive someone for thinking your family is dysfunctional.

>Now, I know that's not a bad thing in your house, and your kids feel
>free to do that to you every day if they wish. After all, to teach
>them otherwise, means a dysfunctional family. 

Sigh.

Teaching children not to talk back is not dysfunctional.  Turning a kid
out so you don't have to deal with the problem, then disinheriting him
when your first brilliant solution flubbed, is.

Steve, I'm not blaming you for your parents' mistakes.  I'm not even blaming
you for wanting to believe your family is typical.  I'm merely pointing out
that it's typical of no other family I've ever seen, including mine.

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                            Keisha J. Gray Memorial .sig:
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu            "Should old acquaintance be forgot...nah."

I'm not UT.           Bert 'n' Ernie '92: We have lots of practice at spelling.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:25:21 GMT

In <1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:


>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>have sex regardless of the cost?  

"A right isn't something that you're given. A right is something that
no one can take away." Your question makes no sense. A better
question would be "Who gave you the authority to impose your religious
beliefs on people who do not practice your religion?"

Now, if you believed that a fetus was equal to a human being, and
had an inherent "right to life", then your argument might be
worthy of consideration (although we would still have to balance
the rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother). However,
the last paragraph of your message convinces me that you don't
believe that fetuses have a right-to-life.

If a fetus is not equal to a human being, then no human being is
harmed in an abortion. On the other hand, if abortion is illegal, 
then human beings ARE harmed...the women forced to carry pregnancies
against their will, and the women who are forbidden to have sex
because they can't afford the costs of pregnancy. I think you'll
agree that this would make for bad legislation.

>	I do not agree that a woman should not be allowed to an abortion in
>cases of rape, incest, or where the mothers life is in danger.  

This is why I assume that you don't believe that the fetus is equivelent
to a human being.

Unless you're part of the "Abortion is murder, except in cases of rape
and incest" crowd.

>'nuff said

Do you think that laws prohibiting abortion would make the world a
better place to live? If so, why?
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex  (was: myths about PP or something)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:04:31 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug22.001019.17734@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>> In article ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
> 
>> [Loren and Ilana discussing various forms of what they call
>>  "non-contact sex", the details of which I just can't bear to repeat.]
> 
> My gosh.  I've never heard such a ridiculous term in all my life as
> "non-contact sex".  What a hoot!  Tain't sex if it's "non-contact", 
> now is it.
> 
> Why don't y'all just buy yourselves trashy novels and be done with it.

Masturbation and phone sex are forms of sex.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 20 Aug 1992 08:14:33 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug20.143920.4375@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>In article <16ujc6INNm80@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>4 years ago, about, while using *two* (*count 'em*) TWO birth control
>>methods, I became pregnant.
>...
>  You may have been taking responsible precautions to prevent a pregnancy.
>  But did you really consider the possibility of a failure beforehand?

Oh, gee, thanks, Mike.  "may have"......

Now, Mike, take 2 minutes for a moment here and ask yourself, "Why was she
using *two* methods?"  

>>And I also dare you to state in front of this audience, or any other for
>>that matter, that a healthy adult woman in a serious long term relationship
>>with the father of her children should be just telling that fellow "no,
>>no more sex, bub, at least not until menopause"  (and even THEN you can
>>have an oddly-fired egg or two!).
>
>  Since you both seem to agree that no more children is in your best 
>  interests, what about sterilization? 

Because, Mike, if Jon's income dramatically increases while I'm still able,
I'd love to have a third child.  That's why.  But not until I know we can
afford to raise it *properly*.

>  Because is isn't convenient at this time?  There's a hell of a reason
>  to kill a potential human life.

Best reason I can think of, given that your definition of 'convenience'
obviously includes *rational* *sensible* contingency planning for adult
humans.  Given that your definition of 'convenient' seems to include
ignoring the needs of the people you *already* brought into the world!

You seem to think that a 40-year old woman, throwing her hands up into the
air and declaiming, "OOops!"  is being 'responsible'.  I disagree, completely.

>  On the subject of celibacy between married couples.  Why is it that 
>  we seem to think marriage is something less without sex?

Because we are having it?  Because we like it?  Because we are human?

Why do the pro-life seem to think that sex MUST equal pregnancy?  That
the *only* point to sex is procreation?

Adrienne Regard
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fetal Independence
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:28:43 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug18.195014.15894@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.181305.3176@news.columbia.edu> 
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> A newborn is independent of its mother the way a fetus is not.

>So in situations where a newborn is dependent on a single person
>for survival, should that person be allowed to kill the newborn? 

Why are you deliberately being obtuse?

						0-16 wk Fetus	Newborn
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't be transferred to another person		Y		N

Lives within and connected to another		Y		N
person

Lives off nutrients in bloodstream of
another person					Y		N

Deposits waste products into bloodstream	Y		N
of another person

Causes distortion of body in another person	Y		N

Internally introduces risks of injury and
death in another person				Y		N

...Therefore...
Justifies affected person acting in 
self-defense					Y		N
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much plainer does this have to be??

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Way to go, San Jose City Council!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:51:51 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug12.180033.9957@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug11.182610.2104@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
>> > In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>> >> In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ And
>> >>
>> >> >Trying to draw a bright line at
>> >> >conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.
>> >>
>> >> Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.
>> >
>> > Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>>
>> Isn't rja making reference to the silly thought ...

OOPS!  meant to refer to Brendan Mahoney... sorry.
 
> (Silly thought deleted)
> 
> No, he's pointing out to someone claiming that "viability" and "birth"
> are arbitrary lines that conception is just as arbitrary.

well sure, that's what rja is doing, but how bout that Brendan Mahoney
person, eh?
 
>> PS So what if it's truth by blatant assertion?  It's still truth.
> 
> Asserting it as true doesn't make it true.

Yes, I know that, I was just pointing out that it was unnecesary, perhaps
even misleading to say "Truth by Blatant Assertion" because it sounds as
though it wasn't actually truth.
 
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Bush does not hold that abortion is murder?
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:33:01 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

mulvihil@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Lawrence Mulvihill) writes:

] Clearly Herbert believes that the fetus is a human being.
] Therefore Herbert also believes that it is guilty, without trial,
] of being an accessory to the rape.  The subtle logic of the
] fundamentalist (please don't insult conservatives) position.


wee minor problem here oh waddelling landlubber.

rape is NOT always considered a capital crime
for the perpetrator, let alone an acomplice....


ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Some effects of Pregnancy
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:42:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <28676@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU writes:

> In article <1992Aug17.194346.2895@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu
> (MILLER, JIMMY A.) performs a useful public service by injecting some
> information into the debate.  Kudos for that contribution.  

  Well, shucks.  I'm not all bad, after all. :-)  Thanks.

> I have a
> question on one part of the discussion, which I will skip to:
> 
> >	the back.  This can result in backache or muscle strains.  Old theory
> >	held that the mother's teeth decalcify to provide calcium and phosphor-
> >	ous for the fetus, but this now known to be invalid (inflammation of
> >	the gums IS common, however). [It would seem that some posters still
> >	hold to this belief, that the fetus drains calcium from the the 
> >	mother's bones.  This apparently is incorrect.  Sheldon does not men-
> >	tion any such concerns.  However, since the fetus does use calcium,
> >	it IS neccessary to increase its intake, so there is sufficient for
> >	both.  It seems that perhaps this belief developed out of insufficient
> >	calcium intakes in the past, with weaker bones/teeth as the result.
> >	This last is just my guess]
> 
> My understanding from my wife's ob/gyn was that osteoporosis was
> linked to having carried a child.  For this reason, increased calcium
> intake was recommended as a preventative therapy.  Does anyone have
> anything more definitive on the /z/e/f/ calcium drain question?
> SJM

  Well, I haven't learned anything new in the last 36 hours, but:

  Given what I read and then posted, the link seems a perfectly logical one
to make.  The doc makes a point of emphasizing proper nutrition, though
usually WRT preventing IUGR.  He indicated/hinted that there could be tooth
problems related to insufficient calcium intake--which says to me that it
seems the fetus has "priority" for calcium.  In general, his warnings lie
in the direction of enough nutrition for the developing fetus.

  BTW, the amount he suggests is about 4 cups of milk daily (or an equivalent,
he mention several alternative sources) to supply sufficient calcium.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* 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 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32712 alt.abortion.inequity:3184
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:40:50 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
> newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup
> dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.

>   Steve Chaney

> What do people think of the idea?

I think you've *got* to be kidding.  Steve Chaney is one of the biggest
flamers on t.a.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,co.politics
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? I do..
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:58:24 GMT

From article by hauserma@osprey.cahs.colostate.edu (Jake Hauserman):
> In article ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:
>>
>>I'm a Republican and believe in the sanctity of life.  I heartily support
>>the Republican platform.
> Etc...etc...etc...
> 
> You type about being educated but in this artical all I read is a man
> that has not really thought things through.  Take a step back and read
> what you have typed.  Try to see it through the eyes of someone else.


Like those of the unborn child we've all been at some time in our lives?

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:39:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

<ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:

>4.) Abortion is NOT cold-blooded murder.  In Old Testament times, a person
>    was NOT required to give up his/her life after (willfully) terminating a
>    pregnancy (inducing a miscarriage = abortion), only a peace offering to
>    God.  However, killing a PERSON (say for gain, envy, etc.) was punished
>    by taking the offender's life.  If Moses didn't indicate that abortion
>    was equal to murder, what right do the Pro-Lifers have to call it such?

	I would like to know your reference.  Here's a response to the
one I thing you are using from Focus On The Family, Citizen:
	"Gleason Archer, professor emeritus of Old Testament at
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill., points out that
a miscarriage does not necessarily mean the death of the preborn.  A
premature infant can survive early expulsion from the mother's womb.
Exodus 21:22-25 says that if the incident results in a premature
birth, the perpatrator should be fined.  However, if 'harm follows'
(i.e., if either the mother or the child is injured or killed), the
same should be inflicted on the perpetrator."

				...Jeff
-- 
---
jeffgus@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.180343.4956@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Pro-aborts often argue that the fetus should not possess the  
>right to life because the fetus is connected to the mother. 

This statement is not correct.

Sarah McCabe