HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.085622.10954@chinet.chi.il.us>
>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>
>> My position on abortion has evolved over years with lots of rational,
>> and sometimes, irrational, thought involved. Emotions and philosophical
>> beliefs have also entered into the equation. My position on the Pro-Fetus
>> zealots came about after one afternoon
>> [.. rest deleted ..]

>You didn't really answer my questions. You started out explaining
>how you arrived at your position, but you didn't go into much detail.
>The rest of your post was not relevant to my questions.

Doug, Doug, Doug (sorry, Dean, I had to borrow that) do try to comprehend
what was said. In the first part of the above quoted paragraph, Vickie
states that her "position on abortion has evolved over the years" and
in another section she states "My position on the Pro-Fetus zealots
came about one afternoon..." indicating that she already had her opinion
about the P-F movement, as she calls it, before she had her opinion
about P-F zealots. (This was confirmed by a later portion of her post
that you have selectively deleted, as usual) So she did answer your
question, albeit a bit more intelectually than you could handle. To
state it at your level, No, her opinion was not derived in part from
the actions of a few radicals. The radicals only reinforced her opinion.
Is this clear enough for you, or do we need to send you back to ninth
grade English grammer class?

>I'll ask again:

You always were one for repitition....

>Is your position on abortion derived in part from the actions of a
>few radicals? If so, do you think that's a valid reason for holding
>a particular position on abortion?

Since the first doesn't apply, the second need not be answered.
(Thought I'd throw that analysis of your statement in for free....)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28348 talk.religion.misc:12498
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:15:01 GMT


	But he did not list doing the "wild thing" with a transvestite
or transexual as disgusting :-)......


	That dude who was quoted IS a homophobe....

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Horrors of Capitalism
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:41:28 GMT

vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
] 
]   OB-GYN PHYSICIANS AND RESIDENTS
]    $180,000 Guarantee
]     $180,000 annual guarantee for experienced ob-gyn physicians joining
]     brand new group just moving into Dallas.  Will open in July.  Full and
]     part time openings for residents in surgery, ob-gyn, and general
]     medicine.  Growth potential unlimited.
] 
] Ad run in _Dallas Morning News_ on June 24, 1974.  The above salary guarantee
] was four times the starting salary for regular obstetric practice.


and hence it is clearly established that abortionists are
wealthy capitalists, and making Money is EVIL....

what Clausen fails to understand is the OB/GYN covers,
shall we be a bit discrete, a rather wide territory
in a, uh, how to say this delicately, Small Area.

Now, either Clausen is Offended that certain professions
make more money than others, that one wishes to pay top
compensations for those who will be, ah, again the
matter of delicacy arises, dealing with, ah, well,
You Know, those Female Things...

Or it is just another case that waving the 
BloodyFlag of EvilVileKapitalism should suffice
as a clarification that abortion is Yukky.

So I ask you now Gregory, Given your choices, would
you wish to have an OB/Gyn specialist working on,
ah, well, those female things, of the Female you
are involved with, who comes with the Highest Value
that can be obtained, or would you prefer some
Shade Tree Mechanic dealing with her like she were
a Nash Rambler....

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.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Silly protest signs
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:01:21 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):

>>      My personal favorite is a guy who marches up and down in front of
>> Genesee Hospital with a sign that reads "Abortion: One and a half
>> million U.S. consumers destroyed every year."
>>      There's nothing like a really _patriotic_ pro-<insult deleted>

> Hey, last year we pro-lifers picketed Dayton-Hudson stores for providing 
> money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. 
> My sign said,

>              "Mervyn's Supports Aborting Future Shoppers"

It's funny how anti-abortionists project their particular wants onto fetuses.
My excerpts from "Mothers of the Fatherland" included a quotation from an SS
officer lamenting the loss of two hundred future regiments to abortion.  The
fellow in front of Genesee Hospital sees the loss of millions of future
consumers.  And of course, we've all heard it asserted that ALL these fetuses
are future pro-lifers.

> Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only thing they understand.

Dayton-Hudson is having as close to a banner year as a large retailer can
given the state of the economy.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On Positioning UpperCaseMents
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:39:52 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

] > = (Rob Mayoff) writes:
] >> = (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >>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.
] 
] >Please answer me This: How do You decide what to capitalize?  I can See
] >neither Rhyme Nor Reason To Your Upper-casement.  
 

Well actually when I am considering UpperCaseMent
I concern myself more with the Caliber of the cannon
and whether or not reinforcement will be required
to put the round down range without causing
undue stress and strain upon the superstructure.

] What rationale is used, and it's the same reason neither you nor I will
] ever understand:
] 
] 	 it's drieux spin on germane topics
] 
] I know; sounds like something that helps bald guys, huh?

That's IT!

I'll Never Play SpinTheDrieux with YOU again!!!!!

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
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:00:42 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><adams.711639765@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>I don't see how there is a glaring doctrinal inconsistancy here.  Any 'god'
>>who is sufficiently powerful to create the world, is certainly powerful
>>enough to do as he/she pleases and sees fit.  How the heck is a person
>>supposed to be able to completely understand a superrior being?

>You're dodging the question/statement:  How can you justify the worship of
>a being that commits mass-murder of children, while at the same time
>denouncing abortion?  If you argue that your god can kill what he creates
>then I assert that a woman can kill what she creates.  If you assert that
>your god can do what he wants to because he has the power to do so, then I
>assert that a woman can get an abortion because she has the power to.
In my humble opinion, a woman 'creates' nothing.  God creates.  Sure, there
is a certain biological/physiological happenstance.  But since I believe
that the soul enters the body at conception, that life is only for God to
take, if He so choses.  But you miss my point, too.  I am pro-choice.  I
object to abortion on religious grounds, yet refuse to impose my religion
on anyone else.  I encourage other Christians to adopt the same view, as it
is perfectly scriptural.

>As for inconsistency, many Christians believe that the bible implicitly
>prohibits abortion, while at the same time it glorifies their god's
>killing of thousands or millions of children.  He even *orders* his people
>to kill children *explicitly*.
Yes, it does, and He does.  I won't at all object to that.  But I am not
God.  I do not have the power God has.  God has chosen to revel Himself to
us in various ways, and has established rules for His people to live by.
God has no requirement to fit in a box that you or I create for Him.

>Do you worship a mass-killer just because he has the power to kill you
>too?
Heck no.  I worship God because I believe in Him, and the salvation from
Him through Jesus Christ.  Whether or not you believe is between you and
God.  I don't force you to believe, nor will I force my views on others. 
God appears to want it this way...according to Scripture.

 -Steve

>Gordon
>-- 
>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.
-- 
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Bush's mom
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:12:23 CDT


Lou Harris (the pollster) said in a recent speech that George
Bush's mother has been a member of Planned Parenthood in CT
for over 25 years.  This is the first I've heard this.  Given
that Harris is fairly reputable and the speech was on NPR (at
the National Press Club, which also menas it was probably on
C-SPAN), I suspect it is true.

This lead me to think.  We all know about Bush flip-flop
on abortion in 1980 (when picked as Reagan's VP).  We've 
heard the stories that Bush was already planning to raise 
taxes in 1988 when he said "Read My Lips".  We know that 
Bush has never a "true believer" in the Far Right.  We know
know the roumours that Barbara Bush is pro-choice (When
asked specificly about this roumour by Baba Walters, Barbara 
gave a vauge answer about not always agreeing with George's 
positions).  We even know that one of Bush Supreme Court 
appointees foted to uphold Roe-v-Wade.  (Bush was somewhat 
stuck with Clarence Thomas in that he needed a black nominee
(for political reasons) and the Right had been grooming Thomas
for Marshall's spot).  We know that, if re-elected, will be a 
"lame duck" (not have to worry about running for re-election).

Which leads me to wonder if George, in his second term, will 
do another flip-flop on abortion.  He won't have to worry
about keeping the right wing happy.  He'll be free to do
what he really believes.

What do you think?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW and A&I
Keywords: roe wade abortion autonomy sex
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:54:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul30.204311.25887@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.004811.22058@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
>tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
>
>
>> At least her physical health.  An issue that "privacy" would cover,
>> but does not usually come to mind (I'm very surprised that I haven't
>> seen anyone talk about it!), is the woman's MENTAL health.  Surely
>> any kind of pregnancy (carried to term or (spontan./surgic./etc.) aborted)
>> is extremely trying on her mental health.
>
>As any parent can tell you, children are a definite strain on their
>mental health. Should we allow parents to abort their children to
>preserve their mental health? 

This is not an accurate analogy, as Doug well knows.  We, as a society,
do allow parents to relinquish custody to the state in order to preserve
their mental health.  In the case of children, this relinquishment can be
performed without killing the child in the case of z/e/f's it cannot.

Sarah McCabe
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Differences between an Infant and a Fetus
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:42:40 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
#HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
## tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes:
### In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
### #But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

### I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
### that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
### it was autonomous.[deletion]

##  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
##someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
##sources too.

#The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other person,
#an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; care can
#(and often is) transferred to other people.  This is not possible before
#birth.

Other differences include that the infant does not alter bone structure, cause
hormonal fluctuations, nausea, sapping of nutrients and dumping of waste into
the bloodstream, increased risk of death, and searing pain, blood and ripping
of flesh as it exits the host body when carried to term.

Name me any infant who can do all of that.

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)--------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Silly protest signs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 19:23:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>Hey, last year we pro-lifers picketed Dayton-Hudson stores for providing 
>money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. 
>My sign said,
>
>              "Mervyn's Supports Aborting Future Shoppers"

"What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and shall
 lose his own soul?"   Mark 9:36
 
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Exodus 21:16

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 08:14:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul23.063838.13131@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
[DOD's squirming mercifully deleted]

#[Typical of Doug - he winds up disproving his own argument.  Let's see
#if he stays true to type, and attempts to weasel rather than admitting
#he's wrong.]

He's still weaseling.  It is fun to watch.  (But not as fun
as it's going to be watching the Airplane Boy try to explain
his Margaret Sanger story.)

I doubt that either one of them will ever admit that they
were wrong.

Susan
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.002342.12669@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.224714.20097@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu 
>(Don Porter) writes:
>
>}Clausen's slogan is a simple statement of fact.  
>
>It is not a simple statement of fact.  At best, it demands a fairly
>selective sample of abortions to claim that it "stops a beating heart."
>Someone even jumped in and said words to the effect of surgical abortion
>stops a beating heart.  See the word "surgical"?  That is known as
>a modifier.  Use of RU 486 rarely stops a beating heart.  As a 
>matter of fact, it has to be administered rather early to be of any
>use.  Is it not often called the "abortion pill"?  Don't many object
>to it because it causes abortion?  If Mr. Clausen's assertion is true,
>however, the pill can't cause abortion, because Mr. Clausen asserts that
>"abortion stops a beating heart."  So is Mr. Clausen's assertion a
>"simple fact" or is it a slogan which is only conditionally true?

The heart begins beating at 18 days, and by 21 days it is pumping, through
a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of 
the mother.

J.M. Turner, G.R. Taylor, et al.,
_Growth_,
New York:  Life Sciences Library, 1965, p. 64.

I believe RU486 must be used no later than the 10th week.  This is 7 weeks
after the heart has begun to beat.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart
From: nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: COMPROMISE IN THE MAKING.
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:31:32 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>In article <1992Jul12.131229.15740@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>  Mark Ira Kaufman writes:

>> All in all, an acceptable compromise.

This refers to the FOCA, which goes far beyond Roe v. Wade and 
would strike down informed consent, parental consent etc. laws
before viability.

>NOT.  Certain basic rights can absolutely not be "compromised"
>away; reproductive freedom is one of these.

FOCA does NOT restrict abortion even in the 3rd trimester; it only
leaves it up to states to do so, if they wish.  So Chris Long
is free to carry on the fight.  He only pretends not to like FOCA, 
so as to leave himself with a valuable bargaining chip.

>I'll give up the fight when I'm dead.

Other messages promoting FOCA as a compromise are similarly 
insincere.  Except for the Maryland and Washington laws,
FOCA is the most draconian pro-choice law ever promulgated
in the USA that I know of.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
Subject: Re: Extra!  Suzanne goes against Church teachings! (was Re: Homophobics 
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:38:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.190654.26902@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com  
(Gordon Storga) writes:
> She must have missed the announcement this weekend.  The Mercury News
> reported that the Vatican has announced that it is perfectly okey dokey  
to
> discriminate against gays in every facet of life.  And it should be  
every
> Catholics duty to reject and discriminate against gays.
> Gordon

I read the same thing and almost fell over laughing. Apperantly the Pope  
forgot a key rule in his making the guidlines for ther RCC: he can't  
contradict Jesus. Anything he says in direct violation of Jesus's teaching  
is worthless, discrimination is in direct violation of the word of Jesus;  
therefore, this new rule is worthless. Maybe he'll remember this little  
quirk in the law, you know Jesus BEFORE Pope.
---
Vince
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:03:33 GMT

vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>What's puzzling?  Are you suggesting that induced abortions occur before
>18 days of pregnancy?  Surely you're not another who hides behind the skirts
>of spontaneous abortions.

While your little metaphor there makes for a rather bizarre mental
picture, might I point out that your little slogan doesn't say

"Induced Abortion Stops a Beating Heart"

>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

See?

                             -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: TIMOTHY W. LYNCH
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:01:00 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes...

TWL> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
TWL> >judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes...
TWL> >JA> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

TWL> >Hmmm... perhaps so.  But that is ALSO quite one-sided.  Now try...

TWL> >When a woman loves a man, she respects his feelings and doesn't destroy a
TWL> >wanted child without even letting him into the discussion process.

TWL> Agreed.  I think that, given "typical" circumstances, a woman would hopeful
TWL> talk to her partner about it.  But there's a difference between "I'd like
TWL> everyone to behave this way and care" and "I'm going to force everyone to
TWL> behave this way whether they care or not."

TWL> I realize that what happened has got to hurt, and I sympathize (as best I
TWL> can, not having gone through it myself).  But if you're using this to
TWL> justify spousal notification laws, I'm forced to jump in and say that the
TWL> law is not intended to let you dictate others' behavior, particularly when
TWL> it's solely to avoid emotional pain.

Well...my only belief is that I support father-NOTIFICATION-ONLY laws.  (I
say "father" as opposed to "husband," because I do not think that being
unmarried should make a difference) I state only that I think that a father
should have the right to KNOW whether he is going to lose a child.

I am still a civil libertarian at heart, so I do not know whether I could
support a father-*permission* law, however.

There is a big difference between father-notification and father-CONSENT
requirements.  I am not currently convinced that giving the father the right
to KNOW will allow him to dictate the woman's behavior.  That would only
apply if there were a law in place that required consent.


TWL> Good luck starting up the support group, though; it sounds like a great ide
TWL> if difficult.

It is.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Shampoo - no thanks, I'll use real poo.