HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:42:50 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul27.175612.3607@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:

> 
> Scripture specifically tells you to hate your parents.  Do you?
> Gordon

  I'd don't suppose you'd mind amplifying this, would you?  With the 
supporting context?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:46:11 GMT
Subject: Pro-Choice=Pro-Life
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: talk.abortion

	My topic statement says that Pro-Choice is equal to Pro-Life.

	First of all I would like to set the tone.  This is a
discussion of ideas and not to be taken each and every word as my
opinion or those of my company or any groups such as Pro-Choice or
Pro-Life.

	My feeling is that Pro-Choice gives us the opportunity to choose
for ourselves the decision to be Pro-Life.  If I choose(or my S.O.) not
to have an abortion, we can not have an abortion.  If I choose to raise
my children not to have an abortion, they can not have abortions.  It is
my morals that I would be able to pass to my children.

	Pro-Choice also gives me the freedom of aborting the child.
There are many reasons that many people decide to abort.  This freedom
to choose is the fundamental issue for me.  

	I understand that there are many folks who believe in God and
taking any life is wrong.  That is their choice.  They should not abort
the child.  But why should someone of a different value set, have to
live by the values of another group.

	Again, in my mind,  Pro-Choice permits people to choose Pro-Life
or Pro-Abortion.  

	Kirk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: Catholic Druidism in Watsonville
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:29:47 GMT

mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul26.162756.28068@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul24.002844.14226@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder how much the woman is charging to enter her property?  Will
>>>>> Suzanne and Chaney be making a pilgrimage now?
>>>>
>>>>Heck no.  For one thing, you didn't say what state "Watsonville" was in,
>>>>and for another, we have a Greek Orthodox church right hear in Tucson
>>>>with a painting that bleeds real blood.   What do I need to travel for?
>>>
>>>Gee, I wonder what blood type it is?  RH Positive or Negative?

>     Does that mean that if we test it, we could identify Jesus' DNA
>type, and therefore God's?

Of course!  Better still, we could start the Divine Genome Project (run
side-by-side with the Human Genome Project), and eventually we'd be able
to clone God!  Imagine, God In A Test Tube.  There'd be enough to go
around, and EVERYBODY could have one.

If anybody gets the blood, be sure to put it in a heparinized tube and
send it to me Federal Express.  I'll isolate the lymphoblasts and select
an immortal cell line, and then we can start the experiments.

Alden F.M. Hackmann
darkstar@u.washington.edu
Dept. of Pathology, University of Washington

"Clear analysis of any situation is frequently mistaken for pessimism."


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:41:32 CDT

In article <1992Jul27.232757.8187@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.100141.27631@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>>Kevin, grow up.  You've already caused more than your lifetime
>>allotment of pain for Susan, by ridiculing and trivializing the
>>painful experiences of someone she loves.  
>
>If it's broadcast on the Net, it's fair game. That's the rule in alt.flame.

What would you know of fairness?  
In case you are wondering how many other people you may
have hurt or offended, one in four females is molested
before her fourteenth birthday.  I apologize for not
knowing the stats for males, but I suspect their pain may
run even deeper, because our society has encouraged their
reticence, long after women began speaking out.

>She made her choice long ago when she started mindlessly parroting Keegan's 
>"liar" and "hypocrite" bullshit, not to mention her net.cop initiation rite
>over the child-support stuff.
>
>If you don't want to see this stuff, may I suggest

It's not that I just don't want to see it, Kevin.  I want
it to go away.  I want it never-to-have-existed.  The same
way I want rapes and child abuse never-to-have-happened.
Keeping it out of my face is not enough.  You know, if you had 
been humanoid enough to apologize for your original sick joke, 
I might have given some credence to the possibility that a 
misunderstanding, however ludicrous and unfortunate, was at 
the root of your behavior.  I don't think you can redeem any
shred of credibility or dignity for yourself now.

>	a) a killfile
>	b) asking Garvin, Keegan et al. to stop reposting from alt.flame
>	   to talk.abortion
>Oh, and have a nice day, Muriel...
>
I _am_ having a nice day, Kevin.

In spite of all the horrific images that this thread 
dredges up, for me and others.

You see, there are flowers by my workstation, and I'm 
surrounded by kind, intelligent people.  Clear blue sky 
outside my window, and it's 77 degrees, with relative 
humidity in the 'teens. I think I'll go out on the 
veranda for a breath of clean mountain air.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>> In <22872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense writes:

>>> You missed some of that freshman biology, I guess. 2/3 of those fertilized
>>> eggs spontaneously abort.

>I guess you missed some too.  After implantation, isn't the statistic
>that 80% of "fertilized eggs" will survive and come to term (ie mature
>to the point of birth and becoming a baby)?

Ummm, no it's not. From memory, (and Dr. Len Howard could confirm this
by reposting those figures) between 30-40% of fertilized eggs fail to
implant, leaving 26-36% to miscarry. (This was something I *did* miss
in my freshman biology class) And I don't believe we were talking about
implanted zygotes, but rather about zygotes right after conception.

(I looked to see if I had this info, but obviously I don't.)

>hmmmmmm...  Is he the only medical doctor that knows?  I thought mine did
>too!

I don't know, does he? Or is he not an obstetrician? :)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion: The Dreaded Complication
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:08:21 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) quotes from the 
Philadelphia Inquirer:

> Something happens in a very small  number  of  abortions,  per-
> formed  relatively  late  in pregnancy, that no one wants to talk
> about. It horrifies  many  of  the  medical  personnel  who  have
> encountered it.

> What happens is that about once a day somewhere  in  the  U.S.,
> something goes wrong and an abortion results in a live baby.

Considering that fewer than 100 third trimester abortions are
performed in the U.S. _every year_, I'm already doubting this
article.

The fact that this article is _11_ years old (and therefore
copies of the original are hard to come by) makes me wonder
what point DearOldDoug is trying to make.

And how about this litany?

``We have produced an unusual dilemma,''

``We've had guys drinking too much,''

``You are doing a destructive process,''

``There  is  a  lot  in  medicine  that  is  unpleasant,''

``You get burned out,''

``It's  disconcerting,''

``That's not medicine,''

``This is happening all over the  place,''

``It is frightening,''


Btw, the birth of my daughter could be considered an abortion...

-- 
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
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:39:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.173409.15808@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

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

>>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

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

>>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy?

>>> Where will it direct itself?  What kind of moral
>>> decisions will it make?

>> The late-term fetus will make the same moral decisions as a 
>> newborn infant (if either is capable of doing so, which I
>> seriously doubt). They are essentially identical entities. 

> No, they are not. There are profound differences in their 
> respiratory and circulatory systems, which depend on a
> successful parturition.  

The late-term fetus and the newborn infant are identical
entities with respect to their ability to make "moral
decisions". Hence by your original definition of "autonomy",
they should have identical rights with respect to bodily
autonomy.  

> Not to mention the ability to
> move about, which develops very quickly in some newborns.

Late-term fetuses can't move about very much because they're  
physically restrained by the walls of the uterus. If you 
physically restrain a newborn infant, does it suddenly
lose its right to bodily autonomy? 
 
> A newborn can also make choices _very_ early on about
> how she will relate to those around her--something a
> fetus can't do.

Put a newborn infant in an enclosed box, and it won't be able to 
relate to anyone either. 

> [..]
> How can you fit a fetus into any of the meanings of
> 'autonomy' listed above?

You can't fit a newborn infant into any of the meanings
of "autonomy" which you originally listed. Now you're just
pointing to mere physical differences between the newborn 
infant and the late-term fetus which really aren't significant.

> [...]
>> If a woman and an infant were isolated from civilization and the 
>> woman could only offer her breast milk to the infant, then the
>> infant would not be "autonomous" by Mr. Tjoa's definition.

> This makes no sense.

Why? 

> Doug, there are instances where tiny babies, isolated in
> survival situations, have been kept alive quite nicely by
> being fed food that was pre-chewed by an adult.  

Suppose that the newborn infant refused solid food, and it could 
only live on the woman's breast milk. Does the infant possess the
right to bodily autonomy? 

> [..]
> Does this mean that we won't be hearing the assertion,
> 'women and fetuses should have the same rights to bodily
> autonomy' from you again?

I don't believe the right to bodily autonomy should apply 
with respect to pregnancy. I'm just following the choicer's  
reasoning to see where it leads. 

>muriel


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:55:58 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul30.163104.4817@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Jul29.152619.5660@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >
> >Except it's not a witch-hunt, it's an asshole-hunt.  
> 
> Ah, I see. Anything is excusable when the victim is unpopular, huh?

Your popularity, or lack thereof, is immaterial here.  Do you imagine, even
for an instant, that were you _popular_ (and, oh, how you must crave that
exalted state!) that your posting would have elicited any other response
than shock or horror?

> Great reasoning. Great principles. Great integrity.

You should cauterize your mouth before you talk of "principles" or
"integrity".

> >Continuing to attack merely proves the accuracy of the
> >accusations.
> 
> What a crock! Continuing to counter-attack merely proves that I don't lick 
> massa's boots, no way, no how...

As I always believed of you, Kevin, you would literally die rather than
admit that you were wrong in anything, wouldn't you?

If I thought you were human, I might feel pity for you.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: 24 Jul 1992 08:51:03 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul23.205941.9331@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>>Hmm.  Once again, I have to ask if this is a 'real' question.  (Bill,
>>one of these days I'm going to have to figure out what it *is* about
>>your postings that always send me down this path....)
>
>Maybe it's my indefatigable wit?  My incisive analyses?  My good looks?

I don't *think* so, but I could be wrong.  How good looking are you?

>Right; I wasn't arguing otherwise.  The question (the *real* question)
>is: what happened to these women? ...
>I think we have
>to admit that, for some small percentage of the population, there is an
>identifiable risk of an adverse emotional reaction to abortion.  It may
>be remote, but it nevertheless seems to exist.

And the followup question is: "So?"

We have reason to believe that post-abortion trauma exists.
We have reason to believe that post-partum depression (not to mention trauma)
exists.

What does this have to do with talk.abortion?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: CNN CENSORS PRO-LIFE AD
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:08:09 CDT


In article <l6hh0nINNgsj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Jul18.215548.15099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> 
> >Prostoglandin abortions, which is a technique that is sometimes used
> >today, will result in the abortion of a stillborn fetus. That is the
> >fetus Rev. Shenck was carrying.
> 
> Not necessairly. Even Scenck has admitted (on Rich Bueler's "Table Talk"
> program) that the only evidence he has to that effect is heresay.

Great (sarcasm).  Rev. Shenck does not even know if the fetus was aborted
yet he goes around in public claiming that it was.  

Another great example of "pro-life" leadership...

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Survey...
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:26:03 CDT

In article <64456@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>I guess where I'm puzzled it that if one believes that the unborn
>is a life, then it should be beyond them to say abortion is OK.
>
"Should" is a +moral value word.  Does your system allow for
the possibility that the values of others may differ?  For
one thing, those on the pro-choice side tend to value women
very highly, and to believe them capable of assessing their
own values.  You say you value life.  Have you done everything
you can to save lives on a global basis _without_ disturbing
the physical autonomy of pregnant women?  If not, it should
be beyond you to say that interference in the choices of women
is OK.  (See how this works?)

>FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
>THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
>LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
>
I can only answer if I ammend your statement to read,
'present no more than the average threat to the physical
life of the mother.'  You might get more answers if you
posed the question in that way.

>1) a)Do you believe the unborn entity constitutes a life? (y/n/?)
Depends on definitions.  It's alive.
>   b)At what point does life begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)
>
Millions of years ago.

>2) a)Do you believe the unborn entity has any rights? (y/n/?)n
>   b)At what point do rights begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)
>
birth

>3) a)Is the unborn a person (similar, but for a better understanding)? (y/n/?)n
>   b)At what point does personhood begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth)etc.)
>
birth

>4) a)Should abortions be restricted based solely on the amount of 
>     time since conception? (y/n/?)
>   b)At what point should abortions be restricted? 
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)
>
I don't believe restrictions are necessary, proper, or effective.

>5) Should viability (as provided by advanced technology) be the basis
>   of whether an abortion is morally ok?  (y/n/?)
>
Varies with the individual.  I would find abortion morally
repugnant after viability, unless health complications were
present.

>6) Is it morally wrong to abort 
>   a) a life? (y/n/?) n
>   b) a person? (y/n/?) oxymoron.
>   c) a viable life? (y/n/?) in some cases, it might be.
>   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?) n
>
>7) Should it be legally wrong to abort 
>   a) a life? (y/n/?)
>   b) a person? (y/n/?)
>   c) a viable life? (y/n/?)
>   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?)
no.

muriel nelson
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The justification for murder laws (was Re: some gods are _not_ 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 19:03:27 GMT

<1992Jul9.164849.17738@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <3b8ltr+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>
>>> You may not realize it, but you force your morals on other people by 
>>> supporting laws against murder, rape, theft, cruelty to animals, etc. 
>>> All of these laws attempt to coerce people into obeying certain moral 
>>> principles. 
>
>> They do nothing of the sort.  Laws against murder, rape, theft, and the
>> like exist because people don't want to be murdered, raped, or robbed.
>> Morals have very little to do with it - it's called self-preservation.
>
>If murder laws exist because people don't want to be murdered, then 
>why don't these laws also apply to the unborn? 

As soon as the 'unborn' get a large enough voting block together then they
can try.  BTW, do you really think your life is threatened by abortion
being legal?

>                                               If you meant to say that
>murder laws exist because people _consciously_ choose to stay alive,
>then why do murder laws protect infants, who cannot consciously choose
>to stay alive? 

Because the law is written that wasy.  Gee, this is too easy.

>> And as a personal opinion I'd add that moral laws typically don't seem to
>> be quite as effective - especially when they are the result of a small group
>> imposing morals on a large populace.  Such laws typically get ignored and 
>> foster a general disrespect for the law.
>
>Just about every law has a moral basis, i.e. "you ought to refrain
>from performing act X". 

Yes, and it's horrible isn't it.

>If it were the case that laws against infanticide were routinely ignored
>by most of the populace, then would you argue that the law should be 
>eliminated? 

No.  Would you?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:44:34 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>That would be ideal, but is that realistic?  Do our gonads listen to reason?
>Mine sure don't. I suspect that sexual urges *often* outweigh rational
>thought.  The best we can hope to do (IMO) is to use birth control and
>hope it works.

You may be interested in reading what Socrates had to say about what happens
to those who allow their appetites to rule over their reason. 

(In the book, "The Republic.")

-ACF
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SOME USEFUL STATISTICS
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:27:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <BrpuyA.A5M@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:

>>The U.S. death rate from surgical abortion is 0.4 per 100,000 abortions.

> The U.S. death rate for the unborn CHILD is ~100% in all abortions
> recorded. 

The U.S. stupidity rate for pro-lifers is ~100% in all cases
recorded.

Yes, I know, but it's about as productive as anything that goes
on in this newsgroup, and it made me feel better.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Chaney goes down on himself yet again
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:11:08 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
> Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
> Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion.

I suspect that either you're quoting lies from anti-abortion propaganda,
or that you're lying yourself.

> Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw.

"We saw"?  You claim to have seen this ad yourself?  Then it should be easy
for you to prove it - how about a reference.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:48:58 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <adams.711832512@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Religious convictions do not make law...thank God.
Would that all of religious folks had this insight.  Goddess bless, and
smooches too.

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion