HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:07:41 GMT

In article <3734@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.054019.15284@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>#Larry, put a sock in it. You _know_ how much I hate to agree with Kellmeyer,
>#but he's absolutely right here -- in LEGAL terms, "abortion" always means an 
>#intentional, deliberate act. Since we discuss the legal and somewhat-related 
>#aspects of abortion here, "induced" would be redundant in the newsgroup name.
>
>Prove it, Darcy.  
>
>Show us some laws that refer to abortion alone, without speaking of
>"procuring" or "inducing" or without using an adjective such as
>"criminal" or "induced."   Show us where the legal definition of
>abortion differs from the medical definition.  

	Abortion.  The _knowing_ destruction of the life of an unborn child
	or the _intentional_ expulsion or removal of an unborn child from 
	the womb other than for the principal purpose of producing a live
	birth or removing a dead fetus. ... (Black's, 5th Ed.)

Note the words I have highlighted -- "knowing", "intentional".

(Hmmm... note also the term "unborn child".)

As for individual abortion-restrictive statutes, maybe some use the term 
"induced abortion", maybe others don't. Of the latter, some may not use the 
word "abortion" at all, but resort to generic terms, probably ones that look
suspiciously like the Black's definition. And yet still others may _stipulate_
a special meaning for "abortion" within the context of that particular statute.
The Texas law struck down in RvW, for instance, stipulated

(Article 1191)

	... By "abortion" is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall
	be destroyed in the woman's womb or that premature birth thereof shall
	be caused.

(On page 70 of the paperback version of the Marian Faux book _Roe v. Wade_ if
you have a copy).

Note that the Texas statute refers to "being destroyed" or premature birth
being "caused". Both sound like _intentional_ acts to me, not applicable to
so-call "natural" abortions.

Lastly, even if a statute were to use a term like "induced abortion", without
any special stipulations or qualifications, this is not, _per se_ an 
implication that the legal definition of "abortion" does not assume
intentionality; it means only that the term is purposely hedged in case the
common legal definition should change. Lawmakers hate to go in and amend
statutes just because some bozo judge on the other side of the country went
and redefined a key term, therefore they often "pad" key terms to protect 
them from shifting definitions. 

---

Okay, there's a sampling of evidence, Susie. Now, do YOU have any evidence 
that a "non-induced abortion" could still be considered an "abortion" in 
legal terms?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:32:34 GMT

---
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|I find it pretty strange to see people advocating something designed for
|something totally unrelated -- birth control --, as a method of desease
|control!

Condoms have been used for disease prevention for
longer than you've been alive, Forgach. You might
be interested in screening some of the pro-condom
training films that the US armed forces showed to
soldiers during WWII.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The C word
Date: 28 Jul 1992 18:07:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Jul26.003153.18596@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <l6c073INN49c@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>Technically, we might not be guilty of murder in the first place, since
>>murder is a legal term and murder laws may not apply on this desert island.

>Not to single out anyone in particular, Eric, but I'm sick to death of this
>specious argument. Murder is a term in law, yes, but it's ALSO a moral term,
>too, being roughly defined as "malicious, premeditated killing". The reason
>that the pro-life mantra "abortion is murder" is inaccurate therefore is NOT 
>just because it's a legal term, but because it is typically used inaccurately
>even _outside_ of the legal realm, i.e. because there is no evidence of 
>"malice" as being the motivation for any abortion ever.

I have not seen your definition in a dictionary. What reference are you
using? 

>Why make a weak objection, when one can make a strong one?

The reason I make the point that I do is because word usage is important
in a debate such as this, and the pro-life side all too often uses
rhetoric that distorts the issue away from reason, towards emotionalism
devoid of any reason. Words such as "murder", "baby", etc. are most
often used. I'd like to see the debate return to one of reasoned discourse,
and so I point out this rhetorical use when I see it.

>								- Kevin

Eric
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:40:06 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

> Let's say that 1% of abortions are third trimester ones.
> 1% of 1,500,000 is about 15,000 per year or 40 per day.
> Are these ok numbers?

Definitely not.  Try something like less than 100 per year,
as reported by the Alan Guttemacher (sp??) Institute.

-- 
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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Celibate marriages? (was Re: Well, I lost that article...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.234211.823@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.160516.27625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.233429.20447@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul23.003313.18002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>:::
>:::[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
>:::children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
>:::use them against their wills.]
>:::
>:::[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
>:::teach about abstinance?]
>:::
>:::If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
>:::foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.
>::
>::	And will it also be taught that the safest marriage is a
>::celibate one? 
>::
>::	I may add that the ideal of celibate marriage was actually
>::taught by the medieval Church; they called it the "Josephite marriage"
>::on the ground that Joseph and Mary had supposedly never had sex with
>::each other. See Ute Ranke-Heinemann's _Eunuchs for the Kingdom of
>::Heaven_ for more fun info of this sort.
>::
>::	And if marriage is conceded safe, will "living together" also
>::be conceded safe?
>:
>:Loren, I'm not making any sort of comment about marriage, I'm talking about
>:abstinence.
>
>	And to call abstinence "safe sex" is misleading, because it is
>no sex at all.
>
>	And if one wishes to present any sexual activity at all, then
>why not present the absolute safety of masturbation instead, and
>recommend it for people of all ages?
>
>	And if masturbation is not a safe sex act, then why is it not
>a sex act? I will accept reasoned argument, and ONLY reasoned
>arguments.
>
>



Maybe I'm speaking in tounges and not realizing it?

Abstinance (i.e. *NO SEX*) is the only 100% guaranteed method of ensuring that
you don't get pregnant, and that you will not get any sort of STD's.

Masturbation (By yourself - with no partners, no toys, etc etc etc) is also
guaranteed to do this.

Masturbation with a partner is pretty much guaranteed to not get you pregnant
(assuming it's a male/female situation), but there is a slight risk of
transmission of HIV or other diseases.

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:08:50 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

The fun continues:
>Menstruation stops a beating heart...

I breathlessly await the evidence.

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Debate As COMEDY
Keywords: Gov't Discriminates Against Choice
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 19:12:48 GMT

<1992Jul8.131457.27634@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) said:
><1992Jul7.060635.12553@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:
>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>> 
>> >"Abortion is MURDER, but we will allow it 
>> >in the case of Rape or Incest."
>> 
>> Well pointed out.  This is not my view - these should also not be allowed.
>> I think that this is an attempt to compromise their position to gain a
>> better foothold.  It's called politics.  My position is don't give an inch.
>
>It is the policy of the George "pro-life" Bush.  I don't think he's
>too concerned about the "murder" part.  He seems more a long the 
>"No abortion unless the woman did not want sex" line of reasoning.

I thought it was, "No abortion unless the woman did not want sex, and she
has to prove it (which we all know she can't because only non-Christian
women get raped and then it's because they deserve it)" line of reasoning.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress),
and Susan, and married to the sweetest woman in the world, 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.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:20:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul25.154452.24007@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
#In article <3689@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##The changes that Mr. Heath proposes are good ones.  I would hope,
##though, that he considers the plight of poor women who are
##not basing their decision to terminate a pregnancy on their
##financial status as well.  
#
#As I stated in the article I posted (which may run in a local
#newspaper, as an editorial column), I am absolutlely pro-choice, so I
#do indeed consider the plight of poor women who wish to terminate a
#pregnancy for reasons other than financial. In my article, was simply
#pointing out certain issues that would make it easier for women to
#decide to have and keep their children.

I'm simply expressing my distaste for the claim that
one choice is superior to another in sweeping terms.  
I've seen other editorials which claim that the need
for government assistance for children born into poverty
and their mothers is unnecessary, since the women could
simply have abortions.  I think that yours come close
to providing ammunition to those who would say that
poor women need not have access to abortion if provisions
have been made for their children.  

I'd like to see a bit more balance in your article.  Your
dislike of abortion is obvious (and not universal, as you
claim, by the way.)  I acknowledge that it is hard to argue
for reproductive freedom for poor women, but it is possible.

I hope the article is published, even though I would have
made changes myself.  (In other words, this is minor
criticism, and I hope you don't think that I'm opposed
to your arguments.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:17:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>My mom saw the incident on the news, of the pro-lifers who approached
>Bill Clinton in New York to show him the body of the dead fetus.  She 
>said that such a dark cloud suddenly passed over his face, that she was
>immediately struck with the question of how many abortions Jennifer
>Flowers has had.

Which is totally irellevant to anything I can possibly think of.  This
woman signed an affidavit stating that she had never, ever had an affair
with Clinton, and came forward only AFTER being paid some outrageous sum of
money by a tabloid.  She's not exactly creditable.

And, if she did have an abortion, so what?  That would appear to be a
responsible action on her part, if she believs that abortion is ok. 

You are free to try and convince individuals that abortion is wrong.  In
fact, I generally do that.  But I also know that I certainly am not in any
position to dictate to someone else what their situation requires.  My
moral and religious convictions lead me away from abortion, but last I
checked, the US isn't goverened by religion...

 -Steve (anti-abortion, pro-choice)
--
 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: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: CALLING A MOTORCYCLE A GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:25:39 GMT


   Suzanne Forgach, along with several other forced-birth freaks,
insist on refering to a fetus as a person, as if their continuous
mislabling will change what isn't into their vision of existence.
Constantly calling a fetus a baby will not make it a baby.  There
is only one way to make that fetus a baby.  And that is to wait a
required period of time for that fetus to BECOME a baby.  I can't
understand why they still believe that this word shifting somehow
will change the fetus into a person.  
   Furthermore, this obsession with the period of time between an
egg being fertilized and birth is just a bit sick.  The disregard
these creeps show for a REAL child(one that is BORN!) is the most
sickening aspect of their whole phony pro-life trip!  If they put
some of their energy into taking care of those children that have
no homes, that are born with horrendous birth defects,  that live
with abusive families, and any number of other terrible fates, we
might believe the pro-life posture.  But when they show not a bit
of interest in children, and obsess on pregnant women, the notion
that these people are pro-life becomes as ludicrous as labling an
acorn an oak tree, or some flour and sugar a pre-baked cake.  One
might say that with proper mixing, since the batter will become a
cake, why not call it that now?  The only problem is that it must
be baked in an oven.  But with a cake, one doesn't have to ask an
oven to participate!
   Why don't you fanatics get real, and understand that there are
children in this world that are ALIVE!  They have been born!  And
they need our help.  Can you imagine what these children probably
feel when they see you anti-abortion freaks obsessing the way you
all do, while disregarding their plights?  They most likley think
that you are crazy, or at least indifferent to REAL children!  If
you are REALLY pro-life, then get off this anti-abortion nonsense
and do something for the children that are HERE NOW!  They need a
hand NOW!  Why don't you stop pretending you are pro-life?  It is
a sham!
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:29:27 GMT

<1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>If you are referring to AIDS then you are sadly mistaken.  AIDS was
>>originally a heterosexual disease believed to be spread primarily because
>>primitives practiced anal sex as a form of contraception.  See what a lack
>>of viable contraceptives leads to.
>
>Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
>remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
>See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.

It's unfortunate that your reading and comprehension skills aren't better
they are.   You'll notice that I didn't claim these couples were married.
I also didn't claim they weren't.  Some of these cultures do not require
monogamy in marriage.  However, I won't pretend to know exactly when the 
HIV virus mutated into it's present form.  I also won't pretend to know 
the first act of transmission.

BTW, what non-monogamous action did the Ryan kid take that allowed him to
contract the virus?


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: That Chaney Boy Lives in Fantasies
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 17:37:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul24.120107.24406@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.164954.3957@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

## 
## Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
## gave it to you guys on the chin. 
#
#Since Susan B Anthony's position on abortion is not relevant to much
#of anything, and since it has not in any way been established that
#she was opposed to abortion for any reason except her concern for
#the health of women, which situation has changed considerably since
#Susan Anthony was alive, you have done little except to establish
#a basis for your arguments but not a secure conclusion.

Thank you for saying that, Dean.  Why Chaney/Hall is obsessed
with Anthony's position on abortion is beyond me.  I doubt that
she supported eliminating discrimination based on sexual
orientation, either, yet most modern feminists do.  

The idea that feminism is supposed to have continued unchanged
for a century is absurd.  

## That and now, Susan Garvin has herself called Planned Parenthood a
## bold-faced liar. 
#
#Actually, it is you, a known liar who has misreported a number
#of items in the past, including your failed attempt to deceive
#the readers of talk.abortion by posting inflammatory pro-choice
#rhetoric under an assumed name, who reports this about Planned
#Parenthood, and since it is fairly certain that Margaret Sanger
#did not die while undergoing an illegal abortion at the age of
#83 or so, you will have to provide some proof that Planned
#Parenthood made the statement you claim before you gloat.
#
#Bad work, Dennis.  The best you can do, I know, but bad work
#none the less.

I'd like to see him explain why he would have accepted such
a statement as well.  Chaney/Hall has made some rather grandiose
claims about how well read he is on the abortion issue.  It
seems to me that he would have been aware of Sanger's advanced
age at her death if this were true.  I'll admit that I had to
look up the exact years of her birth and death, but I was
aware that she was born in the nineteenth century, and that
she died in the sixties.  

I think that Hall/Chaney has just revealed another of his lies
while trying to support this one.  I agree, it was a bad piece
of work.

#Dean Kaflowitz

What a guy.

#PS Had any of a number of individuals in this newsgroup made that
#claim about Planned Parenthood I would have accepted it at face
#value and wondered whatever Planned Parenthood was up to.  It is
#Steve Hallchaney's record of falsehood that puts such claims
#immediately under suspicion.  When one lies frequently, one has
#to go the extra mile before one is believed.

Here I would disagree, though.  Maybe I'm just an untrusting
person, but I tend to check almost everyone's statements here
if I have absolutely no memory of ever reading such things.
Holtsinger's recent escapades have proved this to be a good
practice.

Susan
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: One Anti-Abortionist: Women Should Not have Control Over Their Bodies
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:01:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes ...
>	This clergyman's claim is very amusing; it is as if God
>decides to grab a hold of the sperm cells' flagella when he doesn't
>want a woman to have children this time around. [Yes, I know that this
>sounds anthropomorphic, but if "man" is in God's likeness than God
>must be in human likeness, including the ability to grab things]

New meaning to the phrase "Ghost rider in the sky ..."

Round up them little dogeys.  Yee-haw.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion