HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:24:18 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Jul28.134132.2620@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>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?  

Far more than I have time to post today.

>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.  

All the more reason for Susie to have not reposted this whole mess into
t.a. Does she ENJOY making people suffer like this? At least in alt.flame,
people know they read at their own risk. In t.a, there was a real 
possibility that people may have been "hurt or offended" totally without
warning. Is Susie and her S.O. so GODAMMNED SELFISH that their hurt is worth 
more than that of hundreds or thousands of other readers? 

They both make me sick.

>>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 didn't bring up the subject, Muriel. I didn't post a braggy article 
amounting to essentially "Nyah! Nyah! My S.O. knows more about child 
molestation than you do, Suzanne!".

Talk to the folks who did.

>>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.

Don't forget the rose-colored glasses...

							- Kevin
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ancient Methods of Birth Control
Date: 31 Jul 1992 20:30:53 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

In article <2306@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor) writes:
>these techniques are practiced by a growing number of Americans, mainly for
>health benefits. consider the implications of providing masses of oxygen to
>every part of the body. also consider it is estimated that 20%-30% of the
>nutrients entering a male's body go toward the formation of sperm (I wish
>I had kept the specifics of this study, but I did not.) and that those
>nutrients are lost during normal ejaculation. how would longevity and health
>increase if these techniques were used? maybe some of the stories of long

Ok, I suppose that the above falls into the "whatever you do in your own
bedroom is up to you" category.  Let me guess:  an unplanned pregnancy
is then a sign of weakness...

Anyway, I'm afraid that this anecdote should be filed in my
"Dr. Strangelove/Precious Bodily Fluids" folder.

You can retain whatever you want, but I think that the body gets
rid of various fluids for some pretty good reasons.

mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
not endorsed by uc berkeley


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Keywords: Caesarian, C-section, hysterotomy
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:33:09 GMT

In <1992Jul21.214407.15024@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

>>Well, first of all, I want to point out that Mr. Rawdon doesn't agree
>>with the argument in the paragraph I quoted. He argued against it in 
>>the surrounding paragraphs, which I've deleted to save space. My
>>only complaint is with his use of the words "seems plausible".

>It actually would have been more accurate for me to have said, "seems
>plausible at first glance".  I had thought that this would have been
>obvious since I did, after all, go on to argue against the validity of the
>position of terminating a viable fetus.

Yes, but you also gave a few arguments in favor of that position [that
there is a "right not to be a parent" which allows viable fetuses to
be killed]. By doing so, I think that you implied that such a view is
worthy of serious consideration.

Normally, I wouldn't care one way or another...as long as you don't
think it's a valid argument, then it doesn't matter to me whether you
think that it's "almost valid" or "completely off-the-wall". This
is a special case, though. The thing is, I've been arguing with
Holtsinger about this viewpoint: He insists that the vast majority
of pro-choicers believe that it's OK to kill a viable fetus, even
when it's possible to remove it alive. I've been trying to convince
him that only a handful of lunatics believe this, and I've been failing
utterly. And that's why I thought that your article needed clarification.

The really sad thing is that I was just wasting my time.
Holtsinger's still plugging away on the "Abortion & Infanticide"
thread, still insisting that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK
to kill viable fetuses, and still ignoring the attempts of pro-choicers
to tell him what they REALLY believe. The only thing that's changed
is that I've gotten fed up and left, and Susan Garvin has stepped
in to take my place. [Thanks, Susan!]

>-- 
>Michael Rawdon
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:49:22 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul22.162407.28530@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <14jvctINN7rj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
#regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
#
##dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### I've argued that anyone who holds 
### that position must also condone infanticide in order to be consistent.
#
## Unsuccessfully.
#
#Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term 
#fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.

It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
woman.

I realize that Holtsinger and Darcy are incapable of understanding
what I wrote above.  I wonder who else has trouble comprehending
these things.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: secret life
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:31:08 GMT


bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>   Stephen Vidulich has claimed that sexual gratification is only
>a "side effect" of intercourse.  He has also repaeted much of the
>same tired CHRISTIAN anti-abortion rhetoric.  A religious posture
>requires a religious response.

Mark, I must disagree with you here.  Being anti-abortion is not
a Christian position, as abortion is not addressed in the Bible.
Many, many Christian denominations are pro-choice.

The anti-abortion position is a _political_ position adopted by
people who happen to be Christian.  It may or may not be part of
a larger political movement with the aim of reducing women, once
again, to second-class status in this country.

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Terminology (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:23:08 GMT

In article <adams.712529185@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.712521565@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>>
>>>>The media refers to pro-aborts as "pro-choice" and pro-life as
>>>>"anti-abortion."  
>>>Hmm.  Let's see...could that be because there are lots of people who
>>>believe in the RIGHT to abortion while not supporting abortion itself?  You
>>>could hardly call me 'pro-abortion,' but you can clearly call me
>>>'pro-choice.'  Or, more simply put: "pro-choice" != "pro-abortion".
>>>
>>>You could argue for a slightly longer title : "pro-reproductive-choce"
>
>>Or perhaps more accurately, 
>
>>  "pro-second-choice" [as opposed to the first choice,
>>                       to risk pregnancy resulting from sex]
>Sorry, but it is entirely possible to take proper precautions and STILL end
>up pregnant.  Oh, and then there's incest, rape, etc.

"Resulting from sex" includes both "resulting from unprotected sex"
and "resulting from protected sex".  In all cases, whether or not
precautions are taken, pregnancy is a risk.  It's (normally) your
choice whether to take that risk or not.

As for incest, rape, etc., your point is well taken.  But it appears
that many/most people would grant the opportunity for abortion in
such cases -- with the exception of the more extreme pro-life factions.
Where there is a clear lack of "first choice," there tends at least to be
more agreement.  There is much less agreement about whether this
"first choice" also includes an implicit choice to support a possible 
pregnancy.


[...]
>>How about "pro-control"?  "anti-male-choice"?
>'Control' fits the 'pro-life' side a bit better...they want to exercise
>total control over the range of choices.  Why are the 'pro-life' people
>against RU-486?

Actually, it seems that "control" is precisely the issue on all sides,
whether it be the mother's control of her body against unborn entities,
the state's control in protecting unborn life, control of men through 
forced parental obligations, and so on. 

It's just that "control" isn't quite as appealing a name as "life" or
"choice" or that somewhat redundant phrase, "freedom of choice."

Given that no term will fit any group precisely, the debates seem
to be reduced to name-calling.  With some measure of hypocrisy 
on all sides.

> -Steve

Don
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Scriptural Food for Thought
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:56:47 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

The following should not be construed as support or opposition to
either pro-life or pro-choice positions. The author merely wishes
to provoke debate about the use of scriptural authority in arguments
in favor of or against abortion:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers 5:12-31.

This passage describes the ritual which suspected adulteresses must
undergo as commanded by God. If she is guilty of adultery, then the
priest must give the woman an infusion which is supposed to induce
an abortion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

We may laugh at the naivete of this ritual, but can we not conclude
that the intent of abortion is there, and it is ascribed to God?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
oneself.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:03:29 GMT

<1992Jul24.171203.13905@uceng.UC.EDU> (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>> "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>> to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>> child you cannot have it."

>>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.

<22878@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:
> From a period in time when abortion was illegal, and the government
> decided what could be said.

Huh?!  Since when does the illegality of abortion nullify the
free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment?

And if you're thinking of a "gag-rule" sort of government control,
you should know that Title X was not passed until 1970, five
years after Clausen's claim.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:43:12 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  <14krd7INNf2c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>  regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
> I don't think anybody is saying that women exploited by abortion should
                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> be silenced, ignored, spat upon, or anything else.

Shouldn't that be in quotes?  After all, the women weren't exploited by
abortion; they were (generally) exploited by the partner or parent who
pushed them into something against their will.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:59:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163309.13095@eco.twg.com> 
chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

> Holtsinger's still plugging away on the "Abortion & Infanticide"
> thread, still insisting that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK
> to kill viable fetuses, and still ignoring the attempts of pro-choicers
> to tell him what they REALLY believe. 

I never said that most pro-choicers believe that it's OK to
kill viable fetuses. That is your strawman argument. 

If a pro-choicer is to avoid embracing infanticide, they 
must offer a rational justification for killing a late-term
fetus that would not also justify infanticide in similar 
circumstances. Blatant assertions like "because it's inside
the mother" have no rational justification.

> The only thing that's changed
> is that I've gotten fed up and left, 

I think you got "fed up" because you haven't understood my
argument. 

> and Susan Garvin has stepped
> in to take my place. [Thanks, Susan!]

Ms. Garvin has simply asserted that it's "sometimes necessary"
to kill a late-term fetus to remove it from its mother, but
she hasn't defined "necessary". Her "necessary" might include
"necessary to avoid labor pains", or "necessary because it's 
less expensive than labor", or "necessary because the woman 
wants her down's syndrome child killed". Under similar 
circumstances, these reasons would also justify infanticide. 

>Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@panix.com (Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Extra, extra! God expands punishment for AIDS!
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:57:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Jul22.160553.14158@advtech.uswest.com>
> = steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>Pathetic.  It must be embarrassing for intelligent Christians to put up
>with this slander of their god - you know, that a purported compassionate,
>loving being could possibly be such a cruel asshole.

Yes.

Being a Christian on talk.abortion is very often embarrassing.

For that matter, being a Christian in modern America is often embarrassing.

Ah, well.

--
Pro-Choice     Anti-Roe    Pro-Freedom of Choice Act      - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:01:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.122436.24972@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.181910.20491@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> > 
|> > The fact that a human fetus is a member of the human species is of little
|> > relevance to the scientific validity of abortion.
|> > 
|> > Scientifically, the validity of abortion should be determined by the
|> > effect abortion would have on a species' evolutionary survival. If
|> > abortion is an invalid practice, then it would have a significatly
|> > decrease the evolutionary success of a species (i.e.: the species
|> > would become extinct).
|> 
|> This is not science, but more value judgements.  Up to this point,
|> I was in agreement with your article.  But science is not there
|> to ensure or assist the survival of the species.  The scientific
|> method is simply a technique for systematically observing the
|> world aroun dus in order to draw conclusions and make predictions
|> about how it operates.  I am not sure at all what your last
|> sentence above means.  Abortion can neither be valid or invalid,
|> in scientific terms as I understand them.  I take your remarks
|> about validity to mean "If abortion decreases the evolutionary
|> success of a species (what evolution has to do with it is beyond
|> me), then abortion is not a good thing."
|>

Alas and alack, in trying to keep things value-neutral, I end up with
a value-prone confusing statement. Perhaps it would be better to state
that if abortion is detremental to a species' long term survival then
it would have an observable effect (i.e.: the species would fail to survive
dispite the fact that other conditions were favorable for its survival;
the species would cause itself to become extinct).
 
|> Evolution refers to a change in the gene pool over time.
|> Such changes can result in a failure of the species as well
|> as its survival.  One would have to use abortion far more
|> selectively than it is now being used to produce that.


Granted, again a poor choice of words, perhaps I should have 
used generational-timeframe, as I had intende to express
the idea that if abortion were to have a negative impact on 
survival, it would only be observable over a time-course
similar to that of evolution (many many many many generations).

|>                                                        Those
|> of us who are pro-choice would not support such a directed
|> attempt.  We prefer that women who want to have children do
|> so as they wish, and that women who want to have abortions do
|> so as they wish.
|> 

Again, this is a given.

-- 
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 04:21:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Someone pointed out to me that at least one elderly woman in
the Bible became pregnant, that Sarah was 90 when she had Isaac.
He also pointed out that she conceived at this advanced age
because she was particularly blessed.

Maybe PoorOldChaney thinks that Margaret Sanger was also
particularly blessed by God.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:11:21 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.161054.11759@uceng.UC.EDU>, vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
|> >garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>The following quote is from Dr. Len Howard, posted here recently.
|> >
|> >>"According to the 17th edition of Williams Obstetrics, one of the three
|> >>positive signs of pregnancy is identification of the fetal heart
|> >>action separately and distinctly from that of the woman.  The three
|> >>methods of identification of fetal heart rate are auscultation with a
|> >>fetoscope, by use of the dopler principle with ultrasound, and by the
|> >>use of sonography.  The heart beat of the fetus can be detected by
|> >>auscultation with a stethoscope by 17 weeks gestation, on average, and
|> >>by 19 weeks in almost all pregnancies.  Fetal cardiac action can be
|> >>detected with appropriate doppler equipment almost always by the 10th
|> >>to 12th week of gestation.  Echocardiography can be used to detect
|> >>fetal heart action as early as 48 days after the first day of the last
|> >>menstrual period.  Real time sonography can be used to detect fetal
|> >>heart action and fetal movement after the second month of pregnancy." 
|> >
|> >>Susan
|> 
|> Interesting paragraph on the limitations of various technologies.  
|> As has been previously posted, the human heart begins beating around
|> 18 days.
|> 
|> Tanner, Taylor, et al., _Growth_, New York:  Life Sciences Library, 1965,
|> p. 64.
|> 
|> --
|> Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
|> 

As has been posted previously, It may be beating, but it is 
uncoordinated and arythmic. Also, the heart doesn't have anything
to pump at that point and isn't connected to the rest of the
cardiovascular system yet.

-- 
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: coat hanger?
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:33:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

><1992Jul16.113140.8684@uoft02.utoledo.edu> pvittal@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> i recently read about a girl who died from a " coat hanger " abortion.
>>> what is this procedure? i'm dead certain it was illegal as i read it in
>>> a crime beat.

><darkstar.711313776@milton> (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>> The pregnant girl did not have access to a legal and safe abortion, and so
>> attempted to end her pregnancy in the following manner: She straightened
>> out a wire coat hanger, leaving a slight hook at the end.  She introduced
>> the end of the coat hanger into her cervix, and hence to her uterus.  (We
>> should pause here to mention that this is extremely painful.) She then
>> attempted to use the hook to sufficiently disrupt the uterine lining so as
>> to dislodge the implanted embryo.  (This is also extremely painful.) She
>> then withdrew the coat hanger, assuming that she had not fainted from the
>> pain.  

>1. Is this an actual case, or a generic description?

A generic description of my understanding of the procedure. 

>2. I thought that in a "coat hanger" abortion, the wire hanger was
>   used as a speculum, not as a curette.  This kind of homemade
>   abortion is dangerous enough, without describing a procedure
>   many times even more dangerous.

I must admit that I have read no "do-it-yourself" abortion manuals, so I
am not completely up to date.  I would be interested to know what item IS
used as a curette in the infamous coat-hanger abortion, if not a coat-hanger.

Alden