HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: "Upon insertation, some pain may be experienced" (Was: CNN...)
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: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:11:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.193132.9131@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> In article 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.
>> 
>> There is no way of proving your assertion.  A fetus aborted by
>> prostaglandin is indistinguishable from one spontaneously
>> aborted.  I doubt that we'll ever know what the truth is here.
>
>
>Unless the mother comes forth.



Oh, boy, I'm just waiting for this one.  The Pro-Lifers are going to get
some woman to go on TV and claim that the Righteous Rev is the one who 
aborted her baby; that's how she knows that it's the one he was waving 
around.

After all, it has completly different DNA, etc etc etc etc etc...

How else would she make a positive ID?
--
=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=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Organization: Not likely.  I can't even spell the word.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.194056.26712@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Why do you feel we *need* women, and they *need* us?  You are using a very
>all-encompassing turn of phrase.  Perhaps you are not aware of gays and
>lesbians who seem to get along fine without the other gender being an
>active part of their lives?

Exuse me.  Are you saying that gays and lesbians do not have mothers and
fathers?

I thought not.  EVERYBODY needs their parents.  And EVERYBODY had both
a father and a mother.

>>I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
>>dying.
>
>Maybe you should wait until you've been pregnant, and faced death, before
>you make that choice for someone else.

I've faced death several times.  I've nutured and supported two different
women through pregnancy.

Pregnancy may have it's rough spots, but it isn't dying.

>Gordon

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:39:10 GMT

From article by heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath):
> 
> -- 
> "Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
> 			-Joseph Beam_


Yeah, that oughta wipe themselves out _real_ efficiently.
Just give it the timespan of one generation.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:08:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.200546.21873@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.015748.2834@cs.yale.edu> 
>And I noticed an irregularity in the figures which you posted. 
>I looked up the CDC's mortality rate figures for abortion during 
>the period 1972-1977, and all of the CDC's figures matched your 
>figures except for the abortions performed using prostaglandin/other. 
>
>Here are the CDC's figures for the period 1972-1977:
>
>                     <=8    9-10  11-12   13-15    16-20  >=21
>Prostaglandin/other   0.0    0.0   0.0     32.6     6.1    40.5 
>
>[1] Denominators for rates include abortions reported as "other"
>type of procedure (1% of all abortions with procedure known).
>-------------
>
>Note that these rates are almost twice as low as the figures which 
>you provided. 
Yep. Don't have my source, so it's possible I got it wrong initially,
(though this would be surprising, since I was pretty careful).
I am, however, a bit concerned about statistical significance.
Do you have the absolute numbers?

>> That the woman's choice to have an abortion should not be interfered with.
>> I.e. A woman has a right to an abortion, period. This then implies
>> the right to abort a fetus with Down syndrome.
>
>Then what is the justification for abortion?
Come on, Doug. We've done this many times. Straight out right to
bodily autonomy.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: steve franklin: homophobe or not?
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:23:21 GMT

---
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
|From talk.bizarre & alt.sex, of all places:
|In article <Bs225t.LI5@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
||This is ridiculous. I am afraid that I no longer can sit passively during 
||this thread. Homophobia is an IRRATIONAL response to homosexuals and 
||their practices. It is NOT irrational to be disgusted by the concept of two
||(wo)men having sex. Although one should tolerate and leave alone such men and
||women, they should never be forced to accept, practice, or condone it.
|
|  And you get on my nerves.  So?  Neither has diddly-squat to do with abortion.
|Trundling out far afield just to get some flame material for an already flame-
|ridden newsgroup like this one is pretty low.

When the boy claims, in this newsgroup, not to be homophobic,
and evidence exists elsewhere that he is, I will bring that
evidence here.  Don't hypocrites disgust you?  They disgust me.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Oh, you're a bigot all right, you just feel that saying you have the 
right to be one means you're liberal.  If it didn't happen so often, 
it would be funny."  Mark Sobolewski, in talk.religion.misc
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
-> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
-> > ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
-> >>Have you even once considered apologizing for your mistake?
-> >
-> >I have offered to do so, with reasonable conditions. 
-> 
-> In other words, if enough people offer to kiss your butt
-> you'll condescend to possibly offer an apology?

kevin has never apologized for his mistakes or for his lies. nor
has he ever withdrawn them. he has, in the past, offered to do so
if certain conditions were met. basically, kevin always blames
someone else for his mistakes. this characteristic is the reason
he earned his net.reputation.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:10:37 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Jul9.155124.24608@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) said:
>>><1992Jul7.192300.11581@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
>>>jfh@greenber.austin.ibm.com (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>>>In THEORY homosexuality is just fine.  Two people of the same gender
>>>>who just so happen to be sexually attracted to each other.
>>
>>I fail to see why this is "theory".
>>To me, it seems quite "experimental". No, having sex and loving someone is
>>not the same thing.
>>However, this is not the first time I see some religious person saying:
>>To be attacted to someone of the same sex, or even to love someone of
>>the same sex, is not a sin. To practice homosexuality/bisexuality is a sin.
>>
>>Now, loving or being attacted to someone of your same sex, at least to me,
>>is the same as "practicing".
>>
>>So, if you are religious, and you find out that you are homosexual/bisexual,
>>you can be part of a GBL organization, be vocal for GBL rights, even be
>>attacted to a person of your same sex. However, you should marry someone
>>of the opposite sex and have sex with your wife/husband only. Then, you are
>>saved. Right???

>What strikes me as being extremely hypocritical of these religious folks
>is that their "savior" told them that even thinking sinful thoughts is the
>same as committing them (see Sermon on the Mount).  Yet they say it's ok
>to have homosexual thoughts, just don't act on them.

>The stench of hypocrisy gets stronger everyday.

I'll explain what the Church teaches regarding the sinfulness of a person's
thoughts. The Church understands that there is a distinction between thoughts
which a person does and does not approve of. If the action someone
is thinking of is sinful, but that person derives no pleasure in it, and 
struggles to reject it, then no sin is committed. The Church has always
taught that such temptation is to be avoided, but is not in itself sinful.
When the individual consents to the sinful idea in his head, and derives
pleasure in thinking about it, then he has committed the sin that Jesus
spoke of when saying that "the man who lusts in his heart has already
committed adultery." If someone is pleased with homosexual thoughts, then
that person has most certainly committed sin. If he does not accept them,
then they remain a temptation with which that person must struggle. There
is no hypocrisy to be found here.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: No comment
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:14:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.004813.198232@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I've decided to start re-posting some gems from the "I'm
>pro-MALE choice" camp.  

Is the same Susie Garvin who, in December and January, was bitching and 
whining about child-support articles being posted in t.a now going OUT OF HER 
WAY to get such articles RE-posted into t.a from other groups?

Why the abrupt turnabout?

								- Kevin
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Divided... With Remainder
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:46:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:


>Your numbers are wrong Katy.  55 million unborn babies worldwide die by 
>abortion every year.  That is 55,000,000/365 deaths every day.   The world
>is not losing 55,000,000 lives a year to ordinary war.  It _is_ losing
>55,000,000 lives a year to the war on the unborn.

OK, Suzanne, supposing that you did manage to "save" these 55M people. 
Can they all come stay at your house until they get their lives in gear?

Alden 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:45:59 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.174509.14362@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

> 
>    As long as we're quoting the bible,  I thought I might provide
> some biblical perspective.  This is from the Jewish Bible, what a
> Christian calls the old testament.  It has just a teeny amount of
> senority over this new Christian stuff, by thousands of years.  A
> quote from Exodus XXI might prove to be of interest to you devout
> bible thumpers out there.

  Gee, I guess we forgot that the New Testament is what Christians
are supposed to follow, since Jesus said what he said was to take
precedence--while we're bible-thumping here.  Unless you meant this only
for those of the Jewish faith around here.

> 
>    "And if men strive together and hurt a woman so that her fruit
> depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, as this
> woman's husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges
> determine.  But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for
> life."
>   
>   This passage means that if a woman is caused to miscarraige, an
> appropriate fine would be levied.  But if an harm followed, which
> meant if THE WOMAN DIED, then it shall be "life for life."  It is
> clear that the fetus was regarded as property, but the woman is a
> LIFE, a human being, and only her loss would be regarded as death
> to a person.

  Which only shows that the ancient Jews (like many, many, other cultures)
held a lower regard for life than MOST of us today.

  Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many countries (let alone the
southern US) to own slaves.  Olde laws and customs are not NECESSARILY valid
today.  Try another tack.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:45:31 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0) writes:
-> #james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> ##garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> ##-# who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
-> ##-# support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have
-> ##-# an abortion
-> ##
-> ##wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.
-> #
-> #Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as a
-> #minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.
-> 
-> I didn't hear him qualify it last night.
-> 
-> Quayle would deny this choice to all adult women who don't
-> happen to be daughters, of course.  Are we supposed to be
-> impressed?

that's not so different from some of the men who post here, is
it?

-> I saw a quote from Marilyn Quayle today that said, "She
-> would carry the child to term."  (Who was complaining about
-> people treating their children like property?)  

i wonder if marilyn came up with that herself or if she were
prompted to speak out by bush's campaign staff.

-> As far as I'm concerned, Marilyn Quayle's blanket
-> pronouncement is another good argument against parental
-> consent laws.  There's no concern for her daughter's
-> feelings, health, or anything else here.  

i agree.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: Bible says abortion is murder?  WHERE?
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:33:32


In article <1992Jul23.213256.9671@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
(Bill Overpeck) writes:

> In <JBATES.92Jul22181129@pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@encore.com
> (John W. Bates) writes: >

>>Before you start in about the rights of the unborn, though, let me
>>just point out that until it can be shown incontrovertibly that a
>>fetus is worthy of protection at the expense of the woman involved,
>>any belief about that, positive or negative, *is* purely religious.

> For the sake of argument, why can't such a belief have a
> philosophical premise?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that you hold "the fetus
is worthy of protection at the expense of the mother" as a true 
premise. 

Now, you must either hold that as self-evidently true, or you must
have a valid proof upon which to base it. 

If you hold it as self-evidently true, you are doing so based on
faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof).

If you have a valid proof, it must also be based upon philosphical
premises, ie "All human life is sacred". Again, these premises must
be either self-evidently true or provable. And so on, and so on, ad
nauseum, until you reach a mutually agreeable set of axioms. If you
cannot reach these axioms, you must have, at some point, relied on
faith to prove your argument. Finally, I hold that religion is a
system of beliefs which rely on faith. QED.

What's a mutually agreeable set of axioms? Well, obviously, that's
the hard question. I think that, for the sake of the argument wrt
US legality of abortion, we'd have to rely upon scientific evidence
and the Constitution. The problems that we have in resolving this
issue result from ambiguities in both. Until those ambiguities are
resolved, the whole question boils down to personal beliefs, and
the faith inherent therein.

> Bill 

John
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: 2 wrongs making right? (was Re: Hypocrites?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:12:55 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul30.182238.5909@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

Get lost, Humphrey. 

===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:38:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
><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?

Why would an organization such as PP give any encouraging statements
about abortion when it was illegal, and the results from illigal
aboritons were pretty much horrible? It would be akin to PP claiming
euthanasia was a good way to prevent suffering in the later stages of
an extremely painful terminal disease (were they to counsel in this
area) where the patient may not want to survive the last two weeks/months
in the extreme pain or drugged state.

My point was mainly that there was absolutely no reason for PP to advocate
abortion at that time, as it was illegal, and extremely dangerous.

>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.

No, I wasn't. Pretend that organ transplants are illegal. What doctor
in his right mind would recommend that you get one? This was the point
I was trying to make, it didn't concern anything about free speech or
gag rules. (The gag rule was only implemented because abortion is legal,
and this was the only way Bush could get them to stop advocating it
for certain patients.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:20:20 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  <64100@hydra.gatech.EDU>  rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>
> WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE NUMBERS?

They're incorrect.

> PICK YOUR OWN PERCENTAGE.

It's not a percentage; it's an absolute number.

> >Ok.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, less than 100 abortions are
> >performed PER YEAR after the 24th week of pregnancy.  These are done for
> >life threatening reasons to the mother or because of severe deformities in
> >the developing fetus.  There are only 3 or 4 doctors in the entire US who
> >perform third trimester abortions.
>
> I have not seen this in print anywhere - are these new statistics?

They've been posted here previously.

> As stated above I've seen numbers from 0.5% to 1%.

From the same source:
  Statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
  51% of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.
  91% of all abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
  96% of all abortions are performed in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy.
  99.1% of all abortions are performed by the 20th week of pregnancy.

  LESS THEN 100 ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED EVERY YEAR AFTER THE 24TH WEEK OF
  PREGNANCY.

You might be thinking of the numbers for 20 weeks; the discussion was
about third-trimester abortions, which means after 24 weeks.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:42:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> >>>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-> >>>> Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many
-> >>>> countries (let alone the southern US) to own slaves.
-> >>>> Olde laws and customs are not NECESSARILY valid today.
-> >>>> Try another tack.
-> 
-> >>> The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is
-> >>> Jewish.
-> 
-> >> Oh, so now you're telling everyone how Mr. Miller's posts
-> >> should be read?
-> 
-> > you must really be intimidated by ms. garvin's posts to
-> > misrepresent them so thoroughly.
-> 
-> Please point to the sentence in which Ms. Garvin does not tell
-> everyone how Mr. Miller's post should be read.

are you really this stupid? it's not necessary for me to prove
ms. garvin's innocence. nor is it necessary for her to do so. you
made another unsupported statement. i think, as i said, that your
statement is unsupported because it's not true. and i think it's
not true because you seem so intimidated by ms garvin that you
misrepresent what she posts because you are incapable of dealing
with what she does post.

but you've been exposed doing the same thing before, haven't you?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion