HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: "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: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:40:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.005324.15532@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran):
>> In article 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?
>
>Obviously he got it somewhere.  Is it so off base to think he simply got it
>from it's mother?



Suzanne, I realize you have a hard time dealing with anything in reality, but
when a woman has an abortion, they _DON'T_ put the z/e/f into a jar for the
woman to take home like they did with your tonsels when you were a child.
--
=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
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:57:35 GMT

In <1992Jul19.194752.18295@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.213228.26985@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- losing patience with DOD) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> There exist underlying reasons why a woman would not want to have a fetus 
>>> inside her womb -- for example, emotional distress. Why don't these reasons
>>> also justify infanticide?  

>> Well gee, Doug, could it be that once the child is born, the woman isn't
>> pregnant anymore?  And that the right not to be pregnant doesn't exactly
>> apply?  

>You're presupposing that a "right not to be pregnant" exists. I'm asking
>you to offer a rational justification for that claim. 

Bodily autonomy.  The same right which prevents me from (for instance)
justifiably walking over and crazy gluing my hand onto your face.  She has
the right to remove any unwanted organism or object from her body (if she has
the means to do so, that is), or even to terminate her own life if that is
what she wishes.

The "right not to be pregnant" is a form of this right.  She has the right to
remove a fetus from her body if that is what she wishes.  It is (I think)
desirable that the fetus not be killed, if possible (i.e., after the point of
viability), in the procedure, but if this cannot be avoided, that's too bad.
She does not have the de facto *responsibility* to support the fetus'
existence (unless, perhaps, she has previously voluntarily and explicitly
undertaken that responsibility).

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the 
 United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
			- The Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIII
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:30:45 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Jul21.191554.8569@noao.edu>, 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.

 I don't know how many abortions she may have had, but it seems clear that 
your mother unfortunately fell one short..... "a dark cloud passed over his 
face"???? Geezuz..... he was in New York - maybe it was smog..... quite 
frankly Suzanne - the fact that your mother "was immediately struck" with such 
a question indicates more about her problems than it does about Bill Clinton 
or Jennifer Flowers......



				gln



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:13:16 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>##		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

<3691@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> I think that I know the source of Chaney's new .sig lie.
> I think that some adult who supports legal abortion said
> "fuck you" to him.

Isn't he referring to a court case in the news a few days ago?
I just scanned the article in the paper, so don't put too much
faith in my memory.  There was a statutory rape case somewhere
where there was no question that the girl had consented.  I think
also that the girl didn't want to prosecute.  It was the state
that was carrying out the prosecution.  (This is where I don't
trust my memory; how could the state make a case without an
incriminating witness?)

Anyhow, the judge ruled that court precedent in abortion cases
made it clear that teenage girls held the same right to privacy
against state interference in their personal lives as adult
women.  Thus the state could not make illegal her private sexual
choices, and could not prosecute the statutory rape.

As I say, my memory is very suspect on this one.  I'll see if I can
dig the paper out of the recycle stack tonight and maybe post
the article next week.

|   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._________________________________|
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What Are You Going To Do After The Election?
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:39:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul26.135951.1988@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.040655.23187@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>[McBean points out that Sheir is contradicting himself from post to post] 
>
>Was Mr. Sheir's password cracked?  Is this a charade?  I'm baffled.

Or is it Mr. Sheir who has cracked?  Mr Sheir, I am sorry, but the role
of Multiple Personality Disorder sufferer has already been filled by Mr.
ChaneyHall.  Perhaps if you would care to audition for another role in
the t.a. CastOfThousands?
>
>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Only vs. Primary (formerly PRO-LIFERS: ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:00:17 GMT

<1992Jul8.185615.26633@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
><1992Jul7.104823.29711@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
...
>>I don't think my children consider themselves a 'logical symbol'
>>of anything.
>
> Well, I think it would be perfectly reasonable if they did. Perhaps
>a better term would be a "living symbol". After all, if it weren't
>for the love that existed, and the consequent sexual activity, the
>children wouldn't exist. So, children are a consequence of the love
>that is shared by two adults.

Huh?  You mean children of people who didn't love each other are not
really children?  You mean adopted children are not really children
because their new parents didn't conceive them in love?

Perhaps you are just having trouble with the language.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- passing the savings on to you)
Subject: Supporting Your Daughter (formerly: Governor Casey...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:04:26 GMT

What: <1992Jul25.001036.13744@noao.edu>
Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

>>  = Jay T Stein
>>> = Suzanne Forgach
 
>>>Could it be that Quayle, as a father, merely said he would never turn
>>>his back on his own daughter?   Hmmmm?   Hell, I could say the same thing.
>> 
>> In other words, you would support your daughter's decision to have an
>> abortion, 
>
>Absolutely not.   I would not allow her as a minor to have an abortion,
>and if she were an adult, I would do all I could to talk her out of it.

This is in fact what Quayle said, and I did not dispute it.  *However,*
do you not think it's a bit inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that
abortion should be illegal, but, on the other hand, you'd "support" your
daughter's decision to have one?

>if she managed to have the abortion anyway, she would still be my daughter
>and I would still love her.

That is not in dispute, and it is not what I said.  Did Quayle not say
that he would support his daughter's *decision?*

>> but you would not allow anyone *else's* daughter to have the
>> option.
>
>Either.  That option Either.  That's right.

So you wouldn't allow your daughter to have an abortion, but you would
support her decision if she had one anyway?  I *must* be missing something
here.  Please explain.

>You lie, and then argue with yourself!   [insult deleted]
     ===

I have never lied here.  I have on occasion been wrong, but
not once have I lied.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:41:03 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul30.151029.17718@udel.edu> jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.124941.27576@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>>
>>If you are pro-choice re abortion, but not re drugs, why not?
>>How can you not be pro-choice with respect to drugs?
>>
>>Should pro-choice imply anti-"War on Drugs"?  Keep in mind that
>>a war on drug abuse should be a separate matter.
>>
>I can't help but feel superior to someone wearing a "keep your laws off
>my body" T-shirt, yet supports the WOD.  I chalk it up to political
>fashion.  These folks just don't seem to think about government policies
>very much.   They will become relegalizers the minute 
>it becomes just a little more fashionable to oppose the WOD.  

What makes you guys think that most (or even many) pro-choicers support
the War on Civil Liberties?  Most that I've taked to (myself included)
are strongly against the WOD.  Can you say "strawman argument"?

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:40:55 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>handicapped newborns or the senile elderly.  They often represent
>"terrible physical and psychological burdens" to those who must
>care for them.  Why should the caretakers of such people be forced
>to endure this hardship when their pregnant counterparts can simply
>abort?  

They shouldn't be.

>Bill

                         -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Silliest sign carried by a pro-forcer
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:25:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul21.185237.13655@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
#(Susan Garvin's great sign story deleted--although I'm not sure the guy
#she describes might not have been a pro-choicer having a little fun. But
#I bow to her personal knowledge of the situation).

My best guess was that he was really an anti, given his age
and mental instability.  If he wasn't, my hat's off to him.

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

Argghhh.

There's always a table from Liberty U. at the American Economic
Association meetings, they usuausually have a paper by an
"economist" which tries to prove that abortion is bad in
an economic sense.  I always try to get a copy of these
papers and use them in teaching, since they are wonderful
examples of how different assumptions can lead to very
different results.  (The papers assume that all aborted
fetuses would grow into highly productive workers who are
models of spending/saving rationality.)

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Fetal Heartbeat (Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.224714.20097@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu 
(Don Porter) writes:

}Clausen's slogan is a simple statement of fact.  

It is not a simple statement of fact.  At best, it demands a fairly
selective sample of abortions to claim that it "stops a beating heart."
Someone even jumped in and said words to the effect of surgical abortion
stops a beating heart.  See the word "surgical"?  That is known as
a modifier.  Use of RU 486 rarely stops a beating heart.  As a 
matter of fact, it has to be administered rather early to be of any
use.  Is it not often called the "abortion pill"?  Don't many object
to it because it causes abortion?  If Mr. Clausen's assertion is true,
however, the pill can't cause abortion, because Mr. Clausen asserts that
"abortion stops a beating heart."  So is Mr. Clausen's assertion a
"simple fact" or is it a slogan which is only conditionally true?

Granted, by the time you add modifiers and conditions that make the 
slogan true it often doesn't make a very good slogan.  That's the way
it goes.  Many slogans would be teriffic except for the small matter
that they aren't true.  Some people use such slogans anyway, because 
it sounds better.  I suppose that might be the same rationale behind
so many people who are really "pro-legislation" calling themselves
"pro-life."

There doesn't seem to be much agreement here over fetal development, 
abortion, or the wording of proposed legislation.  The only thing that
I see the "pro-life" folks agreeing on at all is that there should 
be some legislative effort.  Exactly against what or precisely what
it should entail is fairly hazy. 
 
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:29:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

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?

I propose that everyone ignore this cretin henceforth.  If enough
people ignore him maybe he'll go away and learn from the real world
how to behave in civilized society.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Did Clinton embrace the pro-life position??
Summary: DOD keeps trying that misc.test thing, and no one falls for it
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.
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 03:00:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.012628.18401@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Dou
 Holtsinger) writes:
[text deleted]

>And BTW, Ms. Forgach *acknowledged* that Clinton was speaking about 
>child-support, but somebody (either you or Novak) deleted her acknowledg
ment.


She acknowledged that you'd misrepresented Clinton's words, too,
but that was in a different post.

I'm sure you'd rather forget that, though, wouldn't you?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney's evolution
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:12:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy


First he says:

In article <1992Jul13.180817.8498@csus.edu# chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes:

#And please don't mention Operation Rescue. They're terrorists and
#theocrats, and they do not represent even the minutest minority of the
#pro-life movement. They're so far out on the fringe that they make the
#National Right to Life Committee cringe, and I thought that was hard to do,
#with Reagan being one of their big heroes. Operation Rescue is a stereotype
#icon they use in the same way as the media used to use Buckwheat for racist
#stereotypes. 
#Did I forget to say I loathe Operation Rescue?


Then, he forgets that *he* thinks they're terrorists and says:

In article <1992Jul16.212959.27615@csus.edu# chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

#But what about the rushing of the clinic doors, the bombing and the
#vandalism and all that terrible terrorist stuff? 
#
#Maybe because you guys weren't doing all of that, the media didn't
#want to cover it because it screws up their Operation Rescue image. 
#
#In short, when they show your rescue scene to TV and cry, "This is
#terrorism!" people will laugh in their face. 

And, finally, he endorses O.R.'s violent tactics wholeheartedly and
says:

In article <1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

#That depends. If the rally is at the clinic, he would call the cops
#and the RESCUERS would get their asses beat. 
#
#If he's at their meetings and he tries to cause trouble, that'll be
#the last time we ever see Chris Long. 
#
#I hope. 

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:00:47 CDT

In article <1992Jul30.161546.4622@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.113040.25342@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>>
>>>   I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
>>>because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an 
>>>adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.
>>
>>One question: as much as you may disagree with Susan Garvin,
>>has she ever said anything that would give you the impression
>>that she would condone child molestation?  That she would share
>>her life with an individual who made a practice of that sort of
>>thing?  How would you feel if Kevin had implied that your sister,
>>or aunt, or mother, was consorting with a child molester?
>>
>>Do you honestly believe that Kevin thought for _one minute_ that
>>Susan would hang out with someone like that?  
>
>As stated elsewhere, I would not expect even Susie Garvin to share her life
>with a PRACTICING child-molester. But I do believe her gullible enough to
>fall for a supposedly "cured" one...
>
Projecting again, Kevin?
I don't believe that you believe this.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: INFO: JustLife
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:21 EDT  

JustLife is a non-denominational, bi-partisan organization working to
promote justice and life ethics.  While these ethics are threatened on
many fronts, JustLife targets three of the most pervasive and immediate
challenges in USA society today: poverty, abortion, and the arms race.

JustLife is unique among the 50 organizations in the Seamless Garment
Network, as it works to show that being pro-justice, pro-life and pro-
peace makes political sense for candidates for elected office.  JustLife
evaluates voting records and endorses candidates who agree with these
policies on all three issues.  [Note: in the last such rating, fifteen 
Congressional votes were examined, five each regarding fighting against
poverty, abortion, and arms buildups.  One Congressman in the entire USA
had a positive score on as many as 13 of the 15 issues.  About a dozen
scored 11 or better, and about a dozen more ten or better.  It's an 
uphill fight.]  In addition, JustLife works to educate the public through
its Education Fund.

For more info, contact the National Office:

	JustLife
	PO Box 7165
	Grand Rapids MI   49510
	1 (800) 220-JUST

A tout a l'heure.

RG
Newsgroups: talk.abortion