HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:34:57 GMT

In <1992Sep11.114947.8188@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep10.212150.17272@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep9.203016.717@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>> i didn't express any "concern," as you put it,
>>>> bill. i said i'd be pleased if the lad got help.
>>>> i'd be pleased if anyone i thought was crazy got
>>>> help. why do you think DODie is different?
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> Why would you be pleased if you weren't at all
>>>> concerned?
>
>>> why do you think DODie is different?
>
>> I don't.  I didn't indicate that I did.
>
> then you agree that therapy for DODie might be a good
> idea?

As I've indicated, his posts don't contain enough information
to make such a determination.  Interesting that you continue
to insist on your assessment despite the absence of any real
data to the contrary.

>>> now, to answer your question even though you
>>> avoided mine, concern does not generate pleasure
>>> nor does all pleasure result from concern. the two
>>> are not necessarily related. why would you think
>>> they were?
> 
>> Seems reasonable to assume that your sentiment is
>> based on some rationale.  Concern seemed to be the
>> most likely candidate, though there are undoubtedly
>> other possibilities.  
>
> it was pretty presumptous of you, then, to state my
> motivations, wasn't it? one could almost assume that
> you were plying your trade on the net.

One might assume that, if one knew very little about my 
profession, which you continue to aptly demonstrate.

>> If you'd rather not say, I will understand.
>
> say what, bill?

I understand. 

> what has you confused. i suggested DODie see his
> therapist. is that not sufficiently straightforward?
> what part don't you understand?

Two parts really.  One, do you know for a fact that 
Doug has a therapist?  And two, please tell me about
the "denial" that you inferred.  How were you able 
to determine that Doug suffers from a clinically sig-
nificant pattern of self-justification?  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:22:39 GMT

From article by Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>:
> In  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> >
>> > ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
>> >
>> > "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>> >  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"
>>
>> I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
>> likely counselling and rehab.
> 
> For *murder*?  Aren't you being a little inconsistent here?  If you think
> it's murder, why would you charge the doctor, but let the woman literally
> get away with murder?


It's my choice.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Personhhod not sufficient (was Re: Freedom of religion)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:45:20 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Sep11.201800.1379@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>As a person, abortion would be highly illegal. 

Not strictly true I think.

Even if a foetus was considered a legal person, that would not necessarily
be sufficient to make abortion illegal.

Abortion can be considered as simply the women withdrawing her support
from the foetus (by disconnecting herself).  The death of the foetus
can therefore be viewed as an unavoidable (thought possibly tragic)
result of her "justifiable" act.

After all, why should she bound to use her body, and her resources to
sustain another entity - even if it is a "person"?  Especially when she
didn't choose to sustain it in the first place?

For abortion to be illegal the foetus needs more than personhood (in fact it
may not even need that).  It needs a right to inhabit the woman's body.

It seems to me that it is this aspect which is the more problematic.  
"Personhood" is generally an issue of mere semantics.

tk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Time Poll
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 07:47:27 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep3.204150.13687@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle):
>> In article Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>>As published in the August 31, 1992 issue:
>>>
>>>Which position best represents your views about abortion:
>>>
>>>A woman should be able to get an
>>>abortion no matter what the reason             49%
>> 
>> Count me right here.
>> 
>> The reason is NONE of my business, none of YOUR business. 
>
>It certainly IS the unborn child's business.

There is no unborn child, therefore it would have no 'business'.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.171808.13777@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <a3kn0p-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>>>In article <BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>>>>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>>>>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>>>>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>>>>woman and is affecting her health.
>>>
>>>If I swallow your pearls, are they mine, Susie? The "inside the woman" 
>>>argument is simplistic and ill-formed. Please reformulate.
>>
>>Your conclusions are simplistic and ill-formed.  While the pearls might
>>not be yours, she has no right whatever to go after them.  Even though
>>they are her pearls, you still have the right to control your body and
>>prevent her from cutting you open to get at them.
>>
>You really think she'd still want 'em?

Heh. Maybe not until they've been cleaned up a little...

Then again, maybe I could start a fad. I can see the designer label now:

	Swallowed by Calvin Klein (TM)

Those hummers would probably cost a FORTUNE... :-)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:48:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.220913.28880@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> As I said before, whether the
> Freedom of Choice Act is based upon religious beliefs is irrelevant
> to your claim that Gloria Feldt is not attempting to make her
> personal religious views the law of the land.

Well, what are her personal religious views?

>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>  we want to be precise)..."

Are you claiming that she is attempting to pass legislation that would
make infanticide legal for the first month after birth?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:18:53 GMT

In <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep9.183517.9900@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep8.171005.15796@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>

>>>        "I haven't noticed any behavior from either
>>>        Chaney or Holtsinger that would indicate a
>>>        need for psychiatric evaluation."
>>>		<1992Sep2.191938.5951@acd4.acd.com>
>>>
>>> might i refer you to the following articles. if
>>> you don't have them, i'll be happy to email them
>>> to you.
>>>
>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu>
>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>
>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152330.9676@csus.edu>
>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152723.9942@csus.edu>
>>>
>>> after you read them, i wonder if you might not
>>> awant to mend your statement.
> 
>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
>> immaturity with mental illness.
>
> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad, really,
> that you don't think therapy might help. 

Therapy "might help" anyone who's interested in it as
a vehicle for effecting positive life changes.  I don't
recall having seen Doug express such an interest.  That 
aside, though, why is it "too bad"?  

> perhaps you're
> just doggedly hanging on to a point you've already
> lost.

If you'd simply list the symptoms that you've identified 
as clinically significant, it would markedly enhance your
credibility in this area.  Until you do that, you don't 
even have an argument. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:30:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In  <1992Aug20.021010.16000@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild
LM> > writes:
LM> >
LM> > But I WOULD like to see the foetus recognised as a person,

LM> And I'd like to see myself recognized as emperor of the world.
LM> I mean, the fact that I'm not shouldn't make any difference, right?  :-)

Unfortunately, you also killed half of my quote, in which I said that I wanted
to see this recognition given ONLY after a method has been found to remove
him/her from the mother without harming either.

Recognition at any other time, would be tantamount to forced pregnancy, and
I don't think that I could support that, any more than I support forced
fatherhood.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "I've dropped my toothpaste", he said, crestfallen.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Pregnancy is like a harmless sort of slavery... (Was: Control)
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 02:05:58 GMT

In article <88947@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>But most of all, Eric, last semester I apologized to Susan for what I said to 
>her.  I
>admitted then and now that it was uncalled for.  I also apologized to 
>the network for my conduct.  I came back hoping to start over again with
>some good, thought provoking communication, and I entered this forum with
>no hostility towards anyone.  You were the first to draw any blood between
>me and the rest of the network.  Say it if it makes you feel better, but
>you are not going to draw me into any senseless flame wars.  It is your
>choice if you wish to keep that alive.

The .net has a long, long memory, Kevin.  So how's the "Biomedical Ethicist"
studies coming along?

>
>Like I always have believed, you have the right to say whatever you
>want.  Just remember respect.

The same respect you show for women when you say you would not allow them to
have an abortion unless there was "a 100.000000000% chance of death" if the
pregnancy continued?  The same respect you show for a woman when you state
that you "would not allow a woman to obtain an abortion, even if it meant she
would spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, on dialysis, because of the
problems associated with her pregnancy"?
>
>University of Pennsylvania				  FREE MINDS
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you're a pregnant woman, in which case the only mind you can have is to
be a baby factory...

>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++FREE SOCIETY
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you're a pregnant woman, in which case you become a slave...
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Don Dodson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:40:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

The other day I met a young lady and her 5 week old baby, Dalton
Brooks.  I held little Dalton while his mother told me his story:

Back in January, Dalton came very close to death.  His mother had
already paid $350 to have Dalton killed.  As she was walking into
the clinic for the abortion, she was met by two PLAN counselors.
They told her of the reality of abortion that the abortionists never
mention.  She did not immediately decide to not go through with the
abortion.  However, she agreed to wait a few days to reconsider.
She said she may consider adoption, if she could find a family who
would commit to adopting her baby.  During the next two days the
two counselors contacted dozens of families in their Churches and
finally found a family who wanted to adopt a baby.  The young mother
and the family were introduced, and the mother decided to continue
with the pregnancy.  Dalton was born on August 10, 1992.  Today he
has a family which loves him deeply and a chance to live.

I look forward to the day when families like this one as well as
individuals being responsible in their actions will make abortion
a thing of the past.

Don
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:44:52 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Isn't it you and Rocker who continue to push the evils of men being
>involved in the debate against abortion? 

No.

>Or Rocker's "I never knew of men who got abortions.." 

Please produce a citation for this exact quote, or retract it.

>Either Rocker was stupid (because the person debating her said men are
>half responsible for pregnancies and Rocker answered "I never knew of 
>men who got abortions..")

Please produce a citation for this exact quote, or retract it.

              -rocker
               wondering how my articles escaped borgie's
               much-publicized killfile
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:17:50 CDT

In article <Sep14.173415.54646@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.155140.28327@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>|> In article <Sep12.074253.38224@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
>|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> 
>|> }	Yeah, and what if the hang glider did something to cause the guy to be
>|> }hooked up in it?  If the hang glider swooped down and grabbed the guy, for
>|> }instance (still assuming the hang glider is a person), then it seems to me that
>|> }the hang glider wouldn't have a right to just let him go in mid-air, would it?
>|> 
>|> What a concept!  I think I see why people might shoot hang gliders on 
>|> sight.  I'm not sure if a hang glider would have the right to let someone
>|> go in mid-air, but if they had that capability, who knows, it might even 
>|> be a right.  I sure doubt that I would support legislation making that
>|> illegal, however...
>
>	Do you mean to suggest, Galen, that if hang gliders were persons you
>wouldn't want to make it illegal for them to swoop down and pick up people, and
>then drop them from mid-air?
>
Even though Galen speaks for everyone now, I don't think
he'll mind terribly if I speak for him here.

No.  He wouldn't want to make it illegal.

muriel
standard disclaimer
wondering how one punishes a hang glider...
and who will be the first to succomb to the enticements
of a really fine straight line.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:42:00 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <SCOTTS.92Sep5142954@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>, by scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier):
> In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>    From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>    > 
>    > Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>    > they won't have sex with them".
> 
> 
>    What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.
> 
> Suzie, we've been through this before.  Gay men do not hate women.  We
> are just not sexually attracted to them.  Get it? 


Since so many gays are pro-abortion, and since abortion is so harmful to respect
for women and for mothers, (not to mention also physically harmful to them), a case
can be made that generally as a group, they do hate women.    There is only the
occasional exception.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: "Hardly ever" justified?  Hmmmmmm...
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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:55:32 GMT

In article <5761@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren a
d Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715887517@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarol
na.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>Taking the law into one's hands to this extent is hardly ever justified

>
>This is interesting.  This means you think it *is* justified, sometimes.
>When?
>
Well, how about when someone close to you is brutally murdered
in front of your eyes?  That's Justification enough to at least
maul the assaillants dontcha think?
dunno what the courts would say

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca  -  bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu





Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36185 alt.abortion.inequity:3685
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 12 Sep 92 07:12:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
|> >In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> ...
|> >And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
|> >country through the use of law.
|> 
|> Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
|> problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
|> qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
|> abortion, ok?

	If I told you I needed money and I wanted to rob a bank: what do you
think?  And if you said, sure, go ahead, it's your decision -- you have, of course,
NOT imposed your beliefs on anyone.  But if I went and robbed the bank, *I* would
certainly be imposing my beliefs on others, and that would be impermissable. 
Relating it to abortion, when a woman has an abortion she is taking the life of
her unborn child, and is therefore imposing her beliefs on her unborn child to
the point of killing the baby.  This is a pretty serious level of imposition.

|> Another question:  In the above simple scenario, would it be better if you
|> came to me with a problem and I said, "You can *only* do such-and-such,
|> you have no other choice"?  Which would you prefer, if it were you?

	It would certainly be better if you had advised me not to rob the bank;
or in the case of abortion, if you advised the woman not to destroy her child.

Steve
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Feelings after birth/abortion
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:06:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

From martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 27 18:54:06 1992
>However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
>or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
>feel very miserable?  Why does it become such a hard task?  There are even
>group-therapy sessions for women who have had abortions.  Imagine having
>a group therapy session for people who have had their tumors removed
>wondering if it was the right decision to remove their tumor and feeling
>bad about removing it.

Imagine, group therapy sessions for post-natal depressions.  Goodness, there
must be something wrong with giving birth.

Also, there *are* group therapy sessions for cancer patients.  Sheesh.

Get a clue, hon.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:06:09 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Sep14.130030.11623@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <5309@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> > I am wondering what responsibilities are accorded to this
> > constitutionally protected (according to the Supreme Court) right.
> 
> That a doctor perform the abortion.  States can also enforce additional
> "reponsibilities" later in the pregnancy.
> 
> What is the "responsibility" associated with freedom of religion?
> 

Probably that one should not attempt to force his/her morals
or religious convictions upon others. (Even though we know there
are those that cannot seem to live with that.)

Sounds like a free country to me... (But only if we work to keep
it that way)...

-- Mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - I'd be surprised if my employer adopted them.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion