HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:29:45 GMT

In <nyikos.721347704@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Maryland already had a law on the books STRONGER than FOCA.  What was
>the point of putting the public through a referendum?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Here's the history of the
abortion situation in Maryland:

Before Roe v. Wade, Maryland had the one of the most liberal abortion
laws in the country. It allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest,
and in cases where the woman's health was at risk...provided that she
could convince a panel of doctors that her health was at risk, and
provided the abortion was performed in a hospital. This law was of
course overturned by Roe v. Wade.

Last year, it appeared that Roe v. Wade would soon be overturned,
and it was believed that the old law would once more take effect. The
state government passed a bill which repealed the old law, and which
created a new law which was equivalent to Roe v. Wade or FOCA. (It
most assuredly isn't "stronger" than FOCA). Pro-life organizations 
started a petition drive to repeal the new law, and got enough signatures
to force a referendum.

The pro-life strategy was interesting...they seemed to feel that
there weren't enough pro-life voters to repeal the law, and that
they had to win over pro-choice voters. To this end, they said that
the new law had things that most pro-choicers would object to...for
example, it allowed abortion clinics to make kickbacks for patient
referrals. [This turns out not to be true: This practice was banned
in the old law, but it was also banned in a different law dealing
with medical practice in general...so repealing the old law wouldn't
change anything.]

The pro-lifers went on to say that pro-choicers should therefore
vote to strike down the new law, and make the state legislature
"get it right next time". Even if RvW were overturned, the old
law would still be in place, and it was one of the most liberal
in the country. [They left it to pro-choice organizations to
tell everyone what this "liberal" law really was.]

I don't know how many pro-choice people were convinced that the
new law went too far. But when you add them to the total number
of pro-lifers, you get less than 40% of the population.

BTW, I haven't heard anyone say anything yet about the parental
notification clause...it had an interesting twist. Instead of
judicial bypass, it had physician bypass. This means that 
notification could be waived by the doctor at the clinic. This
seemed kind of insulting to me: I think that doctors will 
already refuse to perform an abortion on a minor if she's 
clearly out of her depth. But I suppose that if we have to 
have parental notification, this is the way to go.

>Peter Ny.

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: New outlook!   (was:Facts of Life!!!)
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:30:18 GMT

>  = margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> = clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The concern of the extremes going all the way
>> to a 9th month abortion is incredible.

Most pro-choicer's favor such unrestricted access to abortion, not because
they think frivolous 9th month abortions are simply OK, but rather because
frivolous 9th month abortions don't exist, hence such restrictions could
only serve to inhibit needed late term abortions.  Can I assume we're all
familiar enough with the abortion debate to be aware of this?

> Perhaps a few facts will set your mind at ease.  Half of all abortions
> performed in the US are done within the first 8 weeks since the last
> menstrual period.  89% are done in the first trimester.  99.4% are done
> at 20 weeks or less.  Only about 100 abortions are performed annually
> after 24 weeks, and those are performed only for serious health reasons.
> (I would hope that if you had to choose between the woman and the fetus,
> you wouldn't condemn the woman to death.)

Hope away.  I've gotten the distinct impression that there's 
plenty 'o pro-lifer's who will not state that a woman's right to life 
supersedes fetal right to life.  Any pro-lifer care to correct me?

-Brian
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quotes
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:44:54 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
>>throughout history people have been killing children and denying
>>them the right to life.  It's important to be aware of this because
>>I have seen people on here claim that they will continue fighting
>>to deny them this right.  There will always be murderous people
>>like those addressed by the writings Brian has quoted.  We the
>>defenders of our smallest brothers and sisters will never go away.
>>We will forever be pricking your consciences.
> 
> Suzanne, I'm curious.  Do you have any children?


Yup, I sure do!   How 'bout yerself?
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:48:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <Bx5976.746@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>Well, folks, it looks like Steve "Dennis Hall" Chaney is about to do a
>3.5-forward gainer off the cliff.  I got *two* nice little threats from him
>this morning when I checked in at the InterMix Chamber BBS, so here is the
>complete collection of the three letters he's sent me over the weekend.

Sorry to rain on your parade, Patrick, but I think I hold the record, here.
When I emailed Steve about my discovery last April, I received *five* 
nasty and threatening notes spaced about 5-20 minutes apart each (and from 
two different accounts!!)  :-0

Good Luck, but don't expect much.  It doesn't seem to be a net.sin to 
be nasty, deceptive,  or stupid.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:40:09 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->>->If you disagree with her, say so and say why.  If you agree with her 
->>->say so and say why.  
->>
->>did you somehow become t.a.'s moderator? are you
->>empowered to tell people what to post?

->It was a request.  

heh. are you having trouble reading what you wrote?

->Only a pinheaded pedant would mistake that comment
->as being in any way authoritarian.

more accurately, only a net.cop, a fool, nyikos, or darcy
would have made it. only darcy or nyikos would have
tried to pass it off as a request.

here is a request. would you please post your answer to
the following question?

do you want to imprison women who have "banned"
abortions?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47131 alt.flame:14511 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:572
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:28:30 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.205525.2265@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> Ray Fischer

>> Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
>> fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?

> This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also insulting.

I agree, it is insulting to suggest that the doctor might
kill a child during labor to ease labor pains. 

> Most abortions done in the late 2nd trimester or later are done by
> labor inducement.  So the labor is going to be painful, whether
> the fetus is alive or dead.

This is not correct, most abortions done in the late 2nd trimester
are done by D&E, a procedure in which the child is killed.  Labor
is generally not induced because a) it's too painful, and b) it's
cheaper and faster to kill the child. 

> It is insulting and ridiculous to think that women ask to kill the
> fetus while in labor, and shows that a) you are wildly out of touch
> with reality, b) you are shooting off at the mouth about things
> that you are completely ignorant of, or c) you have some sort of
> flaming-death wish.

All very true.

>Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)


Doug Holtsinger
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim reiterates the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy!
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:26:26 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov12.192134.8849@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to me (>>):

>>In article <1992Nov12.030316.5387@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>>is back!  Hi, Jim: Do you still subscribe to the chastity belt theory
>>of why abortions should be illegal?  That is, do you still believe
>>that forcing women to carry pregnancies to terms is justified by their
>>having engaged in the the dirty deed?
>
>Hi, Stephen, it's nice to be remembered.
>
>Your references to chastity belts and dirty deeds are obscure.
>Possibly you don't remember me that well, or you may be confusing me
>with someone else.

I like the way that Jim's subsequent verbiage belies his innocent
opener.
  
>I do still believe that the z/e/f is valuable without regard to
>whether anyone wants it, that some very good reason is needed to
>justify destroying it, and that preservation of the mother's autonomy
>is not a good enough reason when the existence of the z/e/f is a
>reasonably forseeable consequence of the mother's voluntary act.

To quote from what I wrote about you before.  How is what you have
just argued different from the end of my initial question to you:

>>forcing women to carry pregnancies to terms is justified by their
>>having engaged in the the dirty deed?

Is responsibility for the pregnancy equally shared by man and woman?
What commensurate `holding responsible' do you propose for men?

Do parents have to donate kidneys to children since their act is
responsible for bringing the child into the world?

If I smoke cigarettes, should I be denied medical treatment for lung
cancer?

SJM
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:20:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov2.171205.10640@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY
JAMES PRICE) wrote:
> 
> |>Yes, if no one interferes and the woman doesn't have an abortion, then
> |>it _will_ (probably) become significant in its own regard.  But until
> |>then, it's just a fetus.
> |>
> Let me correct you its just a pre-born child.

Brave words from a "pre-dead corpse".

If I accept that a fetus is a "pre-born child", will you grant _me_ that
you're a "pre-dead corpse"?  If you will, I imagine there'll be no problem
with my donating various bits of you to hospitals and medical schools, eh?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Should Keegan disqualify supporters of the FOCA from using "prochoice"?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:19:16 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes to
DODie:

->Who cares what Keegan thinks?  No offense to Jim intended,
->but I have no idea why anyone would care all that much how
->Jim wants to label supporters of the FOCA.  Unless that someone
->were looking for a pointless argument.

welcome back! no offense taken. no one but DODie and
kebbie are talking about labels anyway. there has been
some conversation about positions. i don't think
DODie understands the difference. i think kebbie does,
but, heck, truth has never been kebbie's strongest 
characteristic, nor DODie's for that matter.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:15:22 GMT

In <1992Nov8.170316.7679@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> it all comes down to this. the unborn are not alive.

>This statement is not correct.

 please let me rephrase: the unborn are composed
 of living cells. but they lack the elusive soul
 needed to be alive in our little christian
 spectrum.

 god loves me! (but more importantly, he *respects* me!)

 mark.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: compromise 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:08:45 GMT

In <rgj1vtg@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>

>>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>the term of pregnancy.
>
>this statement is not correct.
>[asserted without supporting evidence since such
>evidence has been posted dozens of times in response to
>holtsinger's comments to the contrary]

Roe can easily be interpreted as abortion on demand, 
since continuing a pregnancy against one's will appears
to (via a recently referenced JAMA study) increase the 
risk of adverse psychological sequelae.  It's really
very easy: if abortion services are denied, there are
implicit mental health risks for the respective woman,
hence abortion services cannot be denied.  Abortion 
on demand.

Bill
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Was Pitts Out of the Loop During the Persian Gulf War?
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:48:35 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov5.181316.21580@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|You, no doubt, will remember the rebuke that Christ gave Peter
|at his arrest.  I think you have your notion of "Christ and His
|Kingdom" mixed up with something else entirely.  Christ never

I think I know the story, but I'd like you to give your
understanding of what you are referring, for I don't follow you.

|advocated any legislation, neither did he advocate any type
|of killing, even in times of turmoil.  Christ did not cry out

You might want to consider Christ's response to the question 
brought to him about so potentially unjust tragedy that had
just happened.  The people asked if those who had died were
more wicked than others.  Jesus' response was that each one would
likewise perish, if each one didn't repent.  Physical death
is not the great tragedy - each person is spiritually dead, if
they haven't been born again (i.e., come to Jesus the Christ
as their Lord and Savior - the Almight God and Creator).  
The great tragedy is being forever separated from God for eternity.

|on the cross "Forgive them Father, and vote for a Human Rights
|Amendment."  Maybe you think he did...

We are told to Love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind
and to love our neighbor as ourself.  We are for human rights.
The Old Testament says what is desire of us by God is that 
we seek mercy, love justice, and walk humbly with our God.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: krobinso@orange.crayola.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:49:35 GMT

In article <lefty-121192142516@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.033956.9468@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.
>
>Gee, Kevin, I hope its going to be soon.  I can't imagine why you're so
>reluctant to share this bit of information.  You certainly weren't shy with
>your threats regarding "hypothetical" collection agencies.
>
>Nor can I understand, since you claim to have a legitimate contract, why
>you're so hesitant to discuss the details this time around.  Come on,
>Kevin.  People _have_ to be wondering.
>
>I can't wait to see what your "archival fees" are.  Have you paid Q for the
>legal advice yet?

Why would anyone pay Q for legal advice? Q is ineffective and
misinformed when it comes to legal matters.

K e n   R o b i n s o n
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: The eternal pessimist
Originator: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:53:00 GMT


I am aware that there is much rejoicing now that Bush has lost
the presidency, but I find myself somewhat less than thrilled.
Consider the issue of abortion. There are two primary threats
to the continued availability(note choice of words) of abortion
in this country.

1) The possibility that Roe would be overturned, leaving abortion
control back to the states.
 Two steps have been taken to prevent this occurring.
 a) Presumably, Bill Clinton will be able to appoint Blackmun's
    replacement, stopping--though not reversing--the Court's
    slide into conservativism.
 b) Presumably, the FOCA will pass and Bill Clinton will sign it.

2) Harassment of local abortion providers is making many of them
  choose to stop performing this service. Bill Clinton's election
  does nothing to remedy this situation.

Detailed analysis:
a) None of the Conservative justices on the SC is particularly old.
It would not be surprising if Blackmun were the only justice to retire.
Blackmun is clearly pro-choice, and even if Clinton nominates someone
who is pro-choice, at best the Court's makeup will be unchanged. There
has already been speculation that the current court would reverse
Roe, and it is still possible.
b) I have previously expressed the opinion that FOCA may be
unconstitutional. In the current judicial climate, I would not be
surprised to see the SC rule this way.
c) The combination of these two events could have the effect of placing
us in a situation which is essentially unchanged in 1996, modulo
the strong possibility that the number of abortion providers will
continue to decline.
We cannot, therefore, sensibly conclude that abortion rights are in
any way safe.

Rather than concentrating, as we have, on the legal status of abortion,
it seems to me that we should take a step back and look at matters
pragmatically. If the number of abortion providers continues to
decline, it will be difficult for women to obtain abortions whether
or not abortion is legal.
  Thus, it seems sensible to me that a better focus for our legislative
and political efforts would be to concentrate on ensuring that RU-486
be commonly available. This will have several effects:
1) Making abortion easier to provide, to some extent combatting the
slide in provider number.
2) Hopefully making it harder to discern where abortions are and
are not occurring, making it harder to target physicians.
3) Widespread public availability of RU-486 will be a difficult
thing to reverse, seeing as it does have other uses. Thus, even if
abortion is banned in 1996, it will be much easier to obtain them.
Consider the difficulty we have in preventing drug use.

Comments?
-Ekr







   
 





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:09:09 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov11.050430.28419@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>"Once impregnation has taken place it is no longer a question
>of whether the persons concerned have the responsibility for
>a possible parenthood, they have become parents."

In other words, "A fetus is a person."  Do you see this as having more
validity because you're quoting a dead guy?

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Telling Tales Out of School
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:32:30 GMT

<1992Nov05.200041.113049@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov5.043044.9474@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Nov4.185811.15530@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
>>>Larry Margolis - Contrary to His Postings, Is NOT a Mature Responsible
>>>              Adult with a Well Reasoned Well Balanced Personality,
>>>              And a Clear Victim of his
>>>              EastCoastWimpLiberalZionistComedyCabalBackGround
>>>              Not To Mention, does the Rapier Replies LIVE!
>>
>>Ah, but he is a clean-cut respectable fellow with a rakish beard
>>(my wife's opinion)
>
>A goddess at whose feet I am not worthy to grovel (although I'd give
>it a shot anyway if asked :-).

Sorry, you need a groveling liscense.

>>and a dynamite looking SO (my opinion).
>
>What can I say, you both have good taste.  :-)

That's what I like about you, Larry - so modest.

>>>Gordon Storga -
>>BTW, I'd write OS/2 apps for
>>the rest of my life if it means I "deserve" my *goddess*.
>
>I don't know if you *deserve* her; just be thankful you're blessed.

Every day.

>>>                He is Married to a CutesyTootsyArtsyFartsy Type.
>
>Is that any way to refer to a goddess?

Really!  You can bet that he'll never get to grovel.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion