HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Legal Questions
Organization: Clark University
Date: 4 SEP 92 13:45:55 GMT

In a previous article, Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) wrote:
>In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:

>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>- and my wife has said the same thing...

>	Well, you've got to admire the boy's honesty, if nothing else.
>	But see here, Mr. Curley:  if you believe that, then you must also
>believe that any woman seen to drink a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette
>while pregnant is guilty of force-feeding these substances to a minor child
>and therefore guilty of child abuse.

A question for Mr. Curley - what sort of punishments would you order for _men_ 
who endanger a fetus?  Would a husband who smokes around his pregnant wife be 
thrown in jail for endangering the fetus with second-hand smoke?

What if a sexually active man is using medications (legal or otherwise) that 
mess up his sperm, and as a result a woman impregnanted by him has a 
miscarraige.  Does the guy then get charged with endangerment/murder/whatever?

Just looking for consistancy...


                                 .... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 23:08:09 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  <1992Sep1.192831.23784@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >>> The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
> >>> Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
> >>> vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
> >>> not enact such legislation.
>
> >> The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
> >> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
> >> a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
> >> down in Colautti v. Franklin.
>
> > This statement is not correct.
>
> Yes, it is correct.

I don't think it is, and you've certainly presented no evidence that it is.

> > How do you conclude one from the other, when you admit that the
> > legislation was struck down for vagueness, and is therefore totally
> > irrelevant to the question?
>
> It doesn't matter whether the legislation was struck down for
> reasons of vagueness,  or for some other reason.  The fact remains
> the states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
> to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in
> a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
> down in Colautti v. Franklin.

You're claiming that because a specific piece of legislation was struck
down for reasons of vagueness, it is not possible to enforce any other
legislation that attempts to do the same thing.  Care to show where
the logic is in there?

> > The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
> > law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
> > were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
> > but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
> > and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
> > abortions were *not* struck down.
>
> So what?  Colautti v. Franklin has not been overturned in any
> Supreme Court decision.

So what.  Colautti v. Franklin would not *have* to be overturned to allow
another law that is *not* vague to be enforced.  Such as the third trimester
restrictions contained in the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989,
*which is currently in effect*.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Chaney/Hall/Limbaugh?  
Keywords: Limbaugh posting to talk.abortion
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 13:55:41 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


After reading the little inturdgent guys tirade against Susan 
and feminazi, and his whining about the media, it just all 
looked too familiar.  
 
We have all seen some fairly rational, though bizarre posts
from Chaney.  They never seem to fit with his hysterical drivel.
We caught Chaney pretending he is more than one person, but 
perhaps there is more to the little guy than we thought.  
Perhaps he is more than once person.  I have this theory 
that more than once person is posting from Chaneys account 
in Sacramento.  He seems to go between a person that can
form coherent sentences and spell intelligence and one who
can not.  

His latest drivel against Susan, his use of the term feminazi
and his non-stop whining about how the media is unfair to his
cause has convinced me who besides our own little 12 year old 
is using this chaney account.  It is none other than the Pat
brother's (Buchanan and Robertson) favorite little media 
darlin', Rush Limbaugh his ownself.  Rush has access to the 
net, but generally keeps himself to Compuserve.  However, he 
has claimed to venture out and pretend to be someone he is 
not.  His being based in Sacramento along with the little 
turd boy just makes it so much easier for the roly poly 
fellow to use chaney's account.
 
So Rush, how you doing?  I always wondered if you are as
surprised as anyone that all these little dweebs are taking
to your silly causes.  I bet you never expected all these 
little adolescents to really take you all this serious.  Kind
of tough to parody a right wing reactionary.  

Then again Chaney could just be a Rush wannabe.  But that 
theory wouldn't be as fun as figuring that the Rush-dude
himownself occasionally posts here in the disguise of Chaney.
 
Dan King
  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:52:00 GMT

In article <nyikos.714667647@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>A VERY close relative,
>as close as mother to offspring, has a very rare bodily constitution
>which for some reason makes it impossible for anyone in the world except
>you to donate even plasma.  Said relative also has a strange condition
>which makes periodic plasma donations necessary for 9 months, otherwise
>death is inevitable; but if donations are made, then after 9 months this
>relative will recover and never again need these donations from you.

>Now, even though the donation of plasma involves the use, if you want
>to put it that way, of tissues, organs, etc.  I think you should be 
>morally obligated to make these donations.  

Presumably this relative is a person (which I don't think most z/e/fs
are).  If so, since you're talking about a moral and not a legal
obligation, I couldn't agree more in the general case.  Plasma
donations take time, but I don't think they're particularly unpleasant
or intrusive unless you're terrified of needles.  I also think that
people for whom donating blood is relatively simple and doesn't have
aftereffects have a moral obligation to donate blood.

What in the *world* does either moral obligation have to do with
pregnancy?  Really, Peter, comparing pregnancy with something as
trivial as donating blood or plasma is ridiculous and insulting.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:49:50 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug27.000225.12558@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Aug21.131126.2147@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> In article <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[...]
 
>>> Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
>>> popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.  
>>> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.
>> 
>> No, I'm sorry, but this is wrong.  NFP requires consistent attention be
>> paid to your body, and that you must refrain from sex during certain times.
> 
> Oh?  Bodily self-awareness very _easily_ becomes a life long habit, one you
> soon cannot even imagine being without, and from that self knowledge springs
> the knowledge of when you can and cannot achieve a pregnancy.  

I'm just a dopey ol' guy, so I can't say I'll get the chance to know.

> It is not
> ever considered "refraining from sex", since you are so much more sexually
> aware of your own body than most of your contemporaries, and so instead is
> viewed as _embracing_sex_, knowing when you will or will not conceive.

Embracing sex?  What do you mean by that?  Still, you must refrain from
having sex at certain times unless you want to conceieve, and we're
talking about contraception here, so the main objective is to avoid
impregnation.
  
>> It's success can only be charted by the determination and patience of the
>> user.  
> 
> In fact, it's success is in direct proportion to the users' love and respect
> for their own bodies.

Really?  That's a fact?  With what units have you chosen to measure
love, and what units for measuring respect?  I love and respect both
my body, and my fiancee's body, but I really and truly doubt that
we could adhere to modern NFP.  We can't possibly handle another child
right now, nor do we want one right now.  Therefore, at certain times
we would not be able to make love to one another (at least not with
intercourse), and I can safely say that we wouldn't wish to be
restricted in that manner.
 
>> With the pill, you just have to remember to take it, and assuming
>> you do, there's just a fraction of a chance of failure.
> 
> With the pill, you have to remember to rearrange your owns hormones on
> a daily basis, day in and day out, and even if you do it "perfectly", your
> odds of avoiding pregnancy are not a wit better than if you had simply
> educated yourself to your own body's workings via modern NFP.

Taking a pill a day is really not very hard at all.  I remember when I
was young I took a Flintstones Vitamin every morning, and I didn't
need to be reminded at all.  I was doing that likely as early as age
5 or 6.  If a 5 year-old can remember, I imagine a grown woman could too.
 
> Suzanne Forgach

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: You be the Judge!
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:27:47 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


gh>In article <1992Aug29.030548.3002@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J.
Hekhuis) writes:

gh>There is a woman tried and convicted of murder, and awaiting execution.
gh>Her appeals have all been exhausted, and she is due to die soon.
gh>She is, however, pregnant, having been raped by her father who is
gh>a prison guard.  The pregnancy itself is also life threatening, that is,
gh>it may kill her before the gas chamber does.  She requests an abortion.
gh>(oh yeah, she is exactly between the second and third trimester, as far
gh>as we can tell)


gh>Should she get it?  Who pays for it?

I saw this same exact scenario on a "you make the call" commercial during half
time of last years 9er/Giants game.  My memory is flaky, but I think they
said it was five yard penalty on the offense for Delay of Game.  I think 
it gets payed for out of the left offensive tackles salary, but I could
be mistaken about that.

gh>(You can't stay her execution, she's exhausted all the appeals.  
gh>What do you decide is moral in this bizarre situation, and why?)

I was answering your question with my understanding of the legalitys
involved.  As far as what is moral, I'd say let the father fry in her
place, and she should be forced to have orgasms since that equates to
slavery in DOD's world.  That way the little bitty innocent little
child doesn't get punished for the sins of its daddy, (or was that
granddaddy.  Kind of reminds me of a song from when I was a country
and western DJ, "I'm my own Grandpa".  Anyone remember this song and
who wrote and recorder it).  The woman has to suffer through her own
harmless form of slavery of Orgasms for her sins and the daddy/grandpa
frys for his sins.  All neat and tidy and throughly republican.

Dan King
From: cubsfan@cultnet.ch (wrobel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Republican Values
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 19:35:40 GMT
Organization: CULTNET Communication Systems for Art & Science

The abortion debate (war, really) has succeeded in involving the general 
populace beyond the ultra-conservative Republicans, therefore it has 
remained the "hook" with which to grab votes.  Unfortunately, it is only 
one of the many planks of the Republican platform which ALL lead to one 
inevitable outcome - a more ignorant voting public.

Outlawing abortion will only force women to leave school and the work 
force, ending their education.  The same is true with their bashing of 
the "cultural elite" - they make education unpopular and celebrate the 
lowest of our country.  The taxes they have cut and will cut come mainly 
from educational areas and human services.  The "school choice" proposal 
is a new way to cripple public (and integrated) schools, and sending the 
best teachers into the private sector.

The net result of all of these would inevitably be a more ignorant 
public, easier to manipulate and distract with a little flag-waving.  
Governments are supposed to lift the people up, not keep them down. That 
is, governments that are not of by and for the wealthy aristocrats only.

.......................................................................
Internet: cubsfan@cultnet.ch
CULTNET (SWITZERLAND) E.V.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS FOR ART AND SCIENCE
.......................................................................
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: People Concerned Until Childbirth
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:48:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.213920.23421@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#                                ...  I also wish that you would 
# display the same compassion towards the children who are going 
# inside the clinic to be killed. 

I spent my morning defending a clinic in Redwood City, and every child
that *I* saw go inside the clinic seemed to be just as healthy when
they came back out as when they went in.

There are no children being killed in these women's health clinics.

Stop lying about it, Mr. Holtsinger.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Who is human?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.201313.12859@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Aug26.043532.3837@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi):
>>>
>>>Why? are not newborn babies human just as gays are?  
>>>
>> 	Not according to Patrick Buchanan, apparently.
>
>
>You animal.
>
>
>
>;-)

	OK, I'll bite; what the *hell* was that supposed to mean?
	I don't fancy myself being particularly dense, but this one went
right by me.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
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: Tue, 1 Sep 92 02:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.164330.21197@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@armstrong.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>
>>My idea of blatant stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine (right 
>>to life), and to hell with anyone who got conceived less than 9 months ago."
>
>Well my idea of blatent stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine
>(right to control my own body), and to hell with anyone with an extra
>X chromosome."  But since I am sure you are going to come back with 
>some response saying that is not the issue here at all, I am willing
>to make a deal with you Peter.  If I ever get pregnant, I won't get 
>an abortion, but for the ensuing 9 months you agree to have a person
>of my choice use your body as he or she see's fit.  Up to and including
>occupying certain portions of your body for extended durations, pumping
>random chemicals into your blood stream and/or forcing you to undergo
>minor surgery which may or may not have any lasting effects.  
>
>Do we have a deal?  Or do you really subscribe to the blatant stupidity
>I stated above?

I'll volunteer to be the "doer" to Peter's body.  If you'd like some of my
qualifications, see if you can find a post titled "You Asked For It!", where
I describe some of the slight correlations between fisting and giving birth.
--
=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 am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:57:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.192903.11114@ncsu.edu>, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <1992Aug31.170814.19570@wdl.loral.com> 
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# 
# > If I was going to make
# > a slippery-slope argument, I would have said that if the state can
# > prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds as a `compelling state
# > interest' to protect the life of human zygotes and embryos, then the
# > State can use the same `compelling interest' to dictate pregnant
# > women's diets, physical activities, even mental state all in the
# > interest of protecting her `unborn child.'
# 
# That very same argument has been used by some pro-aborts to 
# argue against abortion laws.  I'm glad you can recognize it 
# as a slippery-slope argument.

Yup.  And I'm not afraid to use it.  You may have noticed that I
haven't felt the need to do so yet.  The reason: a weak though
rational argument is *still* better than a raving psychotic
pseudo-argument.

<wink>

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:17:52 GMT

> = (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>>do you have special powers to do this or do you think
>>any male has the power to barter away the rights of all
>>females?

>No, only Harry Blackmun and the six justices whom he either
>conned or was in cahoots with back in '73.

"Conned".  He conned SIX JUSTICES?  My, Blackmun would be amused at
the power you give him due to your mindless hatred of him.

>They bartered away the rights of women vis-a-vis abortionists.

<*knock* *knock*>  HelLO!  McNyikos!! Anybody home?  

Exactly which rights have women LOST due to Roe v Wade?  Are you
lying through your teeth...AGAIN, Doug Jr.?

What a twit.

>[In all fairness it should be added that they maybe knew not what
>they were doing.]

In all fairness, you're out of your fucking mind.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.143920.4375@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>  On the subject of celibacy between married couples.  Why is it that 
>  we seem to think marriage is something less without sex?

Because marriage, for the most part, *IS* something less without sex.

Are you Christian, Mike?  The Bible specifically says that sex is one of the
bonding forces of marriage.  Most societies and religions will dissolve the
bonds of marriage if the marriage is not consummated.  Which means if the
married couple does not have sex.  In some societies the relatives even
required proof of sex (sometimes even involving eye witnesses to the
consummation) before the marriage was considered valid.

Not all people require sex to the same degree.  Some people don't require
it at all.  But sex is something that most people NEED.  Marriage is an
institution designed to legitimize this need.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

	Progress might have been all right once, but it 
	has gone on too long.

						- Ogden Nash
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:02:15 GMT
     <1992Aug27.193058.9512@noao.edu> <adams.714945730@spssig>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?

Probably from her first boyfriend.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion