HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Scary Things for Halloween....
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:33:57 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <73647@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>However, is not the
>social ramification that one had sex outside of wedlock, not that
>one had the child?  The pregancy is a result of the actions not the
>cause of it.  I beleive the disgrace is that it is understood that 
>your family didn't teach you how to control you body.

So why do we have such nice words as "bitch" and "bastard" to define the 
innocent result (not the cause) of these actions?  Someone has taught 
people to hate not only sinners but the results of their sin in this case.  
I don't think it was atheists who promoted this attitude.

>Your implication
>of getting rid of the guilt through a secrect abortion implies that
>people across the board recognize the Christian moral standards as
>being the right standard and they realize they fall short of them.

One could also say that people who try to hide their ethnicity through 
name changes, etc., are implying that bigotry is the right standard.

Nope. Sorry.  Reacting to societal pressures does not mean the majority is 
automatically right.

>One's action or lack thereof does not merit acceptance into the Kingdom.
>It is by faith/trust/belief that one gets in.  

So the one year-old who dies of crib-death doesn't enter the Kingdom, 
because they never became old enough to truly believe?  This seems 
very unfair.




-- 
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,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity post: 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:35:50 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->In article <kph1n_l@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
->>Then you'll be happy to post examples of this, won't you?  Surely
->>you wouldn't, like Darcy, make an assertion you can't support.
->>My my, it WAS amusing to see Darcy try and redefine "harassment"
->>to mean "Asking abortion-related questions in a newsgroup dedicated
->>to abortion."

->Then you'll be happy to post examples where I characterized Keegan's
->posts as "harrassment", won't you? 

is your short-term memory failing, kebbie?

 "Of the pro-choice folks that Keegan has started
  harrassing BECAUSE OF THEIR ABORTION POSITION, Doug
  is correct that there is a much higher percentage
  of females than males."
      <1992Nov2.004713.27684@rotag.mi.org>


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47313 alt.abortion.inequity:4978 misc.legal:19697 soc.men:18934
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,soc.men,alt.dads-righ
Subject: Re: Fallacy: Roe V. Wade for
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:44:29 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

> 
> BK> Whoa! Steve. Holy Cow.

Sorry, fast fingers and a missed 's' --should have just said 'Will.'
Mucho apologencia.

> BK> I don't believe FREE advocates for fathers who wish to abdicate their
> BK> paternal responsibilities. As a matter of fact, it's just the other
> BK> way 'round. FREE exists for *involvement* of fathers with their kids.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> My apologies if I misquoted our position (Now am I EVER embarassed!).  Howeve
> I know that while FREE does indeed exist for involvement with their kids, I h
> thought that they also advocate the right not to be forced into parenthood.
> 
> (I guess that I ought to have read the policy files when I joined, eh?!  :-) 
> 
> I realise that this is not your personal position, but I had thought that the
> organisation as a whole, advocates not only involvement in parenthood, but th
> *choice* to freely become a father.

The choice to BECOME a Dad, yes. But I think the support for making a child
and then having nothing to do with it is somewhat limited at the moment. If
it IS true that FREE supports a man's desires to opt out of a pregnancy he
helped to create, the *I* should have read the policy manual a little closer.
(-:

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Who are the enemies to women?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date:  9 Nov 92 23:40:29 GMT

In <92306.234239ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Oct27.211834.23009@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>>In article <92299.121706ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>
>>>>> Mr. Overpeck lobbies for the removal of a woman's right to
>>>>> make decisions over her body.  I personally don't care if he
>>>>> is given sainthood tomorrow or takes in stray kittens.  To
>>>>> me he is an enemy to women, as are all like him who attempt
>>>>> to make women pawns in their own morality play.
>>
>>>> What about the vast majority of women who support restrictions
>>>> on abortion?  Are they "enemies to women"?
>>
>>> I take it Mr. Holtsinger you missed the word "all".
>>
>>You didn't answer the question, Ms. Birmingham.  Are the
>>women in the United States who support restrictions on
>>abortion "enemies" to women?
>>
>>> I do not see that word as gender specific.
>>
>>Neither do I, but that doesn't answer my question.

>I did answer the question Mr. Holtsinger.

You responded to the question with a put-down. [Not as nasty as the ones
Ms. Garvin posts, but a put-down nothetheless.] You did not answer it.

>This isn't harassment is it?

Not by normal standards, until you answer the question.  [BTW you 
haven't answered
a lot of *my* questions.  I hope you don't take this little reminder of
that fact as harassment.]

Peter Nyikos
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Date: 5 Nov 1992 09:29:30 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov4.214059.15172@ncsu.edu: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
:In article <1d96o7INN1ta@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> 
:frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
:
:> I'm NOT arguing that this should affect the woman's right to abort.  I think
:> that EVEN if the foetus is viewed as a person then the woman has a right to
:> remove it from her body.  I also think that even though this implies in the
:> abstract that a viable foetus should not be killed during removal,
:> legislation to that effect doesn't make any sense, since we are talking about
:> third-tri abortions performed in the main to save the woman's life.  
:
:There are several thousand abortions performed after the 21st week
:of pregnancy; many of these children are killed because they are
:simply retarded or handicapped.  It makes no sense to allow these
:children to be killed before birth, but not after birth. 

Evidence?

:And, while a non-viable child will die if the child is simply
:removed from the womnb, it does not follow that a person should
:have the right to kill them.  The right to kill does not logically
:follow from the right to refuse bodily support.  I don't have 
:the right to kill a dying person.

Yes you do.  Have you given blood today?

:Doug Holtsinger


-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Keegan's harassment of women
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:12:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <jqh1b#m@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Yes, but we don't know how many women have chosen not to
>> contribute to the newsgroup because of their reluctance
>> to face Keegan's harassment. 

> Hey, wait!  Maybe THIS is where Overpeck got the idea that women
> on this newsgroup are "opressed victims".
>
> Maybe Holtsinger told him!

I never said that women on this newsgroup are oppressed victims.
I said that we don't know how many women have chosen not to
contribute to the newsgroup because of their reluctance to
face Keegan's harassment. 

>                -rocker


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:12:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.184440.6220@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> [Cochran's restriction, criticized]
>
>Secondly, Cathi Cook has recently expressed a disdain for "feelgood" 
>legislation, which if I recall, she defined as legislation which addresses
>problems not actually known to exist at the time of enactment. 

I _knew_ I had her exact definition quoted somewhere! Here it is, belatedly:

Cathi> Legislation that sounds really neat, but addresses a problem that
Cathi> has not been shown to exist.  I think it's a reallyreallyreally Bad
Cathi> Idea to make laws about things that don't happen.
Cathi> 
Cathi> Example: We all agree people shouldn't inject peanut butter into
Cathi> their veins.  We outlaw it, congratulating ourselves for preventing
Cathi> all those poor crazy people from injecting peanut butter into their
Cathi> veins.  Five years later, we discover that peanut oil injections
Cathi> fight breast cancer.  But wait!......
Cathi> 
Cathi> What the hell is the point of passing this sort of law?

What the hell is the point of passing Cochran's restriction?

								- Kevin
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:49:14 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.212442.3681@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>:But both frogs and cancerous growths both have unique DNA.  If you
>>:define personhood solely on genetics, how can you exclude either of
>>:these?
>>
>>Are they human?  People are human, and have unique DNA.
>
>Two errors.
>
>1) People do not necessarily have unique DNA (e.g., twins).

O.K., human DNA then?  Or maybe nothing happens at conception at all, in
which case what's the problem?

>2) This begs the question: what is human DNA?  And don't answer by
>   saying that human DNA is found in humans, since that's just a
>   circular definition.

You should ask a genetics expert, not an agnostic computer security expert :-)

Can scientists tell a human conceptus from a basketball or not?  If not, what
are they doing with the taxpayer's money?  Maybe we give that money to the
churches instead - after all some of those parade their beliefs as objective
fact too.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FACTS wanted
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:06:32 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Here are some sources.

"Family Planning Perspectives" is a periodical published by
the Alan Guttmacher Institute.  It will generally have
up to date figures on the socioeconomic characteristics
of women who have induced abortions.

The following books can provide some historical perspective.
The book on Great Britain has better data on deaths from
illegal abortion than are available for the U.S.  "Abortion
in Nineteenth America" provides some contemporaneous
estimates of the numbers of abortions then.

Susan


TITLE: Abortion and woman's choice : the state, sexuality, and
reproductive freedom
AUTHOR: Petchesky, Rosalind P.EDITION:Rev. ed.
PUBLISHED: Boston : Northeastern University Press, c1990.

TITLE: Abortion : the clash of absolutes
AUTHOR: Tribe, Laurence H.
PUBLISHED: New York : Norton, 1990.

TITLE:  Abortion on demand without apology : a radical history for
the 1990s
AUTHOR:  Baehr, Ninia.        
PUBLISHED: Boston, MA : South End Press, c1990.                   
         
TITLE:  Abortion in America : the origins and evolutions of
national policy, 1800-1900                      
AUTHOR:  Mohr, James C.                 
PUBLISHED: New York : Oxford University Press, 1978.              
 
TITLE:  Abortion in nineteenth century America.                   
PUBLISHED: New York, Arno Press, 1974.                       

TITLE:  The case for legalized abortion now       
AUTHOR:  Guttmacher, Alan Frank, 1898-  
PUBLISHED:  Berkeley, Calif., Diablo Press [1967]                 

TITLE:  Criminal abortion; a study in medical sociology
AUTHOR:  Bates, Jerome E.             
PUBLISHED:  Springfield, Ill., Thomas [1964] 

TITLE: I performed abortions.                         
AUTHOR:  Dares Richard. 
PUBLISHED:  New York, Carlton Press [1963] 


TITLE:  Abortion in the United States; a conference sponsored by
the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, inc. at Arden House
and the New York Academy of Medicine.     
AUTHOR:  Planned Parenthood Federation of America.                
PUBLISHED: [New York] Hoeber-Harper [1958]                        
 
TITLE: Abortion, medicine, and the law 
PUBLISHED:  New York : Facts on File, c1992

TITLE: Abortion in England, 1900-1967                             
AUTHOR:  Brookes, Barbara L. (Barbara Lesley)
PUBLISHED: London ; New York : Croom Helm, c1988.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: compromise
Summary: Thanks, Chris
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:15:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bx9n9K.Mu2.2
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


The Reverend Holtsinger has a problem with telling the truth about
Roe v. Wade.  He hopes to fool newcomers by spouting his lies
and setting followups to talk.abortion so that the people in
other groups won't see the refutations.  Chris Lyman has recently
reposted the relevant passage from Roe.  I'll give it broader
play here - the emphasis was added by Chris.

	On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
	argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
	terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
	whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
	Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all
	in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
	support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
	unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy
	also  acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by
	that right is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly
	assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining
	medical standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT
	IN PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
	COMPELLING TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE
	ABORTION DECISION.  THE PRIVACY RIGHT INVOLVED, THEREFORE, CANNOT
	BE SAID TO BE ABSOLUTE.  In fact, it is not clear to us that the
	claim asserted by some *amici* that one has an unlimited right to
	do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the
	right of privacy previously articulated in the  Court's decisions.
	The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind
	in the past. [citations omitted]"


Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: *yet another of darcy's unsupported allegations, which he calls a "fact"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:11:42 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->The fact remains, however, that Keegie, one of our resident net.label.cops,
->would disqualify someone from the label "pro-choice" merely because of 
->differences between their view on third-trimester abortions and his own. 

post proof of your statement that i "would disqualify
someone from the label of 'pro-choice' merely because
of differences between their view on third-trimester
abortions and his [my] own."

otherwise, people might think that this is just another
of your lies.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THANK GOD HE'S SLICK!
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:24:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov8.023933.20994@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1ddoo4INN1uh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
> 
> > Because Americans
> > generally believe that this issue MUST be decided by the woman, a
> > man has been elected that will insure that my family is safe from
> > you bastards.  
> 
> Polls show that the vast majority of women support restrictions
> on abortion.  Are they all "bastards", Kaufman?  

Define "restrictions" Reverend.  Until you do so, and until
you provide the questions used in the polls, your statement
is as meaningless as most of your postings.  Like your
baloney about Roe v Wade ensuring unrestricted access to abortion
throughout pregnancy.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.child-support
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:48:38 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <6926@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.063039.4395@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
> >I welcome your commitment but what I disagree with is people of the 
> >anti-abortion crowd trying to IMPOSE their ideals on others against their
> >will.  That's the whole point of "pro-choice"; the individual involved
> >get to make their own choice.  You'd choose to remain pregnant, other
> >men wouldn't.  Each individual choses.
> 
> Yep, that's the theory all right.  
> 
> But try to support abortion alternatives (abstinence, parenthood,
> adoption), and see how much support you get from the "pro-choice"
> crowd. If you're lucky they'll ignore you -- more likely they'll try
> every legal means to shut you down, since, by supporting other choices,
> you are automatically trying to IMPOSE ideals.

I would be very interested in seeing you elaborate on this
claim.  It is my experience that when someone makes this claim,
they are actually refering to attempts to have the state
force abortion providers to provide these other options.
The other area in which this claim is made is with regard to
falsely labeled organizations which try to mislead women
into thinking that all the options are available there, then
take the women who come in and discuss only a limited
set of options.  The problem with the latter is that they
are false advertisers, not that they provide alternatives.
The problem with the former is that it is generally an
attempt to make the abortion option harder to obtain and
not merely make an offer of an alternative.

Anyway, if you'd care to elaborate I would like to hear about
it.

Dean Kaflowitz

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47543 talk.politics.misc:59427 alt.politics.elections:23388
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:04:40 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org
Keywords: slavery, pro-life

In article <1992Nov10.001922.28928@genie.slhs.udel.edu> tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
...
>
>then again, i also liked the way they made a point of mentioning that
>for the first time in history there were TWO women running for the
>senate in california, when there were actually three--Barbara Boxer,
>Diane Feinstein, and June Genis. guess who they didn't think was worth
>mentioning :-(

First let me say that I think that June is a capable, competent, dedicated
person. I disagree with her onm some things mostly the environment. So 
this is not a put down of her. It is rather a suggestion to the Libertarians
who think they are being treated unfairly.

The media judges who are serious candidates by how much money they raise.
Many people are seriously influenced by the advertizing that a candidate
does. If one doesn't raise a lot of money they are not going to be able to
advertize. In the early part of a campaign much of the effort goes into 
fundraising. With the current system of elections it takes a lot of money
to get elected. I think that Brabara Boxer spent about $9million and 
Bruce Hershenshon spent around $11million. I could be off in these numbers
a bit. 

To point out the power of advertizing let me remind you of status of
the Boxer, Herschenson in the weeks before the election. A few weeks
before Boxer was ahead by double digit numbers. Bruce started TV ads 
over a week before Barbara did. He could afford to. He had more money.
The race tighened so much that it was almost even. Barbara started 
advertizing. The race stabilized, perhaps even opened up a bit.
Barbara Boxer won.

I will tell you why they didn't think June was worth mentioning. Again
this is not a criticism of June. It is a criticism of the Libertarian
party. I don't know how much money June raised, but I suspect that it
was one or two orders of magnitude less than Boxer/Hershcenson. The media
knows that, with the current election system, one doesn't stand a chance
of getting elected unless one raises money like the DEms and the Reps. do.
The vast majority of the people in this contry don't really care about 3rd
parties. They don't care about candidates that don't have a chance of 
getting elected. 

So if you want Libertarians to get elected, either change the election 
system so money is not all important, or get lots of money to the 
Libertarian candidates. I donated to June's campaign. I also did
to Boxer's.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer


>-- 
>tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
>tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
>
>"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."






Newsgroups: talk.abortion