HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:27:38 GMT

In <1bhrs9INNc9a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >
Ron and Bill: >>

>>>>Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
>
>>> What was forced upon you?
>
>>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>>perfectly fine option.
>
>Scuse, please.  How is this forced upon you?  I don't see you accepting
>this particular set of beliefs......

It's forced on me because I am a member of the society in which the
ruling was made.  The ruling clearly (IMO) considers abortion to be
an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and as a matter of
constitutional law, implies that this is a belief endorsed *by the
entire society*.  

>>>Irrational in the sense that you wish to force a belief and moral system
>>>on others through law. It hasn't worked in any society at anytime in
>>>the world, as it always leads to its downfall.
>
>>Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
>>choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't. 
>
>Scuse, please: how does Roe force upon others a set of values?  If it 
>*DID*, we probably wouldn't see so much discussion here.....

I think my response above answers this one, too (at least to my
satisfaction :-) ).

>>I don't see any difference.  All law endorses a value or set of values.
>
>Yeah, right.  Like driving on the right hand side exhibits an 
>internalization that left-handed people are really dangerous,  
>uh huh.

I know you don't agree with this, but the attorneys I know not
only concur with my comment, they indicate that it's acknowledged
in law school.  Any law students that would like to comment?

Bill 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:24:28 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>   "Mr Keegan made the accusation publicly,
->>   he should support it publicly."
->>     <1992Sep30.144053.14798@cs.yale.edu>
->>
->>    "I think you should support it publicly.  If you
->>    can't--or won't--perhaps you should consider
->>    retracting the accusation."
->>	<1992Sep30.010047.7477@cs.yale.edu>
->>
->>do you still stand by these statements, mr. rescorla?
->Yes. If CJ has not retracted the claim that you asked for support
->from the list, she should. 

thank you for admitting this.

->Similarly, you have failed to show
->that she was lying. You should retract that claim.

nonsense. cj admitted she lied about suzanne lucia.
the only issue remaining is her long-awaited retraction
which cj offered to post but did not.

->>->What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
->>->to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing, seeing as you had
->>->admitted it, which means that your claim that she was LYING
->>->is ludicrous.
->>
->>no, it was not reasonable for her to believe i had made
->>such a mailing. her false accusation was posted prior to
->>the private email which she posted to support her
->>original allegation.
->Nonsense.
->You sent a piece of mail to the list with the header "please post
->your comments." CJ, rightly or wrongly, interpreted that as
->an appeal for help. The fact that you AGREED with her in email
->shows quite clearly that it WAS reasonable for her to interpret
->your mail to the list in that fashion. It is insane to maintain
->otherwise.

i realize how difficult this must be for you. you have
done yeoman's work trying to defend cj. it's over. cj
even lied about people questioning her claim when it
was first made. if it had been a honest error, as you
suggest, the facts of the matter have long been clear
with no "correction." there was no honesty involved,
eric, just dishonesty.

as you recently wrote:

"Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the
credentials of he who propounds them."
<1992Sep30.163849.15975@cs.yale.edu>

i think your arguments in defense of cj's honesty have
failed.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:34:48 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <26300@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
>   (Ron Bense) writes: >

>>What was forced on you?

>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>perfectly fine option.

Sorry, they were not. You are free to believe that abortion is not correct.
You are not free to prevent others from thinking it is.

>Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
>choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't.

In many cases it does, unless it interferes with anothers individual
choice. Then it must be weighed which, if either, are for the greater
good.

>>Granted, it may be my opinion, but one that is more difficult to refute
>>than the first one.

>I don't see any difference.  All law endorses a value or set of values.

But one law allows for many sets of values, while the other limits
choice to a single set of values. That you are incapable of seeing this
explains why you are against pro-choice beliefs, which allow for many
sets of values which you only see as a single set of values different
from your own, instead of yours being a subset of those endorsed.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:37:05 GMT

In article <kwpz+-b@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>In article <_-pz9z@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>> ...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
>>> so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.
>>>
>>> Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
>>> within your body?
>
>>The debate becomes even easier when the pro-aborts such as yourself 
>>turn the woman into a mere physical container.  
>
>Holtsinger, I'd be absolutely fascinated to read your explanation 
>of how I'm doing that.  Can you perhaps provide me with one?

Doug chose not to answer, but I'll take a shot...

Your question "Are these ... folk ... residing within your body?" implies, by 
picking out exclusively this one aspect, that mere "body residence" is the 
only aspect of a woman's pregnancy that is pertinent to the abortion issue. 
If true, this does in fact reduce the woman to a mere physical container.

I'll also add an Adrienne-esque "invisible woman" charge, since there was
no mention of women or femininity or femaleness in your leading question.

How does the defendant plead to the two charges? (I know how much you _love_ 
the courtroom images, Cathi).

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:47:43 GMT

> = varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	[...]  - my dictionary give the definition of murder as
> "the killing of one human being by another". Given that a fetus is a human
> being, and so is the mother, abortion is murder (or not depending on
> what dictionary you use, and which definition you prescribe to). 

Bravo-bravo!  What a clever smoke & mirrors trick with semantics.
You don't demonstrate or argue anything, you merely play with the
meanings of words and ("depending on what dictionary you use")  ...
TA-DA: "abortion is murder"!!!  But if we trivialize the notion 
of "murder", will we invent a new word to takes it's place?

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42395 talk.politics.guns:22090 alt.conspiracy:11243 talk.bizarre:33997
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:20:59 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: leviathan.ce.utk.edu

In article <grendel.719003246@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

/>In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (
William Crosmun) writes:>
/>>In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray 
Fischer) writes:
/>>>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
/>>>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
/>>stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush 
/>>gotten us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-
/>>Herzegovina. 
>You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>wants to reduce troops in Europe.

     Clinton's said both.  It's a cute political skill.  People accept 
whichever half they want to believe and either don't hear or ignore the
other half.  Politicians have been relying on this for years.
     Remember, just because the three bozos said one thing at the debates 
doesn't mean they haven't said just the opposite prior to the debates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:43:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.145154.4804@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.064548.23641@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwellian
>>"sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibility??
>This begs the question that protected sex followed by abortion as a backup
>procedure is irresponsible behavior. I do not believe this to be the case.
>If you are going to assert that it is, you should argue for it it.
>
>-Ekr

What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
an abortion.

Simon
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Summary: This is why, Dean
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:57:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.135348.12154@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
#From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
#Message-ID: <1asimvINNj53@fido.asd.sgi.com>
#
#In article <1992Oct5.190140.19923@acd4.acd.com>, 
#   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes: 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
#### What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
#### about a dead young woman?  
## 
### Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
### crusade.  
##
## Malicious?  You're despicable.  
#
#Malicious.  I had the opportunity to see them first hand at ISU
#last year.  Malicious.  Waging a campaign of hostility and bit-
#terness against pro-lifers because of existing parental consent
#laws is sadly misguided.  And these people were malicious.

Who supports parental involvement laws, Overpeck?  Who
lobbies their legislators to introduce them and vote
for them?  Who spreads misinformation about the legality
of piercing a minor's ears and draws analogies to abortion
in an attempt to sway public opinion?

The Bells are trying to prevent the passage of such laws
in states that don't already have them.  People like you
are trying to put more young women at risk.

Who is malicious, Overpeck?

## This family lost their daughter because of a parental consent 
## law.  
#
#Right.  And when my son was nearly killed by an automobile at 
#age 7, it was those awful traffic laws that did it.  It had
#nothing to do with the fact that we should have been watching
#him more closely.

You're not just despicable, you're stupid.

The two cases are not remotely comparable.  

## They were devastated, and they don't want other parents to 
## suffer the way they did.  They campaign against the law that 
## killed their daughter, and you call them malicious.  You dis-
## agree, so you dismiss their work as "political expediency".  
#
#Sorry, CJ.  I was there.  I heard them.  There were (perhaps)
#five pro-lifers in a room of ~200, sitting quietly in the back.  
#We made no noise, we made no rude gestures, we made no faces.  
#We just sat there listening.  But someone apparently identified 
#us to Karen Bell who, for at least five minutes, treated us to 
#a hateful discourse that blamed *us* for her daughter's death.

I don't think that you know what "mailicious" means.

I blame you for their daughter's death.  I blame you for
the deaths of every woman in this country who dies trying
to self-abort or through the offices of a butcher.

## You know no compassion.
#
#And apparently you know no Bells.  But I know malice when I 
#see it.

I have met Bill and Karen Bell.  I know grief and anger when
I see it.  

## Fuck off & die, Overpeck.
#
#Hmm.  I guess your objections to needless deaths don't extend
#to men, huh?

I see a remark made to one man, not to all men, Overpeck.  You
overestimate your importance.  

I agree with CJ.

Susan
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Summary: There's no hyphen in ACT UP
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Graham won't be answering, of course.

I do wonder where this article was printed.  I'd be surprised
if it was in the FFL newsletter - they claim to subscribe to
the "seamless web" philosophy, so they'd look pretty strange
singing the praises of Bob Casey.

I agree with Ron, though.  Why do so many people think that
the right to free speech guarantees that people listen to
you?

(Chaney's call to silence (or DESTROY) ACT UP was typical.
I don't think he realizes the contradiction.)

Susan
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which tommy outlines the inherent misogyny of pro-life.
Keywords: Right from the horse's mouth.
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:51:25 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <31022@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>I really admire people who decide that the burden someone else must
>bear is `reasonable.'  

Don't you condone taxation?
And don't you condone fixing levels of taxation, rather then letting people
decide for themselves how much they will give in taxes?

>Discrimination against women can reasonably be interpreted to be a symptom of 
>misogyny.  

True only if the discrimination is carried out because of hatred of women.
Misogyny is hatred of women.  Discrimination in itself is not hatred.

My views - if enacted in law - would discriminate against women as an 
unfortunate (sic) side-effect of discriminating *for* foetuses.

There is no misogyny.

>The fact that it is a fetish
>to protect fetuses and that the anti-choicers don't want to force
>fathers to donate blood, organs, or tissue to save living children
>further demonstrates the inherent misogyny of the forced-birth camp.

Again, misogyny is hatred of women.
You have no evidence that I possess such hatred - and in fact you could have
none, since I don't hate women.

>>Such treatment is discriminatory.

>Yes it is.  And it is directed solely against women.  Hence, it is
>misogynistic.  

Not so, your conclusion does not follow.  I bear no ill will against women.
For all you know I may be holding the view that forcing women to carry
to term is a noble service I do for them.  Misogyny is hatred of women.

I do not hate women.

tk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:15:41 GMT

From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
> 
> Appearing, maybe, but I think Occam's Razor cuts the other way.  I'm
> told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
> by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
> he shared much with the rest of mankind.

The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including death,
with the rest of mankind.

Sheesh.

S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:16:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.000627.958@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.225408.1789@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Strange how those who capitalize excessively regularly get "schoolmarm"ed to 
>>death, but nary a word of criticism is heard of those whose posts suffer from 
>>a chronic LACK of capitalization...
>I don't usually think that highly of the Jargon file, but I think it's
>right this time:
>>One of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS `LOUD', and this
>>becomes such an ingrained synesthetic reflex that a person who goes to
>>caps-lock while in {talk mode} may be asked to "stop shouting, please,
>>you're hurting my ears!".
>
>Loud is annoying in a very different(and IMNSFHO more intrusive)
>way than failing to use caps.

In a way, I suppose. But in a slightly more subtle way, all-lowercase tends
to make posts just look like CRT wallpaper after a while. One finds oneself
eventually wanting to grab the perpetrator by the throat, and scream DON'T 
JUST MUMBLE AND DROOL ON MY SCREEN, YOU DWEEB -- **SAY** SOMETHING!!!!

Then again, maybe it's just me... :-)

								- Kevin
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:53:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct13.192711.13925@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.
>The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
>seems to offend people.

It doesn't offend me. The mere fact of brain activity does not
mean that consciousness is present.  However, I do not think that the
inverse is true.

>Simon

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:57:08 GMT

In article <Bvrz74.7yt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.163134.17826@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>
>	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
>bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
>Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
>RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.
>
>	Just because you do not see fit to respect the rights of others
>to live does not mean that I have to agree with you. Don't like my
>choice of words? Don't like me calling a fetus a child, and calling
>abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??
>
>		Bruce


No guts to post this on soc.women, soc.feminism and alt.feminism eh?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:44:07 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.023143.20915@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
[...] 
> Again, this is truth by blatant assertion. You have admitted that the
> sperm/egg is human. Now, is it or is it not alive?

Well, considering a biological standpoint:  Do you remember the 7 or so
characteristics of living things?  I don't, but I know one of them
is being able to reproduce, and a sperm can't get together with another
sperm to make offspring sperm, so I would assume that sperm/eggs are not
classified as living things.  Then again, under these constraints, neither
is a zygote.  Then AGAIN, I bet these characteristics are able to be
fulfilled at any life stage (otherwise kids would be non-living things too),
so therefore, the zygote may be termed a living thing, and the gametes
have potential to be living things (being the chance of any given gamete
to become a zygote is quite small, I think it's safe to only grant
gametes potential life).

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh