HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jccompto@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES C COMPTON)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh makes my life awful! 
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:09:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.005309.9356@ncsu.edu>, delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu (DERRELL EMERY LAROCQUE) writes:
|> 
|>    I have a gf with fundamentalist parents who treat Rush Limbaugh as though
|>  he has the answers to life's problems. Well, I am here to say that because
|>  of this, I will have to fight in order to marry her. Has it come to the point
|>  in this country where conservative ideas like the ones he presents are so
                          --------------------------------------------
|>  much a part of the United States now, that two people in love can't even
|>  marry for fear of outright attack like this? 

No, look around. Homosexual marriages and lots of other stuff is going on.


|>                                               I fear for our happiness.

Having her parents concent would certainly be a plus; but, if her parents concent
(or the lack of it) would ruin your marriage then the question is, "Should you 
get married?"  I am not trying to be funny or iritating.  Think about it.


|>  I don't want her to choose between keeping her family or keeping me.

IMHO she won't lose her family if she keeps you.


|>  I hate liberals (I am moderate), but even moderates aren't safe from Rush
|>  Limbaugh!! Can someone PLEASE give me some ideas???

Safe from Rush?  He is only stating what he believes. It IS a free country. 
Unless Rush has advised her parents directly in this matter 
he hasn't done anything to you.

|> -- 
|> delarocq@eos.ncsu.edu

	-Chris

PS If you wish to reply so that I'll see it make sure you do it in email.
   Because of the volume of posts to this sub, my frequency of reading
   it, and the number of messages kept on my server I am likely to miss 
   the follow up.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 21 Nov 1992 15:38:24 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: con't:The Silent Holocaust
 <kf3dole00iUz82Mv0C@andrew.cmu.edu>

In article <kf3dole00iUz82Mv0C@andrew.cmu.edu>, Alison Rebecca Colman
<ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:

>In addition, please refrain from comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It
>is most highly offensive to some, including myself, and makes you look
>extremely ignorant and calloused; some would even go so far as to call
>you anti-Semitic.

Hey,if you think that what Keira wrote is bad,you should see what some of the
more Neanderthal RTLers in Chicago have done. They convinced the CTA (our,uh,
alleged "rapid transit" service) to put up ads on buses and trains showing a
swastika (as well as some other Nazi-era symbol which I can't recall) next to
a pro-choice placard. The incredibly obvious (to the point of stupidity) con-
clusion that they wanted everyone to draw,of course,is that pro-choicers are
the moral equivalent of Nazis. Needless to say,the Jewish community wasn't
real pleased about this. I haven't seen any of these ads on the buses and
trains I've taken,so there's the chance that the CTA rescinded their decision.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:08:30 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
->>How very sad for American women.  However this has nothing
->>to do with the fact that the above is my position, one
->>shared not only by the majority of Canadians but is the
->>current legal situation re abortion in this country and you,
->>old chap, have labeled this position as radically extreme.

->I have never labelled the majority of Canadians "radically extreme", Ms.
->Birmingham. 

you're lying again kevin. ms birmingham has repeatedly
pointed out to you that her position is shared by the
majority canadians. she has even offered statistics to
document this fact. despite that, you have repeatedly
labeled her position as radically extreme. in doing so,
you have labeled the position of the majority of
canadians as radically extreme.

[...]

->>Kebbie dear, as Ms. Garvin pointed out you had "been
->>consistently criticized" for arguing the need for
->>restrictions with several people, 

->Red herring. The part of her sentence that you quote was true, but the other 
->part -- the "[Darcy has been ...] arguing for restrictions" part -- was a 
->blatant falsehood. 

you're lying again kevin. proof of your argument for
restrictions is appended to this post,

->>Do you think a common goal should be to jail women?

->I will not even dignify such a ridiculous, loaded question with a 
->substantive answer.

scared, eh?

don't you get at all embarassed when you keep getting
caught lying?

=========proof of kevin's argument for abortion
restrictions================


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: What the Constitution says and means...
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:03:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ball State University

> I wouldn't go off claiming that the constitution says things it doesn't.
> The constitution and its 27 amendments never mention the word
> abortion or make any references to it.  Then again, this hasn't stopped
> the supreme court from making a fool of itself in the 60's, when the
> supreme court ruled that the consitution allowed 18 year olds the right
> to vote.  The amendment to do that came _after_ that decision.  If
> you read the constitution, it never mentions the age 18 at all. :)

The Constitution doesn't set up guidelines for voting, except limiting
restrictions.  The power to set voting guidelines is a state power as
per 10th Amendment.  What the Constitution does say is that certain people
can't be denied the right to vote, such as minorities, women, and anyone
18 or over.  Numerous states allowed people to vote before the Constitution
said so.  For example, I believe women had the right to vote in Wyoming
as early as 1900.

> People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
> the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
> Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
> last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
> it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
> real life.

Strict constructionist vs. loose constructionist... This debate has been 
going on for over 200 years.  The Constituion doesn't state that the SC has
the right to Judicial Review, but the SC said it implied it.  The 
Constitution doesn't state that Presidents have the power to acquire land,
but many did.  The Constitution doesn't provide for an Air Force, but there
is one.  Go figure...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Peter says Doug is pro-choice
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:13:08 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
->nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->> Here's another such exhibit.  I have noticed, BTW, that Doug is no
->> less pro-choice than Elizabeth Bartley, possibly more since Keegan has
->> not noticed him come out in favor of punishing women who get illegal
->> (post-myelination for Elizabeth, post-viability for Doug) abortions.

->Please justify this assertion, Peter.  I await your statement
->of Doug'd position on abortion legislation, Elizabeth's
->position, and a definition of pro-choice.  These should
->prove adequate for you to justify your statement.

petey honey will have to justify his own claims. i do
have some data which might make things clearer.

dodie has no position on legislation.

   'I take no stand on specific legislation.'
   <1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

ms. bartley not only wants to ban some abortions; she
wants to imprison the women who have the abortions she
wants to ban.

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

imo, wanting legislation to ban some abortions reflects
an anti-choice stance. that seems fairly clear to me. 

i don't know if dodie was telling the truth when he made
his statement. he may, in fact, have contradicted the
statement i reproduced here in another post.

it seems to me that recognizing an anti-choice stance
is relevant. i don't think it's all that important to
assign more or less anti-choice attributes to it.

Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Adoption is an answer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:45:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.162934.9510@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu 
(JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

}Please... Not all of us do these things I am very much Pro-Life but I
}will Not resort to violence to get my views accepted.

}Add a punch for me too will ya.

Tee hee.  In the same article, too.

}BTW- The Purpose of this group is not about abortion but adoption.

Is that why your follow-up is crossposted?  Sheeeee...
 


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:28:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32688@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.153750.9326@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>In <32628@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>
>>>A person has a right to refuse
>>>to have their bodies used for purposes to which they do not consent.
>>
>>Where does this principle come from?  Did anyone assert it before the
>>modern debate over abortion began in the 1960s?  Why should anyone
>>accept it?

>Are you saying that you do not accept it?

Obviously I don't accept it as something that makes it wrong to pass
laws forbidding abortion.  It's often presented as a trump card in the
abortion debate.  I would like to see more discussion why it should be
treated that way.

>The fact that a right is conditional, such as it
>is subject to the protection of the rights of others from public
>health dangers and crime, does not negate the right or even mean that
>it is not fundamental.

True enough.  Asserting that a right exists doesn't show that it
should prevail in a particular situation because rights may be
conditional.  To determine whether a right should prevail requires
consideration of its nature and source and of the other considerations
involved.  So what are the history, nature and source of the right you
assert?  Why does it override protection of the z/e/f? 

Many people believe it can be determined that there is a right to
choose abortion without reference to the nature or value of the z/e/f.
That puzzles me, because I agree with you that rights are
conditional.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:15:54 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>
>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>
>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
                     ^^^^
>
>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
                                           ^^^^^^^
>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).

You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
until *after* the child is born.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:31:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.003915.23933@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Jay Wise from Trinity College writes:
>>Tax-paying pacifists are still forced to contribute funds towards, say,
>>B-1 bombers;
>So. That is a matter of national defense.  It is not a case
>of murder, but rather self defense. Do you not know that killing
>in self defense is not murder?
Neither is abortion, sir. Check Roe v. Wade.
I know many people who think that killing Iraqi civilians in order
to reimpose a Kuwaiti dictatorship is far more morally wrong than
killing fetuses. Why should your opinion be respected more than theirs?

>You mean "federally funded abortions are a matter of unhealth care."
>Neither the mother nor the unborn child gets healthier as a result
>of an abortion, especially the latter.   Health care?  Geez. Give
>me a break.
Abortion is about an order of magnitude safer than birth.
I can post stats if you like. (I've done so before, and I'd rather
not waste bandwidth on it if you'll take my word for it.)
-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: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 5
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:11:07 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32781@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>A drunk driver is not forced to donate tissue, blood, or organs to
>save the life of a victim of his bad judgment.

If the drunk driver were the only possible source of those things, the
victim would certainly die if the donation weren't made, and the
burden to the drunk driver would b commensurate with the burden to a
woman of carrying a pregnancy to term, would you say it would be in
principle unjust to force him to make the donation?  If so, why?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Running away with his tail between his legs.
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:10:03 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

#
>In article <1992Nov22.120346.21577@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>makes this stunning announcement:
>
>>I am unsubscribing from talk.abortion.  Anyone who wants to continue a
>>discussion with me can do so by email.
[...]
>>Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
>
>Unfortunately for us, Jim will be back.  His false promise of a speedy
>and permanent departure will only hold if he loses access to the net.
[...]

I hope he does come back.  He is evidently intelligent, seems to me to be a
reasonable person, albeit misguided, and I hazard a guess that he is also
politically involved.  While you may disagree with his views, this does not
excuse subjecting him to warrantless insults.  If this has driven the guy
away from the debate, and into the friendly cocoon of some active pro-life
orgnisation, that is nothing to be pleased about.  I know of at least one
other person whom this has happened to, from email conversations.  Perhaps
you might rethink your attitude.

>SJM
-- 
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
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Summary: Now...why can't Petey Honey think? 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:43:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.022728.18716@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <Bxvp6r.AB7@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>> all by myself -- you must be one hell of a wonderful guy to have such
>> contempt for your opponents that you believe all of us to be incapable of
>> reaching our own conclusions.
>
>Hell, Patrick, "Doctor" PetieHoney has contempt for those on
>both sides of the issue.  I said something nice about Bill
>Overpeck and "Doctor" PetieHoney asked how Bill had to "kowtow"
>to me for me to say something nice about Bill.  Never
>apologized to Bill for that one did our "Doctor."

You're right on that, but I figured I'd let the rope out and watch Petey
enthusiastically go hang himself again.

>I'm gonna have to call his university and see if he really is
>a professor there.  If he is, I'm gonna have to talk to my
>younger friends and acquaintances and see that they don't go there.
>The standards can't be very high if "Doctor" PetieHoney is
>on the faculty.

Now you know why my wife and I are just the least bit relieved that her
daughter will be continuing her post-high school education a bit closer to
home at SDSU (no, Adrienne, it's not *that* SDSU!).  I have to agree with
you, the standards at The USC can't be too exacting if PHoney's truly on the
faculty -- and I have to feel sorry for the taxpayers of South Carolina who
are being ripped off in a major way by the shenanigans going on at The
USC...

--PLH, almost glad he went through UH back when they were still nominally in
the education business...


--
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:55:32 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov17.162948.18306@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
  
>>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 

>No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

Truth by Blatant Assertion.

Dammit, Dan, you know better than that....

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion