HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 00:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.142920.1767@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
>   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >
>In article <4588@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com 
>   (David Favor) writes: >>
>
>>> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
>>>been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.  Surely
>>>they can wait a little longer while the pro-aborts continue to take the easy
>>>way out.

>> Have they considered a puppy?

>Your empathy is touching.

It is, isn't it?

>> I am so happy that your aunt and uncle wish misery on someone else so that
>> they can attain their version of happy. Personally, such an attitude doesn't
>> strike me as one desirable in parental units.

>How is it that you're able to infer the attitudes of people you've 
>never met or spoken with?  Such presumption seems incredibly judge-
>mental.

If they are busy complaining about others taking the 'easy way out' and
not bearing children for them, then I think it is very easy to infer 
their attitudes from their stated values.
Children are not a toy for adults. Even Dan Quayle agrees with me on this
one.
 
>> They are waiting for a blue eyed unhandicapped white child, preferably 
>> male.  Ask any social worker.

>Ask this one.  The most recent adoptive home study I conducted 
>involves a couple who are more than willing to consider a non-
>white, handicapped (especially hearing or speech impaired, as 
>the woman is a Speech and Language Pathologist) child.  Gender
>is irrelevant also.  Perhaps it is Nadja who should be checking
>with social workers.  Such families are not as rare as she has
>been led to believe.

My cousin is a social worker. She finds that many families have very
definite requirements on the sort of child they want. The usual were
listed in my earlier post. She has found that the people most able and
interested in taking handicapped children were usually people with training
in the socio-medical fields, or people who had someone with such a handicap
in their family or among their friends. She also says that at least 70-
90% of the people who express interest in adoption are not willing to
accept handicapped or other race children. This is more true for minorities
than it is for caucasians, BTW.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Operable Truth Question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:56:29 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] 
] Thanks for following up on that, Chris.
] 
] I'll remind people who don't know which case this is - this
] is the one in which the woman alleged that Dr. Hanson had
] four staff members hold her down on the table, gave her
] no anesthesia, threatened to have her committed, and 
] refused to stop the abortion.  It made a nice story for
] Nyikos - too bad it wasn't true.
] 
] I'll be waiting for Nyikos' reaction.
 
Susan,

are you suggesting that he told a blatant LIE,
or merely that this is no longer an Operable Truth?[1]

Which of course could be a more pleasant way of
addressing the habit of some who present data
that is not fully valid in an historical context;
but sounds sorta neat when presented....


ciao
drieux


[1] for the kiddies in the group, the phrase
is derived from the watergate hearings in
which certain propositonal structures were
presented by the defendants as not being
exactly perjury, merely that those truths
were no longer operable at this time. Alas
they did not mention if they were going to
be fixed in the next release of the Truth.




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:14:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <25756@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write
>> In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

>counterproductive term.  If you were around during the sixties, the

I was born in the sixties, so I obviously don't relate to this particular
line as someone who was actually there. I also didn't move to the US
until 1969, in the Houston area, where bra burning was a fairly rare
sight as far as I remember, as everyone was too busy being involved
in making money during the boom-time of that particular town.

>> you to wish women to be barefoot and pregnant, forever enslaved to the wants
>> of men. 

>Wow!  You know my inner sole Ron!  Name calling only detracts from your
>position, not mine.  The 'rest of my post' referred to my view on the fetus.
>"Barefoot and pregnant"????? To use and "old guard" abreviation, you
>must really take me for an MCP.

I have no clue what an MCP is. If it's an insult, I guess it kind of
lost its meaning. What I recall your post implicating was that the woman
be damned, have that fetus. (Maybe not worded quite so strongly, but
the implications were there all the same.) Other things seen between
the lines were that women should not have careers, as they are biologically
obligated to have children, therefore this conflicts with most "male"
careers. I won't always take you literally, Paul, I will look at what
you're saying, both in the words, and in between the lines. There was
a wealth of that in your post. I just pointed it out.

>> Oh! And as a last statement regarding your suggestion to go witness
>> a third-tri abortion, I'll do so as soon as you needlessly go witness
>> open-heart bypass surgery on a heavy, overweight smoker. Be sure to
>> let me know what you think of cigarettes and fatty foods after that.
>> I know my opinion won't change a bit, because unlike the pro-enslavement
>> crowd, I don't think anyone lightly gets a third-tri abortion.

>Yuck!  What are you trying to say?  I was only responding to what I felt was a
>matter-of-fact way in which the original poster referred to third trimenter
>abortions.

You mentioned going to see a third-tri abortion, indicating that this
would change my mind about abortion. Read the above again, and if you
still don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll clarify where ever
there is a muddled meaning. As for your sentiment, "Yuk!", I agree completely.

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.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:07:00 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep23.163347.22133@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>: >let those directly effected, particularly the unborn children that will
>: >actually have to confront the situation, come to their own conclusions.
>: 
>: I did, I asked if they minded, I got no reply which I took as consent.
>: "Let them speak up now, or forever hold their peace."
>
>What arrogant crap that is.
>
>Did you ask any 1-year old infants?  2-year olds?  4-year olds?
>Comatose people?  Sleeping people?  Mentally retarded people?
>Senile people?   

Bravo. Finally, someone nixes this stupid "consent" argument of the
pro-aborts.

I say we should write a general law that says that unless you get consent,
you cannot put an innocent life to death, in any fashion. If they didn't
give consent, tough. No killing. If they say no beforehand, whoever hastens
their death goes to prison for first degree murder. And if they can't give
consent, tough; the pro-aborts who seem to have a vampiristic craving for
killing the helpless (see pro-choice and pro-euthanasia argument.sludge
that oozes from their camp), will just starve psychologically. Let 'em go
watch Terminator. Whoops. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pro-life.

I think this will make it utterly impossible to kill anencephalic infants
or anyone else, to cut them up for parts, or anything else. It will
completely remove the power of someone to decide to outright take another
innocent human life, under penalty of first degree murder.

A simple, quick, easy and final piece of law. Really, can these
pro-deathers show us how it is that non-response from someone who can't
respond, means they are giving consent?

If they can show this, they have hence shown that newborns consent to being
killed, in the legal sense, because they cannot possibly give non-consent.

My law wins purely by means of Catch-22. :)


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: SATs as an insult (to Brian McBean & Peter Nyikos)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:42:30 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  <nyikos.717795214@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> It's the zanier ones, like the hang-gliding one and the Mirror, that seem
> to get more attention.

or like the ones suggesting that abortion clinics are bombing themselves
for insurance purposes.  (Despite court convictions for some of the
bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life".)

or like the ones suggesting that the people setting fires to clinics are
just *claiming* to be "pro-life" in the hopes of getting a lighter
sentence.  (Despite their being active in the anti-abortion movement
both before and after their convictions.)

or like the ones suggesting that doctors who perform abortions are more
likely to turn to child molestation.

or like the ones accusing Church leaders of having "long ago given up their
beliefs", despite admitting having *no knowledge" of their personal beliefs.

or like the ones accusing South Carolina doctors of covering up incidences
of incest, despite admitting having no knowledge that any such incidents
exit.

or like ... well, you get the idea.

You mean all that zany stuff was just your pulling our legs?  I've got
to admit, you had me fooled.  You're really one wild and crazy guy, Peter.

:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:31:52 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:
>>
>>>Rush Limbaugh is the only balance we have to Murphy Brown, and other
>>>conservative-bashing TV series. Rush is the only one who is so capable
>>>of catching the pro-aborts and the liberals when they make mistakes. 
>>
>>"pro-aborts"?  Don't be a git.
> 
> I'm not. That's why I called them that. They can't be pro-choice
> because marijuana is a choice, too, but they don't take a position on
> it. Then what are they pro? Abortion!  

Yeah abortion and marijuana are *always* two subjects which go hand
in hand in conversation.  How do *you* know pro-choicers don't
hold a position on marijuana?  If marijuana were legal, I know
of quite a few people who wouldn't have such screwed up lives.
Quit grasping.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39587 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4769 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6112
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:42:13 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Sep23.014327.29219@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>Oh, I love it when my liberal approach makes me look pro-choice. It's
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a (mostly) pleasant surprise to pro-lifers (and a bad one for
>pro-aborts) that I am intensely anti-discrimination (read: right to
>life activist). It comes from my year+ of intensive media research,
>public relations, and general all-around "chameleon" ability (plus
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>some honest liberalist sincerity).  

Now, now, Steve.  No use pining over past personas!  :-)

>Instead, I suggest we watch someone who is REAL: like Rush
>Limbaugh. He does more damage   [...]

To himself mostly.  I like to watch for those times when he 
contradicts himself during the same show.  (Example:  at the 
beginning of one show he talked about the historic defeat 
of communism and then at the end of the show he was saying 
don't let those liberal pundits tell you communism is defeated.
Am I to conclude from this that Rush is a liberal pundit?)

I also liked the show where he had to take out time to talk 
with the guy who's painting the walls of the set behind him.  
I would think that Rush would be too embarrassed to borrow the 
intrusive painter idea straight from Murphy Brown.

But best of all is the horrible advertisement he makes for 
conservatism.  Where else on TV can you routinely see thinly-veiled racial 
and sexist remarks?  (Example: His unnecessary comment about seeing 
only the teeth of the black member of his production staff in a dimly 
lit room.)  This man does for conservatism what Chaney does for 
pro-life.  (I love statements like this last one -- the insult which 
another can mistake for a compliment :-)

>=============================================================================
>		 Another Democrat for George Bush. 

Steve, Shouldn't that be:

                 Another Rush Limbaugh Democrat for George Bush.

I mean -- if we're going to get into oxymorons -- let's do it right.  OK?
>=============================================================================
>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------

-Scott Roby  (roby@brahms.udel.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:48:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.205835.9970@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>If my own BODY isn't my own, then what IS?
>>
>>You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of 
>>trespassing, battery, and various crimes.  Give 'em a break!  They
>>are defenseless and need our attention!  They don't deserve to die.  They
>>deserve to live.  Why do we have to be the big bullies to such precious
>>fragile beings who may easily be our very own sons and daughters?  
>
>Please spare us the noble-sounding lies.  You are obviously _not_
>speaking of "we" or "us" protecting "unborn children".  You are
>speaking of women.  YOU have nothing to directly gain or lose by
>forcing women to give birth.  YOU don't face ANY risk of injury or
>death or pain in forcing women to give birth.  If you're going to
>argue against abortion, at least be honest about what your level of
>interest is.
>
Well, I certainly do care about human life, born and unborn.  Whether
you believe that or not is another thing.  But I know what is in my
heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
head cannot be wrong.

As for not directly gaining, losing, suffering, etc., that doesn't mean
I don't care, however.  Why do people join Amnesty International to
help those people they never really see?  Why do people give clothes, money
to people in Bosnia, Somalia or some other place?  Why do we give money
to Hurricane Victims in a Coast very opposite us when we don't really know
anyone in particular over there?  

The above may not gain anything directly or lose anything directly, but
there is certainly an honest concern for the people involved.

>>We know we are capable of killing other humans.  The question is, do we do 
>>so?
>
>Most people who do so are certain that they are justified in doing so.
>Do you feel certain that you are justified in risking the lives and
>health of women?

I don't know about the 'hard cases' but as for the 98% abortion rate for
social reasons or so (which includes Birth control), human lives are
what matter.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:21:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep28.165021.15606@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Sep27.212604.10261@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
> In article <nvgz6jh@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
>    (rocker) writes: >>
> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>    (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>
> >>>Is it true that you're the "Ram of the Herd", Jim?
> >> Freud would have a field day.
> > Having spent the better part of this morning at the Home of
> > the Herd, and having spent many hours with the Herd, I can
> > say with some veracity that there is no "Ram of the Herd."
> Whew!  Good.  Would you mind telling Susan Garvin who was
> there?  She's a little peeved thinking that I was calling
> someone a "herd".  

Was this an individual herd or a group herd?  Sorry, wrong thread...

Anyway, at Bill's request, the Herd includes a JP (who has the
biggest hands I have ever shaken - like first basemen's mitts),
a Fiona (who has the greatest smile I have ever seen), a Birdman,
quite a few Als, and three Jim Davises.  There are also a Big
Mike, a Little Mike, and a Mike Mac.  And the list goes on.
But I have not encountered one "Ram" in the many months and
frustrating hours during which I have been associating with
the Herd.

> I'd appreciate it...

Don't mention it.  Now don't get Susan peeved again, or I may
not be so generous next time.  She is, after all, only the
greatest.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:00:35 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt):
# > If the reports I've read are correct, Arizona will be voting on a
# > proposition that would simply outlaw abortion and provide a single
# > exception: when the physical health of the mother is gravely
# > endangered by the pregnancy.
# 
# This is true to a point.  It allows the legislature to institute
# an exception for _reported_ rape or incest.

I stand corrected.  I made a half-hearted and unsuccessful effort to
get the scoop on the Arizona proposition over the weekend -- but I was
wading through the sin and debauchery of the seamier sides of Las
Vegas, Nevada, so... I didn't have access to my usual newsstand.

# > If it passed (what are its chances of passing?  I bet it gets no more
# > than 25% of the vote), 
# 
# Well, the chaces of it passing are extremely good, since it got
# SEVEN TIMES as many signatures as actually it needed to get on the
# ballot.

Next time on Non-sequitur Theatre, Bobby Kennedy exposed as a closet
Star Trek fan, which explains why Joan Collins, to this day, bears
laser burn scars on her face.

The chances of an initiative passing are almost totally unrelated to
the number signatures more than needed to get on the ballot.

Can you get us poll results? -- preferably a poll conducted by a
major Arizona metropolitan newspaper (the Phoenix Sun?).  That would
give us some indication of its chances of passing.


-- 
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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Three pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:21:03 GMT

In article <lz#pt#_.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><Bv4xnr.Czw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>                              I suggest that it is a *consistent*
>>point of view to consider voluntary sex to create a legal obligation
>>to carry a pregnancy to term; no need for "punishment."  
>
>Yeah, you'll never have to worry about being pregnant so it's easy for you
>to determine what's punishment and what isn't.

It is most certainly not easy for me to determine what is punishment
and what isn't.  Let me also point out that you are equally unlikely
to become pregnant.


>>                                                         However,
>>to force someone to recall a violent victimization can be regarded
>>as "punishment" (or as a factor that tips the balance of rights).
>
>With this statement it appears that you don't care about the fetus at all.
>You just seem to care that the woman be forced to follow through on her
>"commitment".  Am I reading you correctly?

No, you are not.  You are taking black-and-white measurements of
an issue that is not black and white.  How does it imply that someone
doesn't care about the fetus, if one says that the woman's rights
exceed fetal rights in some (or even all) circumstances?

Before you ONCE AGAIN attribute these beliefs to me, let me repeat
that I am arguing that they are consistent, not whether they should
form the basis for law.  Having said that again:

It is consistent to take the premise that a woman has voluntarily
undertaken a "commitment" to the fetus, when she voluntarily participated
in sex.  Thus it is consistent to enforce such a commitment.

WHETHER THIS PREMISE *SHOULD* BE THE LAW IS ANOTHER QUESTION.


>>Whether this position *SHOULD* be the law is another story.
>
>Actually, it is the object of discussion in these newsgroups.

Actually, it is NOT the object of this debate over whether "pro-life"
or "pro-personhood" can be consistent or not, or whether an approach
based on measuring rights of woman, fetus, and man can be consistent or not.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion