HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter says Doug is pro-choice
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:47:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Nov13.130316.23207@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <nyikos.721587670@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, 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.

While he's at it, he could explain why he hasn't chastised
the Reverend for not supporting laws against abortion
when he quite obviously diapproves of the practice.  It
seems that all other pro-choice-but-anti-abortion posters
have gotten a little lecture from Petey Honey on their
views, but for some reason, he leaves DOD alone.  I wonder
if he's afraid of him.

I think that he'll ignore all this, though, and continue
in his quest to dethrone DODie as the least credible
poster in t.a.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Does Keegan have a position?
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:35:21 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...

>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>->Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
>->fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?

>did you have a problem with my question, ray? it was a
>very simple question.
>
>had someone asked me the question i asked you, i would
>have replied "no." i would have gone on to say "i don't
>want to ban abortions." now i'm not suggesting you go
>that far, yet. i am suggesting that your apparent
>inability to answer "yes" or "no" to a question as to
>whether you want to imprison women who have "banned"
>abortions strikes me as cowardly.

Tough.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:51:15 GMT
     <1992Nov3.184115.27538@ncsu.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

>Sorry about that I have recently realized that they are there(stupid me) 

Not stupid.  New, therefore ignorant.  Most of us understand that, though
there are a few relatively intolerant folks.

>I think I am finnally catching onto this net thang. 

I think you are too.

>|>"Andy" (and I prefer Andrew, as my .sig says...never mind the username :-) )
>|>didn't say any such thing.  Brian Kendig did...not that I *mind* being
>|>given credit for Brian's remarks.  Just pointing out that it's easy to get
>|>lost when you aren't paying VERY close attention.

>Sorry 'bout that Andrew :) 

Believe me, that's hardly the worst thing I've ever been called.  :-)
Don't worry about it.

>Yes it is easy to get lost.

See?  I *told* you you were getting the hang of it... ;-)

>|>>I guess I did not make that clear enough. In my eyes no responsible person
>|>>would get a convienet abortion. 
>
>Did you know there is only one clinic in South Dakota.This is my plan have
>only one clinic in each state so that it is a long drive and long waiting lines
>once they get there.

Ah.  This I take issue with.  If you throw up more obstacles to the process
than there already are, you're blocking even those women whom you have
admitted (grudgingly) have a valid reason to want an abortion.  Further, it's
simply unfair, and there aren't any clinics I'm aware of that only perform
abortions in any event.  You might want to rethink this.

>|>Seriously, you trivialize the abortion process by describing it as 
>|>"convenient", and you trivialize the anguish some women (and their
>|>families, in many cases) go through in making the decision to abort
>|>by calling it "irresponsible".  Frankly, that's not your judgement 
>|>to make.

>I have apperantley struck on nerve on this issue of responsibility
>(irresponsibility). 

Yep.  People get tetchy when you tell them to choose the lesser of two
evils and then blame them for choosing an evil in the first place.  
Further, adults have the freedom to define responsibility in terms of
their own priorities.

>Since I brought it up and I have gotten a lot of questions 
>I think I'll post something about it. (in a while) :-0

I'll look forward to it.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Should Keegan disqualify supporters of the FOCA from using "prochoice"?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:17:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.040050.28298@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> The FOCA would supposedly permit the states to place restrictions
> on abortion after viability[1].  If a person supports the FOCA, then
> they would be implicitly acquiesing to the restrictions that many states 
> would inevitably impose on abortion.  James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
> on abortion. It seems to me that James Keegan should disqualify anyone 
> from using the "pro-choice" label if they support the FOCA, since this
> legislation would supposedly allow restrictions on abortion. 

Who cares what Keegan thinks?  No offense to Jim intended,
but I have no idea why anyone would care all that much how
Jim wants to label supporters of the FOCA.  Unless that someone
were looking for a pointless argument.

> [1] The FOCA doesn't permit restrictions, but the pro-aborts insist
>     that it does.  

This is, of course, YAL (Yet Another Lie) by the infamous
religious fanatic, Reverend Doug Holtsinger.

Your nose must be long enough to touch a 747 in flight by
now, Reverend Doug.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:25:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov12.162153.1591@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
writes to Marti Sheldon (>>):

>>"What any person chooses to do with their own body is
>>their own business!!!"
>
>This statement expresses much of what lies behind the pro-choice view,
>and I find it puzzling.  I can't understand why the fact that my body
>is involved in an action makes it inappropriate for other people to
>form judgements about the action.

You can form judgments all you want, Jim.  It's when you attempt to
pass laws imposing your judgments on others that the problems start.

>To give a few examples, if I commit rape, I am doing something with my
>body.

Rape also involves violating someone ele's rights.

>  If a guest in my house chokes on something I serve him, and I
>just sit there and watch him die, I'm doing something with my body.

Please explain how your behavior as your guest chokes is regulated
legally.  

>Ditto if I have German Measles but make no effort to avoid pregnant
>women.

I don't know what quarantine is required for German measles, but as
long as you follow the medical requirements there will be no legal
action.  Of course, if you publicly announced that you were trying to
infect pregnant women, hence putting them and their /z/e/f/s in danger
against their will, they might find some way to try to prevent this.
However, once again, the justification would be in terms of violating
the rights of others.

>  So it seems to me that acts I perform that involve my own body
>should have no special exemption from moral or legal judgement.  What
>am I missing?

Your use of your body has no exemption from moral judgment; the rights
to privacy and bodily autonomy suggest that it should be exempt from
legal judgment.  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:39:05 GMT


garvin+@cs.cmu.edu writes:
|nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
|#Granted, for some it is a major inconvenience. That's why I prefer a 4-hour
|#waiting period.  Gives the woman time to go out and have lunch, or
|#whatever, and study the information on risks, etc. without clinic employees
|#hurrying her along.

|The sidewalk harassers here frequently urge patients entering the
|clinic to go to a nearby restaurant, eat something, and think over
|their decision.  I see that Petey Honey joins them in either their
|ignorance or their deviousness.  The patients always point out that
|they have been instructed not to eat before the procedure, and they
|often ask if the harasser thinks that they're stupid enough to disobey
|a doctor's instructions.  [...]

This is amazingly disgusting.  

Every time waiting periods are discussed in this group by
pro-lifers, I am more & more convinced that they're a coverup
for an attempt to prevent women from exercising their rights.

We have Petey Honey & other sidewalk "counsellors" advocating
that they do something that prevent them from having even minor
surgery, and endanger their lives if they do.

We have Overpeck talking in his condescending way about women
under stress making bad decisions, and about how they need
counselling.

We see terrorists frightening abortion providers into giving
up their practices.

They're trying to do an end-run around the law.  Having failed
to make abortion illegal, they now try to make it difficult for
a woman to carry her decision through.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lenox@shelley.u.washington.edu (142/143 help)
Subject: Re: The life expectancy of mothers => now women
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.155200.15975@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>In a recent article someone brought up the fact that they like to
>see people live to a ripe old age of 80.I agreed with them and stated
>I hoped I lived that long as it is.
>
>I have gotten many replies stating that a child birth and the 9 months
>of strain on the body while carring a z/e/f (sounds dumb I thought she
>was carring a baby) shortens her life span.
>
>I was wondering how come females have a longer lifespan than males.
>This point seems irrelevant.I do realize that a pregnancy does decrease
>the life span but it seems as though nature has compensated and given
>women a longer lifespan.

I suppose you have evidence that females have a longer lifespan?
I suppose that knowledge would only be applicable *if* females had
a longer lifespan *because* they were female and not due to other
factors.  I've heard that since women have entered the marketplace
in larger numbers that the expected lifespan of females has decreased
but I would be presumptuous to post that as evidence of anything
without having reliable sources to back that up.  I would think that
it will be difficult to show that females have a longer lifespan 
than males just because they are female.  Except that I thought
males have a higher chance of genetic problems which could contribute
(if verified) to the argument.  As yet, Jeff, you haven't given any
facts to support this, only your impressions which could easily be
wrong.  This type of argument doesn't convince many in t.a because
it is not known to be based on facts.  Also remember that a statistical
correspondence is not the same as showing cause for something.  So 
be careful in making assumptions when you start looking for evidence.

Good luck showing this,

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 02:24:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.015713.29168@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Nov14.011725.17690@cs.yale.edu>, by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article <1992Nov14.010810.28264@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> is lyman
>>>>since GHWB took it on the chin
>>>
>>>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>>>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)
>>
>> Even if Bill Clinton were to be impeached, the next person in line
>> would be Gore, also pro-choice, and after him, Foley, also pro-choice,
>> and after him the President Pro-tempore of the Senate, a Democrat, and...
>> Well, you get the idea. Clinton being impeached would do your cause
>> basically no good whatsoever.
>
>I'm glad to see you acknowledge how little character Clinton actually
>has, given you've just conceded to his possible impeachment before he's
>even in office :-)   What does that say for _your_ "cause", ay?   As it 
>is, the huge mess Clinton will make of the presidency will hand us the
>presidency for the _next_ 12 years, just like Carter did for us :-D
>
>
>Suzanne Forgach

Suzanne - The Presidency was stolen from Carter but, you'll hear
more about that in the years ahead.  Funny, I didn't realize you
were a psychic and funnier yet that you seem to take great glee
imagining the destruction of this country, more Republican sour
grapes and unwillingness to accept defeat gracefully.

Now, let me make a predicition, I see the complete destruction of
the Republican party as more and more of the truth of the dirty
deals made by them comes to light.  I predict that never again will
they have their dirty hands on the helm of state.  That finally
all of the honest God fearing people who followed them like sheep
to the slaughter will see that they were duped and their trust and
faith were exploited for nefarious deeds.  No :-) here Suzanne.
Wake up and smell the stink your heroes have spread over this
country.

Le George could have cared less about abortion or family values
or anything else remotely connected with your " cause".

Caryn

--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:29:36 GMT

In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

>>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>>finally over.  Thank God.

>Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
>price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

True....  But *repealing* FOCA would a) be much more difficult than
vetoing FOCA, and b) have a much higher political cost.

-- 
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
Subject: Rape/Incest Issue Problems for Jeffrey to Ponder
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:06:51 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Since Jeffrey doesn't have a position on the issue, I thought I'd try
helping him out.  It is difficult for a pro-lifer to effectively make
exceptions for cases of rape and incest.

Imagine laws were passed in which abortions were banned, except in the
cases of rape and incest.  How do you imagine such exceptions would
be ruled as allowable?  There are some problems.  First, the victim
has a great chance of never coming forward to accuse anyone for fear
of embarrassment or further abuse.  No abortions would be obtained
for these cases, whether they were entitled to them or not.

Next:  When a victim accuses someone of rape or incest, how do you know
the victim is telling the truth?  A logical way to find out would be to
take the case to court.  With the abortion issue, however, you don't
have very much time until the issue is moot.  Even if you devise some 
way to cut through red tape, the longer you wait, the more dangerous
an abortion procedure becomes.  So you devise some sort of committee
to decide whether or not the accuser was actually a victim of
rape or incest in the span of a few days.  Do you think such a committee
would work efficiently enough to ensure that abortions permitted are only
for cases of rape or incest?  I think not.

Of course, with millions of women experiencing new restrictions in their
legal rights, lots of women will be pointing fingers at innocent men,
saying they raped them.  This would result in a tremendous amount of money
wasted in handling an overload of cases, as well as cause more than one
or two innocent people to be accused of rape or incest.

The point of the matter is, if you wish to outlaw abortions (even just
eventually), you cannot reasonably make exceptions for cases of rape
and incest.  

Is your position beginning to formulate, Jeffrey?  Hope I've been helpful.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I'm back, did I miss anything?
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:18:22 GMT

smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes ...
>After a very relaxing trip and a wonderful election, I'm back.
>Thankfully, SFO managed to avoid a major shaker while I was out there.

Better luck next time ...

:-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:30:02 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1dbekpINNnib@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1da0gmINN1tt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>>finally over.  Thank God.
>
>Well, folks, don't celebrate too soon.  Clinton is a political animal still
>and he's going to want a second term, too.  Let's get the FOCA signed
>FIRST, and then talk about victories.  Y'all pack up your tents and go home
>now, and it'll never happen.  Keep the heat on.

Great to hear your good news - congratulations, and I hope that FOCA does
get signed.

But...meanwhile in other corners of the world the lights are still off.  

If y'all get bored then take a vacation in Ireland, visit the pubs, drink the
Guinness, mention that a woman has the right to choose - that kind of thing.
A lot of Irish people have _never_ been exposed to that concept - schools, TV
and newspapers, and even university nothwithstanding.

I'm sure that the (forgive the pun) embryonic pro-choice organisations there
would love to hear from you, and give a home to any pro-choice materials you
don't have a pressing use for anymore.  I read in the paper yesterday that
the pro-life organisations get a lot of support from their counterparts in
the U.S.   I also heard that they couldn't use most of the material because
it was "too graphic", and the Irish debate was more subtle than that - I have
no idea what to make of that statement!

And yesterday the Irish goverment collapsed!  I wonder where we could dig up
someone as funky as Clinton to govern us...(actually we have a much funkier
_woman_ for a President, and she's almost certainly pro-choice, but the Irish
president has no power).

Sorry to be so glum and all while you celebrate...

>Adrienne Regard

All the best,
Frank.
-- 
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: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Claptrap or not?  You decide. (formerly: Jay Stein stops...)
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <Stein.Promotes.Hatred.B0692.506am@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- clap on, clap off) writes:

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

>>>> And I also do not approve
>>>> of Jay Stein's insinuations that prolifers condone these bombings. 

>>> Ah, but prolifers *do* condone these bombings.  Not *all* prolifers, but
>>> a plurality of pro-lifers.  How do I know this?  'cause I've asked a huge
      ========
> dumb word on my part.  I might better have said, "a significant number"

Jay Stein's claims about the number of prolifers who condone abortion
clinic bombings reminds of the people who point to homosexuals when
they want to place blame on the AIDS crisis.  Such people want others
to hate and fear homosexuals, so they promote bigoted stereotypes that  
homosexuals are sexually promiscuous and irresponsible. They want to
give the public the impression that the AIDS crisis can be blamed
on homosexuals.  And unfortunately, sometimes it works.  

Jay Stein wants to do the same thing with respect to prolifers.
He wants to stir up fear and hatred of prolifers by promoting
the idea that a "plurality" of prolifers condone abortion clinic
bombings. Imagine if Jay Stein said that a "plurality" of homosexuals
condone unsafe sex.  Same tactics, different clothing.   

I wonder how many pro-choicers on this newsgroup agree with Jay
Stein tactics of promoting hatred and fear.  I guess many of them 
are silent because Stein's tactics help their cause.  But at what
price?   

I actually feel kind of sorry for Jay Stein.  I hope he can get over 
his hatred of prolifers and begin to see the real issues. 
 
>Jay T Stein 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections