HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The Conservative Position
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.103010.5850@wetware.com>
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>ps: Personally I still think that beth is a LIBERAL on
>the matter of the right of Privacy, and that the 
>state NEED SHOW JUST CAUSE for violating that right.

Mm....  Guilty as charged, if you're saying what I think you're saying....

-- 
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
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Originator: jjprice@c00081-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:42:27 GMT


In article <BxAwDF.I83@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
|>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
|>Path: taco!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!stanford.edu!bcm!rice!patrick
|>From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
|>Subject: Re: Right to Choose
|>Message-ID: <BxAwDF.I83@rice.edu>
|>Summary: Left to the exit.
|>Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
|>Organization: Rice University
|>References: <1992Nov3.184115.27538@ncsu.edu> <Bx5qvM.CL7@rice.edu> <83132@ut-emx.uucp>
|>Distribution: na
|>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 10:29:39 EST
|>Lines: 43
|>
|>In article <83132@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
|>>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
|>>>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>
|>>>>I have apperantley struck on nerve on this issue of responsibility
|>>[...]
|>>>>I think I'll post something about it. (in a while) :-0
|>>
|>>>Why not now?  Could it be that you don't have anything to cover up your lack
|>>>of thought about it, and are trying to buy some time?
|>>
|>>Could it be that he has a test?
|>
|>That's a possibility.  I can cut him that much slack, though if he's going
|>to make claims, he should be better prepared to back them up then he
|>apparently is.  
|>
|>>[me:]
|>>
|>>>>|>How is abortion an irresponsible choice?  Justify your answer.
|>>
|>>>>Wait for post, because this is growing as it is.
|>>
|>>>Why the difficulty in answering the question?  Having trouble trying to
|>>>think up an excuse?
|>>
|>>He may just not want to deal with it...there are times I want to respond
|>>to an article, just not right then.  I think he's being reasonable.
|>>
|>>Patrick, I think you're being too hard on Jeff here, not that I'll say
|>>anything, as we pro-choicers never disagree...
|>
|>We don't?  You go to that school that's beat us in football every year since
|>1965 -- and that's not good. :-)  (Watch Nyikos and Holtsinger leap on
|>*that* -- ooh, dissension in the ranks!)  You've got a good point there,
|>though -- I should let Jeff tend to his business before jumping on him with
|>both boots.
|>
|>--PLH (good thing I get a *real* weekend this time -- I should be positively
|>benevolent by Monday morning)
|>
|>
|>-- 
|>
Hi guys thanx for thinking of reasons for me.

The fact is I have been busy with school work and repling to the articles
that are replies of mine I plan to let those die out and when I have
the spare time I will post the article. Probably Tues because I have
class from 8am to 8pm on monday and only 2 classes Tues I'll be gon for
the weekend so if you want to get in touch E-mail

-Jeff Price
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:58:21 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov11.105329.22750@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>If anyone has any current info on menstrual extraction,
>I'd love to see it.  I remember seeing articles some years
>ago which heralded this method as a panacea for all reproductive 
>issues.  I understand that it did not turn out to be so,
>but I'm not sure why.

   Not too current, I'm afraid, but I seem to remember a collection of
writings by Nora Ephron which include an account of a menstrual
extraction performed by the book, by trained practitioners in a
demonstration of the procedure for other women's groups which resulted
in seriouzs infection and hospitalization. I'll try to find the ref. if
you're interested.

                                                      MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: A new battleground
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.144627.14340@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.201936.16912@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
> >In article <1992Nov8.182458.16036@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu 
> >writes:
> Frogs eat insects, for the 
> most part, though I believe there is at least one large species of frog in 
> South America that can eat bats.

I thought they mostly drank wine and ate foods containing much heavy
cream.

> Frogs provide amusement for youngsters, who can get a bucket of tadpoles
> from any pond in the spring, and experimental animals for scientists.  Bats 
> simply are.

Wait a minute.  Until we got to the youngsters part, I thought
you were discussing the French, albeit using an expression that
is distasteful and offensive.

> Frogs come in many colours.  There is basic green, basic brown, basic green 
> with brown spots, basic brown with green spots.  There are also yellow 
> frogs, red and blue frogs, orange and black frogs...in other words a large 
> array of colours.

See what I mean.  An easy mistake to make.

> Bat might be easier to spell, but it is also confused with 
> certain implements used to play games (i.e. the cricket bat and the 
> baseball bat.)  Frog only means frog.

Obviously not.

Dean Kaflowitz, who doesn't approve of calling the French "frogs"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: a reason to exist
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:05:13 GMT

if chaneyhall, DODie, kebbin, kellmeyer, rasmussen and
assorted loons didn't exist, someone would have to
invent them.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 10 Nov 1992 07:39:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov9.210052.15144@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>The prospect of experiencing pain and suffering does *not*
>automatically predispose to mental illness, Ray.  And my
>my point remains: "if abortion services are denied, there 
>are implicit mental health risks for the respective woman, 
>hence abortion services cannot be denied."  That is easily 
>interpretable as abortion on demand.

You stopped a little short.  Try:

"That is easily interpretable as abortion on demand for very good
reasons."


See, IF there are implicit mental health risks for women if abortion
services are denied, THEN denying abortion services IS a real threat
to the mental health of women.

And it seems we should be offering it up on a silver platter!  Do you
*want* women to suffer mental health risks?

It's either that, or denying abortion doesn't really threaten anyone's
health, in which case the Roe provisions would allow states to restrict
abortion.

Which is it?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: FORCING THE LABEL ISSUE
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:03:28 GMT

In article <92311.181510ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.082258.4476@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>In article <92305.090244ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct23.054405.17199@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy declares:
>>>
>>>>I hereby retract all statements I may have ever made on Usenet in support
>>>>of any legislative restrictions on abortion.
>>>
>>>Does this include retracting your statement that you
>>>would support legal provisions that could be used to
>>>extort a woman to have an abortion by denying her
>>>access to financial support?
>>
>>I believe that people should pay their voluntarily-incurred debts, Ms.
>>Birmingham. In what way do you think this implies "support for legislative
>>restrictions on abortion"?
>
>It wasn't meant to imply anything about legislative
>restrictions on abortion.  

Then why did you ask if it was "included" [sic] in my retraction of 
legislative restrictions on abortion? Do you know what "included" means?

>I wanted to see whether
>you still supported laws that would force a woman
>to abort.  Thank you for confirming that you still do.

No such confirmation has been given. You have not yet demonstrated any
connection between "forcing a woman to abort" [sic], and my stated view
that people should pay their voluntary-incurred debts. Do you disagree with
that latter view, by the way, Ms. Birmingham? Do you realize that my
reasoning for this view arises out of the mainstream of English Common Law,
which is at least as close to the heritage of your country's laws, as it is
to the heritage of mine? 

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: WHY abortion? started afresh
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 3 Nov 92 16:32:17 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

I didn't want to say I was pro-choice since that would have got
in the way of what I wanted to know. It was a mistake to the
point some people went off the deep end.

Now, before I start again I would like to apologise for glossing
pregnancy over or understating the chemical rollercoaster; or as
Crusty would like me to put it:
'Oops. I guess there is more to pregnancy than inconvenience'.
Allthough this was not my original point it was still wrong.
Remind me to ignore female friend's stories.

I still think there was no excuse for that gross posting. A
pointed argument would have sufficed.

**

What is it, other than the pregnancy itself, that scares women
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
into abortion?

One reason I suggested was shame.
Were there no shame, would the number of abortions decrease?

Another I was thinking of (what I wanted someone else to say) was
the prospect of having to give up a career etc since the mother
is usually the one who has most of the home duties to attend to.

I ask that if bio-parents were not forced to raise the children,
then would the number of abortions decrease? However, it is usually
part of religion that the bio-parents have to raise them and
so would not be reasonable whilst lunacy still kept 4billion
people enthralled.

Allowing and not-worrying are two totally separate things. Only
some kind of mental case does not want the number of abortions
reduced but it still remains her choice.
--
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is Money Really A factor?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:49:57 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] In article <1992Nov5.190828.13614@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:
] 
] >>Pro-choice women in this forum have stated for the
] >>right price, there is a very good chance they would  continue
] >>a pregnancy. 
] 
] >I'm new here...I can't believe this...there is actually a consensus
] >among pro-choice women here that money would overrule their decision to
] >have an abortion???  This is NOT the case among the women I know.
] 
] Heck, sure.  As you yourself pointed out, there are multiple reasons why
] women seek abortion, and we need to look at the root cause.  For some women, 
] the reason to seek abortion is that they cannot afford a child.  They can't
] afford to have it, they can't afford to lose time at work, they can't
] afford to raise it, they can't afford to educate it.  For this subset of
] women, money might solve the 'problem' of the unwanted pregnancy.  Heck,
] I'd *love* a third child, but I can't afford it.  (Of course, by now, I've
] decided I wouldn't be willing to carry it either, but about 4 years ago,
] you could have made me very happy and 'saved a life' by coughing up about
] $150,000...)


Hum....

You mean the reason that we do not have a C90 here at wetware.com
might be related to the cost of a C90?

If we do not get the C90 here at the house, would 'cost'
be considered a 'sufficient' reason not to get one?


ciao
drieux

ps: or would our being NonFemalePersons mean we are not
allowed to use cost as a Factor.....

pps: Yes, If you would LIKE to give me a C90, with 512Mw,
I will be more than willing to stop posting as well....

Throw in a couple of STK siloes, and some networking toys
and I will promise never to crosspost over to here either....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Thinker on the LOOSE.
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:42:17 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# ps: next time try for something radical,
# like why Murdering the Pre_concieved is a SIN.

Hell, let's just wantonly and recklessly screw up the wort...

``Eliminate rational thought.''
	--Big Bill Burroughs in _Naked_Lunch_The_Movie_

If abortion is murder because it's the intentional killing of that
which can become a child, isn't it also the killing of that which can
produce grandchildren, and thus the cause of not just one thing to not
come into existence, but also the cause of an entire tribe (a
potentially infinite number) of people to not come into existence?

Don't murder your baby!  Let alone your baby's babies!  Or your
baby's babies' babies! Or your baby's babies' babies' babies!

(After all, Chelsea may grow up to be a bum just like her mother, but
her great granddaughter might be the scientist who finally invents
a time machine... so she can go back in time and prevent women from
having abortions.)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``Democracy is the theory that the common 
| J H Woodyatt              |  people know what they want, and deserve to
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  get it good and hard.''
+---------------------------+                              -- H L Mencken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: YO DODIE! Do you want a ticket to Bangkok?
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:09 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Nov1.175830.2861@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> No, because refusing to save another person's life is not
> equivalent to killing that person.  If a person is going
> to die as a consequence of my actions, it doesn't necessarily
> follow that I should have the right to kill them outright.  
> In addition, the donation of bodily resources has already
> begun in the case of pregnancy, unlike forced organ donation. 

There I was, taking a wonderful walk down a street in Bangkok,
I know it's a little dangerous, I might get robbed or even
killed but I DO love this place. Next thing I know, BANG!...

....ooooh...my head....

I look up..what??..NO! You B***RDS! That's my kidney! STOP!
Oh, waitaminute, it's in the middle of being taken away from
me, soooo, according to DODie I cannot interfere with the
taking of my bodily resources to bring about the life of
another. I DON'T CARE! "NO YOU DON'T" foams DODie as I try
to stop them, "YOUR ACTIONS WILL KILL ANOTHER!!" and they
hit me wth some drug called Biblenium....


'YOU KNEW THE RISKS! YOU KNEW THAT YOU COULD BE ROBBED! SO
IT WAS IMPLICIT ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT HAPPENED' spewed some
pro-lifer, as if that justified the theft of my bodily
resources. I just hope I don't get some disease that affects
my remaining kidney because I have no spare anymore.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject:   Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:57:25 GMT

In <92311.065313ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >
In article <1992Nov3.191744.22467@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley 
   says: >> 

>>Linda dear, my blood pressure has yet to change due to people
>>questioning the merits of my position.  I simply become upset when
>>people describe a position that a hundred abortion a year should be
>>heavily restricted and all others should be unrestricted as
>>"anti-choice", when people quote my suggesting prison terms for women
>>getting illegal abortions and carefully leave out the context which
>>makes it clear that these are only non-medically necessary third
>>trimester abortions, and such similar things.
>
>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.  
>
>imo, your demand to criminalize a medical procedure places 
>an undue psychological burden on those women who must obtain
>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their abortion 
>should not be viewed as murder and ultimately requiring women 
>to literally plead for their lives.

Oh, nonsense.  Beth is very clearly discussing the decision
to abort *viable*, third trimester humans.  At the risk of
focusing on *them* for a moment, these would be fetuses that
have an excellent chance of survival when disconnected from
the woman *intact*.  Requiring women to make the big "choice" 
within four or five months of discovering they are pregnant
in no way represents an "undue psychological burden". 

>Legislating fetal rights will cause further restrictions
>to women in the work place and reduce the opportunity
>for equality.  Pregnant women have already been victimized
>by court ordered invasive treatments to "protect" the
>fetus.  

Do the quotes around "protect" suggest that the courts
really had some other intent?

>You my dear are trying to use a sledge
>hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
>create additional disadvantages for women.

It disadvantages women to require that they make their
decision within four or five months?  

[...]

>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.

While such an assertion is probably just coincidental, some 
might wonder if this doesn't represent a bit of anti-male 
sentiment...

>wrt Mr. Keegan I just happen to agree with his position
>on abortion and feel that the repeated accusations of
>harassment are rather lame attempts at avoiding the
>issue of why there is no need for legislation.

Sadly, there are a whole host of activities that should
require no legislation as a deterrent.  Nevertheless, to
do otherwise in the case of late-term pregnancies is to
sanction the arbitrary killing of a viable human.  I'm 
quite sure that the vast majority of women do not require 
such statutory prohibitions.  Neither does that majority 
require statutes prohibiting the killing of newborns.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter 
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:45:32 GMT

<nyikos.721351262@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Nov3.033639.26674@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct29.052604.17631@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct24.011310.1490@noao.edu>
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>>
>>>>> Suzanne, do you believe that gay men hate women?
>>>
>>>>I believe that gay men hate everybody, including themselves.
>>>
>>>s ~/Clueless/forgach.gay.men
>
>>And here you thought I was being a might rough on Suzanne...
>
>A whole LOT rougher than Beth was just now.  

Well heck, Beth's a sweetheart.  Me, I'm not quite as easy going about
abusive ignorant hypocrites.

>                                             {BTW the spelling is 
>"mite".}

Thanks Peter.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:30:52 GMT

In article <nyikos.720712272@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
}In <1992Oct30.130948.10139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>                     No "pro-life" type has yet provided any examples
}>or statistics that legislation of any type would bring about the
}>changes they seem to desire.
}
}Because the idea of a 5-week limit is totally untested.  

Uh, you might want to read that again.  I said that there have been no
statistics concerning legislation of any type.  I suppose that neither
the 4.999999-week limit nor the 5.00001-week limits have been tested as
well.  Peter, you even quote what I wrote before you responded to it!
Do you have trouble reading or just an extremely short attention span?

}On the other
}hand, LOTS of countries have a 12-week limit [again with exceptions
}similar to the ones I would grant after week 5] and that seems to
}have worked quite well.  

Where legislation has brought about desired change as opposed to no
legislation?  Since there are "LOTS" of countries that have tried this
I should assume you'd have no trouble offering some stats, but you,
continuing a trend, do not.  Sigh.


[a posting containing stats about Romania and abortion mentioned]

}I missed that one, and am very curious about it.  I would appreciate
}a repost, or an e-mailing.

I don't have it archived, and I can't recall who posted it, but could
it be reposted or mailed to Peter?

--
       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!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men