HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dguerrer@lyra.cel.scg.hac.com (Daniel Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:38:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Colorado Engineering Labs

>It appears you don't understand the meaning of a 'right'. It's no wonder
>you are so confused. If I thought an abortionist could walk out in the
>town, see a pregnant woman, and decide he didn't like what he saw, and
>perform an abortion on the spot, I guess I too, would be against abortion.
>Fortunately, I have a clearer understanding of what a 'right' entails.
>                                                       ^^^^^  
>Ron
>
>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.

I don't know what a 'right' entails.  Please enlighten me as to your
understanding of it.  Thanks.


--
============================================================================
Dan Guerrero : dguerrer@rigel.hac.com     |  All science is either physics
Hughes Aircraft Colorado Engineering      |  or stamp collecting.
   Laboratory				  |     - Ernest Rutherford
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:45:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.215829.12129@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.184216.29027@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >>> No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
> >>> choose.  
> 
> >> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
> >> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
> >> pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;
> >> many women are pro-life. 
> 
> > Saying "All X deserve Y" is not the same as saying "All X want
> > Y."
> 
> That's true, but the implication is dependent on "X" and "Y". 
> 
> If Lyman said "All people deserve support for their right to discriminate
> against homosexuals", then that statement would carry a very objectionable
> implication that all people would _want_ to discriminate against
> homosexuals. 

Which isn't what he said, nor does it make what you said any
more correct.  You were wrong, Dougie, and read what Chris said
incorrectly because you felt you had an opportunity to call
him "sexist."  Your attempt was and is a failure and now you are
playing games because you haven't any way to look less foolish
than to thrash around a bit.  And you are failing miserably.

I wish you had the integrity to just say you were wrong and
move on, but I don't expect to see that and there is now way
for me to give you integrity.  It's something one must develop
on one's own.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: moses@convex.com (John Moses)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:10:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>>>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?
>>> All human females would have the right to life.
>> This does not answer the question asked.


   Certain actions curtail your rights.  I chose to father a child.
That limited my rights to spend my money anyplace I choose.  I must
now spend money to support the child.  I am legally obliged to do so.
It is an infringement, but one I "made" for myself.

    If you drive a car, you run the risk of hitting someone and suffering
the consequences.  If you have sex and end up creating a child by accident,
you suffer the consequences.  Some of these consequences  may "infringe" on
rights you previously held.  That is the unavoidable result of attempting
to hold a right in an absolute state when in fact, life's circumstances
have been dramatically altered.  Sometimes rights clash.  Sustaining
life is the proper choice in these cases.

	John
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: politics
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:25:22 GMT

In article <opahko8@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

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

>> Clinton has said that he wouldn't veto
>> Medicaid funding of abortions for poor women.  Nobody has to get
>> an abortion that they don't want, but the Democrats would force
>> people to pay for somebody else's abortion. 

> Abortion costs the taxpayer less than welfare.  

Killing born children would cost the taxpayer less than welfare.  
But I wouldn't want my tax money going towards it.

> Ask yourself, Doug, which costs
> more:  birth control or abortion?  

That question reveals a lot about your attitudes about sex education.
You don't seem to think that sex education works well enough to be the 
primary focus for reducing unwanted teen pregnancy.  I do. 

I would ask ``which is most cost-effective: sex education, free condoms,
or abortion?''  Obviously, sex education is the most cost-effective.  

> Now, Doug, I know you don't
> approve of schools handing out condoms, because you think it's a
> waste of money.  

I believe that money could be better spent on public sex education
programs.  We can't afford to waste money on condoms when so many
teenagers are ignorant about pregnancy and sex. 

> I hear you, Doug:  your money is your god.  I'm just trying to
> respect your values.

It's obvious that money is your God, CJ.  You would kill human
beings to save your tax dollars.  I can't respect those values.
 

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:42:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.151557.28696@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <Bsz84u.36A.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> > No, Holtsinger, he said that all women deserve support of their right to
> > choose.  
> 
> And that's sexist, because he assumes that all women would actually 
> _want_ support of their right to an abortion, i.e. that all women are 
> pro-choice.  Not every woman _wants_ support for abortion rights;

You begin to look more and more like the man in the motley, Doug.

Your analysis above is so pathetic it hardly requires elaboration.

But I'll elaborate.

Saying "All X deserve Y" is not the same as saying "All X want
Y."

The first is an opinion on what all X deserve.  The second is an
opinion of what all X want.  Two very different things.

Dean Kaflowitz

Maybe he's just pretending to be Ned in the First Reader, but
he's doing too good a job to believe it's just an act.
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortion polls without gender gap?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:17:14 GMT

<28684@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> Can the claim that there is no gender gap on these issues be verified
> with a cite by anyone?  

Well, columnist Mark Shields claimed on CNN's "The Capital Gang"
last night that the most consistently pro-choice demographic group 
is men ages 21-35.  He further claimed that this was because abortion
is an economic issue for them (abortions are cheaper than child
support).

Beyond that, I can only say that "I've heard" that there is not
much of a gender gap in polls on abortion, but that men tend to be 
slightly more pro-choice than women.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:06:26 GMT

From article <1992Aug20.023402.12479@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> In article <1992Aug20.010011.16783@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> }                   The world IS what you make it.  
> 
> I know from rather bitter experience this statement is not correct, no
> matter how badly you might wish it were true.  You can influence, you
> can provide input, but you can never make the world what you wish it were.


Well, if it is not prying, I would really like to know about this experience
that leads you to this bitter conclusion.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:27:59 GMT
 <23215@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <1992Aug13.032301.13957@Cadence.COM>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug13.032301.13957@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
> In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>>Anyway, there really isn't too much difference between 80 and 50%, even
>>if there is 30 percent between them.
> 
> Hmmmm, not much difference, eh?
> 
> Well, how about I offer to flip a coin 100 times.  Before each flip we each
> put 50 cents on the table.  If the flip is heads, you get 50% of the pot and
> I'll take the rest.  If the flip is tails, I get 80% of the pot and you take
> the rest.
> 
> I'm sure you'll take me up on this, as "there really isn't too much difference
> between 80 and 50%", no?

Sorry man, but taken out of context it's real easy to miss my point.  See,
I believe the original arguments were that one person said that
after implantation there is an 80% chance of a baby being born,
but another person said that it was only a 50% chance of a baby being born.
we aren't talking about flipping coins, we're talking about killing
potential people- high potential people.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:37:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Aug17.174346.12749@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8vi0uINNeu4@spim.mips.com> 
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>> Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.  
>
>This statement is not correct.  Abortion is a legal and moral issue.
>
>> I have yet to hear from one pro-lifer who is an athiest or who suggests 
>> his/her belief in right-to-life is not based in religious teachings.
>
>You haven't looked hard at all.  I've only seen you post a few times to 
>talk.abortion.  And I believe I've told you that I am not religious, and 
>I do oppose abortion.  
>
>> I have asked.  So far the only response I've received from a pro-lifer
>> stated that it was impossible to separate religious and political
>> opinions.
>
>Such a statement could only come from a pro-choicer who's attempting
>to portray abortion as a religious issue, which it is not.

Thank you for your wonderful post.  Too many people have tried to make
abortion a "religious" issue to take advantage of the various anti-religious
sentiment around the nation.

I am tired of people trying to make the religous and the non-religous
clash when it comes to abortion.  I know the religious and the 
non-religious can stand together on this issue.   Life is for everyone.
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Suzie gets self-righteous
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:31:44 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Patrick, an apology for an insult to everyone BUT the one whom you've actually
>insulted, does not count as a real apology in my book.

Since you're so big on the subject of apologizing, does that mean I
can expect an apology for your unfounded accusation that I am a liar?

>Suzanne Forgach

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Out of town again.
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:25:57 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business


I am on my way out of town again.  My four days in the capital of
tack, Las Vegas, was so wonderful that I just had to hop back on a
plane to Detroit.  Do I get to all the best places or what?

Any threads or messages to which one might desire, for whatever
bizarre reason, my contribution, should be sent to me email.  I return
on 26 Aug.  

SJM
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Not just for doctors anymore... (was: Re: STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!)
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:45:18 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox



Speaking of terrorists, the politics of fear and stormtrooperism no longer
just apply to doctors. The loving "Theocracy Now" Christians in Mississippi
are using that state's 24 hour waiting period to shake down and harass
women entering clinics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Sacramento Bee, August 16, 1992:

"...Roy Mc Millan, who heads an organization called the Christian Action
Group, [...] regularly turns out at the clinics to try to make women
reconsider.

"In some cases, he and others HAVE FOLLOWED WOMEN HOME, he said, SOMETIMES
REVEALING THEIR PLANS TO FAMILY MEMBERS OR PASTORS."  [Emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep in mind that these Nazi-wannabes have absolutely no idea what the
woman is going in to the clinic for.  A woman could go in for a pap smear
only to come home to her 5 year old daughter, her face laced in desperate
tears, sobbing, "MOMMY!  A man came and told me you were going to murder
my baby sister!!"

Dear Goddess, things are looking more like Gilead every day...

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32858 alt.abortion.inequity:3208
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:10:36 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
>on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup 
>dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.  

TRANSLATION:  Everyone's noticing that part of me is DJR.    



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:59:23 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes: 
|farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>|Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
|>|and incest, and for the life of the mother.   

||And exceptions for his daughters and granddaughters.  They get to
||decide, it's their choice.  The rest of American women don't.

|I think you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that
|all women think alike.  Many women are pro-life.  Only a sexist
|would mistakenly believe that all women are pro-choice. 

I don't see ljf insinuating any such thing.
You're full of it, Holtsinger.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.171633.8055@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>just like sentient humans. 

1) Name a sentient animal.

2) You have some objection to a (as yet hypothetical) sentient
   animal receiving protection from being killed?

--
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Pro-Choice                Anti-Roe                    - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: I Tend To Ignore Wes Orr Because.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:01:59 GMT

Apropos of nothing,  
> = Wes Orr writes:

>It is obvious that you are biased in your assumptions.  Downgrading my 
>writing skills does nothing to further your cause.  I suggest you learn
>more honest and positive ways of attacking the message and not the
>messenger.

Uh - talking to yourself there, Wes?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Does Bush oppose contraception?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:03:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.140702.1179@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <16156@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, peerson@neyman.ucdavis.edu (Jan Peerson) writes:
@ [My apologies if this turns up twice.]

@ The following is excerpted from the Garry Wills column which
@ appeared on page B7 of the August 15, 1992 Sacramento Bee.  It is
@ reproduced here (without permission) for your reading pleasure.

@      We all know how Bush suddenly reversed himself on
@      abortion when he wanted to run with Ronald Reagan in
@      1980.  But his reversal on contraception and family
@      planning is less known.  Bush has surrendered even more
@      abjectly to the right wing on these issues.  The proof
@      of that is his appointment to the family planning post
@      in his administration of William R. Archer III, who
@      thinks the Griswold decision was wrong -- that is, that
@      the states should still have the power to ban the sale
@      of contraceptives.

	Is this on legalistic "strict constructionist" grounds?

@      To put such a man in such a post is like making a
@      pacifist the secretary of defense.  How do you promote
@      family planning while opposing the government's
@      permission to sell contraceptives?  Archer's preferred
@      solution to the family planning problem -- as well as
@      to AIDS and abortion and teenage promiscuity -- is
@      abstinence.

	Teenage "promiscuity"? What about adolescent sex inside of
steady relationships? I think that one should be more accepting of
that than of indiscriminate, anonymous sex. Does this character think
that "living together" without a marriage licence is a form of
promiscuity?

	His solution would seem to imply that, even for married
couples, that the only legitimate way of avoiding having children is
to avoid having sex. Is he really advocating celibate marriage as a
way of life?

	I wonder if he has conservative Catholic connections, for the
Church does seem to endorse the ideal of celibate marriage, with
exceptions only for producing children.

@      Unlike most right-wing moralists who rely on
@      abstinence, he practices what he preaches.  As a 37-
@      year-old bachelor who tells others to refrain from sex,
@      he was challenged at a family planning clinic in
@      Denver, asked if he abstains from sex himself.  He
@      answered yes, though he admitted to having tried sex
@      six years earlier and regretting it.

>He abstains, except when he doesn't.  What a great example of
>"do as I say, not as I do".

	In fairness to him, he didn't do too much of it :-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:10:54 GMT

In article <23514@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
> > ...Compassion doesn't mean to let everyone take the easy way
> >out of difficult or desperate situations...


It is not necessarily wrong or bad or immoral to take an easy way
out of a difficult or desperate situation.  You have managed to
express your disapproval of abortion.  You have not presented any
reason whatsoever why anyone should agree with you, why abortion
be prohibited for any reasons, or why this particular "easy way"
out is a wrong way to take.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Observations
Summary: Nah.  More like proclamations.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
>animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
>understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
>are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
>not be having sex.  

Well, Mike, I already take responsibility for my actions -- and I'm
pro-choice.  How about you start taking some responsibility for YOUR actions
and start worrying about YOUR sex life and not others', eh?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

              Hit this .sig and win a free trip to Dewalt, Texas!
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:14:48 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug12.225636.25911@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Common Pro-Life bumper sticker around town here:
>                        "It's a CHILD, not a choice."
Heh... that's the slogan on a banner I see nearly every Saturday morning at
the clinic.  This banner, to me, epitomizes the radical pro-lifers.

A hugely pregnant woman's belly is being massaged by a four year old as he
gazes adoringly up at her breasts.  Why the breasts?  Because the woman on
this banner is HEADLESS.  SHE HAS NO HEAD.  So of course it's a "Child not a
Choice" because you can't choose when YOU'RE HEADLESS.

What a perfect commentary on their position.  Especially with regard to women.
Huge belly, huge breasts, NO HEAD.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:25:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


   

                      What's your point?



-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion