HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WHY abortion? Cure the cause, not the symptom!
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 22:37:23 GMT

In <1cpj62INN5q@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:

>fuller@wpi.WPI.EDU (Ilyan) writes:

>This is absolute rubbish based on the arrogant first world assumption that all
>women _do_ have a choice about having sex, that they have the option  of
>contraception, and that men will respect their rights in any case.  There are
>many millions of women around the world for whom this is not the case.  For
>women in rural, patriarchal communities, their behaiviour is largely a function
>of their partner's libido.  It also ignores borderline cases such as rape, date-
>rape and severe genetic abnormality.

Funny, when I posted an article where I talked on forced abortion in China, the
pro-choicers pretty much ignored that part of my post and claimed that the
dystopia of _A Handmaid's Tale_ was much more likely to come about here.

Now that Clinton's been elected, maybe I should re-post, and see whether
they still believe that farfetched claim.
 
>: If we continued to not disturb this fetus, it will live and be one of God's
>: children.

>One of God's unwanted children, with no family support system, destined to grow
>up, due to a shortage of adoptive and foster parents, either in a desperately
>poor situation, or in a degrading state system.

Which country are you talking about here???

>  I have also yet to hear of a church giving
>a Christian burial to a miscarried foetus, while children who die in cot deaths
>are buried in a normal fashion.  This shows unparalleled hypocrisy.
				  ^^^^
What, the fact that you have yet to hear of...?  These things are not
trumpeted in public, for obvious reasons.  An exception: when Jacqueline
Kennedy, then first lady, miscarried, they named the "product of
conception" Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, and gave it Christian burial, and
this was carried on the national news.

Nowadays the media is overwhelmingly pro-choice, so stuff like this is
no longer newsworthy.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from Clement of Alexandria (Second Century)
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:36:51 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
# brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
# >" . . . for those who conceal sexual wantonness by taking
# >stimulating drugs to bring on an abortion wholly lose their
# >humanity along with the fetus."
# 
# Oh, this is beautiful.  Let's analyze that sentence for subject and
# verb.  All we need do is remove the preposition...
# 
# " . . . for those who conceal sexual wantonness . . . wholly lose
# their humanity along with the fetus."
# 
# The man is clearly opposed to abortion not because he gives a tinker's
# damn about a fetus, but because he sees it as a tool to "conceal
# sexual wantonness".  It's sex he's opposed to, not abortion.  Had you
# read this sentence more carefully, you surely wouldn't have quoted
# it.  This is the anti-sex viewpoint that pro-life advocates so resent
# being accused of.

It's even more weird than that -- take out the unnecessary `along with
the fetus' part, and you get, ``...for those who conceal sexual
wantonness [...] wholly lose their humanity...''

His problem isn't even with sexual wantonness, but the *concealment*
of it.

<Begin Dennis Miller impersonation>

``I think I'm starting to get the drift.''

<End impersonation>


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``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,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Nov6.064805.28774@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:11:53 GMT

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>....The Maryland measure codified Roe v.
>Wade. It says nothing about first trimester abortions being a special
>category.  It had *nothing* to do with banning abortions since it was a
>preemptive strike in case Roe gets reversed by the Supreme Court.  

Here's the text of Maryland's ballot question, if anyone's interested.
Note that it is *not* the text of the law itself; it's merely the
explanation that was put on the ballot.

Question Number 6
Statewide Referendum
Abortion Law Revision

Revises Maryland's abortion law to prohibit State interference with
woman's abortion decision before fetus is viable, or, under certain
conditions, at any time and to provide certain exceptions to the
requirement that a physician notify an unmarried minor's parent or
guardian prior to minor's abortion; repeals pre-abortion information
requirements about abortion alternatives; repeals some, and clarifies
other, provisions related to abortion referral; requires that
abortions be performed by licensed physicians; provides good-faith
immunity under certain conditions to physicians performing abortions;
authorizes State to adopt abortion regulations; repeals certain
penalty and disciplinary provisions related to the performance of
abortions.

>....Maryland, by the way, is heavily Catholic last I heard.

First *I've* heard.  Maryland has a sizable Catholic population, but I
doubt it's anywhere near a majority.  (But I'm unable to find any
statistics.)  Rhode Island is the state with the highest proportion of
Catholics.  Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony, by Cecil
Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore; but that was back in 1634.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:27:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.192608.20755@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.191213.14422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> [Cochran's restriction, criticized]
>>>
>>>Secondly, Cathi Cook has recently expressed a disdain for "feelgood" 
>>>legislation, which if I recall, she defined as legislation which addresses
>>>problems not actually known to exist at the time of enactment. 
>>
>>I _knew_ I had her exact definition quoted somewhere! Here it is, belatedly:
>
>[Re-post deleted]
>
>>What the hell is the point of passing Cochran's restriction?
>
>Kevin, please provide the evidence where I called for the passage of
>"Cochran's restriction"...

Since you called it a >>LEGAL<< restriction, I just assumed you wanted it
embodied in law. Was I mistaken?

								- Kevin
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:56:35 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1da0gmINN1tt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 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.

The battle was won, but the war is not over.

Don't think that the anti-choice side will give up...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:06:33 GMT

In article <92311.015643DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu> <DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>The question is, why is going to PTA meetings, taking your children for a
>walk, etc. a downside?  I already know I misinterpreted something, but
>asking is the best way for finding out something.

Doing those things is NOT a downside.

Just having the option to do those things is a tremendous upside,
and it should be a right.


Receiving compliments for something is not usually a downside.

It is a BIG downside when the person giving the compliment is 
essentially pointing out that you aren't the typical, 
ignorant/despicable person they would expect you to be.


It's almost worse when the complimenter is trying to be nice -- because
you can't react like a 1970's offensive, bra-burning feminist and say, 
"You insensitive female chauvinist pig!"

Not unless you have the mentality of a 1970's, self-righteous,
oppressed, educated, middle-upper-class white woman.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:46:45 GMT

In article <1draroINN4q7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxJ5Hw.GLu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1doq3lINN1ng@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>>>>anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
>>>>"be let off the hook".  
>>>
>>>Well, there you are, Don.  Here's the guy you are sharing your male-choice
>>>banner with.  
>
>>Letting nobody off the hook sounds like a consistent position to me.
>>It says that everybody's choice should be the same.  It's not what
>>people typically call "male-choice" -- it's closer to "no-choice."
>>("Choice" usually refers to *second*-chance choice.)
>
>Ah.  So *consistency* is the important thing to you, eh?

Ah.  So making unfounded exaggerations is the important thing to you, eh?


>  All that
>arguing about male-choice didn't have anything to do with the RIGHT 
>thing to do after all, it had to do with 'getting' something to 'get
>even' with someone else. 

All your arguing about pragmatics and politics didn't have anything
to do with right and wrong, it had to do with your looking for
ways to make outrageous flames because you feel victimized.


>So, now we see why you weren't interested in making a good, logical,
>clear and defensible argument.  You aren't really interested in the
>outcome of male-choice, you merely want to restrict women.

You aren't really interested in justice or in what is pragmatic
or even in polite conversation, you merely want to discourage 
any discussion of whether men are treated unfairly.

I'm still waiting for a good, logical, clear, defensible argument from 
you, rather than a meandering from principle to practice to conjecture.


>While you do a serious disservice to people who believe men *do* get
>the short end of the stick in matters re children, I'm still glad we
>got this cleared up.  Always better to know who is truly for your move-
>ment, and who is merely using it for expediency....

It is always good to know who is truly interested in open conversation 
and who just wants to take out their tensions on straw men.

When you find *my* movement, you're welcome to it.    (Pun intended.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is back and Petie's misattributions live on!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:21:34 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32561@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.030316.5387@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
>is back!  Hi, Jim: Do you still subscribe to the chastity belt theory
>of why abortions should be illegal?  That is, do you still believe
>that forcing women to carry pregnancies to terms is justified by their
>having engaged in the the dirty deed?

Hi, Stephen, it's nice to be remembered.

Your references to chastity belts and dirty deeds are obscure.
Possibly you don't remember me that well, or you may be confusing me
with someone else.

I do still believe that the z/e/f is valuable without regard to
whether anyone wants it, that some very good reason is needed to
justify destroying it, and that preservation of the mother's autonomy
is not a good enough reason when the existence of the z/e/f is a
reasonably forseeable consequence of the mother's voluntary act.
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"Not drunk is he who from the floor
(jk@panix.com)		 can rise alone and still drink more.
			 But drunk is he who prostrate lies
			 Without the power to drink or rise." (Clough)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Come and get me Keegan
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 00:43:48 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov2.163619.13283@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct31.010638.29375@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>I am pro-choice.  What do you think about that, Keegan?
>
>>Doug Holtsinger,  Pro-Choice
>
>I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I was surprised
>when the Reverend made the following confession.  I thought
>maybe DOD got some sort of inspiration from his god and was
>now willing to let women decide for themselves.  I was happy
>to see the reverend at peace with his god.
>
>But then a little while later I discovered what the Reverend
>DOD means by being pro-choice.  It appears the reverend uses
>a bizarre definition of what pro-choice is and then says he
>fits that definition.
>
>In article <1992Oct31.034106.3135@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Pro-choice means that people get to _choose_ to kill their developing
>>children.  Under the pro-choice doctrine, it makes perfect sense to
>>allow parents to abuse and kill their born children, since pro-choicers
>>believe that the state is completely incapable of making the right
>>decisions about raising children, regardless of their age.

So, DOD is not really pro-choice; he just wants to kill children?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Why genetics can't be used to determine personhood
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:36:04 GMT

A common pro-life argument here is "it's wrong to kill people, and a
human is obviously a person from conception, because it has human DNA."
This stance has been shown to be flaky (because otherwise you'd have
to consider identical twins to be the same person), but today I thought
of another strike against it:

In the news recently has been a baby girl who's had five organs
replaced: the three I can remember are her liver and intestines.
Assuming the five new organs are all from the same donor, she now has
two distinct DNA mappings within her.

Does this mean she's two persons?  Or does this mean that part of her
is "person" and part of her isn't?

Since it's obvious that two people can have the same genes (identical
twins) and one person can have two sets of genes (an organ recipient),
can the claim "distinct human genes = person" still hold water with
anyone?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Minor Problem here Kiddies....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:59:47 GMT

1. the Days of FetalIdolatry are OVER!

2. God is NOT on the side of AntiAboritonists.

3. The Damnable Heretical Notions Spawned by the ToolsOfTheDevil[tm]
who have been beating the Bandwagon of the AntiAbortionists will
simply LEAD YOU TO FryInHEll[tm].

So You must choose you this Day whom you will Serve!
The God of the Bible! Of the Idols of the FetalIdolators!

Repent and Be SAVED!

ciao
drieux

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

] In article <markts.720828766@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:
] > In <1992Nov2.224040.8360@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
] > 
] >>The real problem in the world is the debates of people not really looking for
] >>the answer.  The answer in my opinion(you may have others) is Jesus for he can
] >>help with the bad times and give us more of the good times.
] > 
] >   the answer may very well be jesus. but lets define the question
] >   before we propose the answer. q: who is causing the problems, and
] >   how? a: christians. by using what they think is god's word. by doing
] >   what they think jesus wants them to do. by prohibiting freedom.
] > 
] >   oh yes, god owns the unborn fetus. he also owns the air you polute and
] >   the grass you tromp on and the body you destroy any time you smoke
] >   or drink or intake sugar or preservatives. so do not use that "god's
] >   property" line with me. because i agree with you. but i will just call
] >   you a hypocrite.
] > 
] >   just an example of "jesus" being part of the problem. not the man,
] >   but those who misapply his meanings.
] > 
] >   oh for christ's sake! shut mark up!
] >   mark.
] > 
] > "All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies."
] 
] Mark,
] 
] If you agree what is with the flames?  God owns the world and is the CREATOR 
] or all life.  Don't you think he had a reason for a baby.  We only go through
] the process, but God gives the life.  The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 
] It is a seperate subject, true, but the world needs Jesus.  We, his
] ambassadors, should stand up for him.  I don't know about you but I don't want
] Him ashamed of me for not doing something.  Remember in Rev. when he flamed the
] church for allowing evil to come in among them.  Why don't we learn a lesson. 
] If our 'freedom' as we define it goes against God's creative power, We DO have
] a problem.  Don't you agree?
] 
] ...Ken!
] > 					-John Arbuthnot


-- 
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: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:28:23 GMT

In article <1dbr70INNch0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
# >Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
# >price of liberty is eternal vigilance...
# 
# Can someone explain to me the status of FOCA?  Is it just a bill?  I thought
# it was put to referendum - does this not give it a higher status?  How does
# Roe vs Wade fit into this picture?

The U.S. federal government does not put legislation to the test of
direct democracy through a referendum process.  Individual states
frequently do, but not the federal government.

The FOCA is simply a bill before Congress.  I think it passed the
House of Representatives and is currently languishing in the Senate.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Roe vs. Wade, on the other hand, wasn't even the product of elected
representatives -- it was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, a
fattened lot of old geezers who have the unenviable job of telling us
what the Constitution really means and making it STICK.  In Roe vs.
Wade, the court `found' a right to privacy in matters of reproduction
matters that includes the right to abortion, even though it isn't
explicitly enumerated in our Fabulous Bill of Rights.

# Please forgive my ignorance and all - but the only news in english
# that I get here is the Irish papers and the BBC world service, neither
# of which have said anything about FOCA that I know about.

'S okay -- I have to go all the way into the City to get the Irish Times.

# Also, I have come to think that the proper place to affirm the right to
# abortion is in a constitution - for precisely the reason that Steve gives
# above.  You wouldn't want other basic freedoms to be placed at the whim of a
# government would you?  Does anyone else agree?

Hey, we can't even pass the ERA.  What do you want from us, progress?

Our Glorious Founding Fathers Who Gave Their Lives That We Might Be
Free felt, in their inimitable and inscrutable wisdom, that the
Constitution ought to be nigh impossible to change.  Otherwise --
horrors! -- the petty whims of the popular culture would dictate
government policy, instead of the petty whims of the elected
aristocracy.

(Why am I not surprised that term limits measures passed in every
state that had them on the ballot, but yet we returned over 90%
percent of our incumbents to Capitol Hill -- STOP ME BEFORE I VOTE
AGAIN!)


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
                                                  -- drieux, just drieux  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: FACTS wanted
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:25:43 GMT

Though this probably doesn't pertain to the original question, I'd
like to remind everyone that, for an excellent education in the 
background of the abortion rights movement, its history, and the
intent of the legal arguments in Roe v. Wade, there's

_A Question of Choice_, Sarah Weddington, Grosset/Putnam, 1992.

                    -rocker

Sarah, now THERE's a Supreme Court Justice....   ;-)
(yes, I'm kidding, she has no experience as a judge...)