HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:27:38 GMT

Just scanning, and I noticed this...

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>> I wonder if anyone is going to try a challenge of Maryland's law,...

<Bx84M7.5w@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> (Keith Bloom) writes:
> ...Maryland's law could be overturned only if the Supreme
> Court ruled that a fetus has Constitutional protections under the
> Fourteenth Amendment.  Of the Justices now on the Court, the only ones
> who might conceivably do so are Scalia and Thomas, and even that is
> doubtful.  (As far as I know, neither has said anything about it.)

This is an excerpt from Justice Scalia's opinion in Planned Parenthood
v. Casey.  Justice Thomas joined the opinion:

SCALIA (Rehnquist, White, Thomas):   "The States may, if they wish, permit
abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.  The
permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved
like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade
one another and then voting."

From my understanding of the Maryland measure, it is exactly what
Scalia, et. al. had in mind.

There is no doubt among any member of the Supreme Court that the
Fourteenth amendment does not confer or recognize fundamental 
rights of any kind for human fetuses.  If you want them, get busy
on amending the Constitution.

-- 
|   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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:17:15 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.022416.3257@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
>>AR> Oh, come on.  What you are really saying is to hell with the thousands
>>AR> of years of legal precident our western culture has relied upon.
>>
>>But, you don't seem to object to "saying to hell" with the thousands of
>>years of legal precdents which are to the perceived disadvantage of women.
>>
>>So why object to attempting to change legal precedents which are perceived to
>>be disadvantageous to men?

>Ah, the big question.  The $64,000 question.

>WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?

>The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
>not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
>the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
>that.

Well who the hell do you think will be paying for 1.6 million abortions
per year inside of 12 months?  (actually, I tend to think the abortion rate
will increase under William Jefferson Blythe, but let's stick with a
verifiable figure).  Funny how you complain about taxpayer's wallets when
it comes to little kids, but you don't have a qualm about those wallets
if they happen to be paying for body parts in a garbage can.

>consider, that women in the workforce has upped our productivity, made
>better use of the US's overall talent and kept us from falling even deeper
>into recession than we have.

Yeah, what about overall talent?  You'll cry for the loss of a possible
cancer cure in some Amazon plant, but not about the loss of the next 
Schweitzer (or pieces thereof) torn out piece by piece.

>right?  Is it good?"  Rather the question is "DOES IT COST ME ANY MONEY???"

>Think about it.

>Adrienne Regard

Those thoughts should have crossed your mind before you helped elect a 
guy who's promised to tax anyone making more than $50,000 a year (yep,
according to George Stephanopolous, Clinton's communications director
$50 K = wealthy.  That is, until they find out they STILL don't have
enough money, in which case it'll drop to $36,000).

Steve Kellmeyer


-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.women
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:57:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.181001.11487@nas.nasa.gov> 
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

> [Holtsinger] does not want the decision left up to 
> doctors, he would rather he be allowed to make the decision who can or
> can not have an abortion.

This is a lie.

>Dan King


Doug Holtsinger
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arson Attempt at Robbinsdale Women's Clinic
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:21:19 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov10.220038.28188@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> There's dirty work afoot, mateys.  It was reported that the Robbinsdale
> Women's Clinic had to be shut down for a day because certain individuals
> had drilled a hole in the roof and had deposited a quantity of gasoline
> into the building.

The fire dept estimates that 10 gallons of gas were poured in.

>                     It is not known whether the guilty party(ies) had
> attempted to ignite the gasoline and failed or had simply left the
> gasoline as a 'surprise.'

The news last night said that a lit wick was dropped in the hole, but
that melting snow from the roof put it out.

>                            It's lucky that the gasoline wasn't ignited.
> The local fire department estimated that it would have exploded with the
> force of seven sticks of dynamite, which would certainly have killed the
> persons on the roof and showered bystanders with lethal doses of debris.

Which probably explains why they did not stick around after dropping 
lit wick in the hole.

They also said that the fumes were so strong that if anyone the next 
morning had been smoking, it would have started a huge fireball.

> I hope we won't be seeing any more desperate acts like this.

Probably not.  In 1987 the clinic got a restraining order against some
anti-abortion protesters and the following day the clinic was firebombed
(though the damage was minor).  The clinic was granted another restraining 
order days before the most recent attack.

> Btw, my computer is suffering from some rare and exotic malady; we've
> had service guys out twice in two days.  If you respond to this or any
> of my other ravings, please send me a copy via email.  Thanks.

-- 
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
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:19:18 GMT

> In <1d8s48INNobg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> >I'll never understand how males on this planet can function to adulthood
> >with all the women in their lives somehow invisible to them.

Did any of you other guys hear that?  I thought I heard something.
Kind of a weird, high voice.  Must have been some guy playing a
joke or something.

Dean Kaflowitz

I don't know where tomorrow went
Morning came and morning went
Pick up your pieces and pack up your tent
You ain't goin' nowhere.
-Robert Zimmerman
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:34:26 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov6.031749.764@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.205434.369@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov5.162618.15721@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>

>>What exactly is your problem I try to make a concession because I feel that
>>it is important and you try and make me into a fool?

No, the fact that you think you are making a concession is what makes you
into a fool. Who made you God?

>In article <1992Nov5.204934.29875@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov5.164425.16148@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>|> 
>>I have talked to women. I think you should find out more before making
>                  ^^^^^
>>accusations. Most of my feelings about stricter abortion laws are based
>>on my talks with these 2 young women. Unfortunately not all woman give
>                       ^^^
>>the issue as much thought as the women you are talking about. So we have
                                                                  ^^
>(All together now:  What do you mean "we", pale face?)
>>to make sure they know what they are doing.

>Gosh darn it!  Did all women hold an election to choose our two representatives
>and I missed it?  I hate it when that happens.  Here's a free clue Jeffy,
>women are individuals and we don't all have the same beliefs, opinions,
>or aspirations as the 2 you apparantly have chatted with.

No. They were the only two unable to get out the back door when Jeffy
came in the front.
-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:00:04 GMT

In article <BxHDy3.3Fv@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> 	<1992Nov7.194731.19500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> Distribution: na
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:34:50 GMT
> Lines: 36
> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> [ On whether Chief Justice Rehnquist believes in States' rights, or
>   tilts towards government authority in general as opposed to individual
>   liberties. ]
> 
> >From The Brethren, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (largely these
> >passages deal with Renqhuist and the 14th Amendment):
[deleted for brevity]
> 
> OK, the second paragraph is certainly evidence that Rehnquist is a
> proponent of States' rights.  Do Woodward and Armstrong say anything
> about what the issues in Maryland v. Wirtz and Fry v. U.S. were?  Has
> Rehnquist argued for States' rights in any other opinions?

I'll have to do some research for that, and I hate to do research.
The Brethren will summarize the arguments and I have that at
home.  Local library sucks, so it may be a while before I get
back to you on this because I have some amazingly better things
to do on the weekend than worry over netnews arguments.  I will
try, but I have skipped the reaerch in the past as a waste of time,
so I apologize in advance if I don't get to it.  Renqhuist did
have a book out some years ago that I read (titled something
like "The Supreme Court:  How It Works").  As I recall, he
seemed ot indicate his dissatisfaction with the extension of
the 14th Amendment into so many areas not specifically addressed
in the 14th.  Other than that, it has been too long since I
read it.  He was not at all an engaging writer.

Anyway, I'll post on Wirtz and Fry and save this post for whenever
I can get to it.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:33:04 GMT

In <adams.721328207@spssig> adams@spss.com 
   (Steve Adams) writes: >
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
   (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >>
In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
   ron_s@verifone.com writes: >>>

>>> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
>>> morality, 
>
>>So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
>>and robbery laws.   
>
>Sorry, but you missed the issue, I think.  Murder, rape and robbery all
>infringe upon my rights (life, bodily autonomy, property).  There are NOT
>moral issues.  

Is it "good" to have rights?  If so, why?   

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A Question for the Pro-Lifers or Anti-Abortionists or whatever
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:37:55 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>> I am relatively new to this net and while I consider myself pro-life I
>>> "try" not to force anything down anyones throat (although I'm sure it
>>> might seem so at the time I try not to.)

>> Hi Jeff.  Until very recently I held views which were rather similar to
>> yours.  I'd like to try to explain to you what changed my mind.

>> Doesn't it sound unspeakably cruel to bring pressure to bear on an
>> unwilling woman - maybe your own daughter someday - in an attempt to
>> force her to give birth?

> If you are pleading on the half of incest or rape victims, that is
> one matter.  However, the MAJORITY do not fall into this and they 
> DO NOT fall into this supposed UNWILLING catagory.  They may and 
> probably do fall into the UNPLANNED or rather LACK OF PLANNING 
> catagory or even into the UNEDUCATED ones.

I believe that Frank was pleading on behalf of _all_ women with unwanted
pregnancies, Richard.  Furthermore, it seems that if a woman is unwilling
to be pregnant, it doesn't matter whether the pregnancy was a result of
lack of planning or lack of education.  Given the risks of pregnancy and
childbirth and the profound impact these have on a woman's life, the most
important reason for a woman to be pregnant is that she _wants_ to be
pregnant.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:31:58 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:06:03 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <BxFCx6.B6B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>
>>>WHO DO YOU THINK ends up paying, Will?
>>>The taxpayer.  Now, I don't know about you, but *I* am a taxpayer, and I'm
>>>not terribly excited about paying, not only for my children, but for ALL
>>>the OTHER children out there in the world.  I don't make enough money for
>>>that.
>>
>>Well who the hell do you think will be paying for 1.6 million abortions
>>per year inside of 12 months?  (actually, I tend to think the abortion rate
>>will increase under William Jefferson Blythe, but let's stick with a
>>verifiable figure).  Funny how you complain about taxpayer's wallets when
>>it comes to little kids, but you don't have a qualm about those wallets
>>if they happen to be paying for body parts in a garbage can.

>I'm not precisely sure what you are arguing here:  That, since abortions
>are paid ($300-500) for occasionally via tax payer money, that we SHOULD,
>or that we SHOULDN'T let men off the hook?

>Now, think it through before you respond.

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".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the 
future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.

>Adrienne Regard

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:10:42 CST
 <1992Nov9.145006.2748@brandonu.ca> <1992Nov10.183224.4212@rotag.mi.org>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov10.183224.4212@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.145006.2748@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.175749.20629@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> 
>>> A one-word refutation of Adrienne's points: adoption.
>>
>>Please expand.  I can't see how adoption is the cure-all for forced
>>pregnancies.
> 
> I am not advocating adoption as a cure-all, nor do I advocate forced 
> pregnancies. At the same time, if Adrienne is concerned about children
> being raised by "dishonest", "immature", "ignorant", "sinful", "fickle" and/or
> "misguided" women, then adoption seems an obvious stock response, does it not?

Well, now that you put it that way, it seems to me that adoption would be
just as bad as the biological mother keeping the baby.  Can you think
of a set of parents who do not warrant the above adjectives at least
some of the time?  Looks like a definition of "human being" brewing
up there!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:01:15 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>---Clinton is not the enemy. --- Just because he is the president that supports
>many anti- christian ideals (gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.), he is only
>a tool that God uses to wake up his children and to shake the fence that people
>are trying to balance on.  We need to love our brothers and sisters (even
>clinton) and hate the sin.  This also is true for hating abortion but loving
>those who had them.  We need to tell the truth but not judge, that is up to
>God.
>
>---The only thing different not from before the election is that now we have a
>new challange to face.  Besides, as we see from those resigning before clinton
>comes in.  Many experienced people see him for what he was now --talk just
>talk.  I don't want to side track, but seeing that he wanted to bomb and begin
>a ground war with Serbia just a few months ago.  What will he do know?
>
>I think that is good for now.  Peter -- stay in there and all you others for
>the unborn.  Maybe people will wake up soon.

Ken...

   If you can convince people to follow your moral standards willingly,
then there is no problem.  But to write Christian moral standards into law
is wrong.  The New Testament tells us that no man is saved by the law, nor
can we be.  Passing laws making certain sins illegal does nothing to
further God's cause, nor does it prevent the sin.

   Work instead to educate people as to *why* they should willingly follow
the strict moral code you propose.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:18:05 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes ...
>Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>only be a baby.  By stoping its development, you are taking away the potential
>for life. Correct (I did say potential)?  If it is not going to be able to live
>then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?

Again, I make the point.  will an EGG become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
only be a baby.  By preventing its development, you are taking away the 
potential for life. Correct (I did say potential)?  If it is not going to be 
able to live then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?

Sheesh.

So then, do you think people should be required to have as many
children as possible?  Require women to be pregnant for the first time
by the age of 18?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights