HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:54:06 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep13.182736.15433@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
><1992Sep12.013235.25908@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>><nyikos.715894480@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) said:
>>>People keep telling me of all kinds of horrible things Suzanne has
>>>posted in the past.  I haven't seen any that would even remotely
>>>justify the above statements, and I am calling your bluff: if you have
>>>any evidence Suzanne said these things, please produce them.
>>
>>I will post something soon from previous posts of Suzanne's.  She is on
>>record here as being against all forms of birth control, except NFP, in
>>some way.
>Well, Suzanne is RC, so naturally she's against every form of
>contraception but NFP. To be fair, she does not to my knowledge
>advocate legal action against barrier method contraceptives.

Yes, she does.  She has posted that she would like to see a theocracy
established in the USA.  It would undoubtedly be a Catholic theocracy.
Therefore she is advocating legal action against all forms of
contraception except NFP.  She has referred to condoms as "tools of the
trade" of prostitutes.  I guess you know the Catholic opinion of
prostitution.  

...
>>go after the doctor.  She has also inferrd that a theocracy is her goal
>>after abortion is illegal.
>This should be "implied". We inferred it from her implication.
>(Grammar flames are terrible things, aren't they.)
>
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
>>Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
>>and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
>Hey, you forgot ME!

Yes, grammar flames are terrible.  Therefore I am not going to put you in
my sig file.  Sorry, no amount of begging will change my mind...  Oh go
ahead and beg.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:16:19 GMT

In <BuDG7H.IxM.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes>: >
In article <1992Sep10.020726.6021@crd.ge.com> 
   james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>
In article <1992Sep9.183517.9900@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>
In 1992Sep8.171005.15796@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>>>

>>>>        "I haven't noticed any behavior from either
>>>>        Chaney or Holtsinger that would indicate a
>>>>        need for psychiatric evaluation."
>>>>		<1992Sep2.191938.5951@acd4.acd.com>
>>>>
>>>> might i refer you to the following articles. if
>>>> you don't have them, i'll be happy to email them
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151356.9274@csus.edu>
>>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>
>>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152330.9676@csus.edu>
>>>>	Message-ID: <1992Sep8.152723.9942@csus.edu>
>>>>
>>>> after you read them, i wonder if you might not
>>>> awant to mend your statement.
> 
>>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
>>> immaturity with mental illness.
>
>> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad, really,
>> that you don't think therapy might help. perhaps you're
>> just doggedly hanging on to a point you've already
>> lost.
>
> I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't criticize
> another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He seems to think
> that it's reasonable for Holtsinger to not expect to have
> his sources checked, even though I had given advance notice 
> that I would do so.  

I didn't say that, nor do think it's "reasonable", but neither
is it "reasonable" to assume the presence of some psychopathology
simply because you're unable to predict his behavior. 

> He seems to think that it's only a
> sign of immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
> is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)

Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
we could have a field day with "drieux".  

> Teenage women who want to make decisions for themselves,
> on the other hand, are deemed to be in desperate need of
> couselling.  

Not by me, though.  I can't imagine where you came up with such 
nonsense, but it's patently untrue.  In the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, I would appreciate a retraction. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro B
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:42:02 GMT

In article <pov5mu4@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
#---
#forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#|From article by deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc):
#|> In article chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney):
#|>> What does Gloria Steinem have? 
#
#|> Hmmm, that's a toughie.  Well, I'll start the list with
#|> 1.  Dignity.
>
#|What?  With that stupid (graying) hippie hair do?
# 
#Suzanne is being strange again.  Is she heaping scorn on 
#Gloria Steinem for being over 21?  For not using hair dye 
#and instead aging gracefully?  For not using Suzanne's 
#hair style?

It is an odd person indeed who thinks that dignity is attained
through the proper hair style.

#I find Suzanne's statement utterly typical of Usenet rantings 
#against feminism: stupid, shallow, and content-free.

That's the problem with the so-called "pro-life feminists."
They can never pass up a chance to bash feminism, or women
in general - it gives them away every time.

Susan
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:44:31 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep14.231357.23317@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu
(Brian Kauffman) writes:
> 
> >>> = bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> >>  = margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >   = eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
> >> > be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
> >> > weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
> >> > begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
> >> > pain, and in fact has no consciousness.
> 
> >So, am I correct in assuming that a human must be able to feel pain and be
> >recognizably conscious to be a person?
> >If this is not the case, then please explain your position more clearly.
> 

You still didn't answer my question.  Forget about the topic of an unborn
child for a moment.  Now, please answer the question:

Am I correct in assuming that you believe that a human must be able to feel

pain and be recognizably conscious to be a person?


> The way read it, 
> IF the "brain and nervous system" are sufficiently undeveloped, so that 
>   consciousness & sensation are impossible, 
> THEN a fetus wouldn't be considered a "person", given any reasonable 
>   definition of "person".
> 
> o Can you provide a reasonable definition of "person" that doesn't require 
>   (directly or indirectly) a brain or nervous system?
> o Can you provide a reasonable definition of "person" that doesn't require 
>   (directly or indirectly) the ability to be conscious?

Well, I think we are using the word "person" in different ways.  After the
moment of conception you do infact have a human being.  When that human
becomes a person is whenever we choose to say it is one and by a person I
mean that the human must be given moral consideration as any other "born"
human
must be given.

In my opinion, a human becomes a person at the moment of conception.  The
reason why I feel this way is after reading a lot of other definitions, I
have been unable to find one that doesn't have serious problems.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com (tim clinkenpeel)
Subject: MINI-ARTICLE:  Abortion and Mental Health
Reply-To: tpehrson@javelin.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:32:23 GMT

from _Salt_Lake_Tribune_, Tuesday, September 15, 1992, Vol. 244, No. 154
front page.
------------

8-YEAR STUDY FINDS NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM THAT ABORTIONS AFFECT MENTAL
HEALTH

Contrary to claims that there is a traumatic "post-abortion" syndrome, having
one or more abortions doesn't affect a woman's mental health -- for better or
worse, suggests an eight-year, nationwide study.

Women with the poorest self-esteem are those who have unwanted births, not the
ones who choose to have kids or seek abortions, said psychologist Nancy Felipe
Russo of Arizona State University, Tempe.

"This 'post-abortion syndrome' is a myth," said Russo.  Her major findings:

o  No link between abortion and mental health.

o  Getting one abortion was linked to higher self esteem; women who never
   sought abortions, or underwent several, had slightly lower self-esteem.

o  Most likely to repeat abortions were poor women with little education.

--------
-- 
\clinkenpeel: aberrant analytical cynical agnostic idealist.  i exclusively /
/represent myself.  i do not offend anyone; however, some morons choose to  \
\offend themselves.  judge only those who you would have judge yourself.  i /
/don't practice what i preach - i'm not the type of person i'm preaching to.\
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36556 alt.abortion.inequity:3754
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
>aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
>label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.

Maybe so, but here's a question for you: Are you sure it is your child?
You can never be sure, although the woman at least has a definite idea
of the odds.

And here's another point: Why do you wish to force someone against their
will to fully and solely support another living entity for nine months?
Your *support* means nothing compared to what the woman will suffer.
Maybe that's why this has been delegated as a woman's decision, and
only a woman's decision.

I also believe that you're attempting to perpetuate a myth, that men
have no choice. Men have always walked away from relationships when
children are involved in the past, and I don't really see them getting
dragged back in any significant numbers to be held accountable for children
they've spawned, except in cases where there was some sort of promise
made, either explicit or implicit. So let's lay that to rest, shall
we? Men have always had a choice, whether legally granted or not, and
now men like you wish to take a similar choice away from women, after
they recently won that right back.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Questions about "consensus"
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:52:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.151814.16918@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
>simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 

>By the way, this is a trick question. 

Probably the same place that the idea that the news media has to give more 
coverage to groups with larger numbers came from.

By the way, this is a trick answer.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:46:29 GMT

In article <29352@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual nonsense:
>
>>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]
>
>Many of us who are pro-choice believe that the anti-choice position is
>fundamentally misogynistic because it places restrictions on the
>rights of women that are not equivalent to any placed on men.  

Do you honestly think that it's their INTENTION to discriminate against one
gender, Stephen, or is it maybe just that they value the unborn so much more 
than the born, that this has an incidental sexist EFFECT?

If I shoot a burglar in the dark of night, and it turns out the burglar is a
woman, does that make me a sexist? If the burglar is black or hispanic, does
it make me a racist? Be careful to separate intentions from incidental effects.
Admittedly, this "incidentality" is much more clear-cut in the burglar-in-the-
night examples than it is in the case of the abortion controversy, but it's 
really only a matter of degree...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.152129.21600@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep11.004555.14711@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes: >>
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes: >>>
-> #wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
-> >>>> I read each of them.  You seem to be confusing
-> >>>> immaturity with mental illness.
-> >
-> >>> i suspected that you'd say that. it's too bad,
-> >>> really, that you don't think therapy might help.
-> >>> perhaps you're just doggedly hanging on to a point
-> >>> you've already lost.
-> > 
-> >> I think that Overpeck is caught in the "don't
-> >> criticize another pro-forcer too strongly" trap.  He
-> >> seems to think that it's reasonable for Holtsinger
-> >> to not expect to have his sources checked, even
-> >> though I had given advance notice that I would do
-> >> so.  He seems to think that it's only a sign of
-> >> immaturity when a 21 year old is convinced that he
-> >> is a fictional entity (or an inanimate object.)
-> >
-> > it's a consistent reaction for him, if that's what he's
-> > doing now. he did the same thing with djr for a long,
-> > long time. from what i read as the tone of his notes, i
-> > think he tried to use this particular thread as an
-> > extension of an older disagreement. of course, i could
-> > be mistaken here. he seems to have jumped on what
-> > appeared to be an opening and when that turned out not
-> > to be the case, then things got convoluted for him.
-> 
-> My, for someone who's fond of cynically accusing others 
-> of being "mind-readers", you're awfully willing to engage
-> in some serious presumption, yourself.

where have i done that, bill? are you referring to the
paragraph preceeding yours? if so, do the phrases "from what
I read," "i think," "i could be mistaken," he seems" strike
you as anything other than an expression of opinion?

-> However, I, in my convolution, am still waiting for a list 
-> of symptoms to substantiate your diagnostic impressions.

are you referring to the "diagnostic impressions"
you claim i've made here?

since i haven't made any "diagnostic impressions," it's
difficult to see what you're getting at.

-> >> Teenage women who want to make decisions for
-> >> themselves, on the other hand, are deemed to be in
-> >> desperate need of couselling.
-> >
-> > nice point.
-> 
-> It would be, if I'd ever made such a ludicrous assertion.  
-> Attributing such a claim to me is disingenuous.

are you implying that counseling teenage girls who
wish to have an abortion is ludicrous, bill?


-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 07:59:40 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep3.222813.16609@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> Beware lest somebody come along and second guess the "quality" of _your_
>>> lifestyle, Brian, and hence whether _your_ life is "worth living".

You've alreadyt done this to a degree.  You've already decided that 
anyone living without your religious views is not living a "quality" life.
You'd even like to legislate things so they have to live your views.  In
fact, your entire religious viewpoint is that those people who don't live
a certain "quality" of life will be *rightfully* killed.

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to warn others about
"second-guessing" other peoples lifestyle, when you are doing your best to
do just that?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
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.
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:55:26 GMT
     <1992Sep12.002011.29466@noao.edu>
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz):
>> What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
>> Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
>> perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
>> personal religious views the law of the land.  
>
>Of course not.   She's already succeeded.   (For the time being.)

ATTENTION     ATTENTION     ATTENTION

Driedel disbursement will commence at precisely 6:00 pm this evening.  All
citizens are required to show their driedel to any properly yarmulked 
officer upon request.  Failure to do so may result in criminal persecution.

Latkes will be served at all disbursement sites.  Plan on being there.

This has been a public soivice announcement.

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                              Eddie/Marvin '92:
               We support a kindler, gentler depressive state...
                        as improbable as it may seem.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Sep 92 00:32:17 GMT

In <Bu0otI.10B@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>(1) The doctor described in the Miami Herald is about as anti-choice 
>as one can get.  

I was not talking about pro-choicers, I was talking about abortionists.

>(2) This docter would never be defended as caring about women based 
>on his activities described in the article.

But some people will defend all abortionists and challenge the evidence
that any such thing as the Ft. Lauderdale case could ever have happened.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:10:07 GMT

In article <25083@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <25056@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>%%>John
>
>%%>Sigh. . . Once again, they are forcing the father to allow his child to be
>%%>aborted.  He has no say in the matter, and no choice.  Which is why the
>%%>label 'pro-choice' is an out and out lie.  pro-female-choice, yes.
>
>>>I also believe that you're attempting to perpetuate a myth, that men
>>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>have no choice. Men have always walked away from relationships when
>>>children are involved in the past, and I don't really see them getting
>>>dragged back in any significant numbers to be held accountable for children
>>>they've spawned, except in cases where there was some sort of promise
>>>made, either explicit or implicit. So let's lay that to rest, shall
>>>we? Men have always had a choice, whether legally granted or not, and
>>>now men like you wish to take a similar choice away from women, after
>>>they recently won that right back.
>
>>Bill Clinton, 7/16/92, Nomination Acceptance Speech:
>
>>  I do want to say something to the fathers in this country who
>>  have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting their child support;
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  take responsibility for your children or we will force you to do so.
>
>Ahh, but there's the rub in your argument, Don. They neglect/abandon
>their children by neglecting their child support. Nothing is said about
>those who met someone, had sex, and walked away either knowing/not knowing
>that their partner is pregnant/had a child by them. This was court-ordered
>support of their children, which, if you read real close, you'll see
>I mention as the exception in the above case.


I didn't need to "read real close," as you recognize:

>>Or perhaps your exception for "explicit or implicit" promises
>>covers most paternity cases.
>
>Those cover the cases where the courts usually find the man responsible
>in some way and decides that he owes child support. 


But where was his "explicit or implicit" promise?  What kind of
"implicit" promise are you imagining?

All it need take is for a woman to point a finger and demand a DNA test
(okay, and get a lawyer).  Or just to be married to a man, father or not.
Certainly an explicit promise is not necessary.

And the bottom line seems still to be, according to your statement,
that if a man does not make an "explicit or implicit" promise, 
he *should* have a right to "spawn" and leave.  (We ought not
to remove that pre-existing right, no?)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion