HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:12:25 GMT

In <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com 
   (Jennifer Brindle) writes: >

> I think that many 14-year-olds are capable of making good decisions, 
> particulaly when it concerns their own lives.  And I think that if a 
> teenager wants an abortion she should be able to get one--without 
> _having_ to get permission, or even inform, her parents.  

I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
unilaterally?  

Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.  If, subsequent to
a legal abortion, my daughter developed complications, the cost of
treatment would also be my responsibility.  I don't want my right
to influence my minor children's decisions taken away any more
than pro-choice women want their right to abortion taken away.

> I don't believe in legislating family relationships.

In a way, family relationships have *always* been legislated (at 
least in this country).  Parents are legally responsible for the 
activities of their children.  If my ability to govern a particular
activity is taken away, then perhaps my liability for any relevant
consequences should also be removed as well.  Seems fair.

> I also think that if a teenager wants to continue the pregnancy and
> have the baby, then she should be able to do so--without pressure to
> give it up for adoption. I think the support system should be in place
> (if not by the parents, then by the state) to ensure good day care,
> continued education for the mother, and any help she needs to get back
> on her feet to support herself and her child.
>
> When people (and Bush is one of them) state that "a teenage girl can't
> get her ears pierced without her parent's permission, but can get an
> abortion", they aren't understanding the complexities involved.
> They need to think "Why is that?" instead of belaboring on the fact of
> it.  The answer to "Why?" is simple...once the person asking starts
> to think.

Perhaps I've yet to think about this in the "right" way, but please
know that I have considered it and simply arrived at a different
conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
that sound familiar?

Bill 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:59:12 GMT

In <ld3bh0INN2u6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
   (Eric Marsh) writes: >
In article <1992Oct5.163708.18721@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <lcml1oINNmu6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
   (Eric Marsh) writes: >>>

>>>> Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
>
>>>> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>>>> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>>>> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>>>> the deaths of millions?!
>
>>> Yea, right. Judgement day. Yea, right.
>
>>> I don't know why people even bother to post this superstitious crap.
>
>> One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously 
>> derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>> all Wiccans...
>
> Hey, if you were to talk to me about my convictions you just might
> find that they are more rational than you might think. 

What about those who consider *all* religion to be "superstitious
crap"?  I don't consider my beliefs to be any more irrational than
you consider yours.  How can you justify your comment?

> As the Dali
> Lama said, when science contridicts religion, it is religion that
> must change.

All this says is that science is the only universal truth we can
rely on.  No surprise there.

>>> All it does is make them look like know-nothings.
>
>> Based on your comments, I suspect that there are those who've reached 
>> similar conclusions about the proponents of Wicca.  
> 
> I guess your entitled to your opinions, aren't you?

It isn't my opinion that I was referring to.  Do you think Wicca
is exempt from such criticism?  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Child (was: Walking down to the student center last night)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:36:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.212026.69158@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1072@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct04.183535.16658@watson.ibm.com>
>> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> >In  <1061@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Oct02.042824.158278@watson.ibm.com>
>> >> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> >> >In  <1054@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:


>> [the following definition from Merriam Webster's added back in]
>>
>>      child  n. 1a: an unborn or recently born human being:
>>                 Fetus, Infant, Baby.
>>

Goody. Does this mean that a sperm cell or an ovum qualifies as a child
if it might be fertilized in the future?

(I'm going to claim tax exemptions for each and every one of my ova.)



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 05:04:56 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct7.031733.9036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct07.001512.128290@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
> >In  <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
> >>
> >> Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
> >> Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
> >
> >If you're talking about a person, no.  If you're talking about a zygote,
> >yes.
>
> Translate zygote -> human life (no more egg/sperm debate please).

Translate sperm -> human life
Translate egg -> human life
Translate sperm -> member human species
Translate egg -> member human species

> If you're talking about a human life, then yes, social reasons take
> precedence over destroying that human life.

You really should distinguish between forms of human life.  I do agree
with you in regards to human life before personhood, but I don't agree
that social reasons take precedence over destroying people.  (Actually,
I think you're confused (as usual) and you don't agree that social reasons
take precedence over *any* form of human life, significant or not.)

> >> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
> >> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
> >> whatever.
> >
> >Then how come I can see the forty year old musician without a microscope?
> >Maybe there's at least a little bit of difference?
> >
> The stage of being in a human's life doesn't change the fact that that
> being began his/her existence as a human from conception.

Of course not, but that's not what you said.  You said they're exactly the
same, which is patently ridiculous.  Are you going to try to redefine some
terms again, or will you agree that they're *not* "exactly the same"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hey!   Steve Novak!
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:26:32 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
># = ( Steve Novak) writes:

[re: newly-created Most Bizarre Awards (or, MBAs)...]

>#In terms of "bizarre" twisted, our resident ZAP comic.....drieux!  (Clap,
>#clap, clap, clap, clap...)  R. Crumb has to go a ways to catch up with
>#THIS guy.

>Well, that settles that.

That was merely my not-so-humble opinion.

>#Margolis, Rescorla, Nadja and Cochran, in no particular order, get
>#Honorable Mention.

>What about you?  

Gawrsh <*Blush*>  I'm just too danged modest :).

But I'm happy to get your vote, if you wanna.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Article to read
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

>This is an issue that I haven't yet come up with an answer on. It would
>seem that it would be wrong, and yet one has to weigh the impact of
>retarded parents on their children...

I do believe that Lori meant those people who were retarded to the point
that they were dependent on their parents (or others) and were unable
to take care of themselves. Not a person who was just a little slow.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:07:00 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>i play tennis with a young woman who is a chinese
->>national. she tells me that forced or coerced abortion
->>does not occur in china.

->Does she also say there were almost no deaths in Tianamen square,
->and the ones that occurred were due to peaceful soldiers acting
->in self-defense against murderous students?

why would she say that, peter? we were talking about
abortion. does that subject make you uncomfortable?



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.perot
From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Perot's position on abortion (was Re: Perot's Economic Plan (4/4)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:22:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.014735.24814@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.105815.6268@netcom.com> 
>mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>
>>                       A NATIONAL COMPROMISE ON ABORTION
>>
>> My personal position on abortion is well-known, but I will restate it just to
>> make sure there's no confusion:
>>
>> * I support a woman's right to have an abortion. It is the woman's choice.
>>
>> * I support federal funding of abortions for poor women. 
>
>Where's the "compromise"?
>
>> We're thinking, reasoning human beings. Each human life is a precious gift. We
>> should not create a human life unless we're willing to take responsibility for
>> it. It is irresponsible for two people to create a human life they don't want.
>> For democracy to work, for this nation to be whole, every single one of us has
>> to take responsibility for his or her actions.
>
>Oh, I get it, here's the compromise.  
>
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger
>

To my mind, this is the right position on the issue.  YOU have 
responsibility for your acts, and that includes the act that 
does (or does not) cause a pregnancy, and the act of bringing
the child to term, or to have an abortion.  The government 
should not tell you what to do, and should not share any of
the responsibility of your acts.  They are your decisions to
make.  

Sounds like a vote for personal freedom and responsibility.

Perot is the man.  Let's give him a chance.

Doug Humphrey
doug@digex.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41652 talk.religion.misc:17952
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Keywords: mendacity
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:29:56 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

Indeed!

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>> Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>> to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>> apologize for it.

> Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
> "castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
> "castigation" myself several times.

> And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have"
> castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?

Whether or not Mr. Price is a Christian or not really doesn't matter, Nyikos.
I stated that his castigation _worked_, regardless of whether you take his
comment 'straight' or as satire.

And judging by the tight little knot in your knickers, I have to reaffirm my
opinion that Mr. Price's castigation _works_, no matter what his intentions
were.

> If you insist on perpetuating this charade, go ahead, but tell the "other
> Christians" to be prepared to "defend Christianity" against atheists as well
> as actual Christians like Suzanne.  Otherwise everyone will see how hollow
> their "Christianity" really is.

Heh.  Relax, Nyikos, your blood pressure is going ballistic.

>> Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
>> "unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
>> pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
>> that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.

> If Suzanne chooses to regard a fetus as an unborn baby, her choice should
> not be trivialized in this manner.

Damn straight.  After all, a lot of trivial reasoning went into her opinion.

> I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
> suffering.  Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist, I suggest
> you get the "Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
> how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."

How can Gordon 'get' anyone to address an issue if they don't want to?  Is that
a special ability that comes with being a professional atheist?

[--deletions--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
      "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President.
       Now I'm beginning to believe it." -- Clarence Darrow
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: HEY!  IT'S IN THE BIBLE!
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1b26d9INNhpv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
}
}   Yep!  That's right!  I found it in the Holy Book of Wholes, in
}book one, chapter one, "...and he knew not his ass from a hole in
}the ground."
}   So there!  The Bible even predicted Steve Chaney!
}
Hey, I'm a caver.  I know the difference between my ass and a hole in
the ground.  We even have a tee shirt to this effect.  (You don't know
how long I've been waiting for someone to bring this up!)   Quite simply,
Dennis ^H^H^H^H^H^H  Steve is not a caver...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:46:35 GMT

In <14OCT199214395299@zeus.tamu.edu> dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu 
   (NASH, DAVID BENNETT III) writes: >
In <26300@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >> 
In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>

>> What was forced upon you?
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>A set of a beliefs that endorse the notion that abortion is a
>>>perfectly fine option.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Wait a second, are you saying that you are so dense that you 
>believe everything that people tell you??  

No, I don't *think* I was saying that.

>Do you think that beliefs 
>that do not line up with your own are hostile and want to destroy 
>"Truth, Justice,and The American Way (as all good christian males 
>should live it)"??

Do they teach sociology or (cultural) anthropology at Texas A&M?  
The law represents not only a set of prohibitions and mandates, 
but also provides an authoritative medium for the transmission 
of a great many social values.   

>Bill, please don't try to play the martyr, you look like an idiot.  

I just love it every year when the freshmen start posting.

>No one is going to put a gun to your head an make your 
>girlfriend/wife/lover have an abortion.  Nor will anyone force you
>to go to a NOW or NARAL meeting, promise. 

Really?

>>Roe did the same thing, Ron.  You simply see the concept of "individual
>>choice" as a value that supersedes all others.  I don't. 
>
>Again, he is not forcing that concept on you.

"he"?  Who?  "Roe"?

Roe is not a person, David - it's shorthand reference to a 1973
Supreme Court ruling that you might want to read some afternoon
between classes.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Summary: Drugs  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:22:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.050742.12207@news.unomaha.edu>, kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger)                  writes...
>drieux@wetware.com  writes:
> 
>> Well to be truthful steven, I really like to talk to
>> the boys with those BigBluedBarrels....
>> of the liberation of AmeriKKKa from the Enemy threat....
>> Then we can talk about the utility of the currently
>> operable Gay Undergound as a functioning 'BackBone Cabal'
>> Now where were we about those Ikky yukky liberal types....
[lots of stuff deleted]
>> ciao
>> drieux
>> or WarmCuteFuzzies merely as some AntiChristianDogma has been
>> generated to the opposite....
> 
>I'm not on drugs

Well there you have the problem! Drieux, would you please tell our
friend what drugs you are on so we can all think on the same plane.

 What in the
>heck does this say?  It rambles on and on without any meaning like some
>weird piece of Zen poetry. 
>The reason why this whole quoted article makes about as much sense as
>Bill Clinton's economic plan is that the author is liberal and liberals
>don't like rules.  We conservatives know that periods, commas, and capitals
>were created for a purpose. 

Wait a minute! I thought you just said you weren't on drugs? Danny boy
can you please inform this fellow conservative how to spell?

>Kurt R. Krueger
>kkrueger@unomaha.edu
>University of Nebraska at Omaha
> 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42734 alt.abortion.inequity:4452
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: I'm honoured.
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:52:52 GMT
Organization: You know who.

Well, citizens, obviously I've made the big time in Usenet -- I'm the object
of someone's .plan file.  Check out what you can find at
chaneys@athena.ecs.csus.edu:


*********************
[athena.ecs.csus.edu] 
Login name: chaneys   			In real life: Borg Operating Space System (Steve Chaney)
Office: Irrelevant, Irrelevant		Home phone: 777-9311
Directory: /home/student/chaneys    	Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Tue Oct 13 18:14 on ttyp5 from thing.ecs.csus.edu
Project: To catch Patrick Humphrey at the next Texas Ku Klux Klan rally.
Plan:

What have I done in life? 

So far... 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[My statement that started Chaney on his rampage, and his cute little ASCII
barphics, deleted -- unlike him, I refrain from repeating my mistakes.
Besides, you've already seen him post it several score times.  --PLH]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this offends you, Patrick, imagine how badly it offends people who 
finger my account and see this.
**********************

Wonderful attitude, don't you think?  I wonder what he's trying to say here
-- he doesn't want me fingering one of his accounts, or he just doesn't give
a damn any more what anyone thinks of his actions?
Whatever it is, I have but one thing to say:  Chaney, I hope I'm getting my
share of the royalties from this puppy...:-)


--PLH, used to be disgusted, now is just amused


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Choice for life
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:35:25 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct10.044307.28561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
> What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
> pregnancy,

..except for in cases of rape.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.061219.29183@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Brian writes:
>>>I don't care if you're sick, elderly, deformed, criminal, rich, or
>>>poor -- if you try to violate my body against my will, I'll do
>>>everything I can to stop you.  If I have to kill you to stop you, then
>>>I will.
>>
>>You make it sound like the unborn child within someone is guilty of 
>>trespassing, battery, and various crimes.  Give 'em a break!  They
>>are defenseless and need our attention!  They don't deserve to die.  They
>>deserve to live.  Why do we have to be the big bullies to such precious
>>fragile beings who may easily be our very own sons and daughters?  
>
>Think of it this way.  Would you support legislation that would
>require you to donate a lung or a kidney or some other part of your
>body that you can survive without in order to save a life?  I mean,
>say the hospital calls you up one day and tells you Mr. So-and-so is
>dying, so they've scheduled you for donation surgery on Thursday.
>Wouldn't you consider this an infringement on your rights?  By your
>logic, I'd think you'd support a law that would require this.  The
>dying man needs your attention!  He doesn't deserve to die!
>
Notice that abortion is ACTIVE killing.  The situation you describe
about saving someone else by donating involves someone who is dying
on his/her own without your ACTIVELY killing that person.  If someone
was trying to ACTIVELY kill that human individual, I would definitely
want to do something to help prevent some other person from actively
killing him/her.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion