HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:30:29 GMT

In <Btn4Cz.11C@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714853823@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Aug25.121138.22714@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>
>>>it's interesting watching you guys trade away the
>>>rights of women.
>>
>>>do you have special powers to do this or do you think
>>>any male has the power to barter away the rights of all
>>>females?
>>
>>No, only Harry Blackmun and the six justices whom he either
>>conned or was in cahoots with back in '73.

>That's pretty interesting -- either way, according to you, the decision was
>some sort of conspiracy?  I'd be interested in seeing what your evidence is
>for *that*.

>>They bartered away the rights of women vis-a-vis abortionists.

>They did?  Exactly what rights did they "barter" away?  Last time I looked,
>no women were being forced to have abortions -- and RvW was going on 20
>years ago.

You didn't look in the right places.

>  I'd think someone would have made mention of that by now if such
>was the case.

It's been mentioned in various places long before I posted COERCED ABORTION
and I'll have other examples soon in addition to the explicit one in the 
post and the implicit bit about abortions due to incest.  There'll be
additional posts on this, one perhaps as soon as today.

Also there is an account in my "`Abortion' on a not-pregnant woman" post.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:01:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug24.173816.695@advtech.uswest.com>, John Stevens writes:

>> A better
>> question would be "Who gave you the authority to impose your religious
>> beliefs on people who do not practice your religion?"

> The majority.  If the majority of the voters decide that abortion is
> murder, they will be able to pass a law that imposes this belief on you.

Fortunately, US law isn't as idiotic as this, and certain acts are
legal regardless of how many people think they shouldn't be, e.g.
being Jewish.

> Not neccesarily.  Absolutes make for bad law.  It is legal to kill, for
> instance, in special circumstances.  Aborting a fetus concieved during
> rape or incest would still be killing a human being, but the law could
> allow this exception.

The exception makes no sense.  On the one hand, you'd be saying that
a fetus has the right to not be abortion, on the other hand you'd
be saying that a fetus conceived by rape does *not* have this right.
Why?  Once you can answer this question, you're well on your way
to enlightenment and becoming pro-choice.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34913 talk.bizarre:28816 alt.flame:12534 alt.sex:28332 alt.evil:2458 alt.irc:3029
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.flame,alt.sex,alt.evil,alt.irc
Subject: Re: Alright... I'm gone. (summer ends!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:13:06 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep3.154102.20862@pony.Ingres.COM>, dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel
J. Dick), who apparently sprang full grown onto the net the day before
yesterday, takes time out from his no doubt busy schedule to demonstrate to
us all just how appropriate his name is:
> 
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> : In article <Btx54D.GtI@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
> : finds himself unable to take the heat and, surprisingly, manages to find
> : his way out of the kitchen:
> 
> Heat or mockery?  For those involved in this netgroup who wish to hold a
> good, healthy, intelligent, respectful arguement addressing real issues
> instead of silly patience-trying mockery and abuse, I highly suggest using
> the kill-file to the hilt.

Sage advice from a fellow who jumped into the middle of an argument without
ever having read the article which engendered it.  Let me offer you a clue
for free, Mr. Dick: most of those who post here are well aware of their
ability to use a kill file.  If you would like to use one, go right ahead,
but please try to contribute something more noteworthy than a lot of
whining about what a bunch a mean people we are. 

If you're sincerely interested in a good, healthy, intelligent, respectful
argument, I'd strongly suggest that you begin to display a better and
healthier amount of intelligence and respect than you've manifested so far.

Before you invest any great amount of energy in defending the gone-but-not-
forgotten Mr. Franklin, I think you might want to go back and read through
some of his previous "contributions".  Once you've done that, feel free to
come back and make yourself look as silly as you'd like if you still care
to.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we do be doo be do...  
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144346.15174@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

Thanks, Steve, for entering the "Why I Hate Pro-Aborts" contest!
(Regular readers will recall that contest rules state that you 
must write an essay containing 6000 words or more.)  :-)

Seriously, there is really nothing here worthy of rebuttal -- 
as usual, Steve, by example, provides his own best rebuttal.

But there were one or two parts I really enjoyed...  


>It's not just about pizza.

Well,that's good to know.  I had been wondering about that myself.  :-)


[Re: support and non-support of people in show-biz]

>Arnold Schwarzenegger is
>coming up with a new movie soon, dealing with the Crusades. When it comes
>out, make a note to see it; he's another pro-life supporter, [...]

>Our worst media enemy, by far, is Ted Turner. [...]
>In my opinon, Ted Turner and all under his control, should go to the trash
>heap. Scratch CNN. Scratch TBS. Scratch TNT. Scratch Ted Turner.

Ooh... now I am confused.  What does a pro-lifer do if Conan the Barbarian 
is showing on TBS?  Watch it to support Arnold or not watch it to 
not support Ted?  Why is everything so complicated?  Why do we have to make 
all these choices?  Won't some government people help us out and make 
our choices for us?  <sarcasm>


Funniest (or silliest) quote of the week follows...

[Re: certain pro-choicers on the net] 

>Any one of these three people would will you out of existence tomorrow if
>they got as much as one magic wish. For them to say that isn't true, is a
>bold-faced lie, and for you not to believe me, honestly, is an exercise in
>naivety.


[Re: How to deal with journalists]

>When you look into a reporter's
>eyes, you are always staring into the face of a fierce and clever enemy.
>Let them know you know what they are up to. Piss them off. Talk about
>reporters at your next rally, call them names or whatever else. Take cheap
>shots. They take cheap shots at you, so what else is new?
  [...]
>I'm not advocating that we get pissed and start yelling at the media.

Umm, a little consistency check is in order, Steve.  :-)



And what did I like most about the whole 6194-word article?  No .sig!!!
My hat is off to Steve for leaving the .sig at home!

-Scott  (roby@brahms.udel.edu)




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we gotta do...  
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:58:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

First off, I did NOT read all 640 some lines of Chaney's ravings.  Past
history indicates that he cannot put together 20 honest lines much less
several hundred.  However ...

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes ...
>This article is a prelude of yet another multi-article blitz of mine, in an
>effort to resolve challenges put forth. Seeing as this is the first week of
>school, my attention will be largely diverted from this stuff. 

this sentence was (and is) source for considerable astonishment.  First,
it implies that he has actually been paying attention to what he's
said in the past, and second, that he actually pays attention to what
goes on in school.

I would never have guessed.

Some interesting numbers ...

From Harper's Index:
Number of governers who say they would veto any state restrictions on abortion:
30

Number who said this in 1989: 5

Percentage of the world's population that has access to unrestricted abortion:
63

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:06:42 GMT

In article <nyikos.715293029@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <Btn4Cz.11C@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> 
> >They did?  Exactly what rights did they "barter" away?  Last time I looked,
> >no women were being forced to have abortions -- and RvW was going on 20
> >years ago.
> 
> You didn't look in the right places.

This is an evasion, Peter.  He asked which rights were bartered
away, since you claim that some rights of women were bartered
away.  You failed to answer the question and support your
claim.
 
> >  I'd think someone would have made mention of that by now if such
> >was the case.
> 
> It's been mentioned in various places long before I posted COERCED ABORTION
> and I'll have other examples soon in addition to the explicit one in the 
> post and the implicit bit about abortions due to incest.  There'll be
> additional posts on this, one perhaps as soon as today.

All of which is irrelevant.  Being pro-choice means being
pro-choice, and it means, to me at least and I would wager to
most of those who believe as I do, that coercion to continue or
to terminate a pregnancy are equally wrong.

It is a favorite tactic of those who oppose abortion to claim
that abortion should be illegal because some women have them
for reasons that appear frivolous or abortion should be illegal
because some women have them because of pressure to have them.
If pressure to have them is wrong, then pressure to not have
them is wrong, and I would expect Peter, if he is so opposed
to coercion, to be escorting women at clinics that provide
abortion services, helping them to make their own decisions
and to ignore the coercion of the anti-abortion protesters.
If informed and independent decision-making is the issue
here, then we need less of these abortion protests, right
Peter?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:12:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Aug31.191507.17372@ncmicro.lonestar.org> 
>ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>
>> What annoys me is that, although the "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem
>> to think that their arguments are superior, they evidently do not trust
>> women to see this for themselves. 
>
>You make it sound as if every woman is pro-choice.  Women are individuals 
>who have a variety of opinions on abortion.  Please don't ignore their
>individuality.  

As far as I've been able to tell, _every_ woman is pro-her-own-choice.
The dispute comes from what should be done about the _other_ women's
choice.

>The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
>that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
>the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
 
Awww, poor baby!  Imagine being forced to obey the US constitution
by the rulings of the supreme court.  Why, next thing you know, they'll
be enforcing things like the right to vote, opposing racist laws,
and requiring fair trials.

>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
> we want to be precise)..."
>   -- Gloria Feldt,
>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>
>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
   "Neither do I"  -- ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 3 Sep 1992 08:39:27 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <nyikos.715471986@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Scientists and doctors were near unanimity about human life beginning
>at conception until it became politically convenient to claim that
>it began some other time.

Can you back this up with references? I want to read it some-
where besides here.

>
>Butchers in slaughterhouses are not prosecuted for murder.  Serial
>killers are.  Do you sense injustice in this?

No, I do not... I do still stand by my conviction that human
life takes no more precedence than any other life form (except
in its own eyes).

>
>Saving lives and ending them--do you see no difference?

Both cases are examples of man's interference with nature.
If you accept that man can intervene to save lives, then
you should also accept that man can intervene to prevent
a life.

>
>But to get back to your question: there is something to be said for making
>abortion more freely available in some third world countries than the USA.
>But the USA has been far BELOW zero population growth in every year
>since Roe v. Wade, and the only reason you don't notice it is that there 
>is still a big bulge of people ("baby boomers") not yet past childbearing
>age.  But if women keep having children at the rate they do now, and there
>is not a much bigger influx of immigrants than at present, the population
>will begin to decline while most of us networkers are still alive.
>
>Peter Ny.

IMHO, the USA could do with a little population reduction itself.
It may wreak havoc with the economy (since it is based on infinite
growth), but in my eyes, many of man's growth and expansion-based
policies are wrong.

We should be trying to determine how many people can be realist-
ically supported at a given lifestyle, and work to maintain that
population level, both by encouraging children (when needed), and
by using abortion/RU-486, and contraceptives. I subscribe to the
theory that man's unlimited population expansion will eventually
cause us untold suffering. I firmly believe that we must maintain
a balance, and that that balance should be somewhere below the
240 million or so people already here.

I support abortion, because it is a means of population control.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
This is, of course, my opinion.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: smccabe@armstrong.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:43:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>
>My idea of blatant stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine (right 
>to life), and to hell with anyone who got conceived less than 9 months ago."

Well my idea of blatent stupidity is this attitude of "I've got mine
(right to control my own body), and to hell with anyone with an extra
X chromosome."  But since I am sure you are going to come back with 
some response saying that is not the issue here at all, I am willing
to make a deal with you Peter.  If I ever get pregnant, I won't get 
an abortion, but for the ensuing 9 months you agree to have a person
of my choice use your body as he or she see's fit.  Up to and including
occupying certain portions of your body for extended durations, pumping
random chemicals into your blood stream and/or forcing you to undergo
minor surgery which may or may not have any lasting effects.  

Do we have a deal?  Or do you really subscribe to the blatant stupidity
I stated above?

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Comparison of US abortion policy with 101 other nations
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:43:16 GMT

  "The Supreme Court's Wade decision moved far ahead of prevailing world
   opinion on this subject.  Abortion on demand was promulgated here in
   1973.  When compared to the abortion policies of 101 other nations
   in 1974, it becomes clear that very few countries had so fully
   legalized abortion.  Listed below are the therapeutic and social
   indications (if any) allowed in these countries in 1974:

      Illegal                               22  
      Mother's life                         71
      Mother's health (undefined)           26
      Mother's physical and mental health   18
      Fetal abnormality                     18
      Rape or incest                        25
      Socioeconomic indications             16
      On demand                              7

   By this count, only six nations besides the United States fully
   legalized abortion on demand: the People's Republic of China,
   Denmark, the German Democratic Republic, Tunisia, the Soviet
   Union, and North Vietnam.  Moreover, 25 percent of these countries
   did not permit abortions under any circumstances, and the
   majority still held to restrictive legislation in which the
   operation was justified only to save the mother's life." 

   Raymond Tatalovich, _The Politics of Abortion_, Praeger Publishers,
   1981, pg. 15.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:07:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.021950.4211@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}       Who are we to decide whether any person is fit to live or
}not?  That's a judgement which I can't make for someone else, nor 
}would I want anyone else to make that judgement for me.  

Gee Doug, I didn't realize you were a CO also.  I take it you refused
to serve in the military?  What did you do about the draft?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.discrimination
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.174525.8155@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>   Once people condone Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black
>   ass" to describe Steve Chaney, other people will get the idea that
>   it's acceptable to use the term to describe African-Americans as 
>   long as their reasons are "good enough".  There are NO good reasons
>   for calling someone a "fat black ass".  

>   Patrick Humphrey's use of the term "fat black ass" should be strongly 
>   condemned, and I'm outraged that any person could justify the use of 
>   that term because the target of the insult "deserved" it.  NOBODY 
>   deserves to be called such a name.  

I missed this entire conversation, but your use of the words in CAPS
("no" and "nobody") lead me to instantly want to point out that there
are no absolutes...there are hypothetical reasons why someone would
"deserve" to be called just about anything.

The usefulness of this comment?  I don't know.  I am very wary of any
kind of absolutism...everything is case-by-case.  I imagine it would
be more helpful if you were to show how this person's use of what is
of course a pretty nasty thing to say to someone was uncalled for,
rather than to say that the term is universally unjustifiable.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:01:14 GMT


   You people simply don't understand that just because something
is "human life" does not make it a person.  That takes just a bit
more time than you are willing to allow.  Human life began a long
time ago.  But to make a person, you need one sperm, one egg, the
willing(at least in a civilized society!) owner of a uterus, and,
finally, nine months.  Without that period of time, I defy you to
make a person.  Okay, I hear the viability arguments already.  So
let's make it twenty weeks.  Okay?  Without that time period, you
have not got a person.  Your inability to distinguish between the
process and the final product is why you folks are so mistaken on
the nature of a person.  Just because something may become a baby
does not make it a baby as soon as the sperm busts through an egg
wall.  This is why you all look so stupid when you call women who
both have children and may have had an abortion, "baby murderer."
These women have more love and respect for children than you hate
filled jerks will ever know.  Your evil misrepresentation of what
a person is, is an attempt to get law passed that will cause huge
amounts of suffering for both women and children.  You are merely
trying to brainwash everyone just like you brainwashed yourselves
on this matter.  Think, people!  Take a hard look at these loving
parents that you call baby killers.  Do they really look like the
kind of people that like to murder children?
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fetus - legal - IRS
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:52:26 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu




	Unless the tax laws have changed again, the IRS considers a fetus a
person after delivery (whether by birth or abortion).  If a woman aborts
and the child is alive when it comes out, she may declare it a dependent on
her income taxes for that tax year.  Of course, the child will not live
long so she also has it declared legally dead.  I am not sure if a birth
certificate is needed on this or not, but it is the law.


Bryon Lape
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity