HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:22:28 GMT

In article <94996@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.205422.12420@noao.edu>
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> >From article <94392@bu.edu>, by kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star):
> 
> >>Disdain of homosexuality is learned. Are you going to teach your daughter
> >>to frown upon two women or two men holding hands in public?
> 
> >Like I said, I think y'all are just paranoid.   You see hatred even where
> >there isn't any.
> 
> Hmmm...I suppose all that stuff you wrote about "homosexuality and
> misogyny being connected" and  how "gay relationships were naturally
> inferior to straight relationships in the eyes of God" and how "children
> should not be raised in same-sex households" is all a figment of
> my imagination...


Maybe that's just how she expresses all that vast love she
has.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 18:30:47 GMT


   Since you complain about so many different aspects of abortion
rights, are there ANY circumstances under which you would support
a woman's right to choose.  Since you complain so much about late
abortions, does this mean that you support choice if the abortion
takes place prior to fetal viability?  Since you oppose tax money
going to abortion, would you support choice for women that do not
use government money to pay for their abortions?  Since you don't
approve of minors having abortions, do support choice if just the
adult women of America could have an abortion?  If abortion was a
right available only to ADULTS, if it involved NO PUBLIC FUNDING,
and was only available PRIOR TO FETAL VIABILITY, would you oppose
it?  If the answer is yes, would you PLEASE stop attacking facets
of this issue that really do not mean anything to you.  It is yet
one more way that you try to put a spin on the abortion war which
is just more of your bullshit.  You oppose ALL elective abortion.
And everyone know it.  So to continue to feign concern about some
aspects of abortion is more of you corruption.  Why not quit this
charade, and just openly oppose ALL abortion, instead of feigning
concern with just the extreme and difficult facets of this issue.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:04:22 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?

>Probably from her first boyfriend.

No, I'd say it was from her priest.  Confessionals are great places for
"non-contact" sex.

Alden 

FounderOfDriexidsForJesus
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Who is human?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:13:13 GMT

From article <1992Aug26.043532.3837@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi):
>>
>>Why? are not newborn babies human just as gays are?  
>>
> 	Not according to Patrick Buchanan, apparently.


You animal.



;-)
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another FetalIdolator Victim of ModernSeXularHumanism
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:20:24 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] In article <9bye939@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
] >I agree!  I just started reading this News group and am shocked at the useless
] >ramblings - I was hoping for some rational, thought provoking discussions, not
] >a lot of clearly false opinions - on both sides of the arguments.
] >Sean P. Curley	
] 
] You *could* try again to start your own 'kinder and gentler' version of this
] discussion group by entertaining us all with a definition of a clearly
] false opinion.....
 
Adrienne,

How Many Times do we have to tell you that
these RepublicratFetalIdolatorVictimOfModernSeXularHumanism
are all the same and that they are just NOT
like you and I, who are of course, Moral and
wholesome and good.....

If ONLY they were Like US, and UnderStood the
OneTrueWay, and the OneTrueReligion as we do,
they would not Fall Prey to Demonic Forces....


ciao
drieux


ps: give my regards to the one who stirs your Vat....





-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Gag Rule (was Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:54:35 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

[...]
>These are not private agencies and they wish to use tax money in doing
>the informing.   There is no restriction where they do not insist on
>using our tax money to do it.    That's 'what the hell is WRONG' with it.
[...]

Although the clinics get government funds they are privately owned,
not government owned.

The Bush regulations go beyond restricting the use of government
money. They also forbid the clinics using other money to mention
abortion. That is, if a clinic takes even a dime of money, it is bound
by this restriction.

Also note, the Supreme Court said that such "one dime" restrictions
could not be imposed everywhere but only in places where free speech
is not so important.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33081 alt.flame:12268
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Inturdgent bangs out lies on his Commodore
Keywords: Dennis, your parents are going to wash your mouth out with soap
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:18:31 GMT
     <1992Aug21.165200.9048@nas.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>I put alt.flame back into the distribution.  If I'm gonna apologize, I
>want to make sure it gets to all the folks I owe the apology to.

Makes sense.

>But my intent was not to 
>dis Commodore users for their usage of said machines.  My intent was to 
>flame little dweebs who pretend their Commodore is a Next.  

Fair enough.  :-)

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Keywords: Math student?? But...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:02:58 GMT

In <1992Aug29.092412.7170@mercury.cair.du.edu> rkannan@diana.cair.du.edu (PiedPiperAtTheGatesOfDawn) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715039374@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Aug25.113424.15235@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>
>>>In article <nyikos.714686947@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>}Keywords: You knew I'd do this
>>
>>
>>>}This time it is Galen who is assuming too much about me. [That brings the
>>>}score from 3-0 to 3-1, still in his favor.]  I haven't been around long
>>>}enough to catch on to his habits.
>>
>>>I don't even know what game we are playing, I don't even know the rules,
>>>and I'm still ahead!  Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."
>>
>>The game: making unwarranted assumptions about someone.  Point system:
>>each time you make an unwarranted assumption about someone, you have to 
>>award him/her one point.

>Strange. As per your system since your opponent has 3 points you have
>unjustifiably accused him thrice and have been accused only once.
>So either you are better at slander or your math is wrong.

You're missing the self-deprecating humor in my comment.  I cheerfully
admitted to being wrong about him 3 times, but "slander" is way way
too powerful a word.  Assumption 1: I assumed he was a fan of the
author of "The Rubayiat of Omar Khayyam" just because he used a verse
from there to set the stage for one of his better posts.  Assumption
2: I called him "Dr. Hekhuis" because I saw the .med in his address
(I even, immediately, asked "am I once again assuming too much?" but
I'm generous in awarding points to my opponents)
3: I addressed a question to him which should have been addressed to
Margolis.

>Alas, you seem to be studying for a math degree so you will either be
>studying for a long time or ...

Guess again.  I got my degree in 1971, Ph.D. at Carnegie-Mellon
University.  With you the score is one-zip, in favor of me.

>>You certainly gave me some of the best laughs I have had all year.  But
>>along this thread, your humor is wearing a bit thin.  So I bid you 
>>adieu here.  If you desire any more responses from me, join me in 
>>some other thread.
>>

>This newsgroup is certainly very funny and has given me a lot of laughs
>today on reading this for the first time. I will henceforth read this 
>group everytime I need cheering up and hope to see your funny articles
>as well.

I hope I don't disappoint you.  Otherwise the score will be 2-0.

Peter Nyikos
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 25 Aug 1992 23:14:30 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Time Poll

As published in the August 31, 1992 issue:

Which position best represents your views about abortion:

A woman should be able to get an
abortion no matter what the reason             49%

Abortion should be legal only in
certain circumstances                          38%

Abortion should be illegal in all
circumstances                                  10%



From  a telephone poll of 1,250 adult Americans taken
for TIME/CNN on Aug. 19 - 20 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman,
Sampling error +/- 3

The article also has poll results on issuing condoms
in schools and homosexual rights, the total yes vote
being 53% and 44% respectively.

See article "Family Values"
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:22:36 GMT
Organization: Guess.

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug20130211@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>   On the contrary, the
>   vast majority of women seeking abortions appear to me to do so after a
>   thorough examination of the implications of their situation and the
>   options available to them.

>I think that they tend to inflate the trauma of childbirth, automatically
>ruling it out -- I don't think they do a "thorough examination".

All right, twit.  What exactly do *you* know about the "trauma of childbirth"
that makes your judgement so much better than theirs?  And on what basis do
you make the extreme geeralization that "the vast majority of women seeking
abortions" do not "do a 'thorough examination'"?  Have you done research on
this topic?  Interviewed a thousand women from all walks of life?  Do you
know EVEN ONE woman who has had an abortion?  Or do you, like most pro-lifers,
just wish we'd accept your TbBA and stop confusing the issues with facts?

-- 
"Republicans understand the importance of the bondage between parent and
child." - Dan Quayle at a GOP rally in Sept. '88 in Springfield, Illinois

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: control
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:47:33 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  <nyikos.715296199@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug29.144832.19929@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) write
>
> >Mills
> >>Nyikos
> >>> Rick Kelly
> >>>> Suxie
>
> >>>>Nobody is trying to take away anybody's control of their own bodies.
> >>>>We're simply making it plain that it is appropriate to apply that control
> >>>>at the correct time, BEFORE there is a child whose own body is also involved
>
> >>>So the only sexual intercourse that you've ever had was for the specific
> >>>purpose of concieving a child.  And once you had reached your objective
> >>>you stopped.
>
> >>A truly tasteless joke.  But it has possibilities: properly reworded,
> >>it makes a perfect illustrative example of the term  "non sequitur".
>
> >Hardly, twit.  What Rick is asking is: since you feel that the woman should
> >be ennslaved to her body for the sin of failinng to "control" herself
> >"at the correct time," do you advocate the same "control" for men, and,
> >more specifically, for YOURSELF?
>
> >In other words, have you ALWAYS engaged in sex for the SOLE purpose of
> >procreation, or are you a flaming, raving hypocrite?
>
> This makes a perfect illustrative example of the fallacy of "tertium
> non datur" -- "there is no third way."
>
> One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly
> unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

How is that a third way?  You seem to be restating the original premise
which is being questioned - only have sex if you're willing to give birth.
(Except, of course, that by specifying NFP you can have sex less often and
are more likely to have an unwanted conception than if you used the Pill.)

> Also, have you forgotten that en route to the  nth  of  n  children
> there is plenty of opportunity for sex for non-procreative ends?

What if n is 0?  Or, more generally, what happens after you reach n
(where n does not approach infinity)?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:16:25 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug19.020612.19005@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Go away and stop your yelping until you get up to the first grade. 

Please, please, don't waste a moment of your minimum-wage time worrying
your fragile mind about _my_ level of education, Mr. Sales Droid.  By the
way, when are you moving up to that high-paying job at Egghead?

Maybe I'll come up your way and let you demo spreadsheets for me for a
couple of hours.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand (was Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:18:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.001045.11063@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Here is our reason for labeling you pro-abortion:

Well, I'm sort of assuming I may also be labeled "pro-abortion" by various
of the pro-life zealots on the net so I can respond to this.

>If you were pro-choice, why is it that pro-choice does not mean legalizing
>drugs? We have control of one's own body and privacy to invoke here.

Pro-choice, for me at least, DOES mean legalizing drugs.  Exactly for the
reason specified.

>How about school choice? Pro-choice should include the right to choose
>whichever school you go to, rather than the one the school district forces
>you to go to.

One does have the choice as to the school, assuming one can afford private
school.  Back when I was in public school, I could even choose to go to a
different public school if another school offered curricula not available
at my local school and I showed I was qualified to participate in those
curricula.

>Pro-choice is not about choice; it's about abortion, unrestricted, for
>free. By the tax dollars of the majority of Americans who are unwilling to
>pay for such a thing.

I believe in socialized medicine, and I believe in unrestricted first and
second trimester abortions.  I also believe in unrestricted first and second
trimester non-abortions for those women who wish to remain pregnant.  I also
believe that tax dollars should be spent for BOTH.

>I don't. I used to when I was first abandoning my pro-choice stance, but
>it's clear to me and other pro-lifers here, that it isn't generally legal
>for one victim to take another innocent human being and kill them in order
>to relieve their own suffering.

How compassionate of you.

>Or what about the DEA? They are rumored as having made GRUESOME
>transgressions against the Constitution, for their pursuits of drug use.

Just so.  And hopefully I'll live to see the Constitution restored in my
country.

>Abortion could be punished as a normal case of infanticide.

It could be, but I sure hope never to see it.  It would an utter abomination
to do so.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Beware the man who swallows his phlegm.

	-amazing Serbo-Croatian proverb
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:18:45 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Aug21.212103.22958@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.185107.9237@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>|> 
>|> Cathi, ALL pro-choicers lie to themselves, at least a little bit, about
>|> what abortion actually IS.
>|>

>I for one don't lie to myself as to what an abortion is (the termination 
>of a pregnancy)

{Satire} That's only partly true (see below),
{end of satire} and it's certainly not the whole truth.

>, or as to what is involved in all the forms that termination
>can take.

>	--surgical abortion:    death of a fetus
>	--spontanious abortion: death of a fetus
>	--birth:                a live infant

{Satire}For a fourth possibility, see below.  {End of satire}
A more extended explanation appeared
 my "Ripley's believe it or not" post of 
last month.  A sequel will be coming your way soon.

>I am aware that the most common abortions are spontanious abortions

{Satire} Not if you use the usual Ob/Gyn definition of "pregnancy", 
which begins
two weeks prior to most fertilizations.  Then well over 90% of all
"abortions" take the form of expulsion of the ovum at menstruation.
{End of satire}

> and birth and that surgical abortions are in the minority and that laws 
>prohibiting abortion must distinguish between all the forms of abortion, 

So far as I know, they all do and have done this.  Do you know of
any exceptions.

>that they will require a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, the
>right to protection from self-incrimination 

Since women are not targeted by the laws, it is only the doctor [read:
abortionist] who will be self-incriminating if he offers an abortion
to a woman who did not particularly want one in the first place.  If
she did, then I'm not sure what you are talking about.

>and will be about as effective
>as the war on drugs and prohibition.

though considerably more "effective" [I'm guessing as to what you mean by
this] than the laws agains perjury.  Should we do away with laws against
perjury for that reason?

>I also realize that once a government has been granted the power to prohibit
>abortion it has also gained the power to mandate abortion.

Ten thousand repetitions of this standard NOW-NARAL-PP lie don't make a truth.

> I, for one, don't
>wish to grant the government that much power.

It's already been granted that.  You obviously missed my COERCED ABORTION
post, and the "Mirror" post as well.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: The Constitution (Ninth Amendment)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:29:01 GMT

In article <0ecH5FC00iUz82ylFm@andrew.cmu.edu>
Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes

>>Personally, I don't think the Constitution guarantees a right to birth
>>control, to education, to have enough food to not starve, to abortion,
>>to burn the flag, to burn leaves in your backyard, or to much of
>>anything beyond which it specifically guarantees.  This doesn't mean I
>>don't think people have a *moral* right to many of the above,
>>especially in a society as rich as ours.  It *does* mean that I take
>>the Constitution fairly literally.

>I  agree with Ms. Bartley about the lack of Constitutional guarantees on
>all these issues except for birth control and abortion.

>The ninth amendment to the Constitution states that the enumeration of
>certain rights to the people shall be construed to deny or disparge
>others retained by the people.  If a right to privacy is not implied by
>this amendment, I would conclude that this amendment is meaningless. 

Not meaningless.  It has a very specific meaning: it protects rights
guaranteed to the people by other *legal* sources, such as English
Common Law and state Constitutions.

The Ninth Amendment was *not* intended to give the Supreme Court legal
authority to decide that anything under the sun is a Constitutional
right, as it must if the Supreme Court can decide that something is a
Constitutional right merely because the Ninth Amendment makes it clear
that the Constitution is not the only source of rights.

(Yes, I know, they didn't find the right to privacy solely in the
Ninth Amendment.  They said that since the Constitution protected
privacy in some cases (search and seizure, quartering troops, etc.),
the Constitution guaranteed a generic right to privacy.  Feh.  I do
NOT believe in Constitutional penumbras.)

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion