HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 20 Aug 1992 16:08:45 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>In article <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>> You seem intent to make this a religious argument.  Whether or not 
>> you believe in a higher intelligience, reproductive organs are exactly
>> that REPRODUCTIVE organs.  Any other justification for their existence 
>> is based solely on emotional responses of humans.  

Hmm.  So, if we call sexual organs "sexual organs" they are 'justified' for
their existance as SEXUAL organs, hmmmmm?

I didn't know we were 'justifying' our arms, legs, wombs, etc........

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.peeves
From: shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum)
Subject: Re: The Man With No Brain (Was: The world...)
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr, Calif.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:56:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.185706.13501@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>-> >Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to
>-> >explain what the word "homosexual" means.  I'll
>-> >even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate myself.
>-> 
>-> Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with
>-> the Artimus Pages and Phil Stromers and Danny
>-> Karneses of the world?
>
>

Just a note: For the past year or two I've seen the term "homophobic"
thrown about, and its usually not used in the right context.
Homophobic would refer to a person with an unreasonable FEAR of homo-
sexuals. The way it is used in a good number of posts (and in general    
conversation as well) it is taked to mean someone who DISAGREES with
the CONCEPT of homosexuality.  "k?
Other phrases starting to drive me up the wall:
"Get a clue"
"Inquiring minds want to know"
"Your mileage may vary"
"BZZZT! Wrong!, But thank-you for playing."
"Anal retentive": See explanation for homophobic. Psych 1 students learn
a new catch phrase.
"<sigh>"
"choice" (just "choice"...)
"Get a life"
"NOT!" On second thought, I still like "NOT!", but only when its well-executed.

Thats all for now!




>-- 
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

                            R ****
                             I
                              C
                          **** K
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 19 Aug 1992 15:52:54 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Aug19.210947.26366@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>How can you call a pregnancy that occured as a direct result of the 
>animal desires of a man and a woman "forced pregnancy".  When will YOU 
>understand that YOU must take responsibility for YOUR actions.  If you 
>are not willing or able to take a pregnancy to term then maybe you should 
>not be having sex.  

Mike, let me guess.
You are a *young* man, right?  Probably not a man with a long standing
relationship, and probably not with 4 kids already, right?  

MAYBE I'm crazy, but I'd be willing to bet a little cash on this.

See, I'm not a young man with no long standing relationship and no kids.
 
I happen to be a 40 year old woman (well, almost), with two quite healthy
children, thank you, and an adult relationship with the father of these 
two kids.

I also happen to be a very responsible person, with not only car and home-
owners insurance, but medical, dental, disability, term and whole life as
well as an umbrella policy in case one of the eucalyptus trees falls down
on somebody.  I happen to believe that we work for what we have, that we
take responsibility for our actions, that we should drive carefully, have
our eyes checked, and save for the college education of our children.

4 years ago, about, while using *two* (*count 'em*) TWO birth control
methods, I became pregnant.

Now, I *dare* you to state in front of this audience that I was not 
'taking responsibility' for my actions by seriously considering the impact
a third child would have on my existing family, and my ability to provide
for that existing family, and deciding on an abortion.

And I also dare you to state in front of this audience, or any other for
that matter, that a healthy adult woman in a serious long term relationship
with the father of her children should be just telling that fellow "no,
no more sex, bub, at least not until menopause"  (and even THEN you can
have an oddly-fired egg or two!).

Life didn't begin yesterday for most of us and it doesn't end tomorrow.

Think beyond those limited horizons.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: There's no way for a pregnant woman to do nothing
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:49:55 GMT

A pregnant woman can't do nothing.

Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers tend to use phrasing and analogies
implying that theirs is a passive choice: pro-lifers talk about not
killing your children, and pro-choicers talk about refusing to donate
organs to one's children.

In reality, there *is* no passive choice.  One must go out and get
surgery in order to refuse to support a z/e/f already in your womb,
and being pregnant is work in and of itself (ask any woman who's been
through it).

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Did Bill Clinton embrace the Bush campaign?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.015804.1358@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
#<1992Aug13.184108.24179@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
### "... We're against family values, we're against work, we're going to
### tax and spend to death."
### 
### 			-- Governor Bill Clinton addressing a rally at 
###                            Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 8/10/92
###<1992Aug13.194030.19851@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
## This wouldn't by any chance have been taken out of context,
## now would it Don?
#
#Of course it is.  It wouldn't be funny otherwise.  (It may not be
#funny anyway, but this way I've at least got a shot.)

I thought it was funny.  

I'll think that it's even funnier when it appears in DOD's .sig.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: How many Republicans support their abortion plank? 
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:36:28 GMT

<1992Aug12.204044.4955@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
> Apparently Bush does not support the platform position.  How many
> Republicans do?  I know Rep. Henry Hyde does.  How many others?  I 
> would be surprised if a majority actually supports such an extreme 
> position.

This evening on CNN's "The Capital Gang" program, Margaret Warner
reported that a poll of delegates to the Republican National
Convention revealed that only 28% of the delegates support
a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution, as called for
by the platform.  55% were reported opposed.

Rep. Henry Hyde was the guest on the program.  He challenged the
poll (which Warner suggested reached all delegates), saying that
he, a delegate, had not been polled, and that he knew other
delegates who also had not been polled.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:49:38 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug17.191956.22687@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov writes:

> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> > chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> It seems to be a signature of the pro-life mentality that one should never
> publicly dissent from someone who's 'one your side.'  In fact the _only_
> dissent I've seen in the pro-life camp (on the net, that is) is when Doug
> Holtsinger and Steve Franklin delivered Bronx cheers to each other over
> whether abortion is a religious issue or not.

  Ahem.  Am I chopped liver?  Or just not pro-life?  Or is that anti-abortion?
Not-anti-choice?  Hell, just WHOSE side am I on today...?

> Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything... :-)

  Shoot.  You never have to pick a fight 'round here.  They come looking for 
you.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:44:33 GMT

In article <Aug.17.15.17.55.1992.29825@remus.rutgers.edu> 
clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.ncsl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> The fetus couldn't care less if it was aborted or not.

>> An infant couldn't care less if it was killed or not.

> How pathetic.  Is this the type of crap reasoning you use to support
> your position?

No, it's your crap reasoning: if a human being doesn't care whether it
is killed, then people can kill it.  I'm glad you recognize it as crap. 

> An infant could be put up for adoption.  Try again.

In other words, the parents have a legal duty to transfer custody of 
the infant to persons who are able to care for the child. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand"
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:31:00 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Aug12.160555.17419@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
##I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
##In case you forgot, here it is again:
#
#Doug, you must be on belladonnas (IQ erasers).  Not only do you have
#trouble posting honestly, you have trouble reading, and it's getting
#worse. 
#
#Ms. Garvin has already stated that she's through with this thread.

I did.  I knew that Holtsinger wouldn't be able to resist the
temptation to fabricate evidence even though he'd made the sort
of self-righteous post that you included.  He came through, as usual,
by citing a court case and lying about the decision.  
#_I_ hope you continue, because we haven't had a fun DJR-like human bullseye to
#play with in a while.
#
#You're it.

I had my doubts in the beginning, when most people were calling
him DJR with a spellchecker.  I thought, "Where are the 'thank
you, mommy' .sigs?  Where are the marathon stories?  Where is the
obsession with CJ?"  

Now I'm convinced that there must be a school rule at NCSU -
each year, one witless graduate student is chosen to make an
idiot of himself in t.a.  I just wonder if DJR willingly
relinquished the role, or did DOD take it from him forcibly?
##Substantiate this accusation or retract it.
#
#Let me, please, translate Garvin's *exact* wording into Steve-speak:
#
#  What Susan Said                        What Susan Meant in Steve-speak
#  ---------------                        -------------------------------
#
#I'm through with this thread, DOD.       Fuck off.

Well, maybe your translation did help.  He did drop the thread, right
before he substantiated the accusation.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:20:00 GMT

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
# While travelling across Kansas recently, I came across a radio station
# (107.7fm) which was doing "Focus On The Family".  Their definition of
# "Traditional Family Values" is, and I quote...
# 
# "Hetrosexual Men And Women Getting Married And Having Children".

Indeed. This is generally what Pat Robertson tried to say on Larry
King last night, except he'd been sharing George Bush's glaucoma
medicine earlier in the evening and was barely coherent enough to stop
giggling long enough to say, ``...a man and a woman...marriage...with
children...<snort>...'' much less get all six of those syllables in
the right order for `heterosexual' -- but then, what do you expect?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:01:15 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <5695@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us writes:

[IMO correct rebuttal of silly argument deleted.]

> Internally introduces risks of injury and
> death in another person				Y		N

  Total maternal deaths due to complications of pregnancy, 1988: 330
  				  rate per 100,000 live births : 8.4

                       Total deaths due to legal abortion, 1988:   3
			          rate per 100,00 live births  :  .1
				  per 100,000 abortions(1)     : .23

  Injury rates due to pregnancy and abortion unknown to this poster.

                Total female deaths due to auto accidents, 1988: 14,563
				 rate per 100,00 population(2) : 11 (approx)

		included just to give everybody an idea of what the risks are.


 (1) based on 1.3 million abortions in 1988
 (2) extrapolated based on approximate female population of 125 million.
     Take with a (medium-size) grain of salt.  VERY rough calculation.

  Source:  "Vital Statistics of the U.S., 1988"  Vol II -- Mortality

> ...Therefore...
> Justifies affected person acting in 
> self-defense					Y		N

  In YO, of course.  That argument works best when the mother's life is
*definitely* in danger.  It gets weaker the farther up your list one goes.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:29:50 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <14252@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu writes:

> 
> The Republican party now has as one of their priorities banning ALL
> abortions. As about 1% of all pregnancies in the US are ectopic, this
> would sentence millions of women to a painful and pointless death.
> 
> PLEASE correct me if this is a mis-reading of the Republican platform! 
> 
> I am not posting to inflame (plenty of that goes on in this newsgroup 
> without me :-), I'm trying to make sure of the exact position of the 
> Republican party.
> Paula Burch

  I am unaware of the exact wording, but my understanding is the plank calls
for the banning of all abortions save only those to save the life of the
mother.  Not even the Republicans support a total ban on ALL abortions, no
matter what the reason (just very close to all abortions).

  A total ban such as you suggest would have been the headline of every major
paper in the nation.  Trust me, there would be no missing it.

Jim Miller
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:36:08 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug18104655@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> [paraphrase:  parent not forced to donate kidney so no forced prenancy]

>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
>take kidney back?

If I started to experience health problems (such as the remaining kidney 
starting to fail), I sure as hell hope I could get it back.  Wouldn't you?


--Teddi
--------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arthur S. DeMoss
Date: 10 Aug 92 22:05:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <SCOTTS.92Aug7145757@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.145804.6653@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

>   NOW and PP, yes.  But in what sense can NARAL (remember that's
>   the National Abortion Rights Action League) be considered a
>   "multi-faceted" organization?  Isn't its sole purpose to defend
>   the abortion rights of women?

>NARAL's purpose is to defend abortion rights for women, and opposes
>regulations which would interfere with a woman's freedom of choice or
>access to abortion services.  NARAL also supports access to
>contraception and better sex education as a means of reducing the need
>for abortion.

But do they spend any money to promote these things?  Specifically, as
to "sex education", do they spend money on anything except 
information/misinformation/disinformation on abortion?

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: control
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:47:31 GMT

The issue is control,  In itself, the issue is rather simple.
Some argue that women should have control over their own bodies,
while some argue that they should not.  The amount of control is
often what flavors opinions here.  Some people feel that women 
should never have control over their own bodies, others feel that
women should be able to control their bodies for a bit, but after
a period of time they shouldn't, and still others state simply that
women should have that control always.

Were the issue one of life, then there would be only one exception 
to the banning of abortion:  Risk of life itself.  Rape and incest
have nothing to do with the value of the life of the z/e/f.  
(Someone once reversed the letters, making f/e/z, or fez, if you
remove the slashes.  I think coining a new term "fez" would be 
appropriate, except some people would get hung up on the term 
itself, and short circuit on their perception that my purpose was
to ridicule the z/e/f, rather than make typing easier.)

There may be some fine distinctions that you may have as to when 
abortion is to be allowed, but it is highly unlikely that they will
be written into law.  As someone else pointed out, the law is a 
blunt instrument and is by its very nature incapable of being
wielded with the precision many would like.

Freedom isn't free, as some have pointed out.  Freedom sometimes
costs dearly:  Sometimes the price is life itself.  It may be the
life of an enemy, it may be the life of an innocent in a 
foreign country, it may be your life, or it may be the life of
a z/e/f.  

(I have to admit I will be a bit disappointed in this crew if someone
doesn't miss the point and exclaim:  "Well, you aren't free to murder
someone, are you?")
--
       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.politics.homosexuality
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:02:16 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
] 
] >Children at that age are simply learning that the world is made up of
] >men and women, and not just big kids (adults) and little kids.   I
] >strongly suspect your little niece was not embracing homosexualism as much 
] >as she was simply verbalizing that she could tell that they were both men.
] 
] And didn't see anything wrong.  If society were the same, she'd never, ever
] see anything wrong with it.  But when someone TELLS her that it's
] icky-yuckey-gross, then she'll perhaps start to feel that way...to the
] detriment of people who happen to be DIFFERENT than you are.

There is a two edged sword here.

While I was growing up I had the hope 
that civilian brats were just like us
GI Brats... and then they taught me
that there was a major Difference....

Some of My best friends are CivilianDraftBaitScum,
and I even like some of them....


while we are wandereing down this way, can
Anyone out there clarify what "homosexualism"
is? Is it to the left or right of GodlessKommunism....


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33005 alt.flame:12251