HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:48:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <fbyegh9@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> > Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
> > walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
> > might have taken something.
> > 
> > possibly naive Brian McBean
> 
> I have it on good authority that it is illegal in California to kill
> an intruder unless [s]he is threatening your life.  So, if they have
> your valuables are walking away from you, it is illegal to shoot them.
> 
> Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation

There is a presumption under California law (PC 198.5) that a person
who forces entry into your home intends you great bodily harm.
You may thus use deadly force to protect yourself from that intruder.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that you KNEW
that the intruder didn't intend you great bodily harm -- which means
the average burglar breaking into an occupied dwelling is likely to
get shot.

A person fleeing with your valuables is another case.  While the
statute is quite clear that deadly force may be used to stop a
fleeing felon, the courts have somewhat limited this to "atrocious
felonies" (not defined) and more recently, crimes which were
felonies at common law (including burglary).  I still wouldn't
advise it, though.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Summary: back to school!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:18:27 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Aug21.190653.9870@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> TNN workers are truly Pro-Choice.  I do not consider EVEN ONE pro-"choicer"
> in this newsgroup pro-choice in the least, when all they advocate is the one
> choice, abortion.  It's like, do you like castor oil, or castor oil?
> 
> What has happened Elizabeth, is that The Nurturing Network has reinstated
> the true meaning of the word Pro-Choice.
> 
> 
> Suzanne Forgach

It's interesting how you can come up with your own definitions of words
to suit your viewpoint.

CHOICE as defined in Websters:

1. a selection
2. the right or power to choose
3. a person or thing chosen
4. the best part
5. a *variety* from which to choose
6. an alternative

If the only choice is to continue an unwanted pregnancy, then there is
NO choice.

Katy

*childless by choice*
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: 4-6-8-10, ARE FFL's leaders men?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:18:09 GMT

ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>(1) Most Usenet subscribers are computer scientists and/or engineers.
>    For better or for worse, these are men.  For the time being.

I am four months from a degree in Electrical Engineering.  I will
certainly not be the first woman to receive such a degree.

I am currently employed in the computer science field.

I am highly offended by your false assumptions.

>RG

                -rocker
                 how's that research to back up Reardon's ridiculous
                 "2%" claim coming?

>"[Abortion is] the ultimate exploitation of women."  -  Alice Paul

This statement is not correct.

(You guys knew I was going to say that, didn't you.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:12:37 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Chris'n'Vickie writes:

>> Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
>> there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
>> That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
>> Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
>> every single human being in the world 

>I think these statements denigrate Christians.  

Why do you care?  Is your religion showing through your fake atheism again
Dav...er, Doug?

>You say that "not all Christians are hateful and intolerant".

That's right.  Not all.  Many are.  Witness Operation Rescue one-lobers;
witness the Republican convention: "hateful and intolerant" is perfect.

>I think that statement tends to promote a bigoted stererotype that
>Christians are "hateful and intolerant".

Gee, you're so gushily NICE to those Christians, and no other religion.
Why is that, Mr. Atheist Dav...er, Doug?

>If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
>"not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged 
>by your remarks.  

No, people are outraged at the way you manage to sneak in _your_ typical,
"hateful and intolerant" prejudices every three days.  You're the bigoted
pig, Holtsinger.

>I find your remarks very offensive.   

Who gives a shit.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Keywords: Reinforcements
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:52:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.141934.8889@bmw.mayo.edu> 
bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain 
>> members of the human species by expanding on the boundaries
>> of the right to privacy. 

> No, it simple expands a woman's right to do with her body
> as she chooses and prevents the government and other 
> individuals from deciding for her.

And in addition, Roe created a constitutional right to
kill certain members of the human species. 

>>> The constitution does not prohibit the people from killing
>>> each other, in fact, it could be argued that since it is 
>>> not prohibited, it is a right of the people.

>> The constitution gives the people the right to commit murder?

> Now, state and federal governments
> do put restrictions on how we may kill each other, just as they
> put restrictions on how we may conduct business, worship god(s),
> interact socially and sexually, what goods we may purchase etc; but
> your right to take my life or mine to take yours has not been
> prohibited. You may exercise that right whenever you or the
> situation you are in meets the proper state and federal guidelines 
> for you to do so legally.

But this doesn't change the fact that the Constitution does not
give anyone the unlimited right to kill other human beings.  The  
states are free to pass laws restricting the use of deadly force,
for example.  

>--Bruce


Doug Holtsinger
From: deh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DARCY ELIZABETH HOWE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:25:10 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Aug31.083609.19696@pegasus.com>, tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) wr
ites:
>In article <1992Aug28.180126.4779@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.roches
ter.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>In <1992Aug27.190809.26107@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (
Joel Norris) writes:
>>
>>>Well, I was wondering if there was anyone here who supported abortion but
>>>wanted to stop sex-selection abortions, and so far it appears there isn't
>>>anyone.
>>>
>>   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
>>whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
>>sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
>>could be legislated.
>>
>>>Joel
>>
>>                                                            MP
>
>It is really interesting to me how postings on this newsgroup can be
>completely ignored.  I posted a bibliography of some 20 papers and
>articles that have been written about this topic in the medical
>literature, plus a personal opinion in the matter, and Joel says "so
>far it appears there isn't anyone (who supported abortion but wanted
>to stop sex-selection abortions)".
>   If you read my post you know that many bioetheicists are opposed to
>the concept, and also many prominent obgyn docs.
>   This will not be legislated, it will be made an uncovered benefit
>in insurance plans.  If the woman wishes to pay the whole tab herself,
>she will likely find someone willing to do it.  But third party payors
>are going to respond to the pressure from organized medicine and
>refuse to pay the tab since it is NOT 'medically necessary'.
>   If you think this is not a hot topic for discussion, i.e. medical
>necessity, you have not been paying attention.
>
>
>
>
>shalom,                               Len Howard
>                                      tas$pegasus.com
>

You know, after reading the hatred-filled, anger-filled, unforgiving and
intolerant and cruel postings so many seem to delight in, I, in turn, lose my
faith in humanity and its potential for sense and good, and think, "Yeah,
let's abort all the female fetii--then, after a generation, we won't have to
worry about this question AT ALL!"  But then I realize I've become angry, too.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: 28 Aug 1992 09:10:32 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.714956031@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Well, Adrienne, it looks like you missed out on two long follow-ups
>of mine to two of your posts, which makes me wonder whether (1)
>the distribution's getting screwed up again or (2) as with me, the
>doggone table of contents does not list my follow-ups right under the
>posts they follow.

Can't help you there.  I normally don't bother reading past two screens
unless it's especially interesting (my name in the demand line does not
make it especially interesting).  So far your writing hasn't been up
there with drieux.

I'm not sure I'd use the words "missed out".

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 1 Sep 1992 11:59:59 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715291416@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <17s3nmINN73o@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>Excuse me, please, but where is this information 'hidden'?  The information
>>*is* available to them now, today, in libraries,
>
>Except when the books are "Lost" the way _Aborted Women, Silent No More_
>has been "Lost" from our university library. 

You know, Peter, you have a real problem with the notions of conspiracy and
simple human nature.  There's no longer a copy of "Kind of the Wind" in the
University of Washington's library, either, but do you know: it isn't a 
conspiracy on behalf of the people who raise Arabs.  It's because someone
checked it out and didn't return it, or stole it, or something simple like
that.  And it *could* be repurchased, if the library has funds.

The informmation isn't hidden, Peter.  This is a strawman.

>If that's true, why do NOW, NARAL, PP, etc. fight like the dickens against
>every clause in every informed consent bill, including clauses requiring the
>detailing of abortion complications?

Because these informed consent bills are simply efforts by the pro-life lobby
to limit abortion and make it more difficult to obtain.  That's why, pure
and simple.  Because the information already IS available, and these false
measures are roadblocks.  That's why.

>"Lots"?  Percentages, please.  

Hmm.  I just deleted 7 paragraphs of your unsupported speculations, but you
want percentages from me......

>>This is what is known, Peter, as a strawman argument.
>
>If it weren't for pro-lifers, the landscape would be thickly dotted with
>pro-choice strawmen that lots of people mistake for real arguments.

Sez you.  I haven't seen a *real* argument from you yet, so forgive me if
I doubt your ability to identify them.

>It's bad enough as it is, with 90% of the media people pro-choice.

Ah, now I see what you mean.  Assign a percentage (ANY percentage) and 
it make's your argument a 'good' one.

Ok.  "Lots" above means, hmmmm..... 60%.  

Bingo.  Instant validity.  Yeah, sure.

Adrienne Regard
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Illegal abortions (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:30:50 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>> There are more abortions done in Brazil per year than in the
>> US, which has a larger population.

>I may be wrong, but I think Brazil has very tight restrictions on the
>availability of contraceptives.

I think you are probably right. A free clue though, most of the pro-life
crowd, at least the most vocal of them, are also for restricting contra-
ceptives. So the comparison is quite appropiate, don't you agree? After
all, if they can restrict abortion, contraceptives are really a minor
thing, as they don't have an immediate effect, as in the reaction "I;m
pregnant, and the government is going to force me to have this baby,
even though it is deformed and will probably live for less than two
years."

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin 
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:49:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173821.28001@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin against me:

None of these statements were correct.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:38:13 GMT

In article <adams.714684547@spssig>  writes:
> My point is, the complete abortion plank notwithstanding, the Human Life 
> Amendment, which is supported officialy by Platform would provide the 
> fetus with protection under the 14th Amendment.  Entitling it to legal
> representation, and the rights and privledges of all persons.  Thus,
> effectively, you could prevent an abortion by tying it up in court 
> forever.

If the fetus gets all the rights and privileges of a person, wouldn't 
it get the responsibilities of a person as well? If the HLA passes,
it would then be a crime for any innocent person's life (person now 
being defined as born or unborn) to be taken by any other person (born 
or unborn). 
So, if a woman dies during delivery, isn't the just-born child guilty 
of a crime? If an unborn twin dies due to competition with its sibling,
isn't the live twin guilty of a crime? Is this really what pro-lifers
want?

>  -Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33590 alt.abortion.inequity:3293
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:52:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}People don't seem to have read the original proposal carefully.

Look who posted it.  That may give you some idea as to why...

}If we can find a solution to the moderator/volume problems,
}then I plan on putting out a CVD.  

What's a CVD?  Is it anything like a BFD?

--
       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
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Keywords: puberty, surrealistic
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 02:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.201913.15607@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>Peter Nykios:
>>M. Price

>>>     You trust wrong. Why not read the book?

>>See a comment above.  I don't waste my time on hack writing, and this
>>comment of yours reinforces my suspicions that the book is just that.
>>I was being partly ironic in my "trust" comment.

>     Oh, so now you've judged the book without even reading it! How
>intelligent and open-minded!

Reality check time.  Judgements about whether or not a book is worth
reading are of necessity always made without having read the book.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:22:35 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep1.020959.10514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>>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." 
(peter's attempted rebuttal deleted)

Note, Peter, you *do* have the right to REFUSE to physically support your
minor child by intrusive use of your body.  

>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>to controlling it.   

But you would *not* grant to a woman the right to refuse to physically
support her minor child by intrusive use of her body.


It's not that we misunderstand you, Peter.  We understand your little
inconsistancy quite well, and it's nothing new.  It's just pretty
abhorent to many of us, and simply astoundingly puzzling to others.

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34562 misc.legal:16843
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:47:45 GMT
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI

In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.153208.20600@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug28.200352.20459@ncsu.edu>
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <24187@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
>>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>> 
>>>> False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
>>>> from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
>>>> them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
>>>> members of the human species. 
>> 
>>>There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
>>>it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
>>>your valuables.  
>> 
>> Names of states, please?
>
>Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
>walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
>might have taken something.
>
>possibly naive Brian McBean

I daresay you can do that in any state.

Moreover, I also suppose that you can be prosecuted and convicted of a 
very serious crime, in any state, should you do do.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:12:57 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.035838.2340@ncsu.edu> Doug Holtsinger says:
>
>>I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge
>>the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did,
>>they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without
>>looking a little hypocritical.
>
>What utter rubbish.  Do you only read posts that
>have your name in them?
>
>There are a number of people in this newsgroup who
>say they are prochoice and who have bashed prochoicers
>they view as extremist.  

And, perhaps without exception, each and every of those Moderates has 
subsequently been labelled "pro-force" or at least "not pro-choice" by the 
Extremists. 

You can't have it both ways, Linda -- either us Moderates fall under the
banner of "pro-choice", even though we disagree with your Extremism, or you 
prove Doug's claim that the pro-choicers on this newsgroup are every bit as 
extreme as the pro-lifers.

You have only two choices. Which do you choose? Are moderates entitled to
call themselves "pro-choice", or are they excluded from your cosy little
clique?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.163720.28497@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>> I can kind of agree with you here.  I believe the overwhelming majority
>> of the people in this country support restrictions on abortion. 

> If this were the case, then no debate would exist and restrictions would
> already be in place.

Restrictions on abortion cannot be put in place because many of them 
would be unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court has greatly restricted
the power of the states to regulate abortion.


> The only way to test to see if an overwhelming majority supports
> restrictions on abortion is when only the "criminal elements" in society
> oppose those restrictions.  This is definatly not the case.  

I think a poll is a better way of determining if an overwhelming majority
of people support restrictions on abortion. 


> People, who are not criminals, will still get
> abortions and some of those people will die as a result of unsafe
> practices.  Are you ready to kill?  I am not.

I wouldn't want to see anyone die needlessly, whether they are born
or whether they're still in the womb.



Doug Holtsinger
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:59:09 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-> > you did neglect to mention that the actual
-> > accusations had been substantiated
-> 
-> When?

when you posted your lists of accusations which had
been substantiated. you remember, don't you? you called
the substantiated accusations unsubstianted.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion