HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:25:11 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


dgp@atlas.wustl.edu writes:
[...]
|There may be one difference in the two.  So far, it has been
|only Buchanan who has been outspoken in a televised convention
|speech against homosexuals.  If the Republicans leave it there
|and let the issue drop, then they might try to play the
|distancing game.  After all, Buchanan was that far-right
|challenge to the President, so Bush could portray him as too
|extreme if he had to.  Then Bush could play it both ways.  He
|gets a Buchanan-energized religious right, but doesn't have to
|make alienating statements himself.

Bush has also been using Quayle to play the politics of division
and hatred.  Can you say "cultural elite"?  Sure you can, Dan.
(But can he spell it?)

|Contrast this with the Democratic convention where speaker
|after speaker stood up for a "woman's right to choose".  (Choose
|what?!  For goodness sake, if you can't even say it, how can you
|support it?).  The clear message to pro-lifers was "Take a
|hike!"  

"Choose" is a political code-word in this election.  Everyone
knows what it means, just as they know what the code-word
"family values" means.  ("Family values" is, of course, a
code-word for "we hate diversity, we hate gay people, we hate
single mothers, and we hate non-Christians."  That's the message
I'm getting.  I love the Republicans.  NOT.)

I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
and incest.  The Republicans are extremists.  Abortion opinion
polls tend to vary wildly depending on the wording of the
questions asked, but they don't vary on incest & rape.  The
American public wants exceptions for rape & incest.  So much for
that Republican "big tent".

|We will see if the Republican's message is equally clear
|to homosexuals as the convention progresses.

According to the SF Chronicle earlier this week, the message is
already clear.  The Bush campaign has forced openly gay staffers
out.  The Bush administration is strongly against gays in the
military.  (In peacetime, of course.  It'll gladly take gay
cannon fodder in wartime.)  California gay Republicans are
disillusioned after watching Wilson promise to sign and then
refuse to sign the anti-discrimination bill AB101.  California
gays feel they have enough votes to sway California to the
Democrats.  Bush won in '88 with 3.5% of the vote, which isn't
much.

In contrast, the Democratic convention gave gay rights a high
profile.  Two people with AIDS-- a het woman, and a gay Clinton
campaign staffer-- spoke.  That's the politics of inclusion.  I'm
proud to see it.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."
				 George Washington and John Adams
				 Diplomatic message to Malta
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:25:47 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.713455768@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Aug7.123733.22339@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug7.023624.16364@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> If a developing child should not possess rights because the child 
> >> is not sentient, then shouldn't sentient animals possess rights?  
> 
> >Fetuses that occupy a woman's womb against her wishes are a
> >different matter, and sentience is not the issue.  For many of
> >us, sentience is not and never has been the issue.
> 
> It IS the issue where laws against cruelty to animals are concerned.
> These do not cover cruelty to fire ants, for example, which are
> assumed not to possess sentience, or at least to feel pain.

Mr. Nyikos, this is (pardon the pun) specious nonsense.  I suspect that you
won't find many prosecutions of people for cruelty to:

*	sewer rats
* field mice
*	deer and other game animals (in season, anyway)

Certainly neither sentience nor ability to feel pain are the issue.

> I'll have a lot more to say on this subject, hopefully as soon as 
> later this week.

I'd suggest that it might be more appropriately posted to misc.test. 
Before you spend all that time typing, you might be well advised to locate
and read the text of some representative animal cruelty laws.  See whether
you can spot the word "sentience".

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pardon the interruption.... re: DJR?
Date: 23 Aug 92 05:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: wolfe@wolves.durham.nc.us
Distribution: usa
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: 69138e41555c4370f040034764e33f41

Pardon the interruption...please.

I was digging through some old news files and came upon some old
articles I had saved against the day the ol' Davey J Rassmusen ever did
make his threats about various lawsuits real.

As it stands, it is obvious that he never filed anything against me,
nor, I suspect, did he ever do any of the various silly things he
threatened to do.

Does anyone know whatever happened to the poor old sod?  Is he still
haunting the net occasionally?  Did they kick him off?

				G. Wolfe Woodbury
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC         [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...duke!wolves!wolfe    <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu    wolfe@cds.duke.edu
    Above all, we celebrate.   Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:50:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <7c7m1nl.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com writes:

> <1992Aug12.130312.9195@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) :
> >In <d93mq9.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com writes:
> >> <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY ) :
> >> ><1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
> >> >> <1992Aug10.131839.16625@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr) said:

> 
> ...
> >  But these (general) "pregnancy is gonna ruin yer life" quotes are just as 
> >bad as the equally ridiculous "oh, it's nothing, women give birth everyday" 
> >attitude I sometimes see over on my side of the fence.
> 
> I was talking specifically about a woman who has doubts about being

  Point taken.  But a little specificity would be better.

> 
> >                                                        And to clear up some-
> >thing I just noticed, Gordon's first post seems to imply a "forcing the woman" 
> >viewpoint on the part of the original poster.  I do not support "forcing" 
> >not be forced to carry to term.
> 
> Glad to hear that you are pro-choice.  For some reason I had the
> impression you were pro-life (in terms of legislation).  Please, correct
> me if I'm in error.
> Gordon

  Consider yourself corrected.  Meet the anti-abortion but pro-choice person
that does more than pay lip service to the first part of his stance.

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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:39:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug17.131337.3354@newstand.syr.edu>
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) does a great public service
by carefully exposing DOD for the liar that he is.  Whenever I point
out to DOD that one of his lies is not correct by directly refuting
it, he just shrinks back quietly into the local sewer grating.  Just
this weekend I asked DOD several questions.  Surprise, surprise: He
hasn't responded.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: birth announcement
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:15:50 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:12:04 GMT

In <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.  

This is sad. Are you saying that the "emotional responses of humans"
are irrelevant and should be ignored? 

What really saddens me, though, is your statements on other threads
that there's no great hardship involved in maintaining a celibate
marriage for years and years. Perhaps it wouldn't be a hardship
for you, but it would be pure agony for me and my wife. And I
think that most couples would agree with me.


You seem to imply that you're not making a religious argument. I
don't see how this can be. The basic religious argument is: "Sex
is for reproduction only, because God says so." You can't convert
this into a secular argument like: "Sex is for reproduction only,
because Biology says so." Biology clearly says that sex is
both for reproduction and for pleasure. 

> Yes, I believe abortion is wrong.  I do not think it is right to take 
> a potential life because you were not prepared to deal with that life. 
> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does 
> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my unwanted,
> illegal or immoral actions from a man.

Well, I'm glad to see that you realize that fetuses are potential humans,
and not actual humans. But wouldn't you agree that unfertilized eggs
are also potential humans? If a woman has the opportunity to get 
pregnant, and doesn't, then the unfertilized egg is cruelly expelled
from her body. Celibacy and abortion have exactly the same effect.

Could you expand on your reasons why the fetus' right-to-life
only exists when the woman wasn't raped? When you make statements  
like this, it really looks like pregnancy is a punishment to be 
inflicted on women who have sex willingly.

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Fetal Independence
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:35:55 CDT

In article <1992Aug19.221008.1083@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Yes, the mother and the child live connected together.  Now why 
>wouldn't the mother forfeit her right to life because she's 
>connected to the fetus, rather than vice versa?  
>
DOD, you have always struck me as a man who has no compassion
for women, and who places less value on adult women than on all
other born persons.  Even a misogynist like you might observe
a few practical considerations, though:

1. If the fetus is not yet viable, it will die if/when
   the woman dies.

2. Although there may be some happy rich childless couple
   who would just love to adopt this fetus if you kill the 
   mother, and if it's not too premature to emerge as a
   normal infant without a million-dollar-pricetag, they
   probably won't want to take care of any older children
   the mother may have.  A stillbirth has never been viewed
   as the same sort of problem for society as a maternal
   death which leaves existing children motherless.

3. There is an offhand chance that a woman may have other
   positive value in society as well, beyond what might
   be expected of a fetus.  As difficult as this might 
   be for you to believe, some folk actually have friends 
   who are women.  Their friends might miss them.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:09:38 GMT

In article <lefty-120892203415@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.225352.3394@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever heard of the French saying, "You gotta want not only
>> what you want, but what it leads to?" 
>
>Well, no, and I suspect neither have you.

Woooow, awesome slam there! 

You ought to go into sit-down comedy. That way, when your jokes get
booed out, you can lower your head and not be noticed. 

===============================================================================
Member, "I wanna be Lefty's friend!" Club of America. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 15:19:34 GMT

In <1992Aug19.205546.26173@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

>What is wrong with abstinence if the woman (and man) cannot afford the 
>consequences of a pregnancy? I really think you missed the boat entirely.  
>People must begin to take responsibility for their actions.  If you choose 
>to have sex, you must be aware that birth control does not offer a 100% 
>guarantee that pregnancy will not occur.  You MUST be willing to accept the 
>consequences of your actions.  If you cannot afford the costs of pregnancy 
>then abstinence is the only way you will be sure that pregnancy will not 
>occur. Let's face it folks, we have sex organs in order to reproduce.  They
>are not there as a toy. 

Hmmmph. You're not even trying to address my arguments. You're simply
restating your religious beliefs. Look:

Your religion teaches you that the sex organs exist for the following 
purposes:
    * Reproduction

My philosophy (Secular Humanism) teaches me that the sex organs exist 
for the following purposes:
    * Reproduction
    * Demonstration of Love/Affection
    * Release of Nervous Tension
    * Entertainment
    * Probably some others that I can't think of right now.

We have different religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that.

You might want to try to convert me to your religion. There is 
nothing wrong with that, either. If you want to try, please post 
some arguments showing why your religion's views on sex are superior
to mine. 

You also want to pass laws which force me to live according to
the tenets of your religion. There IS something wrong with 
that. For one thing, it's un-American. If you want to live in
a theocracy, move to Iran.

>If we already took responsibilty for that which we
>do voluntarily, abortion would be a non-issue because the few abortions being 
>performed would be in cases of rape, incest, and those cases where a woman's
>life is in danger. Yes, prohibiting what I call birth control abortions,

I asked this is my last post, and I'll ask it again in this one: What,
exactly, is wrong with abortion?

You don't believe that the fetus has a right-to-life. If you did, you
wouldn't allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

As far as I can tell, your only objection to abortion is that you
don't like it. That's a good reason for YOU not to have an abortion.
Can you think of a good reason for OTHER PEOPLE not to have abortions?
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:54:15 GMT

From article <1992Aug20.224050.42197@watson.ibm.com>, by margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis):
> In  <1992Aug20.202812.12068@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>> newsgroup.  There are so many personal attacks and insults thrown around
>> on talk.abortion that I thought it might be appropriate to have a newsgroup
>> dedicated to calm and serious discussions of the issues.
> 
>>   Steve Chaney
> 
>> What do people think of the idea?
> 
> I think you've *got* to be kidding.  Steve Chaney is one of the biggest
> flamers on t.a.

Hey, I might quibble with some of the other names he suggested too, although
my name was among them.   However, I would not object if he submitted his own
name to the nomination list.

Anyway, I think a talk.abortion.moderated (or a talk.abortion.no-flames) is
a GREAT idea!!!  But I'm sorry to say I don't have the time to moderate it
myself, so I wish to withdraw my name from nomination.   However, if such a
newsgroup were to appear, I would probably unsubscribe to talk.abortion and
solely read that one instead.   I spend alot of time simply dumping out
of articles that have reduce themselves to nothing but flames.  I find them
exceedingly boring.  Even when they're addressed to me!  I know alt.flame was
originated to contain flames, but they just runneth over anyway.


> Larry Margolis

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Misleading UPI story 
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:00:44 GMT


   Since Doug Holtsinger feels that the GHWB's position regarding
abortion is important to clarify, I would like to know how Dougie
feels about GHWB's position.  You you approve of it?  Do you hate
it?
-- 
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished by the blood
of tyrants and of patriots."                    Thomas Jefferson
"Hello? Information?  Would you please give me the home phone of
Pat Buchanan?...Yes.  His address as well, thank you very much."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rephrased: a war behind the Iron Curtain (was Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:40:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug17.190254.5966@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
> 
> Of course Keegan is Lefty's only friend and Lefty is Keegan's only
> friend. Not even EE Bartley wants to identify with him. 

Hey, sonny, I've got more friends than _you_ have _personalities_!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31891 alt.flame:12100
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: hallchaney caves in
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:10:53 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

hallchaney has been reduced to following up posts in
which it deletes the entire post and appends its .sig.

soon, it'll be calling for mummy.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:42:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.171437.28911@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

> Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US that perform 3rd trimester
> abortions, and then only for medical reasons, it seems obvious to any
> reasonably intelligent observer that "abortion-on-demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy" is simply a myth.

I'm still waiting for Mr. Margolis or Mr. Anderson to tell me where
60 minutes got these so-called facts.

And these so-called facts do nothing to refute the evidence showing 
that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term 
of pregnancy.


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Doug Holtsinger
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wednesday, 12 Aug 1992 11:08:50 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
 <1992Aug10.131839.16625@mcs.gvsu.edu> <1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com>
 <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu>

In article <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu> MILLER, JIMMY A. says:
>
>In <1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
>
>> Should a mindless fetus, for the sake of it's 'bodily autonomy', be able
>> to ruin a person's life, damaging them physically, mentally, and
>> financially?
>> Gordon
>
>  Just to be nit-picky, none of these awful things are certain or even
>likely, Gordon, as you well know.

Mr. Miller it would appear you know nothing about pregnancy.
Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage. You can not
compress organs for several months without causing some
change.  You can not undergo massive hormonal changes without
causing some metabolic transformation.  You can not force a
fetus weighing 6lbs and up, through the vaginal opening
without causing tearing and subsequent scaring.  Then of course
there is physical damage caused by c-sections.  You are aware
that the US has the highest rate of surgical births in the
world, aren't you?

Ninety percent of women will suffer post partnum depression
within the first 10 days of giving birth.  Ten percent of
these will require hospitalization and/or medication.

The financial costs of pregnancy are well documented,
even in countries that have health care.  There is the
loss of wages due to time off, the additional costs of
medicine and nutritional supplements to name a few.
Statistics on single mothers show a higher percentage
living on welfare or at poverty levels when they left
school young to start families, than single mothers living
above poverty.

Mr. Storga knew what he was saying and he was right.

Mr. Miller your repeated trivialization of the effects
of pregnancy and child birth in this newsgroup display
a contemptuous attitude toward women.  I don't care what
your views on abortion are, but your dismissal of the very
real physical and mental stresses that a woman undergoes
while carrying a fetus to term is either due to ignorance
or misogyny.  Both can be rectified.



Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
Newsgroups: talk.abortion