HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:52:27 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
->dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:
->|ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->|>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
->|>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 
->|No there is not.  At least not legislative. 

->What do you call Roe v Wade, then? 

i call RvW a supreme court decision. do you know what
legislation is?

->Or do you agree with Holtsinger about Roe?

which position are you talking about? why don't you
specify what it is? do you agree with it?

do you want to imprison women who have banned
abortions.

do you want to prevent rape victims from having
abortions?




->---
->cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
->"Cows are just plants that happen to move around a bit." 
->    -- Thant Tessman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Linking Abortion and Child Support. (Was: Comedy... (was: Nadja...))
Note: GOiDS 'R We Inc. is not responsible for results of recursive thread calls.
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:03:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DJD> ] nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes in alt.abortion.inequity...
DJD> ]
DJD> ] NA> And Steven wonders why women are pro-choice. It's simple, guy. Men di
DJD> ] NA> tend to pay child support when abortion was illegal, they don't want
DJD> nd
DJD> ] NA> to pay it now, and if abortion is again illegal, they STILL won't pay
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Why do you link abortion with child support?  Why not link child support
DJD> ] *frequency of visitation*?  Indeed, increasing number of studies are show
DJD> ] that frequency of visitation and likelyhood of payment, are proportionate
DJD> ] related (and *highest*, in cases of joint custody)
DJD> ]


DJD> Now re_read what nadja is saying...

DJD> The Legality of Abortion has NOT done much to
DJD> change the problems with non_custodial parents
DJD> paying their court ordered child support payments.


That is only your *interpretation* of it.  What *I* gathered from what she said,
was an offensive, sweeping generalisation that all men (or most...whatever)
generally do not want to support their children, ergo "no wonder why women are
pro-choice" (this is also a gross assumption, since many women are *not*
"pro-choice").

And By The Way, I have never explicitly "linked abortion with child support".
However, I *have* linked abortion with paternity suits, which renders your
characterisation of what I said, close though somewhat misrepresentative.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * You are smart.  Can you make us go?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Constitutional abortion rights
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:22:47 GMT

eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
# 
# >Well, Doug, seeing as how the only thing you *will* own up to is that
# >you don't think abortion should be a Constitutional right, why don't
# >you give us your reasoning for why you think the abortion right isn't
# >covered in the Ninth Amendment?
# 
# I'm not Doug, but....

I'm primarily interested in Mr. `Undecided' Holtsinger's opinions --
yours are well known -- but I want to respond to some of the things
you write here.

# I don't think the Ninth Amendment guarantees a right to abortion
# because I think that the Ninth Amendment safeguards right legally
# granted to the people by sources other than the U.S. Constitution,
# primarily state constitutions and English Common Law.  It *would*
# prioritize a right in a state constitution over a federal law against
# abortion, however.

Except where that would violate the 14th's equal protection clause?

Here's the 9th:

``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.''

Perhaps you could educate me as to why you read the phrase `retained
by the people' as implying the phrase `retained by the people through
state constitutions and English common law *only*.'

# If I wanted to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, I'd look
# at the Fourteenth Amendment ... no involuntary servitude....

I think you mean the 13th:

``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

``Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.''

I think if you want to find the right to abortion, you have to look
exactly where Justice Blackmun says the court looked when they found
it in Roe vs. Wade -- I trust you have a copy and can look it up for
yourself, so I will not repost it here.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``I guess the government that robs its
| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  preparing for itself.''
+---------------------------+                             -- Mark Twain
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: 19 Nov 1992 07:55:28 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov17.221040.6631@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>In article <1eb8u7INN346@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>I disagree.  Cancer cells never result in autonomous human beings.  Cancer
>>is a disease, and always unwelcome, pregnancy isn't.  
>
>Could someone who has it archived please repost the article about interchaging
>mouse tumors and embryos?  The gist of it was that some experiments had
>been done which took mouse cancers and implanted them in mouse wombs and
>they grew into mouse fetuses while they took mouse embryos and implanted
>them in other mouse locations and they turned into mouse cancers.  This 
>suggests that the distinction between embryo and cancer is not as clear 
>as you might think.  

It's pretty clear to all of us, I think, that cancer is always unwelcome, and
pregnancy isn't.  I don't imagine women will voluntarily place cancer cells
in their womb anytime soon, and I don't believe you do either.

>Sarah McCabe

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:40:33 GMT

> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> = (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>>> = Steve Novak:

[re: bible quotes in .sig...]

>>>This is pathetically preachy; pull your head out of your Christian ass and
>>>try living with the rest of humanity.

>>My experience with the "rest of humanity" suggests that they're not
>>nearly as hateful as you seem to be.  Perhaps you should take your 
>>own advice.

>I've met Mr. Novak. He didn't strike me as hateful. Perhaps you should
>pull the beam out of your own eye, Mr. Overpeck.

Thanks, Eric.  Next time you visit I'll have Chimay Gold to drink,
rather than Samuel Adams and Samuel Smith.  CJ says that, in addition to
having the typical capacity for beer as young bucks should, you also
can handle the "good stuff" without whining for a Bud Lite.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48793 alt.rush-limbaugh:10078
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:07:07 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

>You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
>necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
>solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  
Hmm...I wonder who is confused...

>Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>only 100% certain method.  
Wrong.  Abstinence does not protect one from rape.

>If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
>should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action. 
Yep.  And one of those is dealing with pregnancy.  Abortion is a
responsible option in the face of that responsibility.

>And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
>for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
>child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.
Bringing a child into the world is not always the responsible thing to do.

>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>No Sex is Safe Sex.  
Abortion *is* a way of dealing with it.

>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>result from sex, either.
But they do help.  They give a level of protection.  One asseses the risks
and weighs the options.

>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>of you?

I've figured things out...I personally object to abortion...but I beleive
it needs to be legal.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: compromise
Summary: With .001% of the precincts reporting... 
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:07:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.012256.29702@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <BxvG5p.6r6@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1eb9g4INNj4c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov17.133648.25175@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>>>>But I didn't bother getting into that thread
>>>>because I figured Adrienne could take care of herself. 
>>>>I haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, so I move
>>>>we nominate Dr Giggles Nyikos for the net.council of idiots.
>>>
>>>Second.
>>>
>>>As you see.
>>
>>Okay, the motion has been made and seconded -- all in favor say (well, type)
>>"AYE".  All opposed, say "NO"...shut up, Petey Honey.  :-)
>
>Aye.

That's one vote in favor of the nomination.  Right now, the motion is
passing unanimously, 1-0.  (It's a bit early to project a winner, though.
:-)

--PLH, not quite as fast as the NES, but what the hell.

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 2
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:06:54 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32731@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
 
>Any attempt to draw a
>strong link between probabilities of events and the way we perceive
>and plan policy for them, including assigning responsibility, is
>doomed: See Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky's excellent summary of the
>evidence in all kinds of areas in their 1984 book Judgment and Choice.

K., S. & T. show that our plans for the future and who we feel should
be responsible for what have no strong connection to what sorts of
things we believe are likely to happen?  I am sceptical.

>Besides I agree we need to hold people responsible for pregnancy,
>including the responsible choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Whether that choice is responsible, of course, depends on the nature
of the act, which in turn depends on the nature of the z/e/f.  That's
what the whole dispute depends on.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48277 soc.men:19457 alt.dads-rights:2624
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: will we pro-choicers be sorry?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:16:27 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <markts.721791228@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> a fundy friend of mine asked me the other day:
> "won't you feel sorry when you get to heaven
> and god tells you that those fetuses were alive?"

No need to wait until you get to heaven.  Ask a pregnant woman if a foetus is
alive, or ask a doctor (hint: the doctor is less likely to slap you in the
face).

> if i thought that even might happen, i would be 
> sorry indeed. but it won't. because they are
> not. you are entitled to your own opinion,
> even if its wrong.

As are you.

> mark.

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:57:14 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>Heard on CNN this evening:

>"About three dozen anti-abortion protestors tried to shut down a Boston
>clinic yesterday, but they were met by over 500 abortion rights 
>supporters..."

>CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
>of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
>Clinton directly.  If this were the military, wouldn't that be called
>mutiny?  (resist temptation here, oh drieux...)

>                 -rocker

One of the factors which precipitated this change of tactics by the OR
folks, is that in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts the courts are laying
on  2.5 year jail sentences for blocking clinics.   Even the Christian
Martyrs think twice before risking the jug for a couple of years.

I have a modest proposal. Two and a half years jail time imposes a
consider expenditure upon the folks of Massachussetts, and this in itself
may tempt some activists to risk the jail term. What I have in mind is to
use this new electronic bracelet to confine clinic burners to their homes.
If they wander, then shoot'em.  This works out best for both sides. For
the Christian Martyrs it is a way to be with De Lawd, and for the rest of
us it is good riddance.

Conan the Librarian 
-- Why didn't OR show up when God Aborted Soddom and Gommorah?.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:20:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.210645.6256@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus):
>> In article jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:
>> 
>> Then we get to the question of his alleged direct decent from king David.
>> Ever notice in Matthew it traces Jesus ancestry through JOSEPH to David?
>And in the Gospel of Luke, his ancestry his traced through MARY to David.
>So there you have it.  A direct bloodline.
Pure harmonization. There is nothing internal to the text that suggests
this.

>> Ever notice the contradictions in the geneologies given in the other gospels?
>Heh?  Just because one's paternal and one's maternal does not mean they
>contradict.
What makes you think that the one in Luke is maternal?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:12:45 GMT

Anyone in t.a have any suggestions on how to
convince DOD to keep this in t.a, and leave the
folks from alt.romance alone?  Or any OTHER group???
Look what I found in:

Newsgroups: alt.romance
dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Woody Allen) writes:

]   "It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than
]    a sack of blood and globs of tissue--as many pro-choice activists
]    did--if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC),
]    as they were known in medical circles.  But the nurses, medical
]    assistants, and doctors who worked inside procedure rooms knew
]    that while an eight-week POC was indeed a sack of blood and
]    globs of tissue, an eleven-week POC harbored tiny arms and legs
]    and feet with toes.  At twelve weeks, those tiny hands had tiny
]    nails.  Although the fetal head was too small at that stage to
]    withstand the evacuation machine's suction, pieces of face--a nose
]    and a mouth, or a black eye (all fetal eyes are black in the
]    first trimester) the size of a pea--were sometimes found in
]    the aftermath.
] 
]    Later abortions spawned even more gruesome fetal remains.  Between
]    the twelfth and the sixteenth week, early in the second trimester,
]    the fetus almost doubled in length as its body caught up to its
]    large head, and it filled out to the point where it looked like
]    a human baby for the first time.  Since the fetal skull was 
]    still soft, the head did not come out whole during the evacuation,
]    but the legs and arms and rib cage made it through intact.  The
]    hand of a second trimester fetus, as a Preterm doctor described
]    it, seemed big enough to shake.
] 
]    Most of Preterm's abortion staff didn't volunteer to work ``seconds''.
]    Late first trimester POCs were hard enough.  The counselor/medical
]    assistants (CMAs) met regularly to discuss their feelings about
]    their work, and often the discussion focused on the POC.  Inside
]    a procedure room, facing the contents of the uterus, there was
]    no denying what abortion was." 
] 
]    Sue Hertz, _Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line_,
]    Prentice Hall Press, 1991, pg. 104.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48189 alt.abortion.inequity:5137 soc.women:19739 soc.men:19421
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Less cross-posting please
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:48:15 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

Please, folks, abortion postings belong on the abortion groups, not on
the soc.men and soc.women groups.  Please check the newsgroups you are
posting to when you follow up on articles.

----

Your endless debate would be simplified if you would just restrict the
topic to whether men should be allowed to have abortions.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 6
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:23:49 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>As stated, I do not hold the second assumption* with any rigor and
(*that male support payments are commensurate with forced pregnancy)
>don't see why I have to hold it at all in order to support legal
>prohibition of most abortions.  The further conclusion you draw seems
>odd to me.  Why can't you imagine that someone might think that a
>z/e/f has value rather like that of an infant and that protection of
>that value is sufficient motivation for restrictions on abortion?

Because you are willing to sacrifice that /z/e/f/ in the case of rape
where the mother does not also need to be punished for engaging in
consensual sex.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:39:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.020633.129698@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <By0u8w.Mv0@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.221554.37953@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1992Nov13.171159.15074@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Horseshit.  The man has *no* legal obligation until a child is born.
>>>>
>>>>Horseshit yourself, Adrienne:
>>>>
>>>>MCLA 722.712. Child born out of wedlock; liability of parents
>>>                     ^^^^
>>>>
>>>>       Sec. 2. (a) The parents of a child so born out of wedlock are liable
>>>                                           ^^^^^^^
>>>>       for the necessary support and education of the child. They are also
>>>>       liable for the child's funeral expenses. The father is liable to pay
>>>>       such expenses in connection with HER PREGNANCY as the court in its
>>>>       discretion may deem proper. (Emphasis mine).
>>>
>>>You proved Adrienne's point - *no* obligation until *after* the child is
>>>born.  The fact that he [maybe] has to pay expenses incurred *before* the
>>>child was born does not alter the fact that there is no legal obligation
>>>until *after* the child is born.
>>
>>Your 16-year-old child decides to drive your car into a store,
>>doing $10,000 damage.  Are you liable for damages?
>>
>>Your 16-year-old child drives your car.  Are you liable for damages?
>>
>>Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
>>has been restricted, even before any damages occur?
>
>This has nothing to do with anything quoted above, does it?

Why would you side-step?  Refer to Adrienne's "Horseshit" line.

Your girlfriend decides to have your child, requiring $10,000 
in ob/gyn expenses.  Are you liable?

Your girlfriend is two months pregnant.  Are you liable?

Would you say that your right _not_ to pay for someone else's actions
has been restricted, even before any expenses are incurred?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity