HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rparker@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (R S Parker)
Subject: Abortion postion poll for talk.abortion readers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:18:31 GMT

Could we have a poll of the positions of the readers of talk.abortion?
I would like to know once and for all what the actual numbers are for this
group, counting each person once rather than getting confused from the number
of posts.

I volunteer to collect the data and try to present it in about a week or so.
Please remember that this is not necessarily representative of the country at
large.

If you would like to be counted (if you "feel strongly" about this issue,
regardless of what your precise postion is) please mail a response to this
post or email to  rparker@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  and briefly state your position
as clearly as you can.

I am most intersted in where you would place the "cutoff" times for abortion
being restricted vs. unrestricted and illegal vs. legal.  (You may wish to
clarify what "restrictions" you would desire, or give two cutoff times for
restrictions: one before which there should be no restrictions, and a later one
after which there should be many restrictions.)

For the purposes of this poll consider the position allowing abortion *only* in
cases of rape/incest/risk-to-mother to be "abortion illegal" rather than call
it "restricted legal".  If you feel that abortion should be illegal in those
cases as well, you may wish to note that in your response.

To summarize, to participate in this poll please briefly answer the following:

Time before which abortion should be totally unrestricted:
(time from conception.  0 days and 9 months would each be valid answers for the
extreems)
Time after which *some* restrictions should apply:
(time from conception)
Time after which *strong* restrictions should apply:
(time from conception.  you may wish to clarify the maximum retrictions you
would impose)
Time after which abortions should not be permitted:
(time from conception.  treat as "after which ... not permitted *except* in
cases of rape/incest/risk-to-mother".  If you would disallow those cases as
well, please note so.)


Note: I don't check this account very often, so don't mail me here unless you
are submitting a response to the poll.  Please only one response per person.


rparker@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Summary: Left to the exit.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:29:39 GMT

In article <83132@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>
>>>I have apperantley struck on nerve on this issue of responsibility
>[...]
>>>I think I'll post something about it. (in a while) :-0
>
>>Why not now?  Could it be that you don't have anything to cover up your lack
>>of thought about it, and are trying to buy some time?
>
>Could it be that he has a test?

That's a possibility.  I can cut him that much slack, though if he's going
to make claims, he should be better prepared to back them up then he
apparently is.  

>[me:]
>
>>>|>How is abortion an irresponsible choice?  Justify your answer.
>
>>>Wait for post, because this is growing as it is.
>
>>Why the difficulty in answering the question?  Having trouble trying to
>>think up an excuse?
>
>He may just not want to deal with it...there are times I want to respond
>to an article, just not right then.  I think he's being reasonable.
>
>Patrick, I think you're being too hard on Jeff here, not that I'll say
>anything, as we pro-choicers never disagree...

We don't?  You go to that school that's beat us in football every year since
1965 -- and that's not good. :-)  (Watch Nyikos and Holtsinger leap on
*that* -- ooh, dissension in the ranks!)  You've got a good point there,
though -- I should let Jeff tend to his business before jumping on him with
both boots.

--PLH (good thing I get a *real* weekend this time -- I should be positively
benevolent by Monday morning)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Abortion on Demand Defended!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:56:14 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

] wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes ...
] >Roe can easily be interpreted as abortion on demand, 
] >since continuing a pregnancy against one's will appears
] >to (via a recently referenced JAMA study) increase the 
] >risk of adverse psychological sequelae.  It's really
] >very easy: if abortion services are denied, there are
] >implicit mental health risks for the respective woman,
] >hence abortion services cannot be denied.  Abortion 
] >on demand.
] 
] Can't have that!  Far better to let them amoral women SUFFER for being
] so trashy as to actually have sex!  No more of these pansy excuses
] about pain, suffering, and death.  Make them act like ADULTS.


uh, Ray,

I think that Brother Overpeck is DEFENDING the matter
of Abortion on Demand being the Only Defendable position
in his professional opinion.

I will, of course, TOTALLY disagree that Roe v. Wade
is 'abortion on demand.' But his argument has sold me
that there is a CLEAR REASON why Abortion on Demand
is the Only MORAL OPTION.

ciao
drieux

ps: or is Bill really meaning to say that his citation
of sources means that these are clearly NOT the points
that he holds, believes, or wishes to defend, and has
merely made references to them, as they are a position
that is held by someone somewhere and can be considered
facts, but that his referencing of them is not to be
constured as implying that he holds the facts that he is
citing to be important, and merely wanted to cite some
facts along the way....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 06:53:13 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject:    Holtsinger on Harassment & Health


In article <1992Nov3.191744.22467@midway.uchicago.edu> e elizabeth bartley says
>
>Linda dear, my blood pressure has yet to change due to people
>questioning the merits of my position.  I simply become upset when
>people describe a position that a hundred abortion a year should be
>heavily restricted and all others should be unrestricted as
>"anti-choice", when people quote my suggesting prison terms for women
>getting illegal abortions and carefully leave out the context which
>makes it clear that these are only non-medically necessary third
>trimester abortions, and such similar things.

Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
antithesis of the pro-choice movement.  imo, your demand
to criminalize a medical procedure places an undue
psychological burden on those women who must obtain
the procedure by forcing them to justify why their
abortion should not be viewed as murder and ultimately
requiring women to literally plead for their lives.

Legislating fetal rights will cause further restrictions
to women in the work place and reduce the opportunity
for equality.  Pregnant women have already been victimized
by court ordered invasive treatments to "protect" the
fetus.  You my dear are trying to use a sledge
hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
create additional disadvantages for women.

>Furthermore, as I made very clear in the post where I announced the
>killfiling, I feel a need to defend myself against such charges when I
>see them being made, and defending myself against your hero's repeated
>attacks was getting tiresome, taking up too much of my time, and
>forcing me to engage in more flaming than I cared to at the moment.

Perhaps instead of flaming you should have tried to
discuss the issue.

Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.
wrt Mr. Keegan I just happen to agree with his position
on abortion and feel that the repeated accusations of
harassment are rather lame attempts at avoiding the
issue of why there is no need for legislation.



Linda
--
Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion
is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and are,
therefore, pro-choice.
  Abortion In Law and History: A pro-choice perspective, 1990
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: MARK IRA KAUFMAN CAUGHT LYING (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 05:43:39 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov2.213423.20451@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Other than that, I have not yet taken a position
>on legislation that would further restrict abortion beyond the
>permissible restrictions set forth in Roe.

1.  You have not taken a position publicly, or have not thought about it at all?
2.  Nice to see you acknowledge that Roe *does* restrict abortion.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jimkalb@dorsai.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Saying of Rabbi Abe (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION, Mr. HOLTSINGER!)
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:12:12 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
 
: Is it so difficult to believe that some of us believe racists to
: be sub-human at best?

Normally, gross bigotry (for example, viewing people as "subhuman at best"
because of their beliefs) is not surprising.  Gross bigotry that is ostensibly
in the cause of tolerance, though, adds a whole new level of irrationality to
the matter and so is worth commenting on.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jimkalb@dorsai.com)
"Every thing possible to be believ'd is an image of truth."  (Blake)
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:06:08 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov5.204934.29875@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>I have a better solution here to.  Why doesn't the clinic ask them 
>|>when they show up, "Have you made a thoughtful and well informed 
>|>decision?" 

>Unfortunately everyone is not honest and these minor inconvience should be
>no problem to those that want abortions.

So, let's make these dishonest people have children!!!

>If you had not deleted some of the text that I was refering to it would have
>made sense.I was talking about 2 underage females I knew that got abortions and
>were not properley counseled about abortion.

So, let's make these underage females have children!!!!

>Yes I really do believe there are some people out there that don't know
>where babies come from, but this is a small minority and I was only
>reply to the person that replied to one of my articles.

So, let's make these ignorant people have children!!!!

>Again you edited out the relevant discussion earlier. We were talking about
>a woman who intentionaly got pregnant and then later decided she wanted
>an abortion.

So, since she committed the sin of *changing her mind*, let's force her to
have children!!!!

>I have talked to women. I think you should find out more before making
>accusations. Most of my feelings about stricter abortion laws are based
>on my talks with these 2 young women. Unfortunately not all woman give
>the issue as much thought as the women you are talking about. So we have
>to make sure they know what they are doing.


Because, if they *don't* meet your standards on knowing what they are doing,
it is *much*, *much* smarter to force them to have CHILDRE!!!!!


Sarcasm, off.

Anybody get the feeling that we can do away with capital punishment by now?
Jeff's favorite form of punishment, the ultimate he can think of for all 
kinds of nasty doings in the world of human beings, is to force people to
have children.  Yup, children as punishment for living a life Jeff doesn't
approve of.  Great idea.

OK, so *now* it's sarcasm, off.

Adrienne Regard


PS, Dan, did you bid on this guy?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:32:25 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>> No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
>> an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  
>
>But a child can be removed from the womb without killing them. 

What's your opinion on abortion, then?

(a) Since a fetus can be removed from the womb without killing it
directly, we should do this in every abortion instead of killing the
fetus directly in removing it.

(b) Since removing the fetus intact involves greater expense and
greater risk to the woman at the gain of only perhaps the slow death
of the fetus over a few minutes instead of intentionally quickly,
removing the fetus intact would be unfeasible and pointless.

>... it's the involuntary servitude to a person's sex drive 
>which often precedes abortion and pregnancy.  

Huh?  Are you saying that sex is bad, and that pregnancy is its
punishment?

I honestly don't understand where you're coming from, Doug.  Could you
sum up your opinions on abortion for me?  I'm interested in knowing
what your point of reference is.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 07:30:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov2.195513.1120@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct31.183332.4838@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>>You seem to fail to understand that the reason that cocaine is
>>expensive is because it is illegal. If one were able to get
>>cocaine at low prices, this sort of thing would not happen. You'd
>>just have people taking lots of cocaine. That doesn't concern me,
>>really.
>
>It wouldn't have mattered if it were *free*, Eric.  This guy has
>two daughters who watch as he systematically destroys his life,
>his marriage, and his relationship with them.  He cannot keep
>a job, so he stays home and "watches" his two-year old while
>nearly catatonic.  The divorce is pending, btw.

Then his problem is addiction, not drug use.  I know people who've done the
same thing due to addiction to motorcycles, computers, ...

>Scientific investigation, as I'm sure you'll agree, has a few
>redeeming qualities for the improvement of our civilization.  I
>simply can't think of any for recreational drug use.

Why does it have to have "redeeming qualities for the improvement of
our civilization"?  *Most* recreational activities don't.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:25:07 GMT

In <1992Nov4.200613.25480@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>In article <#xg15pp@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
># Ok, Frank, I'll play.  (I suspect that you're playing devil's advocate
># here...)

No, he is still morally opposed to abortion, only does not want legislation
against it.  Like Brian McBean, to take a well-known example.

>While you're at it, I want to jump in with an additional argument.

># Now, you've demonstrated that it is _more_ likely that a z/e/f will
># become an infant than any random sperm.  So...we have to write a law
># on this.
># 
># What's the magic number?  What percentage of becoming a human infant
># makes something worthy of protection?  Can't be anything >0, that
># would qualify sperm. 

Human sperm?  Where can I read about actual cases?

># Can't be, say, >1%, that would qualify ova.

Same questions, with "ova" replacing "sperm".

># Can't be 100%, that would disqualify fetuses in the birth canal.

W. Blackstone, the great common-law scholar of the 18th century,
wrote of "An infant *in ventre sa mere*, in the mother's womb,"
and he was hardly alone in this.

>...and if there is an easily defined point where something goes
>through a phase transition where its likelihood of becoming a human
>infant significantly increases, why should we pick that point to give
>it the rights we currently only give to actual human infants?

See Blackstone's words again.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:56:47 GMT

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

>In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
>ron_s@verifone.com writes:
>
>> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
>> morality, 
>
>So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
>and robbery laws.   
>
Sorry, but you missed the issue, I think.  Murder, rape and robbery all
infringe upon my rights (life, bodily autonomy, property).  There are NOT
moral issues.  They are situations where a right is removed by force.
Consensual actions between two adults ARE not the same.

The governemnt needs to get out of the business of 'protecting' morals and
stick with protecting rights.

 -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: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:54:34 GMT

If you want to keep the population down, then why don't
you begin by removing yourself from this planet? 

In article <atd1.721428063@Ra.MsState.Edu> 
atd1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Anh T. Doan) writes:

> Please leave the women a lone its her LIFE!!!!!!!

I agree, we should leave innocent female human beings alone,
including the ones who haven't been born yet.  

> Do you want your parent tell you what to wear and how to live??????
> 
> If you dont then  give the women the right to choose the way they like  
> to live!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

What's this got to do with abortion? 


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47090 talk.politics.misc:58834 alt.politics.homosexuality:6891
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: A Call To High Holy JIHAUD!
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:25:22 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] (And hopefully sometime after FOCA passes, the Supreme Court will
] bring itself to overturn Roe and *finally* admit that several specific
] rights to privacy do not a generic right to privacy make.)
] 
] -- 
] Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
]             Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Beth, 

as you have brought up this Point, I must take up
the sword and Oppose you on this Point.

That there have been specific enumerations of the 'right to privacy'
does not mean that the 'generic right of privacy' has NOT been
reserved unto the PEOPLE!

I do NOT see how you wish to deprive a FREE SOCIETY of
the Rights that are Reserved UNTO IT, collectively and
specifically, merely as you do NOT wish to admit to
the fundamental grounds of 'british common law' as
the seed bed from which american jurisprudence blooms!

JUST SAY NO! TO PLUMBERS! [1]

You Can have My Right to Privacy when You RIP IT 
from my Cold Dead Bleeding Hands!

ciao
drieux

[1] for the kiddies in our midst, look up the Dark Days
of Anceint History when King Richard, The Milhaus reigned
in the Land, and Sought to Protect the People From Themselves!!!!





-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:58:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.165456.21991@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
>In article <BxLvyA.24G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> Greg Trotter,
>greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu writes:
>>Are you saying that quotas don't work?
>
>Actually I'm saying that most of the 'quota' systems that I have
>seen in place were put there by and for white males.  And yes I
>think that it is about time that those quota systems were abolished.
> 
>
>Affirmative action programs do not equal quota systems.  Please show
>me the wording of the Civil Rights bill that states what quotas
>shall be in effect and what the allocated numbers shall be.  Or
>could it be that affirmative action is actually a program designed
>to open up opportunities for groups other than white males.  Among
>other things, affirmative action asks employers to list their job
>openings and encourage applicants from all backgrounds to apply.  It
>tries to get companies to widen their hiring pools and actually
>recruit from a wide range of areas.  I read an estimate that as many
>as 80% of all job openings are never listed.  They are filled from
>personal references and employee referrals.  AA asks that more jobs
>be listed so that a wider range of people can apply.  
>
>TerriB>

True, you just listed the original intent of the Affirmative Action program.
But, in reality, what has happened is that companies, in fear of law suits
from civil rights groups, have practiced their own quota system whether 
official or not. It's a shame that companies cannot hire people based on
who is the most fully qualified person for the Job. It's interesting that
the same institution (Congress) that created this program, seems fit to exclude 
itself from it.

---------------------

J.R. Ordon

the views expressed here are mine & not my employers
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 13 Nov 1992 18:49:00 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

>
>>Seriously, are you sure you'd know Socialism if it stood right in
>>front of you yelling, "HEY! YO! LOOK AT ME!!!"? I'm not.
>You'd know.  Watch what it did to Sweden happen in the US if this doesn't
>end in '96.  I think national health care is as close to Socialism as I
>want to get.
>

For the one hundredth time...  National Health Care INSURANCE is NOT
National health care.

Mary Hammes
CSD, MU
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59117 ca.politics:9455 ba.politics:6918