HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:17:08 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.161401.7479@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
]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!"  We will see if the Republican's
]message is equally clear to homosexuals as the convention progresses.
One difference between the two parties was that the Republicans
allowed more diversity of view: they had several pro-choice speakers;
only one republican (Buchanan) who did not speak for the Bush
apparatus attacked homosexuals. On the Democrat side, the pro-gay and
pro-choice viewpoints were universally expressed.

To me, this says that Republicans as a party are relatively uninvolved
in the pro/con homosexual argument, and even the pro-life/pro-choice
debate... the party has both sides of both controversies in it. On the
other hand, the only allowed democrat positions are fervently pro-choice
and fervently pro-gay.

It will be interesting to see how this "plays in Peoria." Can the
democrats convince the pro-individual-freedom crowd that the election
of Bush will be dangerous to them? Can the republicans convince the
"family values" crowd that the democrats are antagonistic to their
values?

As far as I can tell, Bush is pro-individual freedom except on
two issues:
  -he is too willing to let the government interfere in our economic
   lives (but then, he pales in comparison to the democrats in this)
  -his is pro war on drugs.

I suspect his real position on abortion mirrors that of the majority
of the country: anti-abortion, pro-choice up to a certain age of
gestation. I also see no evidence that he is anti-gay ( he has
expressed, as has his wife, a laisse faire attitude on personal
behavior other than drug use). Yes, I know that the platform says
otherwise, but the only people that really pay attention to a platform
are those on the platform committee, and opponents who may want to
use it to embarrass the nominal keeper of the platform.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush ... NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:23:49 GMT
Reply-To: pburch@bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


In article <1992Aug19.220051.12200@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes: [well, I guess clari-net wrote the first part]
|> >>>> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
|> >>>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
|> >>>> tions....
|> 
|> President Bush has specifically said that he supports allowing abortion for
|> victims of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother.
|> 
|> The Republican platform contains a plank that calls for a ban on ALL
|> abortions through an amendment to the US Constitution.

It looks like the Republican party really is calling for a ban on all
abortions. If this passed (which is surely impossible), women with
ectopic pregnancies would be doomed to a painful death. About 1% of
pregnancies in this country are ectopic, and survival of untreated
(read unaborted) ectopic pregnancies is extremely rare.

I still can't believe that even the most extreme fanatic could intend
this particular result, though. What could possibly be wrong, in ANYBODY's 
book, with saving the life of the mother in cases where the loss of the 
embryo's life is inevitable? 

Is there anybody out there who honestly believes that even ectopic
pregnancies should not be aborted?

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Other Flip-Floppers on abortion
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:19:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.224746.5259@oakhill.sps.mot.com>  pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.222436.21732@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) w
> >
> >    PRO-CHOICE IS _NOT_ THE SAME AS PRO-ABORTION
>
> This is true.  But since the Democratic platform calls for
> public funding of abortions in Medicare, isn't it fair to call
> that a pro-abortion stance, since they are using tax dollars
> to support that act?

No, it's not fair.  If they were paying people as an *incentive* to get
an abortion, that would be pro-abortion.  Simply paying for the abortion
could be called anti-later-term-abortion, since almost half of the women
who have an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy are delayed because of
problems, usually financial, in arranging an abortion.  It could be
called anti-second-trimester-abortion, since an estimated 22% of the
Medicaid-eligible women who had second trimester abortions would have
had first-trimester abortions if the lack of public funds had not resulted
in delay in trying to raise funds.  Or it could be called pro-sound-fiscal-
policy, since for every $1 spent by the government to pay for abortions for
poor women, about $4 is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures
incurred as a result of the unintended birth.  (The savings from supporting
contraceptive services is even higher.)  But I don't see any way that you
could call it a "pro-abortion" stance.

(Data courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:13:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:


>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
>|Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
>|the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
>|to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
>|woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
>|the right to life of the fetus.

>Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
>conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
>belief of yours mean that:

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
>    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
>     a child, would lose job, etc.)

So you are saying that if person A becomes a financial burden on person
B, then person B has a legal right to kill person A.  Oh boy, won't
that be fun.  I am of course making the assumption that the fetus is
a person.  That is what started this thread isn't it?

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
>    (no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
>    would impair the mental health of the woman)

If your kids happen to stress you out, then just blow them away.
It was just one of those days don't you know.

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
>    (no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)

That one's a little more difficult.

>  - The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
>    right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
>    woman's life)

The right to self-defense is still recognized.  You have the right to
kill someone who is trying to kill you.  Very few abortion bills leave
this provision out.  In fact off the top of my head I cannot think of any.

>I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
>precedence".

I don't have a legal dictionary at hand, but in laymans terms it means
that it is more important.

If we as a society determine that a person's right to life shall be
determined by whether or not that person is convinient, then we are
all in trouble.

Life's a bitch, there are no easy answers.

>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:16:56 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.172740.1826@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug16.000147.28172@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug15.190117.5666@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chan
> >>
> >> I was expecting what I got: proof, via this thread, that the only
> >> thing that pro-aborts want, on this net, is a flame war.
> >
> >What you got was proof that, if you don't act like an asshole, you won't
> >get *flamed* for acting like an asshole.
>
> Which would lead to the conclusion that you would respond to the
> non-flame articles.

Had I felt that unwed mothers should be stigmatized, I would have disagreed
with you.

> Which, in the case of the "unwanted / single mother" thread, you
> didn't.

Because I didn't disagree.

> Proof by contradiction shows that, by example, you apparently flame
> when you can flame, and then ignore what you can't flame because to
> get involved in those postings of mine, weakens you because while I
> can exist outside of the flame wars, you can't...

A better hypothesis would be that I point out errors where I see them,
give my opinion when I disagree, and don't follow up on posts with which
I agree simply in order to say "Me too".

> Just a well-founded hypothesis which has held given that it's quite
> consistent with the course of action to date.

Except that it's not consistent with the facts.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:09:05 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>> -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
>> -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
>> -> late.
>> 
>> i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
>> sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
>> democrats.

>BLAH HA HA HA HA!   You wish!   The ABORTION issue is the single-most
>important factor which will swing the election to the pro-lifers!

You are kidding, right?  If not, you need to seek some serious help....
Except for the hard right, which make up <20% of the population, most
people think abortion should be allowed in at least some cases.  Heck,
over half of the people who describe themselves as Republican are
pro-choice, at least at some level.

There is a very small, vocal minority who are rabidly anti-abortion.  They
were voting Republican anyway.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:12:32 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


  [Karl Kluge beautifully pointed out the error in logic 
   concerning Chaney's .sig, but Chaney still didn't
   get it!  So maybe Chaney will get it when he sees 
   it in his own words...  Maybe....                ]

In article <1992Aug12.165743.23090@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> A- Privacy
> B- Adult/child sexual relations
> C- Abortion 

> A->B
> A->C

> Besides, you can't jump to C from B...  

> >> ========================================================================
> >> 		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
> >> ========================================================================
                     C        ->       B

And you can't jump from C to B either.  Now, don't you get it?



      I'm not touching you!



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:28:12 GMT

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.  

The name would be something like "talk.abortion.moderated", and it would
serve alongside talk.abortion as an alternate newsgroup.  No personal
attacks, insults, or flames would be permitted on the newsgroup.  Everything
else would be accepted unconditionally.  People who had their articles
rejected could always post them to talk.abortion. 

The big problem, of course, would be the selection of the moderator(s).
I sincerely believe that the following posters could serve as unbiased
moderators (this is just what I thought of offhand, there could be others,
but don't feel insulted if you're accidently left out):

  Don Porter
  Eric Rescorla
  Elizabeth Bartley
  Suzanne Forgach
  Adrienne Regard
  Muriel Nelson
  Steve Adams
  Steve Chaney
  Tim Buckley
  Kevin Darcy
  Peter Nyikos
  Richard Pitts
  Jimmy Miller
  Wes Orr

Naturally I eliminate myself from consideration so as not to give the
wrong impression. :-) 

What do people think of the idea?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Polls show Republicans favor abortion rights
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:10:48 GMT

I wrote:
# The margin was about 1/2 of 1% of the votes cast, close enough that
# the election wasn't decided until *all* of the absentee ballots were
# cast.
  ^^^^

This word should be `counted.'

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

Tired of `short, shameful confessions?'  Too old for `one line bios?'
`Rictus Hep' just too bizarre?  Try *NEW* ----> `I resolve...'  It's
the latest craze!  Tastes great!  Low in saturated fat!  And!!  It
doesn't leave you drowsy like those other brands!  New `I resolve...'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: RU486 & FDA testing (Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:43:59 CDT


In article <4601@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 
> RU486 is a progesterone antagonist. I am not sure of the side-effects,
> but the fact that this drug acts against a body hormone that is key to
> maintenancof a pregnancy is the major mechanism of action.
> 	The only problem with this is that since the thalidimide fiasco,
> the FDA is very, VERY sensitive to testing drugs in pregnant women.

"The only problem"?  An FDA spokesman said (at the time of the trial over
whether a pregnant woman could bring RU486 into the US for her personal
use) that the FDA has not done any RU486 testing because the French
manufacturer has not requested FDA approval.
>                                                                      In
> fact I don't think there are any clinical trials that will include
> pregnant women (much less women in general, though that is changing) for
> fear of teratogenic effects (causes birth defects). The FDA is going to
> be very reluctant to approving testing of this drug.

I think the major source of reluctance is the political implications
due to "pro-life" opposition.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: What is Sex to God?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:01:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug14.134746.29912@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu writes:

> 
>   After some effort and confusion, I've finally found the Bible verses Gordon
> was talking about where Jesus commands his disciples to hate their parents.
> I'll type in the verse and context.

  Oops.  Forgot to add the version.  It's the King James.  Apologies for
forgetting that first time around.

Jim

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: WHERE?!  Quick, hand me that gun. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:36:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.200402.20320@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug7.161207.13226@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>Greg
>>>
>>>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
>
>Standard response:  So does eating a steak.
>

YASR (Yet another standard response)

Of course, the steak didn't come from a human being. . . I hope.

>
>-- 
>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
>Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
>Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
>            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:55:48 GMT

In article <ysgy3aj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> If you don't believe a problem exists, then perhaps you should
>> take a look at the following article:

> [126 lines that had nothing to do with the rate of late-term
> abortions deleted]

In the most popular late abortion procedure, the D&E, the fetus
is always killed, and it never gets a chance to survive.  Abortion
live births can occur in the less popular abortion procedures.  The
net result is that the rate of late-term abortions would necessarily
be higher than the rate of abortion live births, since most late-
term fetuses are always killed during the abortion.

>>     Only one large-scale study has been done of live  births  after
>>   abortions--by  George  Stroh  and  Dr. Alan Hinman in upstate New
>>   York from July 1970 through December 1972 (a period during  which
>>   abortion  was  legal in New York alone). It turned up 38 cases of
>>   live births in a sample of 150,000 abortions.

> This was the only solid statistic in the entire article.  If my math
> is correct, this works out to the horrifying rate of .0253 PERCENT.
> Clearly, this is where the "about once a day" contention came from.

I'm sorry you feel that 38 live born babies are not significant.   

Did you miss reading this paragraph in the article:
 
     Other studies, including one that found signs of life in  about
   10  percent  of the prostaglandin abortions at a Hartford, Conn.,
   hospital, date from the mid-1970s. No one is so naive as to think
   there  is  reliable  voluntary  reporting  of  live births in the
   present climate, according to Dr. Cates of the Center for Disease
   Control.

Prostaglandin abortions have largely been replaced by the D&E procedure
since it's cheaper, faster, and it's less painful.  Perhaps you should
call yourself ``pro-expedient'' instead of pro-choice.  

>>     Evidence gathered during  research  for  this  story  suggests,
>>   without  proving  definitively,  that much of the traffic in late

> Well.  This WOULD explain why Holtsinger likes this story so much.

Try reading that sentence in context:
 
     Evidence gathered during  research  for  this  story  suggests,
   without  proving  definitively,  that much of the traffic in late
   abortions now flows to the New York and Los Angeles  metropolitan
   areas, where loose practice more easily escapes notice.

     ``The word has spread,'' the Daily Breeze, a small Los  Angeles
   suburban  paper,  said in July 1980, ``that facilities in greater
   Los Angeles will do late abortions. How late only the  woman  and
   the doctor who performs them know.''


Doug Holtsinger
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:17:32 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug12.214730.14136@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> P = privacy
>> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
>> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
>>
>> The judge ruled:
>>
>> (P->A) -> (P->S)
>>
>> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,
>
>You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?

Hardy har har once again, Margolis.

Like I said before, it means that if you want privacy as you interpret it,
then you have to accept all that the judges tack onto that interpretation.

Including what Lockett decided in Florida.

>> >Yes, but on one hand, an 18 y-o could be considered a kid (he can't
>> >drink, you know, and is considered a minor) and a 15 y-o can be considered
>> >an adult, as they can get married. I'd call this a grey area, at the
>> >least.
>>
>> Uh, but they can go to war @ 18. 15 year old's can't.
>
>Congratulations - you've proven that 18 > 15.  The fact remains that
>the 18-year-old is a minor, so the case wasn't about adult/child sex.

But did the judge specify that this right applies to people under 21 or
<=18? No, not anymore than they specified that RvW did not apply to minors.

Of course it took the Casey decision to decide that minors could be
constitutionally excepted (via parental consent), but we haven't had a
Casey-style ruling on Lockett's decision yet, so no limitations (such as
the one you mentioned) exist in realtime yet.

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


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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