HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 SEP 92 21:22:15 GMT

In a previous article, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) wrote:
> 
>I disagree with the Supreme Court that this puts an undue burden on
>women seeking to exercise their abortion rights.  When you have to
>save up for four months to be able to afford the abortion procedure
>because you're dirt poor and you don't have health insurance that
>covers it, and you have to take a day off from work and bus a hundred
>miles into the nearest city with a women's health clinic, having to
>stay overnight in a hotel room while you wait for the mandatory
>waiting period to expire is not a trivial detail.

I have a question about this - how many health insurance plans cover abortion 
services (other then to save the life of the woman)?  Does anyone know of any 
HMOs that will pay for an elective abortion?  The one I work for won't.

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

                                 .... Heather.

                                 (Obviously not my employers opinions)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 09:43:03 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
: In article <1992Sep3.223559.16902@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
: > From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
: >> 
: >>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
: > 
: > 
: > ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
: 
: Pro-choicers don't (necesarily) cannibalize.  Not even the abortionist
: eats the aborted z/e/f/b/c.

Pro-lifers don't coat women with breadcrumbs and MSG and sell them
at outlets around the world, either.  Even Col. Sanders would have
thought twice :-)

: 
: Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:52:44 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Sep2.215733.10221@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com> 
> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> 
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> The laws can't be changed until Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Until
> >> that time, the people of this country will be forced into accepting 
> >> the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.
> 
> > Seriously Doug, how can you write that tripe?  "people of this country
> > ...forced into accepting ... abortion"  
> 
> That's not what I wrote.  If you can't quote me properly, then don't quote
> me at all.
> 
> > The supreme court basically said
> > that up until a certain time in the pregnancy a woman may choose for
> > herself whether or not to have an abortion.  How is that forcing anything
> > on any one?  
> 
> I believe the people of this country should not be forced to  
> accept the Supreme Court's edicts on abortion.  The people should 
> have the right to voice their opposition to abortion through the 
> state legislatures. 
> 
> >Gordon
> 
> 
> Doug Holtsinger

And the people of this country should not be forced by pro-lifers
to accept their edicts on abortion and morality. Or do you not
understand the consequences that your ideology will bring to our
society?

Just remember, in November, millions of people will vote. Maybe you
think that the pro-life movement will win glorious victories and
you can force women to once again be chattel. I don't think so,
and I *will* be voting.

Katy Yanda

childless by choice.....not childbearing by force
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35608 soc.men:16104 alt.abortion.inequity:3618
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: EXCUSE, PLEASE!!!!!! (Was: Father Notification...)
Keywords: You think I'm going to mark my deletion?  Think again...
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:22:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Sep5.222216.17471@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
|> Excuse me, but I have a question.  Could all of you married folks go look at
|> your marriage licenses, and see if there's something in there about how the
|> two of you have to talk?
|> 
|> How the two of you have to live together?
|> 
|> How the two of you have to get along?
|> 
|> How the two of you have to discuss ANYTHING?

My marriage vows contained a piece about "love, honor, and cherish".
My early moral and ethical training were with the Roman Catholics. They
taught me that one of the Commandments was "Honor thy father and thy mother."
And that "honor" meant several things. One was that lying and deceit are
definitely NOT "honoring".

And anyway, the marriage contract is not in or on the license. It is embedded
in the Law, which would not fit onto anything as small as a Marriage License.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On the Nature of Ritual Cannibalism
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:00:38 GMT

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] In  <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] >
] > >And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
] > >you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
] > >beliefs.
] >
] > Yeah, that human sacrifice stuff is definately out.  Of course, we do
] > allow Catholics to practice cannibalism...
] 
] Now Gordon, just because Doug Holtsinger ridicules the beliefs of Judaism
] in his .sig doesn't mean that you should stoop to his level.  Besides,
] it's only cannibalism if you really believe in transubstantiation.


1. whether or not one holds to 'transubstantiation' the
euchrist service is by its very definitions a form of
ritual cannibalism.

2. It is equally amusing that folks find the matter of
oppressing other's religions worth noting, and then
forgetting that 'prohibition' did prevent the use of
wine with communion services.... and hence a direct
violation of those persons Religious Ceremonies....

HUM... interesting that few see the similarities
between this and the use of Peyote.....

But I guess that after one has abandoned the Literal Word
of GOD for some Modern SeXular Humanism, it does not really
matter how one goes about oppressing others....


ciao
drieux




-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:28:19 GMT

In article <183ibrINNian@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Note, Peter, you *do* have the right to REFUSE to physically support your
>minor child by intrusive use of your body.  

How's about siamese twins? 

They're the only other instance in the world right now in which one
human being uses organs that another human being is using, and while
there is dispute from Ronald Bense on it, at least 40+ states currently
mandate that no separation be allowed if it is fatal for one twin. 

>>On the flip side, I would give a woman every right to control her own
>>body, but a fetus is not part of her body and the right does not extend
>>to controlling it.   
>
>But you would *not* grant to a woman the right to refuse to physically
>support her minor child by intrusive use of her body.

I don't grant it to a Siamese twin who wants to kick the other off.
Then again, that is the only "use of body" case that exists, besides
pregnancy. 

By rule of precedence, your entire argument is invalid. 

Of course, you could uphold your argument by making NEW rules... 

>Adrienne Regard
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 12 Sep 1992 04:37:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <-7tnp3.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
> 
>>Choice?  We all have a choice before we have sex.  Do I or don't I, and, if I
>>do, am I going to take precautions or not?  Am I willing to accept responsibility
>>if the precautions are not 100% effective (since none of them are)?  So what
>>happens when the precautions don't work?  Eight years ago my wife accidently 
>>got pregnant with our third child.  We really couldn't afford it, life was very
>>pleasant with our other two, I was already maxed out on available time.   
>>However, due to no fault of its own, this "thing" was created and we had to face
>>the consequences of our actions, so we didn't kill it.  So now I have a great
>>little second-grader who loves me unconditionally.  Thank God for our accident!
>>We live from paycheck to paycheck, but I honestly wouldn't trade that son for
>>anything.  My wife wants a fourth since the third turned out so well.
> 
> Good for you.  Would you feel the same way now had that pregnancy forced
> you into bankruptcy, made your wife an invalid, and/or destroyed your 
> marriage?  And if you are anything less than 100% sure of the answer,
> how can you justify forcing that decision on anyone else?
> 
Thing is, I was willing to take that chance.  You can't make an arguement that
it is ok to kill a baby because of worst case possibilities.  You're right--
those things will sometimes happen.  But I would be pretty sure that, in over
95% of the cases they won't.  If you feel that way about avoiding bad things,
don't drive your car anymore.

> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer
> ray@netcom.com
-- 
Stokes McMillan -
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 12 Sep 1992 04:26:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <1992Sep10.221038.8158@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> 
> }                What finally made it clear to me was this: 
> 
> He backs up, one day at a time, then:
> 
> }                I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
> }cells that in just 9 short months will be ...
> 
> Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
> to the lustful gleams?
> 
Get serious.

> }Then I decided that abortion is wrong.
> 
> Good for you.  You did not, however, explain why it should be illegal.
> 
If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.

> }There.  I tried to give my reasoning for being pro-life without going into the
> }Biblical side of it.  
> 
> But are you in favor of making abortion illegal?  I understand that you
> are pro-life, but are you also pro-choice?  There is no conflict with
> being both unless you happen to spell "life" as "legislation," something
> fairly common around here...
> 
Yes it should be made illegal.  Yes I am pro-choice--for the baby.  Let it
(via nature) decide if it is going to live or die.  The one person in this
world it should not have to fear is its mother.
> --
>        hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
>      Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
>  I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
-- 
Sky diving is fun, also.

Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
C-9915			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:51:07 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep14.211646.8121@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>As more and more premies are saved, I think we will all have to do some
>serious thinking about acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  In the state of
>Washington, a woman can have an abortion through the 24th week.  It seems
>rather hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting to save a life
>while in another a doctor is ending one.


why?

I don't see anything particularly hypocritical about it.  Perhaps you can
tell us why you do?

Adrienne Regard
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

in a posts filled with untruths,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
-> >[re: will steeves]
-> >-> In fact, I wrote of him in soc.men that he is
-> >-> exactly the kind of person I am glad is involved
-> >-> in the abortion debate.  I feel the same way
-> >-> about "Jammer Jim" Miller and Elizabeth Bartley.
-> 
-> >of course you do, silly. they're all anti-choicers
-> >who agree with you.
-> 
-> I've got news for you, buster.  If you call everyone
-> who does not agree with your ideologically pure
-> position of abortion for any reason, at any time up
-> to birth "anti-choice",

you must have me confused with someone else. i have
never written that i supported abortion. i have written
that i support a woman's right to choose, however. you
seem to have the two confused. obviously, anyone who
opposed a woman's right to choose, or anyone who would
restrict a woman's right to choose, is, in the context
of the abortion discussion, anti-choice.

[...]

->   Jim puts the cutoff point at viability (or is it
-> 3rd trimester?), and so does Elizabeth.  I put it at
-> 6 weeks, though I am open to persuasion about moving
-> it up to 8 weeks, or down to conception.

i support your right to determine where your cutoff
point should be. and i support the right of others to
determine that for themselves.

naturally, as a supporter of choice, i oppose your
desire to make the choice for all women.

-> I'm not sure of where Will Steeves would put it,
-> maybe at birth.

i don't care where he puts it. i care that he doesn't
decide for others.

-> BTW would you also classify Brian McBean as
-> "anti-choice"?  He is another person who fits my
-> description.

does he oppose choice?




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 20:52:04 GMT

In <1992Sep6.225636.17167@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715648091@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># In <1992Sep03.171322.2864@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
># 
># >In  <nyikos.715471571@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># >> South Carolina
># >> requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases
># >> brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?
># 
># >Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
># >100% of the time.
># 
># >What do I win?  :-)
># 
># I don't think so.  I have spoken to an experienced trial lawyer who
># says he has seen many cases of rape brought to trial, but hardly ANY
># cases of incest.  Now this was a general statement, not connected with
># abortion, but it is certainly suggestive.  I intend to study this matter
># a lot in the next few months.

>That's an unrelated issue.  If South Carolina law requires abortion
>providers to report to police alleged incest cases brought to them,
>then I suppose there's probably a penalty for failing to comply with
>that law.

>So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
>abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
>it wasn't enforced?

I'm just starting to find out about this stuff, and the people I am
trying to get information from are incredibly busy, so the answers
may be a long time coming.  

I do not know of a single case of an abortionist reporting an incest
case.

I do not know of a single case of an abortionist disciplined for 
refusing to report an incest case.

I have no idea whether this is just another one of the South Carolina
laws, like the one against fornication, which is seldom if ever enforced.

But stay tuned.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney's sig
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:11:20 GMT

In article <SCOTTS.92Sep11131610@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <BuDuF8.C30.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>   #The e-mail started when Chaney objected to my position in NARAL (local
>   #steering committee, big fucking deal.  I get to have dessert with
>   #Arlen Specter (that scum sucking pig).)  He ranted about how he was
>   #Kate Michelman's worst nightmare and how he personally was going to
>   #destroy the pro-choice movement with his flawlessly logical arguments.
>   #He kept talking about how he was going to win and score all these
>   #points -- I thought he got abortion confused with a basketball game.

Eat those words, folks. 

I just found out that our school's Associated Students board supports
a new resolution I've been drafting up. 

It bars CSUS from funding and advocating political issues outside of
our on-campus education and funding. 

That, because of religious freedom in the First Amendment. 

And what will that knock off? 

It'll knock off last year's pro-choice resolution. 

If this passes, Scott & Susan, I suspect CROW will be a large part of
your daily diet. 

=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 05:17:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bu4GB1.EvJ@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Sep05.050415.38486@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>
> >You mean that the fact that you live in a society in which abortion is
> >legal didn't enforce the belief that abortion is a moral choice?
>
> I mean that there is no reason to believe +a priori+, based on the
> definition of "enforce," that legalized abortion has not "enforced"
> the belief that abortion is a moral choice.

And no reason to believe that it has.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Sep 92 21:33:08 GMT

In <lai5vtINNphn@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715650400@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>>In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>>>	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>>>>>	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>>>>>	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]

>>>>Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
>>>>hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
>>>>the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
>>>>is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
>>>>is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
>>>>of it, like Wicca.

>>>As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>>>your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.

>>Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
>>feminist movement?

>No, but that has nothing to do with the statement that you made, and
>I responded to. You stated that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement,
>and I said that as someone who is qualified to know, it is not.

You did NOT say that.  You merely rebuked me for saying the opposite.  
As far as
I could tell, your whole follow-up might just have been a little spoof.

> I also
>suggested that in the future you will have better credibility if you
>got your facts straight in the future before opening you mouth.

>Both of these statements still apply.

So does my statement that I am completely in the dark as to why Wicca
is not a subset of the feminist movement.  Could you please enlighten
me?

>>Peter Ny.

>Eric

Peter Ny.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:57:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <29756@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen
J. Mezias) wrote:
> 
> In article <nyikos.716154519@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 
> 
> Post deleted.  Was this intended as humorous?  Was there supposed to
> be some analogy to abortion buried in this muddle?  Does anyone get
> it?

I understand it perfectly.

Peter's been skipping his medication again.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36687 alt.abortion.inequity:3791