HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Third Trimester Anti-Abortion Laws
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.183011.21781@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.001725.5184@rotag.mi.org>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.024107.3318@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org>
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>>	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>>>>	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
>>>>	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>>>>	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>>>>	etc.
>
>>>Don't kid yourself, Kevin -- there's a cost to restricting
>>>third-trimester abortions.  Even if nobody was denied an abortion,
>>>everyone would have to get court/doctor's approval for their abortions
>>>... this at a time when the women getting abortions can *least* afford
>>>additional hassle.
>
>>What makes you think I support laws which mandate court approval of third-tri
>>abortions? There only needs to be as much cost as necessary to implement the
>>laws. You seem to think that an official court process is necessary. I think 
>>maybe periodic spot-checks of hospital records, with followups on anything 
>>suspicious (possibly culminating in a sting operation) might achieve the
>>desired results with a fraction of the social cost. When it comes to 
>>IMPLEMENTATION, I'm pretty much with Cathi: don't fix it unless it's broken. 
>>But at the same time, my point was that I had no overriding THEORETICAL 
>>problems -- moral, legal or otherwise -- with reasonable third-tri restrictions.
>
>I want third-trimester restrictions, Kevin, but I admit that there's a
>cost to them.  You still haven't acknowledged that there's a COST to
>restricting third-trimester abortions, Kevin.  

Oh, I'll freely admit that. *ALL* laws have costs associated with them.

Happy now?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Eulogy for the "Pro-Choice" label (Was Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:40:28 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <lefty-151092131159@lefty.apple.com>  lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.231124.2068@csus.edu>, our resident feeb,
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen "Airplane" Chaney) wrote:
>
>> Mainly because "No one has a right to control their own body for
>> recreational purposes when it comes to drugs, and because it is
>> illegal, people are DYING.."
>
>OK, witless wonder, here's a couple of questions for you: in the past year,
>how many people died as a direct result of illegal drug use?  How many
>people have died in the past ten years as a direct result of marijuana use?

Not to mention, how many people died as a result of *legal* drug use?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:33:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>> There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>>> brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>>> abortion the killing of that child.
>>
>>There have been discussions about the possiblility that an aardvark does show
>>brainwave activity.  This would make a aardvark a living child, and thus make
>>abortion the killing of that aardvark.
>>
>>But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
>>likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
>>between stations.
>>
>I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.
>The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
>seems to offend people.

It doesn't offend much of anybody; are you really this stupid?  The
point is that brainwaves are worthless for determining personhood,
intelligence, or much of anything else.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:29:43 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org
Summary: "ADAMANT" is incorrect on "there exists no child until birth"
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <Bw49xJ.B2G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>Supporters of legal abortion are ADAMANT in their insistence that there
>exists no child until birth.  ...

	Not all, certainly; I'm against making abortion illegal
	and I am certainly *not* adamant that there exists no
	child until birth (whether there is a "child" or a violinist
	or Einstein or Attila, my opinion is unaffected).

	By the by, have you found the quotation from the Koop
	letter you cited?  If there is much more delay, people
	(I, certainly) will lose interest in your remarks on it.
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Holtsmussen starts to fall apart
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:57:21 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->#The various remains of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims were once persons.
->#And so are the remains of aborted fetuses.  That's what makes them
->#horrifying. 

->I think that Eric scared him.

i just hope he doesn't try to pave the boston marathon
route with fetuses again, or fly a concorde to france
and, upon arrival, find everyone dead.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:03:00 GMT

alt.atheism deleted from the newsgroup list as it makes no sense to
inlcude it.

<nyikos.718390032@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Oct2.003522.4832@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
>><nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
>>>utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
>>>...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>>>		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
>>>		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]
>
>>Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
>>Unvirgin playmates... I like that one.
>
>Alas, he falls on his face where "falsely" is concerned.  The charges
>against Gordon are, sad to say, all too true.  Otherwise I would not
>be making them.

Could you list these charges?  If you are referring to the 'Suzanne
Chronicles' you are clearly a liar.  Now, I generally have no objection to
someone choosing to be a liar, and I really can't stop you from lying
about me when anyone else on the net who can read knows I stated clear
facts and my personal interpretations thereof.  Your continued lying only
makes you look bad and lessens what seems to be an already waning
credibility.  But hey, your choice.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:09:16 GMT

I responded to this before, but it appears that my NNTPserver was
down.

 In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
 >cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
 >->I think it is clear to most readers that I did tell the truth.
 >
 >i doubt it. and the evidence clearly shows that you did
 >not. perhaps more relevant, not a single participant on
 >the mailing list has supported your lie.
 Quite untrue, Mr. Keegan. You yourself did in the mail that CJ quoted.

 >i don't believe you. my erroneous admission was made
 >after your false allegation. the only "evidence" you
 >had when you posted your lie was a repost of an article
 >which had already been posted publically in t.a. with
 >no commentary from me.
 >
 >at the time, i thought you had made an honest mistake
 >which you would correct. instead you have perpetuated
 >it, posting new lies along the way.
 Let us not forget that it was a "mistake" which you corroborated, Mr. Keegan.

 >you have demonstrated that you  possess no
 >personal character. when you first posted your lie,
 >a couple of people who knew it was a lie urged me to go
 >public with the posts. i disregarded their advice and
 >crafted my comments on this subject in such a way as
 >you leave you a credible out.
 I would hardly characterize the situation that way, Mr. Keegan.
 In fact, you directly agreed with CJ's interpretation.

 On May 28, 10:43pm, James G. Keegan Jr. wrote:
 | whoops. i should have remembered this. but i didn't. i did try to
 | gain support from the list but i have forgotten that you no
 | longer received mailings.

 > looking back, i wish i
 >had exposed you immediately.
 Instead, you agreed with her. How strange.

 -Ekr
 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: An answer for Mike Best.
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:40:37 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Oct14.204014.779@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike
Best) writes to Larry Margolis:

>Larry, you seem to be a reasonable person so I have chosen you to ask this
>question.  Do you believe that both parents of the child are responsible
>for the child if it were to be born?  I suspect the answer is yes so I will
>move on to the next question, if you believe in equal rights then should not
>the male have the option to have the child aborted even if it is against the
>will of the mother?

All persons have the right to refuse to have their bodies used to
support another entity.  A father can refuse to donate blood, tissue,
or organs to a child, regardless of what the mother wants.  How does
allowing a woman the right to refuse to have her body used to support
a fetus violate the principal of equal rights?

>  Certainly the female has this right today and the same
>arguments can be made in that the man:
>
>1.  Is too poor to support the child
>2.  Would be likely to abuse the child (especially if he's white) 
>3.  Doesn't want the child at this point in his life, he wants to wait
>    until his career is established.
>
>I am attacking the stance that it's the woman's body and the woman's choice
>yet it is also the man's responsibility if she should decide to have the
>child in the first place.  

You substitute responsibility for body as if the two are the same.
They are not.  If a woman decides to use her body to support a fetus
and it is born, then both parents are responsible for that child.  If
she refuses, it is removed and dies.  Similarly, if a father decides
to donate a kidney to save his child, then his responsibilities and
those of the mother to that child remain the same.  If he refuses, the
child dies, and neither parent has responsibilities to it any longer.

>Basically, a group right has been established which gives one group (women)
>a right which another group (men) does not have.

Men have the right to refuse to have their bodies used to support
another life.  This is the right for women that is protected by the
right to choose.

>  Could it not be true
>that the man recognizes the above condition(s) whereas the woman would 
>not and thus the man could make the so-called responsible choice?
 
I disagree.  The man cannot tell the woman what to do with her body.
Similarly, she cannot tell him what to do with his body.  That seems
quite equal to me.

SJM
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:12:58 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct12.153354.17164@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.085322.89833@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Oct9.211534.21315@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>> This is what I have been trying to tell these people.  Abortion destroys
>>> an unique, sentient, feeling person.
>>
>>Unique?  Yes.  Sentient?  Feeling?  Person?  No!  (At least, not in
>>99.99+% of abortions.  And the less than .01% (that's about 100 *total*,
>>per year, in the US) of third trimester abortions that *are* performed are
>>done for serious health reasons.  The woman is *undoubtedly* a unique,
>>sentient, feeling person, so if only one can be saved, she gets my vote.)
>>
> 
> O.K. It's time to put forth the real issue for discussion.  Larry, and 
> many other pro-choicers, have made the claim that 99% of abortions 
> occur in the first tri-mester.  

Aren't the common figures more like 90% 1st and 10% second trimesters?

>If that is what pro-choicers want, then 
> why do they fight so hard against any restrictions on abortion after 
> the first tri-mester?

I've heard a woman say that 90% of rapes occur after dark.  If that's
true, then why does she fight so hard to keep rape during the day
illegal?

> Could I have some help on this one, pro-choicers?

Hope I was of some assistance.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:51:52 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->You are, I assume, referring to your insistence that
->net participants conform to your personal Rules of
->Correspondence? 

i might be able to help you out here if you'd post
either my specific demand that "net participants
conform to your [my] personal Rules of Correspondence,"
or a detailed listing of the criteria which led you to
believe in the existence of these "Rules of
Correspondence."

if you can't, don't worry. i won't think any less of
you.
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:42:18 GMT

Eric Rescorla writes:

|  What it does show, however, is that it was reasonable for her
| to BELIEVE that you had made such a mailing

Unless she was hallucinating that morning, it's not reasonable (or
sane) for C.J. to BELIEVE that she'd *received* such a mailing
unless she really had.

She claimed, after all, to be objecting to the text of something
she'd seen, something sent to the mailing list.  As the people
actually involved know, the mailing list was run through an address
that C.J. had set up on her system.  Nothing could successfully pass
through the mailing list, as mailing list, without her knowledge.

"Did Keegan send e-mail" is a dumb oversimplification.  Of course
he sent some e-mail; that's what people on mailing lists do.  C.J.
alleged that he'd *misused* the mailing list, not simply that he'd
used it.

The two real questions here were and are --

*  Did Keegan -- or did C.J. -- violate the trust of the mailing list
group by using the list improperly?  This is not an issue on which the 
Net can sit in judgment, since it concerns *only* the people involved
in the list and the principles on which they wanted the list to be run.
You can't answer it, even with all that disclosed 'evidence'.

*  Did C.J. have any business making her accusation publically in the way
that she did?  Did the list want its privacy violated that way? Does
one flame a friend in public over his private e-mail -- without even writing
to criticize him privately first?  

Again, I don't see how this quarrel can possibly belong; I don't see any
legitimate role you can have in finding the 'truth' of it. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                          suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:01:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.719164040@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <14OCT92.18003626@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
> 
> >Give me a break.  Why should I care how it has been translated into other 
> >languages?  I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the text in 
> >it's original Hebrew.  The commandment is "Lo Tirtzach", which means do not 
> >murder.  If the original authors had wanted to say do not kill, it would 
> >have been "Lo Taharog", but that is not what they wrote.  
> 
> >Or do you think you know something the original authors did not?
> 
> Do you?  How much has Hebrew changed over the last three thousand years?
> Are you sure you know more about ancient Hebrew than innumerable Biblical
> translators?

This is idiotic.  Even for you, Peter.

How, I ask, are we to know that the Hebrew language over the past 3,000
years hasn't _changed_ _completely_?

Maybe the commandment _really_ means, "Thou shalt not paint thyself
purple."

Maybe it _really_ means, "Eat at Nebuchadnezzar's".

Maybe it _really_ means, "Peter Nyikos is a tiresome fool".

Who's to say, eh, Peter?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Baby Machines (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:44:20 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct9.234809.7287@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1992Oct3.152415.2425@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
>> 
>> Why not just put all women
>> into a big building where men can go to impregnate them whenever they
>> please?  The women could all sit in the building waiting to impregnated
>> so they could serve their God-given duty to multiply.  There's a
>> happy set of thoughts, eh?
> 
> In your dreams,Mc Bean.

Actually, For gach, although my dreams can get pretty twisted away from
reality, I have yet to have such a nightmare.  Thus, your statement
is incorrect.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:15:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <7143@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}In article <1992Oct9.014733.6876@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
}#From article <9nnzwbm@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
}## krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
}## 
}### No one is asking the baby.
}## 
}## D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?
}#
}#Sure.  They're afraid they might not like the answer.
}
}This must be more of Suzanne's New Age beliefs in action.
}She honestly thinks that she can commune with zygotes.
}
}
}Tell me, Suzanne, do you talk to them directly, or does
}someone channel for you?
}
}Susan
}(Galen?  How about you?)

I don't commune with zygotes, but I do speak for them.  I don't know
exactly how the communication thing works, but at times different groups
make their opinions known to me.  I have this overwhelming desire to
make their opinions known across the net.  Of course I could tell you
how some of these groups pay me, but then I'd have to kill you.

It's not easy, sticking up for the unborn, and telling folks what they
really want you to understand.  There are so many others who will claim
to speak for the unborn...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:23:15 GMT

In article <grendel.719003246@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
|> In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> >>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
|> >>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
|> >stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
|> >us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  
|> 
|> You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
|> wants to reduce troops in Europe.

What? You mean that you don't recognize Slick Willie sitting high in the
straddle again ?????

dp


***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***