HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:57:33 GMT

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
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:08:31 GMT

In <1992Aug29.230124.7357@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># This testimony was given by Nita Whitten, of Dallas, Texas, a former
># clinic assistant.  I am repeating it verbatim as given in _The Forerunner_
># despite the fact that some pro-choicers will find some of it
># (for example, "I decided to give my life to the Lord") highly offensive.

>I've read UFO abduction tales more convincing.

How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  Unlike UFO's, 
abortion clinics are a very real reality.  Are you one of the people who
chooses to blind himself to all stories about that reality besides the
NOW-NARAL-PP-ACLU party line?  

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)

I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of strychnine induce temporary blindness?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:04:09 GMT

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

>In article <adams.714845380@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:

>Both wrote very interesting, thought-provoking articles.
Thanx...

>Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
>there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
Well, it's a tough line to walk, but I think I'm doing ok, and the folks
around the net keep me honest..;-)

>Whenever I feel the urge to lash out at all Christians, I will think
>"Steve" and "Cameron" and re-think what I'm thinking, writing, saying.

Amen...and thanx.

 -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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:18:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
>a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception
          ^^^^^

It is interesting to note that "fetus" is the Latin word for "baby"

ata
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Gordon Goes TOO Far!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:28:59 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] BTW, did anyone catch the closeups of Schwarzenegger at the GOP
] convention?  Quayle and Bush make such a big deal of "family values" and
] the "UnAmerican-ness" of Hollywood (i.e. A single unwed pregnant
] successful woman is a prime example of what's wrong in our society) while
] Arnie sits there, having committed unspeakable attrocities in his films of
] violence and bloodshed.
] 

Now HOLD ON right there BUD!

I've got Almost EVERYTHING that Schwarzenegger has acted in,
and ALL of it, save perchance T1, is straight forward GodFearing
WholeSome Family Entertainment Upholding Traditional Family Values.

The Konan The Repub^H^H^H^H^H Barbarian Series are all about
a young man who grows up to be Strong 
and Revenge the murder of his parents.
And Then goes out to Help Other People.

Kommando is about a Nice Guy who is obliged to Obliterate
Hordes and Hordes of Kommie EuroNarcoTerrorists who have
kidnapped his child.

Even T1 is about a Father Who sends a guy back to 
help his mother from Evil Wicked Science Based
SeXularHumanistScum who have done Bad Things.

Now Tell ME that these are Not Wholesome Values!!!!

Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..."

] Nah, gang shootings and violent assault are the result of unwed mothers
] being accepted in society, not the result of murderous gratuitous violence
] in films and TV.
 
Well since Your First Assertion has been SOUNDLY Thrashed as
being Intuitively, Self Evidently and Intrinsically WRONG,
it is Obvious that the cause of Moral Corruption and
Depravity has been caused by unwed mothers who are continuing
to Inflict Hideous and Heinous Heathen HeteroSexuality upon
otherwise nice guys who would be Out Destroying Evil Vile
Wicked Enemies of The State, but that they had been lead astray.

"Submitted for your approval...", R. Sterling.


ciao
drieux

ps: what is that strange music playing in the back ground....

-- 
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: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:32:20 GMT


While I'm glad that the child survived, and hope that she truly
has no ill effects, I feel that I do need to point out that it
is possible to misjudge gestational age by up to four weeks.
(That was the justification for allowing mandatory viability
testing at 20 weeks in the Webster decision.)

Could you elaborate on the "lung treatment," Suzanne?

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Should FetalIdolators Be allowed as 'moderators'????
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:36:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.195824.6139@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

}You're darn tootin' we think that drieux's viewpoint to be the correct
}one.  Try as we might, we fail to emulate him, but that's how it is when
}you deal with

}popes, er,

}gods, er,

}avatars...

}What were you again, drieux?

Hey, by fealty may belong to Dan (King) but I must admit that I, too,
dedicate my sacrifices to drieux...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:20:40 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.715480570@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes: 

>And, just to put an end to all these silly kidney analogies, I offer
>to even allow an abortion beyond the 5th week if the difference 
>between having the
>abortion and not having one is at least as great as the permanent
>loss of one kidney.  [And when I say permanent, I mean there is no
>easy way of getting a kidney transplant to replace the one you lost.]

We can easily change the `silly kidney' to `silly blood donation'
analogy.  You seem to be missing the point: Why do want the government
intervening in any of these decisions?
 
>However, beyond viability, I would still insist that just as much care
>be taken to preserve the life of the unborn child as would be with a
>"wanted" child at the same stage of development.  And the abortion should
>be postponed as long as possible if there is a good chance it can be
>postponed to viability without incurring this one-kidney deficit.

Precisely the point of the donation analogy: Current law does not
require the use of the body of one of the parents for a child, why
should we force the use of the body of one of the parents for the
/z/e/f/?  

>>>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>>>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>>>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  

What evidence do you have that any word posted by any pro-choice
person could be interpreted as defending forced abortion?  None, hence
you are liar.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 22:54:10 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  <1992Sep3.143636.26067@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.193909.24105@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >> Which is a statement of personal belief, not fact.  My belief is that the
> >> woman should be aware of the possibility of pregnancy, and be prepared to
> >> carry through (just as the man has to) in the event of a pregnancy.
> >>
> >> My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
> >> do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
> >
> >Naturally.  As long as you don't try to enforce it against my will.
>
> Nope.  They are still just as valid when I try to enforce them.

I think you misunderstood me.  You have the right to tell me what I should do,
but not the right to enforce it.  I wasn't addressing validity.  You can
stand on the sidewalk and tell me that I should give all my worldly posessions
to the church of Elvis, but you can't try to *force* me to do so.

> >Note that I said *should*, not *must*.  Just like if you wanted to give
> >someone a gift, but control how they used it, I'd say you should come
> >to an agreement *before* giving them the gift.  You're free to do what
> >you like, but if you give them the gift with no strings attached, then
> >whine because they threw it out, I'm free to think you're a fool for
> >doing so.
>
> Except that once again, you conveniently ignore the facts.  Agreements that
> attempt to enforce maternity OR abortion OR excusing the father from
> child support payments are unenforcable legally.

I know that, and I've mentioned that this fact is unfair long before you
arrived on the scene.

> Hence my desire to change the law.

But rather than make it more fair for men, you prefer to make it less fair
for women.  You're entitled to your belief that this is "justice", but I'm
entitled to my belief that this is sick.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Pat Robertson's rant letter
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:59:55 GMT


	For those of you (like Mr. Nyikos) who seem reluctant to accept just
how loony Pat Robertson has become, here's the AP report on his charming
little letter/plea for $$, lifted from talk.politics.misc:
>
> NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92
>
> ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS
>
> -----
> Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
> -----
>
> DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
> evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
> amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
> to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>
> The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a
> broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.
>
> But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
> of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
> proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
> rights for women."
>
> Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
> political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
> kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
> become lesbians."
>
> Mr. Robertson, a 1988 Republican Presidential contender, included in
> the letter a plea that money be sent to the group Stop ERA to "help
> defeat ERA and defend the family in Iowa."
>
> Betty Durden, head of the group Iowa Equal Rights Amendment 1992,
> said Mr. Robertson's letter was "ridiculous."
>
> But Ione Dilley, a member of Stop ERA and chairwoman of the Iowa
> Christian Coalition, said that although she would not defend Mr.
> Robertson's references to child-killing and witchcraft, he was
> correct about hidden agendas.
>
> She said her proof came from a hearing called by state officials
> seeking opinions on how the amendment should be summarized on the
> Iowa ballot.  She said the meeting had been attended by officials for
> the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and "the
> homosexuals."
>
> "If this resolution to change our Constitution were not vital to
> them," Mrs. Dilley said, "why would they show up at this hearing?"
> --

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: wise words, sort of (was Re: How to Oppose the Freedom of Choice Act)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:12:31 GMT


You're a waste of time, kibble.  Go get your attention
somewhere else.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:05:14 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  <1992Sep3.142753.25939@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep01.192451.29311@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>
> >Actually, I do understand what "limited" means; I just don't understand
> >why it's limited to those cases of which *you* approve.
>
> It isn't, right now.

OK, I should have said "why *should* it be limited to those cases of which
*you* approve?"

> Why should it be absolute?  Especially when it isn't, now.

Well, why not limit it to those cases of which *I* approve?

> >> Here is where we have different beliefs.  It does, but she AGREED
> >> to give up a portion of her right to bodily autonomy when she consented
> >> to sex.  When she consented to sex, she indicated her willingness to take
> >> the risk of a pregnancy.
> >
> >And when she used the Pill, a condom, and two different spermicides, she
> >indicated her unwillingness to conceive.
>
> And when I wear a parachute and a backup chute when I jump out of an
> airplane, I indicate my HOPE that I will survive.  But there are no
> guarantees, and only an immature idiot would think it unfair if gravity
> got 'im any way.

And if there's an opportunity to save yourself, only a moralistic moron
would say you shouldn't take it in order to spare *their* sense of outrage
that you're not getting your just desserts.

> You mean, you aren't pro abortion?  Then what is your stance.

Pro-choice.

> >Since you didn't
> >do so in this post, perhaps my pointing this out made you change, and
> >you're *not* a hypocrite.  We shall see...
>
> If you consider it an insult, tell me why.  I don't like insults, yes,
> but you have to remember, just because YOU think it was an insult,
> doesn't MAKE it one.

Because it implies that I'm in favor of abortion.  I'm not.  But
sometimes it's the least objectionable solution, and I'm not willing
to take that choice away from someone who might be in a desperate
situation.  (Neither am I willing to judge what constitutes a desperate
situation for someone else.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Fetus a legal person?  When?
Keywords: Reinforcements
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:15:20 GMT

>In article <1992Aug24.234358.9016@csus.edu>,
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

># That's one good principle by which abortion could be banned: Overthrow Roe
># vs. Wade (which would mean the fetus would be a legal person again), and
># make abortion an act of child neglect & endangerment.

Overthrowing Roe vs. Wade would at *most* making abortion illegal only
in the places which currently have unenforceable laws against it on
the books.

Also....  Fetus a legal person "again"?  When was the fetus a legal
person?  Illegal abortions don't necessarily make z/e/fs legal people;
the law often extends protection to non-people.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 16:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


db>In article <Bu1E8z.DIn@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
 
db>PRECISELY!  How can a man make a fully informed decision about whom
db>to have children with, when his "offspring" can be aborted without
db>his knowledge?

db>How How can you justify responsibilities of husbands (child support, etc.)
db>based upon their entering into a "marriage contract," without also
db>providing them full information in these specific respects?

db>Why do you want to repress men so strongly?

I believe Will Steeves already answered that question in an earlier post
in this same thread:
 
ws>In article <1992Sep3.025255.4014@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:

ws>And with God or Allah (whomever) as my witness, I will say that in my own
ws>situation, if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
ws>but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
ws>or more, I probably would have snapped right there and killed her where she
ws>stood.
 
I believe that Will is not anywhere near the norm.  I think the majority of
men would not respond in the same fashion as Will would.  For these men,
I would hope that the woman would go to them and discuss the options 
rationally.  However, since men such as Will exist, I believe we must not 
pass legislation that would force a woman to be put at Will's mercy.  
The price for such legislation is just to damn high.
 
Dan King
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In  <24533@oasys.dt.navy.mil>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >In <24410@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

]> >>Nyikos proves again that he is completely clueless. Peter (very appropiate)
]> >>there are over 200,000 women per year that die in Brazil,

]> >Why do you feel the need to shift over to Brazil?

]> Perhaps because it is a country that presently has made abortions illegal.
]> It is an apt example of what could happen in this country if the same
]> is done here.

>I thought it was because there was a large number of women dying there
>from illegal abortions.  Did you mean to say that over 200,000 women
>die, or over 200,000 women die from illegal abortions?

Oops, I guess. So much has been deleted I don't know if that qualifier
was originally in there, nor am I going to go back to find it. Yes,
200,000+ women were claimed to die by illegal abortions every year in
Brazil.

]> Well, I was hoping I had them archived. Anybody archive that post with
]> the Brazilian abortion figures?

>I'll see if I can dig them up.

Thanks Larry.

>Over a million people die annually in Brazil.  The population of Brazil
>is a hair over 50% women.  (Source:  World Population Growth and Aging,
>Keyfitz / Flieger)

so a little over 10% would be from illegal abortions.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33378 alt.abortion.inequity:3256
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Aug25.161641.23258@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu writes:
|I don't want to see the expression of opinion reduced or
|eliminated.  I believe that flames and insults have a
|tendency to discourage people from expressing their
|opinions.  That's why I suggested a moderated newsgroup.

That is, flames and insults have a tendency to discourage Doug
from doctoring more quotes, and also have a tendency to
discourage his audience from believing those doctored quotes.
That's why Doug wants a moderated newsgroup.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"David John Rasmussen is one of two things:  a contemptible liar or a 
person so stupid that he is incapable of understanding simple English."
-- Dean Kaflowitz
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:36:09 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug20.223004.13850@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Natural Family Planning is AS effective in avoiding pregnancy as that
>popular contraceptive the "pill" for married regular participants in sex.  
>Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.

     It would seem to me that ALL contraceptives tested on pre-teenage
virgins would have 100% success rates.
     Or on post-teenage virgins, for that matter.

     Unless you're Mary.

                               MP