HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jane Roe (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:39:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <155t!sk@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
r#


##Oh, great.
#
##Can someone tell me just which anti-choice group perpetuates the
##myth that Norma McCorvey was represented as a rape victim in
##the Supreme Court case?  
#
#Well, I can definitively comment on this one, since I recently had
#the honor of having a conversation with Sarah Weddington (the lawyer
#who argued Roe in front of the Supreme Court) after attending a
#speech she gave.  She was specifically asked about whether she
#thought Roe had lied.  Her answer was "I don't know if she lied 
#to me or not".  In early consultations, Roe (McCorvey?) had asked
#her "Would it help if I told you I was raped?"  Weddington answered
#"No, the state of Texas has no rape exception."  She said that rape
#was not mentioned again, but that she had read interviews with 
#Roe where the rape got more and more dramatic with each subsequent
#interview.  Her reaction to this was basically resignation.  (She
#shrugged)  In any event, she made clear that
#
#THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARGUMENTS.
#
#because she believed that the circumstances of conception did not
#matter.  The "Jane Roe" case in no way dealt with rape.

Oh oh.  Conflicting reports.  I read the Marian Faux book
on the case (a few years ago), and this account seems to
be what I remember from it.  Now I really will have to check
out what Tribe says.

#If you ever get a chance to hear Ms. Weddington speak, I urge you
#to do so.  She's literate, funny, and utterly captivating (and, of
#course, Southern (-:  ).

She's not just Southern, she's *Texan*.  

##I keep hearing this "Jane Roe lied"
##line used as if she never told the truth.  She did.  She did
##so very early on.   
#
#But don't let it obscure the fact that whether she did or not had
#no bearing on the case.  In fact, the case had been prepared before
#the lawyers ever met her.  The "Jane Roe" case started as a
#fully-formed case in search of a defendant.

That fits my memory, too, that Weddington and ? (I can't remember the
other attorney's name) were looking for a woman who was being
denied an abortion and McCorvey surfaced.  

Thanks for the input, Cathi and Eric.  I'll hit the books.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.024832.2272@crd.ge.com> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
>-> >well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of
>-> >the fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an
>-> >agruing point. the issue is a woman's right to
>-> >self-determination, her right to control her body. those who
>-> >try to make the issue something else usually do so because
>-> >they have no way to deal with the issue of controlling women.
>-> 
>->     I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the
>-> abortion argument is one of competing rights - where the right
>-> of a woman to decide what happens with her body is balanced
>-> against the right of the fetus to live to birth.
>
>what "right" of the fetus are you talking about?

The purported "right" of living individuated human organisms to not be
killed without good reason, I would guess.

>->     If the fetuses rights are minimal in respect to the
>-> womans, then any reason to abort is sufficient, while if the
>-> fetuses rights are roughly equal to the womans, the expected
>-> death of the mother is probably the only good reason for an
>-> abortion.
>
>what! you want to restrict the right of a living person, a woman,
>and grant a portion of this person's rights to something else? i
>don't have any problem with your bequeathing or granting in some
>form any of your rights. i have a big problem when you propose to
>limit the rights of others. 

All rights are compromises, Jimmy. The social compact is a multi-lateral
affair. Every right translates into duties of other members of the society to 
respect that right. Get off your high horse. Every law, every precedent
impinges on someone's natural "rights" in some way or another. Or are you a 
total anarchist?

>i find it particularly distasteful
>when, from what i read here, i see that 90% of the people who
>want to restrict women's rights are men.

I find it particularly distasteful that you are apparently keeping detailed 
mental "scorecards" of posters' genders. As if that was particularly relevant
to the issue. Sounds like a gender-oriented (read: sexist) methodology to 
me...

								- Kevin
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:48:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.16852
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
>of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.
>Logic wins again.

Hmmmm.  Maybe it could be the other way around.  You don't so much as prove
this with logic, you just assert it.

I think that whichever one is "primary" and which is "secondary" is up to
theindividual user.  Your mileage may vary.
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cplma@groper.jcu.edu.au (Lynn Alford)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:57:09 GMT

In <1992Apr13.170223.10279@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>In <1992Apr13.153353.18699@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr13.003632.4809@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
>>>ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
>>>abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 
>>Wow, what a great Idea.  I'm just going to scurry on home and tell my partner
>>of 9 years that from now on, it's abstinence for us!  I'm sure he'll 

>   In any case Adrienne, I know what you mean. Abstinence is tough,
>but it is a hell of a lot more responsible than abortion. Although,

Perhaps, but abortion is much more responsible than bringing an unwanted
child into the world.

>after being with your partner for 9 years, your love must be so strong
>that you could never terminate an unborn baby which represents 
>50% of your spouse/husband/lover/whatever. So, clearly you have nothing
>to worry about because you are a responsible woman. 

Ever think about getting a job as a net.comedian?  That line about love
so strong made me laugh.  Some women stay in marriage (or in a couple)
not because their love is strong but simply because they don't know how
to live on their own.  Or they are afraid to leave.  Or they can't be
bothered to get out of the marriage.  Why do you think divorces happen,
hmm?  Time spent together is a measure of responsibility?

>   But, something whispers inside of me that there are some women out there
>(but not you!) that just cannot face the responsibility and hardships
>of pregnancy. It takes guts, determination, and a LOT of support from
>a loving spouse. You have all of those, so I am sure you would never
>contemplate abortion.

You forgot the other things that it takes.  The desire to have a child,
the resources to get through the pregnancy and have another mouth to
feed.  Would you rather see women become suicidal because they *must*
take a pregnancy to term?

Get real.  There was a point in my life when we simply could not have
had a child.  We had little money, and I was earning more than my
husband (then a graduate student).  Plus we weren't mentally ready for a
family yet.  Sometimes people aren't.  Perhaps they will be later,
perhaps they will never be.  It is the decision of the couple, and
ultimately, the choice of the woman involved whether the pregnancy
should be carried to term.

Lynn
T.S.A.K.C.
-- 
The screen of my Mac doesn't really resemble my desktop despite being designed 
to support the desktop metaphor (1), and the windows on my terminal bear only 
the slightest relation to the contraptions that lets drafts into my office.  
Stroustrup.  1) I wouldn't be able to tolerate such a mess on my screen anyway.
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:21:32 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr8.230511.27730@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
>
>My appendix has the right to exist, just like any other part of my body.
>It should not be killed by other humans without my permission. 
>I may kill my own appendix, since it is part of me, and not part of
>another human.
>
>If my appendix is removed, then my appendix should still have the right 
>to exist, if the tissue is alive. It should not be killed by other humans
>without my permission, but they may leave it to die from a lack of 
>support.

If you substitute the word "fetus" for "appendix" in the previous two
paragraphs, you have a pretty good argument for choice.  Since earlier you
said that a fetus is "living human tissue" and since an appendix is living
human tissue (at least mine is), I don't see why you just dont make the leap
to the pro-choice camp.  You don't as evidenced here:

>The fetus has the same right to exist as any other human life. No human
>can judge the value of another human, because it is a subjective judgement.
>If it is your opinion that a fetus does not deserve rights, then that is 
>still your opinion. Only the fetus can place a value on its own existence.

How?  If the fetus is, as you say, living human tissue, why can't someone
remove one from their body as one might with an appendix or cancerous
tumor?  After all, human tissue is human tissue.  What makes the fetus
different?  

If we treat the fetus as you did an appendix eairlier in this post, why not
remove a fetus and let it exist as long as it can?  It has a right to exist,
but a woman has a right to deny it nurishment and protection from her body.
Just like your appendix.  
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                                    compton@plains.NoDak.edu

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language.  Only
we can't control when the five year period will begin.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We Won't Go Back/April 5th/March for Abortion Rights
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <92085.162154ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
>   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >
>In article <1992Mar24.201353.28977@acd4.acd.com>
>   Bill Overpeck says: >>
>>>Who should assess the potential mental health risks for such women?

>>The woman.

>I didn't realize that all women had instrinsic expertise in risk
>assessment for mental disorders.  As a man, I had to be trained.

By other men, I would assume (no cracks about that please).

Mental health risks are different from mental disorders, at least last
time I heard. One is an inherent problem while the other is caused by
such things as stress. Granted one can lead to the other.

But what makes you think that any person, not just a woman, can't make
a decent judgement about themselves and how they'll react in certain
circumstances? I know that if was walking a tightrope, I'd probably
freeze-up and fall off the damn thing unless I could grab the rope as
I passed by. I don't need anyone to tell me this would occur, at a cost,
to me, of several thousand dollars. The sensible thing to do is not 
get on a tightrope.

As for directly linking this to pregnancy and saying that one shouldn't
get pregnant, don't. Not everything written in this forum relates directly
to abortion.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Having Babies in the Great White North (Re: The Voices of Women)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:09:12 GMT

In article <92098.095030ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>Oh no, Keith Cochran asks about Canada and I can't help myself
>in article <1992Apr4.185510.21498@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:

[Excellent summary of Canadian benefits for the pregnant mother deleted.
Thanks, Linda, I was wondering about it.]

Gee, Steve, is cs.dal.ca actually IN Canada, or is this another attempt to
spread disinformation???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,soc.women,soc.singles,alt.peeves,talk.politics.guns,misc.test,rec.humor,alt.religion.misc,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject:  To Be a Bit Technical About this....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:02:32 GMT

keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

] kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] -> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE her
] -> pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.
] 
] pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two privately
] about this matter.
] 
] or, ask drieux.

First off, it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that women do NOT
CREATE ORGASMS, but are in point of FACT, Victimized
by ORGASMS!!!!!

ORGAMS are one of the VileWickedEvilWantonWays that
men Inflict Their Sexual Urges Upon Women!!!!!

It is a KNOWN FACT that HeteroSexual Women are Prone
to Do ANYTHING for an ORGASM once they Have Become
Addicted to them!!!!!

They will Even Learn UNIX and how to manually Reboot
older UnixBoxes if there is a Chance that they can get an ORGASM!!!!

It is also Shameless and Dsigusting that some men are
still willing to Ply women with an ORGASM as an inducement
to inflict their WantonSexualUrges Upon 
InnocentWholeSomeFamilyOrientNiceGirls!


ciao
drieux

next week "If they are NOT careful we will be obliged to 
		return to 'Acting Responsible towards and Orgasm."

cj, Tag, You're IT!







-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:31:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <16851@plains.NoDak.edu>, compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Your argument above is that killing a fetus is "safer" and perhaps 
>>more convenient for the mother; I could argue that killing a person
>>to obtain their property is "safer" and more convenient to me than
>>any other method. 
>>
>>No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>>the fetus.
> 
> The point is not to obtain the property of the fetus.  The point is that two
> people (the futus and the woman) are competing for resources that belong to
> the mother (her body).  She can choose to share those resources, or she can
> chose to withold those resources, even if the fetus needs those resources
> for survival.
> 
> In order to justify making abortion illegal, you must bestow rights upon the
> fetus that other humans do not have.  No human has the right to force
> another to be their slave.  No human has the right to use your resources
> without your consent.  To say that a fetus has these rights is tantamount to
> saying the unborn are a superior class of people to the born. 

So presumably, abortion should be legal up to 9 months, then? And perhaps
beyond? After all, we wouldn't want to suggest that a young baby is a
"superior" person to an older one (who has no rights to your resources).

> -- 
> Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
> compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
> Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
> University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
-- 
James Annan.
                [--------------------------------------]
                [  "The only good Tory is a lavatory"  ]
                [--------------------------------------]
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan does Washington (Re: Crowd size at abortion rights march)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:03:04 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <SCOTTS.92Apr9161225@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
#In article <1992Apr09.182110.162652@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#   I collected signatures at the March.  Most people that I spoke to had
#   already been asked to sign in at least twice.  Are you sure that
#   you were at the same march the rest of us were?
#
#   Susan
#
#Susan, wasn't I suppose to meet up with you at the march?  Instead, I was
#abandoned, alone in the midst of a million pro-choice people, screaming,
#shouting and pushing.  Since I didn't see you, can you really prove
#that you were at the same march as the rest of us :-)

I have photographic evidence.  Do you?

Poor Scott.  Next time, will someone please march with him?

#Scott, I kill rocks.

Ha!  You kill trees.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:33:22 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
-> probably chaney posting as cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
-> >In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
-> >>Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?
-> 
-> >Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 
-> 
-> >And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and
-> >seeing that someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been
-> >busted by their sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless
-> >you want to be the next person that gets brought down.
-> 
--> >- Dennis Hall

sure, chaney.

-> I don't know, he sounds kind of like DJR to me. With a little
-> bit of the Kevins thrown in for spice.

hell no. he's smarter than all of the kevins, except ryan, and
djr would eat him up. if you had any doubt that it was chaney,
note the sysadmin threat above and remember dan bredy.





--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:07:05 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.231907.18378@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
>Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.

    Awhhh jeez Eric, don't be such a dork. First of all, Suzanne wasn't
the one who brought up the "scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit". SOmeone
else did remember? In any case, what you consider "scripturally unsubstantiated"
we call our faith and the message of God. And you're wrong. SO much of the 
bible is documented from various forms of text. Just because you dont' see 
any value or truth in it doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of us don't. 
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:35:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <18156@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>->In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L
>->Humphrey) writes:
>->Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?


>>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die?


>>I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
>>otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
>>liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
>>but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>>and you owe me an immediate retraction.


>>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>>sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
>>person that gets brought down.

>>Comprende?

>Wow, this sounds a lot like the David J. Rasmussen that was boycotted.


Yes it sure does. However I don't think this _is_ DJR, just another
poster with similar emotional difficulties.


>Eric, any comments? I just read your file, but I wasn't around at the
>time, whoever was can be the judge.


Apparently Mr. Chaney, or who ever this is, is coming from the same
immature mindset that DJR came from. Unfortinetly, part of that 
mindset seems to include an inability to learn from past mistakes,
and an egotism that has no room for honest self appraisal. 


>It sure sounds like his tactics, however.


I recomdend that he be ignored.


>Ron

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just curious...
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:09:39 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

>From: Sherri M. Gray
>
>What do the initials T.S.A.K.C stand for? I have some theories.. but

Hi Sherri, I asked the same question two months ago.  I got some 
funny replies but no answers.  I think it's one of those silly 
secret sort of things...

However, I am curious to hear your guesses.


-- 
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