HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:17:02 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

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> [...] However I should point out that few people
-> want women to undergo unwanted pregnancies;
-> pro-lifers simply want people to refrain from
-> killing innocent human beings whenever possible.

that's not true dodie. anti-choicers want to force
their beliefs on others who don't share those beliefs.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Legislation vs. judicial decisions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.233944.26118@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <nyikos.714674872@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>}One thing more: you complain about legislative efforts by pro-lifers.
>}The NARAL people of the pre-Roe days rightly saw that their best hope
>}was judicial efforts, and pro-choice people have been using the judicial
>}system for over two decades now to impose their wills on a country whose
>}only recourse is a constitutional amendment, since if Roe is overturned
>}you will not only see enormous pressure to pass FOCA but also attempts to
>}get state courts (attempts which have already met with huge success) to
>}do what the Roe court did.  Talk about control.

>Do you recognize any difference between judicial efforts and legislation?

I know you were asking Peter, but....

I see a difference.  I see a *huge* difference.  Legislatures are
*supposed* to create law.  Judges are only supposed to *enforce* it.
Any judges who are effectively writing the law by off-the-wall
decisions (which claim to enforce law when in fact they create laws
that had not existed until they decided to enforce them) are exceeding
their authority and should be removed from office.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:32:33 GMT

In article <siyemop@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.

>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?

>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>- and my wife has said the same thing...

Well, we obviously disagree.

Now, would you respond to the other half of Ray's worries: do you
think the engaging in activities hazarous to a z/e/f (while pregnant,
obviously) should be child endangerment?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Sep4.113450.7336@hemlock.cray.com> 
rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>In (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I'd be quite happy to overturn the "government fiat" known as 
>> Roe v. Wade and have the abortion issue returned to the states
>> where it rightfully belongs.  Let the people decide the issue.

> I take it this means Doug opposes the Republican platform's call
> for a constitutional amendment banning abortion because it would
> prohibit individual states from deciding the abortion issue.

At the present time, yes.  The Democratic platform of unrestricted 
abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy and the Republican platform 
on abortion are currently minority-held positions in this country.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:07:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>The whole idea of asking the above question, was to attempt to illustrate
>a point using the Socratic method.  The point I'm trying to get across is
>that everybodies stance (and I mean EVERYBODIES) is based on a personal
>belief system.
>
>And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
>country through the use of law.

Well, not exactly right.  You want to enact legistlation, I don't want
legislation enacted.  See the difference?

Yes, I do so because of beliefs.  I beleive that personal freedoms make
up the founding principles of the country, and that anti-abortion laws
are not only contrary to those principles, but also contrary to Christian
principles.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM 
(Daniel J. Dick) has some wise thoughts, ponders a minute:

}Sure, there are flamethrowers and mockers on both sides, but why join in and
}become one of them?

alas, he posts anyway.  I've mercifully deleted most of it though, except
for this one part I just couldn't help but comment on:

}                                              Is it easy for a precious
}child to handle *being* aborted?  

The "unborn" (I speak for them, remember?) say they can handle it 
rather well, thank you very much.  They are also rather amazed that so 
many seem to have fantasies about being a fetus and feel a need to tell
usenet readers about it. 
 
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:26:28 GMT

In article <9aye0b9@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:

>How many children (emphasis on child(ish)) does it take to fill the net?

>In article <1992Sep1.011343.29500@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>> I am reposting this article and will continue to do so until Suzanne
>> Forgach either publically apologizes to me for claiming that I've lied
>> to myself (about what abortion is) or publically declines to do so.

[article deleted]

I'm curious: are you accusing me of being childish, or Suzanne?  I
rather assume the former, in which case you haven't lurked on
talk.abortion long enough before posting to it.

FYI, Sean: I pride myself on intellectual honesty, and I have in the
past taken abuse from the pro-choice side for not assuming the
"pure"/"politically correct" pro-choice position but rather a
pro-choice position based on the "personhood" of the fetus which
acknowledges that it has rights when it becomes a person.  Given that
fact, I feel entitled to demand that Suzanne at least acknowledge that
I am offended at her accusation that I'm dishonest.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:59:57 GMT
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
 
>>>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.

>>>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  
 
>> Suzanne, wouldn't it be FAR better for that person to get sterilized
>> and start adopting, instead?  I don't find this admirable, I find it
>> a colossal waste.

>I am at a total loss to understand this statement.   

I'll clarify, then.

>She willingly risked
>her own life to give life to 4 people, who now btw have children and grand-
>children of their own.   I see nothing "waste"full in that.

Would it make it easier if we postulated that one of those births killed
her?  My point is that, as you have argued, adoption is an excellent
alternative.  Wouldn't it be far better for her to have adopted four
children who might otherwise not have had a loving home?  In addition,
she would have undergone NO risk to herself in the bargain--and that makes
it a better alternative, IMO.  That she chose not to accept this 
alternative is wasteful, because she decided to create new life instead of
helping to take care of what was already extant--and she could easily
have lost her own life.  THAT is the waste I see.

>>>I had a
>>>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>>>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>>>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>>>more beautiful way to go."
>> 
>> I can't think of ANY beautiful way to go, but a death caused by selfishness
>> and stupidity is worse than most.
>
>The self-less-ness that woman displayed on the other hand, was quite beautiful.

How is this selfless?  Your great-aunt added four people to the earth when
she could have adopted four people already here.  She needlessly risked her
life because, I'd assume, she wanted "her own" children.  You have argued
before that there is no more sublime experience than childbirth--does not
true nobility lie in giving up this epiphany for the greater good?

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: NO SUBJECT           (1)
X-To: ROSS RIDGE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:22:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
DJD> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
DJD> ] dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
DJD> ] DH> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
DJD> ] DH> In article <92182.092025AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET> AOEXY@ASUACAD.BITNET wr
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> >> DRIEUX is a sick dog homo.  There is only one cure for this. And i
DJD> he
DJD> ] DH> >> too. A single 22 slug in the right temple is quite effective!
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> > I love this: the mentality of the pro-"life" movement at work.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] DH> I think it's more likely that the poster is pro-choice, since it's
DJD> ] DH> obvious that s/he embraces the repulsive notion that human life
DJD> ] DH> can be killed arbitrarily.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Bravo, Doug!  Touche'!  (Is there a better net.standard way of writing
DJD> ] "e"-accent aigu without having to say "e'"?... Guess not).
DJD> ]

DJD> I think that will here has shown clarity of vision in
DJD> supporting DearOldDoug's premise that Killing a ProChoicer,
DJD> by ProCoicers is a reasonable assumption....

Whoa, wait a second there, Drieux....

I am *not* one of Doug's supporters, let's just get that straight here.  I
am not one his his opposition, either, but that isn't really the point.

At any rate, I was *only* saying "Touche'" because he was giving a
stereotypical answer about "Pro choicers" in response to a stereotypical
comment about "pro lifers".

I was only saluting his reply, not his stance.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: THE JEWISH VIEW
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:30:27 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <181grtINN3n1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

>    Although this has been explained before, clarification appears
> to be necessary.
>    Judaism does NOT recognize the fetus as a person, until birth.
> Prior to this point, the woman's welfare takes precedent over the
> welfare of the fetus.  Under Jewish law, there is no limit to the
> means allowed to preserve the life of the mother.  This is not to
> suggest that the fetus has no status until birth.  But if the law
> of the land is to regulate abortion, it cannot be be done fairly,
> if it is even slightly based on some notion of personhood for the
> fetus.  For this notion is entirely religious in nature.  In this
> country, many religions differ widely on this concept.  Therefore
> any abortion law that evokes the "personhood" of the fetus is, by
> logical extention, likely to to step on freedom of religion.  Or,
> to be more precise, such a law would clearly constitute a sort of
> establishment of a state religion, because one religion's beliefs
> would be imposed on everyone, by the force of law.

  I'm sorry Mark, but this doesn't wash.  I really hate to have to disagree
with perhaps the least inflammatory post I've ever seen you make, but to
suggest that regarding the fetus as a person must be thrown out if even
slightly religious in nature, because it would be establishing a state religion
does not follow.  This is like saying murder laws establish Judeo/Christianity
as the US state religion because the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."

  Many of our most basic laws arise out of ethics which have their basis in one
religion or another.  To follow your line of reasoning, ANY lawmaking becomes
an impossibility due to the entanglement of religions in our histories, moral-
ities, and ethics.

  For the law not to regard the fetus as a person could well violate the reli-
gious beliefs of someone else.  It is a catch-22.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:20:37 GMT

We must be witnessing another right-to-lie stoopid post contest:

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) spooks the horses:
> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>   Sorry. I don't like your .sig. However, being the all around nice guy
>> that I am, I figured I'd suggest a few modifications so that was clearer
>> for all of us concerned readers.

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Gordon
>> Pro-convenience, pro-ignorance, pro-anyone-whoagrees-with-me, pro-duke,
>> pro-me, pro-ignoring-the-weak-and-defenseless, pro-lying-to-myself and
>> ex-boytoy of lots of women because I have a hard time with relationships,
>> but married to a goddess among women, because she likes me for my "mind"
>> and doesn't mind my impotence. I'm a computer geek and proud of it.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> And Steve Franklin nails Gordon Storga! 

> Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHIC! How do you know these people so
> well?

Let me correct your typo: "Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHOTIC!"

But you're wrong, Propellor Boy, Franklin is mired too deeply in his self-pity
to behave psychotically.  Your statement seems to be a pretty accurate self-
assessment, though.  I like you much better when you're honest.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:29:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.153208.20600@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug28.200352.20459@ncsu.edu>
> > dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >>In article <24187@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
> >>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> > 
> >>> False, this is a consequence of the above, similar to preventing someone
> >>> from walking off with your valuables while in your house by shooting
> >>> them. This action is also legal, and it involves the right to kill certain
> >>> members of the human species. 
> > 
> >>There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
> >>it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
> >>your valuables.  
> > 
> > Names of states, please?
> 
> Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
> walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
> might have taken something.
> 
> possibly naive Brian McBean

Actually, in Calif. it is illegal to shoot a burglar unless [s]he is threatening
your life - even if [s]he is walking off with your valuables.  At least I have
this on good authority.


-- 
=========================================================================
Sean P. Curley						Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager					Sacramento, CA.
=========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:37:55 GMT

dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
>should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,
>is that the baby's right to life is violated identically in either situation.
>In one situation, the mother makes the choice.  In the other, the father makes
>the choice.  Both are wrong.  Don't waste my time asking me who I am to use
>the "W" word because it really doesn't matter who I am.

Ahem.  Who are you to say who is Wrong?  Ah, never mind, I can see your
nametag clearly now - you are blessed with divine wisdom straight from the
Lips Of God, while I am a mere mortal whose opinions are baseless.  

You're right, though: it really doesn't matter who you are, because you
are making statements with no support whatsoever.  As I am frequently wont
to the Dirigible Boy, support it or lose it.  

>As for requiring fathers to support the lives of their children through
>kidney donorship, etc., as a new father-to-be, I feel that any man worthy
>to be called a man, should have the love and courage to do this for his
>children if necessary.  If there is a law up for the vote requiring this,
>I'll vote for it, too.  It does not make sense for us to demand more
>responsible behavior from someone else than we demand of ourselves.

How far does this go?  Biological fathers hunted down so they can be
strapped onto a surgical table and have their liver removed for their
child?  Forget it.

(Further blather deleted in the interests of Brevity.)

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Thank you, sincerely (was Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Aug28.174556.14019@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# In article <BtoJJo.GH7@chinet.chi.il.us> 
# katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
# 
# > Thank you, Steve and Cameron, for bringing back the realization that
# > there *are* Christians, evangelicals even, who are fair and reasonable.
# > That not all Christians are hateful and intolerant. That not all
# > Christians are hell-fire bent on forcing their will and beliefs on
# > every single human being in the world 
# 
# I think these statements denigrate Christians.  You say that "not all
# Christians are hateful and intolerant".  I think that statement tends
# to promote a bigoted stereotype that Christians are "hateful and 
# intolerant".  If you said "not all homosexuals are promiscuous" or
# "not all Jews are money-grubbers" then I think people would be outraged 
# by your remarks.  I find your remarks very offensive.   

`Very offensive,' eh?  A sincere apology, and you think it's `very
offensive.'  I feel certain that my fiancee, who's a Quaker, would not
be offended by Vickie's words, but would be pleased that someone
remembered that Christian faith does not equate with the hate and
intolerance so often demonstrated by the more visible Christian sects.

Further, I expect she would agree with me that your response was a
petty, small-minded jab at someone clearly making a sincere apology
for her own stereotyping.  She would *not* call you a pathetic worm
who should be reduced to component elementals and sold by weight on
the commodities market.

I might.  But Xtal wouldn't.

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

``...and I know there are a lot of hateful and intolerant people in
this world and I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!''
                                               -- Tom Lehrer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion