HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:20:21 EDT

> >I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
> >one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
> >to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
> >travel to any state that still allowed them.
> >
> >What is the problem with that?
> 
> The problem is that constitutional rights and civil liberties do not become
> null and void by crosing a state line.  The right to control one own body
> and make reproductive decisions is more fundamental and important than the
> right to play blackjack.
True, but does a person have a constitutional right to control one's own
body?  We do not have the right to inject our bodies with heroin.  We do
not have the right to put alcohol in our bodies shortly before driving a
motor vehicle.  I could bring up other examples.
The constitution does not give a person the right to do whatever one wants
to one's own body.  This ought to be even more true when we are dealing
with a potential human being.
/save

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.224356.6901@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.225650.21492@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>No problem about going on too long, and yes, it helps that I have a 
>>country to fight for. But the rest of the world certainly did *not*
>>come to our aid. They came to France's aid, and Britain's aid, and
>
>How dare you. My great uncle was thrown into a concentration camp and 
>tortured for speaking out IN GERMANY against the treatment of the Jews. 
>It was scary listening to him tell us about what it was like.
>There *were*
>people in the world who came to the aid of the Jews and some LOST their
>lives helping. You may THINK everybody deserted your prople but don't shame 
>those who did. A lot turned their backs but many turned to help.

Countries, Annelise. A lot of individual people, yes; that's what the
Walk of the Righteous Gentiles is for. But no country got into the war
because of what was being done to the Jews, and only Denmark and Sweden
tried in an official capacity to help them during the war. A few countries
offered resettlement aid after the war was over (and a few started up the
old concentration camps again; Britan used Dachau as a detainment center
for the Jews who kept trying to escape to Palestine). 

>We told them? How old are you??? 40-50-60??? You mean your *relatives*
>don't you? 

Don't put words into my mouth. I said "we" and I meant it, in the same
context as "this is what the Lord did for me when He led me out of the
land of Egypt". You may not understand it, but you've no right to demand
that I use *your* preferred terms and *your* speaking style, especially
when I'm not even talking about you. I could understand your getting upset
if I'd said *you* did something that had, in fact, been done by your an-
cestors. But I was using the standard terminology of the community I was
discussing.

[nasty, Darcyesque lines telling me this is an inappropriate discussion 
for this newsgroup deleted]

I hadn't intended to bring it up, and I won't continue it past the time
when you stop it. If you want it off this newsgroup, all you have to do
is not reply to this article.

>anne

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:52:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cfctech.1992Apr11.025242.16362
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Apr10.112224.29959@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.061941.278582@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>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?  I keep hearing this "Jane Roe lied"
>>line used as if she never told the truth.  She did.  She did
>>so very early on.   
>
>Hmmm...That's not what Tribe, who is usually pretty pro-choice
>says. He seems to think that the case went to trial with the
>premise that she was raped, but that she said she wasn't
>subsequently(pn the order of years)

What exactly do you mean by "with the premise", Eric? As I understand it, the
fictitious rape was made up by Ms. McCorvey because she thought it would help
her fight to get an abortion. But, since Texas law made no exceptions for 
cases of rape, and since it was impossible to prove that she was raped anyway,
the rape was never used in any of the court proceedings by the _Roe_ lawyers.
They didn't see it as helping their case. Rape _was_ discussed briefly in the 
Supreme Court orals, but only in general terms, *not* with specific reference 
to the circumstances of Ms. McCorvey's pregnancy. So, what exactly do you mean 
by "with the premise"?

(At least, this is the way Marian Faux tells it all in _Roe v. Wade_, the 
book, and the movie. Does anyone have a better source?)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:05:05 GMT




People who support both:
            * legalized abortion
	              and
            * weakening current child support law:

                  Eric Rescorla
                  Gordon Storga
                  Kevin Darcy
                  Larry Margolis
                  Jennifer Brown
                  E.E. Bartley
                  Nora Rivkis
	          Hillel Gazit

Eight so far.  How many more want to join the list?
Write and let me know.


SK

-------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu soc.men:32891 soc.women:28680 talk.abortion:59614
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 5 Apr 92 01:08:07 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Apr3.201740.8708@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:

>	Maybe you could answer a couple questions for
>	me. If one aspect for the woman is whether
>	she wants a fetus to be in her body, then
>	what is the analogous choice for the potential
>	father?

The point is that an unwanted pregnancy can destroy a man's life.

E.g. if the man realized that the condom was broken and he tells
the woman "if there will be a baby then I don't want any rights
and responsibilities toward it," and there is a pregnancy then
she can collect 25% of his income for the next 18 years.

I'm for choice for men and choice for women, as part of the same package.
She should have the right for abortion regardless of his opinion, he
should have the right to say, in the early stages of the pregnancy, "I
don't want any rights and responsibilities toward the future child."

People like Beverly argue against that because they don't give
a damn about men.  They're pretty sure that men's responsibilities
should start five minutes *before* conception happened.


Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu> 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?  

Is your real name Dennis Hall or is it a pseudonym under which you
post?

Are you really an advocat eof the pro-choice position, or are you,
by poor argumentation or some other means attempting to discredit
the pro-choice position by arguing it?

There has been some reasonably credible doubt raised as to your
identity, purposes, and actual position on the isssue of abortion.
If you wissh to have any credibility in the matter, you would
do well to post answers to the above and posssibly something
that can render your statements verifiable.

The first posting I saw here from you was a vile and unprovoked
stream of nonsenseness.  It did no credit to the pro-choice
position.  Since then I have seen some postingss from you that
seem reasonable. But unless the questions regarding your posstings
are cleared up, I, for one, cannot credit your work here at all.
Just some friendly advice.
Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( )
Subject: Re: A Request for Assistance
Summary: Still looking for that famous Forgach post for my sig file..  
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:01:50 GMT

In article <9APR92.13211669@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr6.192746.29463@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>I speak from the experience of being extremely pro-life, and having dated
>>an extremely pro-abortion (and get this for bizarreness) adopted guy, for
>>two years. 
>
>
>I don't see what's so bizarre about this.  I'm adopted, and I'm very much 
>pro-choice.  So is my adopted sister.  So is our mother.  Just because we are 
>adoptees/adopters doesn't mean we should tell people what they can and cannot 
>do with their own bodies.

	Well, Heather, you know, there is a huge anti-abortion faction
within the adoption industry. The National Committee for Adoption is
full of them. It's kind of like they think that women with unwanted
pregnancies, need to churn out a kid for someone else. (Well, if they've
got the incubators to handle 9 week fetuses, I would mandate their use,
so I guess I'd be forcing them to churn out babies, too, but not with a
moment's more servitude than it takes to remove that fetus from her own
body..) I'm sure not all the women in the world would like to carry a
fetus for 9 months and then give them to someone else after having seen
that baby's face for about, say, 10 minutes!  
	
	I believe post-adoption syndrome is a lot harder on women than
this thing about post-abortion psycho.trauma (what's that word they use
nowadays? Post Abortion Syndrome?). 

	But there is a big problem with the adoption industry, in
places, which pertains to SOME people's drive to help make a woman feel
bad about her reproductive decisions if it goes against their "better"
option. Look at the Crisis Pregnancy Centers; they not only push for
adoption, but they tell you that you'll go to hell if you don't do it,
and they show you all these gross videos, etc. How many of you folks saw
that thing on TV a few months back? 

	I'm all for adoption over abortion. It's just that if there were
more pro-choice people who would make themselves heard in the adoption
industry, their connection with the pro-lifers would snap, and the
adoption industry would finally get on track: presenting women with the
adoption option without making it seem like the best or only option.
(It's best in my opinion, but in my opinion only.) 

	That and there are thousands of babies who never get adopted at
all. Anti-abortionists have a hard time addressing this.  

>
>                            .... Heather.

- Dennis

AKA The Sonar (alt.sex.movies)
AKA Garage Kit Productions (alt.sex)

General alias (alt.personals, etc.): ap.6298@layout.Berkeley.EDU

Standard Disclaimer.
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: AntiAbortion as AntiChristian
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:57:25 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr8.131953.27472@acd4.acd.com> wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:
>In <1992Mar23.193446.5347@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
>   (drieux, just drieux) explains to Joy Haftel: >
>
>>1. every time that the antiAbortionists have been
>>asked to defend their assertion of a 'christian'
>>linkage on the abortion discussion they have 
>>proceded to show all that you attribute to blasphemy!
>>
>>2. They Procede to make Profane that which is DIVINE
>>in all of their efforts to form a 'biblical' defesne.
>>That to me shows a COMPLETE CONTEMPT for the bible
>>and the God of the Bible.
>
>Hmm. 
>
>The absence of literal scriptural prohibitions against abortion
>is alleged to suggest that the Christians have missed the boat
>in the abortion controversy.

You got it.

>Perhaps, in an effort to remain consistent, you'll agree that 
>Constitutional interpretations of implied privacy rights are 
>equally indefensible?

I would. They are. I am not real happy that they are indefensible,
but I can't find them in the Constitution.

>Bill

>(Note that drieux is unlikely to respond directly to this.  Look for 
>something wonderfully tangential instead.)

Of course; that's what makes drieux fun. 

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:31:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: kscdl1.1992Apr13.163127.1
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

>Message-ID: <1992Apr13.115437.26551@cs.dal.ca>
>From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)

>... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>through contraception, but through proper education .


Hold it right there Bub.  You can educate all you want, but without cheap
(read: free) contraception, you're not going to halt jack shit.  Besides,
I, (a reasonably well-educated woman), who knows *where babies come from*,
now have two beautiful children due exclusively to the failure of contra-
ceptives...once the Pill, and once a condom.  What kind of education is
going to prevent *that*?  (And, as an aside, I recently had my tubes tied, 
to prevent future contraceptive failures.  It cost over $4000.  Now *theres*
a good option for most people.) Fortunately for me, I could afford them 
(barely).  But I would've been severely pissed had I decided, for reasons 
relevant only to myself and my god, to abort them, and been prevented from 
doing so by some sniveling pro-lifer.  And while we're at it, this whole 
issue doesn't concern MEN anyway.  I don't tell you when to get a 
vasectomy...although, come to thinkof it, it *would* help resolve 
this issue. :-)
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:30:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr17.023018.1289
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr16.020017.7313@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) says:
>
>> you're also making an extraordinarily dumb
>>argument.

>this whole Nazi line is extraordinarily dumb. It's just another
>euphemism for name-calling.

Agreed.

>Ever notice how people always run to extremes? Economic woes in
>Germany and Red fear ran the Germans to fascism. So, please, think
>twice before you make so severe generalization. Nerves are sure
>short around here :)

I didn't make any such generalizations, Matthew; I was going after the
people who did. Get your attributions straight. I'm the one who attacks
people who use the Nazi argument, as anyone else around here can tell
you; I'm not the one who uses it, and certainly not as a generalization.
(I've been known to use it on one or two specific people who gave me a
good reason to believe it of them in particular.)

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:56:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.215813.10154@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr6.183500.26747@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>
>> And I don't want to hear any crap about how if I weren't such an asshole
>> I could get a girlfriend.
>
>But what if it's intended as constructive criticism?  :-)
When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:19:23 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
[.. massive deletions ..]
>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>            morals on others. 

>> If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>> can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

> This does not logically follow.
>
> Now, premise A:
> (A)(B):((A E H)^(B E H))-->(A should not physically force it's morals on B).
>
> Now, call the act of physically forcing someone not to have an abortion
> D and the class of acts which consist of physically forcing one's morals
> on someone F.
>
> Clearly (D E F)

Change statement D to F:

D: Humans can physically force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

F: Humans can physically force their morals on other humans.

> [..deletions..]
> Your problem is in assuming that forcing a woman to carry a baby
> to term is the only member of the class F, but it's not. If it
> were, your logic would hold. 

Now does it hold?
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:37:34 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.222355.11612@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
>modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
>Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
>pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?
   WHy the hell do you give a fu** if I care? In anycase, yeah, I think
matt has a great sense of humor, and he has a lot of good points. There
are a lot of times when I feel like swearing too but when I get mad I
just envision dropping an IBM clone from a tenth story window. Is
someone gonna tell me that is Freudian or that I am violent towards women?
   WHy not be so analytical of matt's grammar and expletives and try
and listen to his MESSAGE. YOu guys and gals give us such a hard time
cuz we don't have "even one functioning neuron in that slag 
of garbage you call a brain". WOw, that last quotesure was an insult. WOnder
who said it. Must have been a pro-lifer because we're all just plain rude.
Hmmmmmm. NOpe - it was good ol' kcochran. What a surprise
 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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:06:28 GMT

From article <1992Apr6.231713.15643@adobe.com>, by kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall):
> In article <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> 
>>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>>
>>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>>
>>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
> 
>  1/4 million?  All news accounts I have heard so far put the LOW estimates
>  at 1/2 million and range as high as 1 million.


The two major networks that I saw, ABC, and either NBC or CBS (don't recall
which) both reported "a quarter million".


>  And 1.5 million *people* died of abortion?  NOT!  

1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.