HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Aug 92 13:11:39 GMT

In <16gl76INNi89@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <BsxwsF.1Hv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>>Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
>>>conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
>>>belief of yours mean that:
>>>
>>>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
>>>    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
>>>     a child, would lose job, etc.)
>>
>>Absolutely.  Financial needs are subservient to the right to life.
>>I could go into a long discourse on this but I doubt that it is
>>necessary given the intellectual level of those involved in the
>>discussion.

>Tim, I think you'd better.  It's obvious that two of us at least find your
>arguments to be lacking, so perhaps you shouldn't assume things are as
>'clear' as you think.

>For example, you claim that financial needs are subservient to the right
>to life.  (1) a "right to life" has not been established.  (2) even if a
>right to life is established, it remains a truism in our society that you
>cannot take financial resources from person A and give them to person B
>EVEN IF person B will die without those resources.  Person B's 'right to
>life' does not override person A's right to property.  This would seem to
>directly refute your statement that financial needs are subservient to 
>the purported 'right to life'.

Oh, so if parents refuse to feed their children, they cannot be made to do
so by the state even if the children die of starvation otherwise?  Tell me
another one, Ms. Regard!

>(other examples deleted.)

Better un-delete them, then, or address my argument.

>Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu
Subject: RE: Observations
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:58:20 GMT

In a previous article, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) wrote:
>In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>
>>>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>>>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>>>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>>>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>>>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>>>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>>have sex regardless of the cost?  
>>
>>   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
>>now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
>>next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
>>are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
>>barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
>>don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.
> 
>  If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the possible failure
>  of contraception, then yes, you should consider celibacy.  From your reply
>  I assume that you plan on having children some time.  Is it right then, to 
>  abort an unplanned pregnancy because it is convenient?  

  Yes! though convenience is not the word to use.  BTW, it is not WRONG to 
  carry an unplanned pregnancy to term just in case in case someone decides
  that is the rhetorical reverse.  Raising successful families is the product
  of caring, responsible decision making and readiness:  having an abortion
  to end an unplanned pregnancy is a responsible decision.  These arguments 
  always return to one point in the end:  should the state decide the future of
  its citizens or should the citizens reserve the right to decide for
  themselves.  If you live in a free democratic state the case should be closed.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:17:00 GMT

From article <1992Aug21.030230.12046@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> In article <1992Aug21.000626.16177@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> }Well, if it is not prying, I would really like to know about this experience
> }that leads you to this bitter conclusion.
> 
> Nah, it isn't prying.  My whole experience with my reluctance to kill
> (especially with the military) has shown me that the world is something
> you work with and make do with, playing by its rules, and not something
> that you can mold according to your wishes of how the world should be.
> 
> As for the bitterness, I have a little trouble reconciling that my current
> physical ability is not what I would choose to make it.  Some would say
> that it is "God's will."  That isn't exactly how I would phrase it, however
> it does point out that the world is not what we make it, rather the world
> is somethig that we deal with.  I understand the distinction, I would 
> always like to be accepting of it, but sometimes the frustration makes
> me a bit bitter.


You know, I sometimes listen to a woman who has a radio show who is a
quadraplegic.   She sings BEAUTIFUL songs!  She gives very uplifting
talks, and she paints beautiful pictures with the brush in her teeth!
She has chosen to be happy and to be an inspiration to millions of listeners,
finding her own inspiration in the sufferings of Christ.   She knows, and
wants everyone else to know, that we all will be free of the limitations
of these bodies someday, and compared to eternity, this life is short.
Her show is called "Johnnie and Friends".  You can call your local Christian
radio station for times.   We can find people like that such an inspiration!
(Like the man with no arms who played guitar for the Pope 5 years ago in
Phoenix.)   Handicaps CAN be risen above.

Suzanne.
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:21:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.184344.26798@u.washington.edu> darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann) writes:

>				Get lost, Humphrey. 

Connecting names and personalities is a difficult task for you, Steve. 
You have called me drieux, Scott Roby, and now Patrick.  I am Alden.  You
are Steve, aka Dennis.  

Is that clear?  Is it really that difficult?  Or do you just lose track of
who is persecuting you at any particular moment?

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Subject: Re: Bush's abortion stance
Followup-To: talk.abortion
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Date: 17 Aug 1992 09:11 EST  

In article <1992Aug15.223258.13015@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
>In article <usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> 
>usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
> 
>> Incidently, tothe press was asking Marlin Fitzwater about the statement
>> the Barbara Bush made regarding abortion.  He said something about her
>> being entitled to her opinion and then said that President Bush considers
>> the platform plank justified.
> 
>Can you provide proof for these statements?

I saw the interview on NBC news, that is what he said.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: atkeson@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Atkeson)
Subject: Re: Spousal (or father) notification (was Re: Stranded on an Island)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:29:40 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1992Aug7.230624.23025@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buckc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Carolyn Buck-Gengler) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Jul30.022303.2389@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>>>
>>>Well...my only belief is that I support father-NOTIFICATION-ONLY laws.  (I
>>>say "father" as opposed to "husband," because I do not think that being
>>>unmarried should make a difference) I state only that I think that a father
>>>should have the right to KNOW whether he is going to lose a child.
>>>
>>>I am still a civil libertarian at heart, so I do not know whether I could
>>>support a father-*permission* law, however.
>>>

>All she need be required to do is to make a good-faith effort.
>Eg., certified mail, attempted service of a document on the father,
>or clear demonstration that the father is unknown or unreachable
>(this being an easy out for an unwed mother, but not for a married
>woman).

>Mind you, I don't think the notification need be performed +before+
>the abortion.

>>  GOOD RELATIONSHIPS CANNOT BE LEGISLATED,
>>HOWEVER!  This is why I feel notification, much less *permission*,
>>from either the father of the fetus, or the parents of the minor,
>>while good, and something to be encouraged, should not be mandated.
>>
>>Methinks in the above situation, if the relationship is such that
>>she would not tell him she is getting an abortion, it won't be
>>helped by enforced notification to him, and it is in trouble in any
>>case.

>Agreed.  But this is precisely the case in which a +husband+ has 
>a right to full information, so that he may decide accordingly 
>what he wants to do with respect to the marriage.  One of the
>fundamental motivations behind marriage is procreation
>(note that sterility/impotence is grounds for divorce in many states).
>It is wrong to deny full information to one party about issues
>that (often) directly motivate the relationship itself --
>and when the relationship is *legal*, this should be *legally* enforced.

Although I hope most women would tell their spouses about their decision
to abort a fetus I would not want the govt mandating such disclosures.
If a woman does not want to tell a man about the abortion there may be
good reason for her decision.  It seems to me that some matters need
to be left to individual discretion, the govt can't and imho should not
be responsible for defining how married couples relate.
	BTW I'm not so sure that procreation is one of the fundamental
motivations for marriage.  It is for some people, but I know many 
couples who aren't concerned about that factor at all whether or not
it has some legal position.
Lonna.
>Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree.  :-(


>Don     (yes, I'm from PA.  :-)
>-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:18:16 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>> Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of
>>>> their female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  

>>> I'm sure Bush and Quayle would also support their childrens' decision to
>>> vote for pro-life candidates.

>> Before or after they've had their abortions, Doug?

> I can't believe you could insult women in this manner.  You truly are 
> a despicable person.

When you say 'despicable,' do you use your Daffy Duck voice?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
 "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:03:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.000725.9209@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.225934.9289@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.c
> >
> >-> You are the shame of the pro-choice contingent on
> >-> this newsgroup.
> >
> >how do you know? name one person who supports choice
> >who has so stated.
>
> E. Elizabeth Bartley.

(I knew he'd fall for this.  Here we go again...  Sigh.  :-(  )

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:41:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Bt5F7L.Epr.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>I predict that DOD really does drop the "substantiate it or retract
>it" thread now.

Predicting that DOD will do anything even remotely approaching
sensible is never a good bet.

>It's one thing to be dishonest.  It's another to be stupidly dishonest.
>I'm still waiting for someone to explain what kind of idiot repeatedly
>fabricates evidence, doctors quotes, and changes context *knowing*
>that he'll be caught.

There is only one kind of idiot to fit this description: Doug
Holtsinger.  

SJM
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:27:17 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug21.162410.4413@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>The section on birth control methods also has a subsection on
>abstinence.  It lists these advantages:  it doesn't hurt your health
>in any way, you don't need an exam to use it, it doesn't cost anything
>and is always available, when you use it, you don't get pregnant or
>get STDs, and most religions approve of it.  It lists these disadvantages:
>You can get pregnant or get an STD if you don't use it.

	Since they define "abstinence" as the lack of sexual contact,
they presumably include masturbation under "abstinence". However, the
Vatican and assorted Fundies frown on masturbation, so I don't see how
that is quite correct. I think that PP should be clearer on this
question.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to not vote for Bush
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world  
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.172126.26493@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>DH> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>LM> = Larry Margolis writes:
>DH> = Earlier Dougie:
>
>DH> Your statement is a gross mischaracterization of those people who
>DH> call themselves pro-life.  Many religious people do offer reasoned
>DH> arguments about abortion which are not based upon the existence of
>DH> God.  In addition, there are many non-religious people who oppose
>DH> abortion.
>
>Two responses to this drivel:
>
>(1) I have NEVER heard a well-reasoned anti-abortion argument.  At least
>religious fanatics have an excuse.  What's yours, atheist?  

Sounds like you've been in outer space next to Jerry Brown. 

Fetus = member of human species != skin cell and alive = personhood
        because they're alive. 
Freedom of choice != right to kill -> ban on abortion


Novak: Here is a puzzle: 

Find the biblical reference in my above argument. 
Until then, your argument is dust. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:04:27 GMT

In article <Bt7y3F.FHF@rice.edu> 
patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

> Therefore, to y'all who might
> have been upset at that screw-up on my part, I apologize.  To Steve, though,
> I will NOT apologize -- save on one condition:  he comes down here to 
> receive it in person.  If he wants my respect, he'll have to put forth some
> effort to earn it.

I didn't ask for an apology from you, I said that I thought you should
apologize to Mr. Chaney.  I still believe that. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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.

That's comparing the "ideal" numbers, right?  And it turns out to be a lot
less effective if you compare the "real life" numbers, right?

> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.

Even *prayer* is effective in avoiding pregnancy for virgins.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the fetus have the right to bodily autonomy?
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:10:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <5677@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>

>The developing child can be killed by the mother's immune system
>if the mother suffers from a condition known as "Rh incompatibility".
>The developing child can also be harmed by the mother's use of
>alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and other teratogens.  Using your reasoning,
>wouldn't the mother forfeit her right to bodily autonomy if she
>harmed the developing child in these situations?

DOD, you just don't get it, do you. A developing fetus is not considered
a person by all, otherwise there probably would be a different discussion
going on here. Also, a fetus is not considered a person by many, and
it proveable that the fetus impinges on the body of the mother. The
best way to resolve the issue you addressed is to separate the two entities,
but, lo, that would be an abortion, and generally the fetus dies.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:14:15 GMT

In article <usglkrx.714260356@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>>	I do not agree that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case
>>of consensual sex.  Men and women both must take responsibility for their 
>>actions.  If you are going to have sex you must take whatever precautions are
>>necessary to prevent pregnancy, however, you must also be willing to accept the
>>consequences if such precautions fail and a pregnancy occurs.  Abortion is NOT
>>a valid method of birth control.  If neither the man nor the woman has the
>>emotional or financial ability or desire to raise a child then one must take
>>the only alternative available, DON'T HAVE SEX!  Who gave us the right to
>>have sex regardless of the cost?  
>
>   So, in other words, my husband and I should have been celibate up until
>now (the first 2 years of our marriage), and should remain celibate for the
>next 4 or 5?  We have been taking turns finishing up college degrees, and
>are unable, finacially, to support a child (heck, there are times we can
>barely support *ourselves*).  Maybe it works for some people, but I really
>don't think that 7 years of celibacy would be the best thing for a marriage.

  Whether or not you are celibate isyour choice.  My point being that we
  must begin to accept responsibility for our actions, even if that means 
  accepting responsibility for the failure of contraception.  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Humphrey should apologize to Mr. Chaney
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:28:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug21.170936.17092@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <av_nsdc.gordons@netcom.com>
>
> I have never posted racial slanders, and neither has Mr. Kellmeyer or
> Mr. Chaney.

This statement is not correct.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:17:10 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <65918@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes: 

>Are these people related?

Obviously.  I didn't mention it explicitly because it is so obvious
and completely irrelevant.

>>stitching factory to be precise, to film a television commercial for
>>her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well as anti-gay
>>rights legislation and anti-gun control.  I verified all of this by
>>calling L. L. Bean, (800) 341-4341, myself.  I also informed them that
>>I would not longer purchase their products.  I urge all pro-choice
>>persons to do the same.
>
>If Linda is a family member, I doubt you will gain much by calling.

Judging by the quickness with which Bean has pointed out that it makes
not contribution to political campaigns and the amount of time that
the PR person spent speaking to me, I think you are wrong.

>Most people who have taken the Pro-Life side have decided that it
>is not a financial issue, but a moral issue.  So one's decision to
>not buy from them would not be seen as a great loss and possibly
>be seen as gain.

Odd that you would think any business gains by losing customers.  They
certainly don't see it that way, as you would know if you had followed
the coverage in the NY Times from which I gleaned the original
information.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32825 talk.religion.misc:14408