HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:30:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM ( Corp. Net Ops) writes:
!mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
!> Tim Buckley) writes:
!> 
!> Right-to-life is a religious war, not an intellectual one.
!
!I agree with this wholeheartedly...
!
!I find it interesting that pro-lifers only quote the bible when
!it suits their argument. Why doesn't anyone stand up and say
!"God says NO!" when an emergency-room doctor warms up the paddles,
!and administers a shock to a heart attack victim's chest? Are
!we not defying the great order of things by pasteurizing milk?
!What about using neosporin on a cut, or seeing the dentist for
!a toothache? All of these are the sciences of mankind, they all
!act to arrest the progression of disease, and attempt to defy
!the balance of life that existed when man evolved.
	That's the Christian Scientists' view, I think.

!My point in the above tirade is that if you subscribe to man's
!science (and most of us do), then you should have the temperance
!to accept what you disagree with. After all, even abortion is
!medical innovation.
!
!We should spend less time debating the right to life, and more
!time improving the lives of those already here. How many of you
!pro-lifers would consider adopting every child you wish to create
!by banning abortion? I thought so...
	Have you noticed that a lot of the pro-life "FundyDuddies" are
all generally out of the child-rearing years? I'm sure they won't mind
at all. Besides, are you indicting all women that have an unplanned
pregnancy will automatically give their babies up for adoption?

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Good Bumper Sticker
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 06:12:27 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>He either had to admit an unborn child was as much a human being as he was,
>or he had to stomp away.

>}:-)

>heh heh heh heh

I must have missed the punch line.

                            -rocker
                             maybe it was hidden in the ^L
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Go read the Constitution
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:56:54 GMT

In article <og2311c@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>|dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
>|><lx3mnfj.boserj@netcom.com> (Jeffrey Boser) writes: 

>|>|Life is not guarnteed by any legal document
>|>|we have.   Go read the constitution some time and look at the parts
>|>|under 'privacy' and 'defence'.

>|There's no generic right to privacy in the Constitution.  The
>|Supreme Court looked at all the places where it provided *specific*
>|rights of privacy (illegal search and seizure, no troops quartered
>|in private houses in peacetime, etc.) and somehow decided that all
>|of them together made up a generic right to privacy.  In other
>|words, the Supreme Court made it all up.

>Thank the founding fathers for the Ninth Amendment:

>   9th Amendment
>   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
>   be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

>This one is supposed to save us from the attitude displayed
>above, which I find frightening to see in someone who's on
>my side.  The men who wrote our Constitution didn't want to
>enumerate rights, for fear of just that attitude.  Sometimes I
>wish they'd refrained... but I can just picture the horrors of
>tyranny we'd now be enjoying without the Bill of Rights.  Look
>at the horrors we now enjoy *with* it.

Uh, CJ, last I'd heard the Founders wrote the Ninth Amendment because
they wanted to protect rights the people already legally had from
other sources (the two biggest being English Common Law and State
Constitutions), *not* because they wanted to protect whatever the
Supreme Court decides are "rights".

>Maybe it's time to start working for a "right to privacy"
>amendment.

Let's go for it.  Get abortion protected nationally in a way that
doesn't say that nine people can decide what our legal rights are
based on what they think our moral rights are.  Too many people
confuse the two already.

--
Abortions should be legal, safe, early, and rare.

Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                    - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: L. L. BEAN & CONSERVATISM...
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:33:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug18.115327.24658@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com writes:

[stuff on Lincoln, Republicans, and Conservatism deleted]

  The Republicans of the 1800's were indeed the Liberals of their day.  Opposed
to slavery, for government spending on improvements, maybe even a national
bank, I forget.
 
> The assertion about Democrats is the basest of tripe.  There were
> both Democrats and Republicans who supported slavery.  Some of the
> largest supporters of slavery were the clergy.  The clergy is
> rarely noted for being radical.

  For the Republicans of the day, I think it would depend on how you defined
"support".  At least one of the Republican party's founding precepts was an
opposition to slavery (first its spread, then to abolition).  The more con-
servative members were willing to let slavery alone where it existed (this
was Lincoln's postition--publicly stated, anyway--until the Proclamation
following Antietam in 1862(3?)), but were vehemently opposed to allowing
its spread.

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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barbara Bush on Abortion
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:34:06 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <lefty-140892110310@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com writes:
|I see on CNN this morning that Barbara Bush was quoted as saying that she
|didn't feel that there sould be an abortion plank in the Republican
|platform as the decision whether or not to have an abortion was a "personal
|choice".

Tune in next week... same Doug-Time, same Doug-Channel.... will
the Dynamic Brain Stem pull through?  In the next Doug-Article,
will Holtsinger accuse Lefty, CNN, and the SF Chronicle (where I
read the story this morning) of fabricating lies about Bush's
position on abortion?  Gotham City awaits.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:18:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug19.170543.18257@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> demand.  The FOCA is intended to codify Roe v. Wade into law, and 
> since Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand, so is the
> FOCA.  I've presented proof that Roe is abortion on demand, and
> you and the rest of your pro-abortion buddies have posted nothing 
> but blatant assertions. 

No, you have presented speculation that it is, which speculation
flies in the face of the specific judicial opiions that you
yourself quote.  Which speculation also flies int he face of
both practice and many current state laws which restrict
abortion in the third trimester.

Keep on trying, Doug.  If anyone is trying to assassinate your
character, it appears to be you.  More a case of character suicide
than assassination.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32688 talk.religion.misc:14355
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney pulls self up from Clefty's level (was 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
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:49:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug15.195905.7786@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
(Stephen A Chaney) writes the usual illogical garbage:

The big joke, of course, is that if Chaney had ever even made it to
Lefty's level, he should have withdrawn from all discussion
immediately.  That way he could have retired at the peak of his career
in rhetoric and logic.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:52:22 GMT

In article <l8iv4cINNidr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
>>> (often useing the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 

>> But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>> just like sentient humans. 

> Yes, what's your point?

What kind of legislation would you support to protect sentient animals
from being killed?  

>Eric


Doug Holtsinger
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: APOLOGY (another one)
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:08:55 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <lefty-130892171337@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.222911.25263@noao.edu>, (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>Well, I apologize to Patrick Humphrey for making my "much as you'd like to"
>>remark, when he said his wife wouldn't let him forget their anniversary.
>>I'm sorry about that.
>
>See this, Kevin?  _This_ is what an apology is supposed to look like.

Shorter than mine, you mean?

							- Kevin
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush's abortion stance
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:24:47 GMT
	<usglkrx.713832448@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> <1992Aug15.223258.13015@ncsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

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?

No, the mysterious and legendary Marlin Fitzwater has never been
successfully captured on video.  :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:18:10 GMT

In article <lefty-170892095020@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.002316.16782@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <l8lb54INNqbs@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
>> >chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>> >
>> >|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 
>> >
>> >Yet to be proven.
>> 
>> Proven. Now, it's up to us to prove if _you're_ of the human species.
>> 
>> If we go by the pro-choice stance of being "intellegent" or "with a
>> brain," that would exclude you in an instant.
>
>If we hadn't seen this already about 6,000 times, it would be hilarious.

And hasn't just been said by me, about you. 
It's been said by others about you, too. 

>As it stands, it's simply pathetic.

Yes, it is pathetic. In how more than one person on this newsgroup,
thinks about _you_, Lefty. 



===============================================================================
			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: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:31:24 CDT


In article <1992Aug18.134606.16685@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Oh hey Mr. Margolis, look here at the original post.  Mr. Anderson
> incorrectly states that "third trimester" abortions are "post-viability"
> abortions.

I wrote "3rd trimester (post-viability)" meaning that an abortion performed
in the 3rd trimester is a post-viability abortion.  60 Minutes stated
3rd trimester and I added the comment "(post-viability)" for those that
may not have realized that such abortions are post-viability abortions.
I'm sorry if the addition created confusion.

The main point of the 60 Minutes factoid, that only 3 doctors in the US 
perform 3rd trimester abortions, remains.

>             Post-viability abortions include those performed in the 
> third trimester and the late second trimester, if we assume that the 
> third trimester begins at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs...

All 3rd trimester abortions are post viablilty abortions...

> In article <1992Aug16.232711.3481@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
> >In article <Aug11.054758.30153@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
> >]In article <1992Aug6.123139.16032@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >]> In article <Aug06.053904.68099@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
> >]
> >]> Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US perform 3rd trimester (post-
> >]> viability) abortions in the US, and then only for medical reasons (source:
> >]> 60 Minutes), I doubt your claim that "what we end up with is virtual 
> >]> abortion-on-demand from conception to birth".
> >
> >Hmmm... that's odd. I heard a PRO-CHOICE advocate state that 1% of
> >abortions in the US are in the 3rd trimester. These must be very
> >busy and rich doctors.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:30:04 GMT

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>>> I am pleased to see the Democrats taking such a strong
>>> pro-choice stand, in an election where their opponents have
>>> adopted a plank that includes NO EXCEPTIONS for victims of rape
>>> and incest.  

>Same here.  This does look like a rather clear-cut choice.

>>> The Republicans are extremists.  Abortion opinion
>>> polls tend to vary wildly depending on the wording of the
>>> questions asked, but they don't vary on incest & rape.  The
>>> American public wants exceptions for rape & incest.  So much for
>>> that Republican "big tent".


>>Btw, I disagree that the Republicans are extremists.  I would say
>>that the Republican leadership is composed of extremists.

>I would agree; I have several Republican friends who are not extremists.
>However, the current leadership is turning most of them away.  

It's true.  My mother is hardly a liberal.  She favors tight restrictions
on abortion, including parental consent, no abortions after the *first*
trimester unless the mother's lfe is in danger, etc.  In light of the
Republican parties plank (which does not allow for cases of rape and
incest), she is seriously considering voting for Clinton.  She has
been generally displeased with Bush, but was going to vote for him rather
than vote the Democrats in, until they added that plank.  That's one
solid, mainstream vote they have lost....


>Tim Lynch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Subject: THE ABORTION ON DEMAND MYTH.
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:43:08 GMT


   One of the favorite bellowings of the anti-abortion zealots is
the "abortion on demand" sound bite.  This catch phrase, although
trumpeted often, has much implication, and no substance.
   The phrase implies a system that would provide a female a free
abortion.  The phrase implies that this would be provided free of
any cost to the recepient.  It would be provided to any woman, or
any girl.  It would be provided to minors without permission of a
parnet being required.  It implies that minors would be allowed a
free abortion, without a parent being notified.  It suggests that
a woman would be able to obtain an elective abortion at any point
in her pregnancy.
   This is the picture that the anti-abortion zealots paint about
the Freedom Of Choice Act.  They claim that the FOCA is "abortion
on demand."  This is, of course, a lie.
   The Freedom Of Choice Act is so lucid that even Holtsinger can
understand it, even if he insists on misrepresenting it.  The act
is NOT abortion on demand.  As the act is worded, the only rights
that are guaranteed are those of a pregnant ADULT woman, PRIOR to
FETAL VIABILITY, who can PAY HER OWN WAY, to have an abortion.  I
challenge Doug Holtsinger to show where in the FOCA does it allow
for elective abortions past fetal viability, does it provide even
one nickel of public funding for abortion, does it give any right
to abortion to minors.  Doug Holtsinger is a liar.  He has told a
pack of lies about abortion, about RvW, about the FOCA, about the
state of abortions in this country, and about the position of the
different pro-choice voices in this group.  
   My challenge is directed at Holtsinger, because he has been an
aggressive voice in the misrepresentation of the FOCA.  If he has
the gall to repost any of his lies about the FOCA, it will become
necessary to discredit him again, by simply posting the FOCA word
for word.  Then we shall see if the public is as stupid as Dougie
keeps telling them they are.
   So go to it, Doug.  You post what you want, and I will type up
the complete text of the FOCA.  We'll see who lies, and who tells
the truth.
-- 
   "We're going to have the best educated American people in the
world."                              Dan Quayle - Sept. 21, 1988
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More data for the FAQ, Formal Advisement
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:13:44 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] <1992Aug7.110330.17026@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
] >cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] >] orr@perlis.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

{ wes made a booBoo and set up a kasKadableSeQuence... }

] >] Permission????
] >] Hell, I _begged_ Gordon to be my ex-boyfriend.
] >
] >1. Gordon is allowed to be the Ex-Boyfriend of
] >anyone he wants, including myself.
] 
] I'll take it under advisement. ;-)

Be Thee Herewith, and hereToFore, Formally Advised
that Thee hath been Petitioned hereIn for the formal
position thereof, such as would be consistent with
bbeing the FormerBoyFriend/MalePerKinAssociate/FellowWhatEver
of one each drieux D' Chatue WetWare....

] >2. Rocker is a CheapHussy who will Be anyone's Ex-PerKin.
] 
] Geez!  You mean I didn't have to buy her dinner and take her to the
] movies?  Sheesh, I could've saved $12!

No, You will have to take me to a Movie, and a Dinner,
and I will Wrestle Thee Two out of Three Falls for My Honor....

I, Sir, Am No CheapHussy!!!!

] >3. Wes is a little slow on the uptake, so folks
] >be nice and type those posts slowly....
] 
] Wes has already acknowledged he error of his ways.  No need to embarass
] the boy further.

Life Gets that way some days....

ciao
drieux

] Gordon
] Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^

This Sir is SHOCKING and RUDE....

] Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
] and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:10:55 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au


For some reason the original post hasn't arrived at my site.


In <1992Aug10.134616.27853@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ And

>Trying to draw a bright line at
>conception is just as arbitrary as a line at viability or birth.

In  <9779@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
	 Birth isn't arbitrary, just wrong.

In article <1992Aug11.144923.40319@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis <margoli@wats
> Truth by Blatant Assertion.

Which I guess is an insulting way of trying to stop you opponents from
making succinct statements of their position. Especially when used in
conjunction with the editing keys of you word processor.

To repeat, at greater length, in the hope that no-one will bother to
read my entire post.

Birth is not an arbitrary point, because is really does correspond to a
quantum change in a human's state of being.

Statistical viability is on the other hand arbitrary, because it pays no
attention to the individual.

Conception is not arbitrary either, it corresponds to a quantum leap in
the state of being of a human. Arguing that this leap consists of many
small steps no more denies the quantum nature of the change than it
denies that the hare will indeed catch the tortoise.

Conception and death are probably the only two quantum changes
shared by every human being. Birth is unfortunately becoming rarer in our
society.

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."