HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Not So Good Bumper Sticker
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:41:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug13.165129.18302@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
>In article <l8l0r8INNpd1@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>> Speaking of bumper stickers, I saw one that really says it all about
>> the religious right's goals:

>>                 Praise the Lord, and Damn the Constitution

>Considering the shakey foundation upon which the Supreme Court
>discovered the so-called right to abortion, I would think this
>bumper sticker would be better suited for describing the 
>goals of the pro-abortion movement.  

Yeah, uhmm, especially the first part, right?

Sheesh, where did *that* come from?

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More questions for Suzanne or other pro-life parent
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:36:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug21.191700.10143@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
writes:

}            Handicaps CAN be risen above.

I can fully agree with that, but that's a teeny bit different from
"the world is what you make it," which I disagreed with...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: The word "health" (Was Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug  
Holtsinger) writes:
> The vast majority of Americans support some restrictions
> on abortion, but not an outright ban.

That's probably true.

> The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
> demand.  The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade does not permit the 
> states to prohibit abortions even when the fetus is viable.  The very
> broad definition of "health" given by the Court includes emotional 
> and psychological health.  A pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus
> need only find a physician who's willing to perform the abortion for 
> her "mental health".

I won't join the war over whether this interpretation is correct, 
but I have one question. Does anyone think that mental health is
somehow less important than physical health? Would a severe post-
partum depression not affect mother and child as much as a severe
physical complication, in anyone's mind? Or could a mental health
danger be easier to fabricate?

(BTW, I got the new issue of _Current Directions in Psychological 
Science_ today, which has an article on women and depression. It 
briefly mentions effects of childbirth, abortion, infertility, etc. 
If anyone is interested, I'll post it; if not, I won't waste the  
bandwidth.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:24:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.172501.20238@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.055602.11940@leland.Stanford.EDU> 

  [Re: Bush banning abortions except for...]

>> And exceptions for his daughters and granddaughters.  They get to
>> decide, it's their choice.  The rest of American women don't.

>I think you should be ashamed of yourself for insinuating that
>all women think alike.  Many women are pro-life.  Only a sexist
>would mistakenly believe that all women are pro-choice. 

>Doug Holtsinger

Garbage.  She said the rest of American women don't *get to decide*, 
which is true under the above premise.  She said nothing about *how* they 
would decide (abortion or birth), given the chance.  




-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:37:02 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  <1992Aug21.000455.15996@noao.edu>  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
> > In article rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
> >>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> >>> [paraphrase:  parent not forced to donate kidney so no forced prenancy]
> >
> >>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
> >>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
> >>take kidney back?

(I already pointed out that this analogy is invalid, but I had to comment
on the following...)

> > If I started to experience health problems (such as the remaining kidney
> > starting to fail), I sure as hell hope I could get it back.  Wouldn't you?
>
> My husband is a probation officer and a couple of years ago he had a
> probationer, who was on for a drug offense, who had in fact destroyed
> his kidneys with his drugs.

Melted them with paraquat, no doubt...  :-)

> So, his loving brother donated a kidney
> to him.   By the time he was assigned to my husband's caseload, he had
> already destroyed this donated kidney as well with his drug habit,

So then it's a pretty safe bet that his brother would *not* want the
donated kidney back, right?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:03:09 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

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes to suzanne:
-> You were agreeing with Keegan's myopic statement
-> that the issue of abortion would swing the election
-> one way or another, which is far from correct.

i explained my thinking on this in some detail, along
with data from people whose profession is campaign
management. i think you're a smart fellow, but if i had
to bet my life on whether your political guesses were
more likely to be accurate than the opinions of people
who get paid for this kind of work, i'd go with the
professional opinion.

you made no comment on that and instead made this
blatent assertion in a reply to suzanne.

that's really not like you.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
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 22:01:57 GMT

From article by Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>:
> In  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> From article by Larry Margolis <margoli
>> > In  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?
>> >
>>   Not at all. 
>> 
>> > And it turns out to be a lot
>> > less effective if you compare the "real life" numbers, right?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Shall I post the studies and statistics again?
> 
> The ones polling NFP Institute members (or whatever) which approached the
> theoretical ideal, or the ones comparing the methods among the general
> population which showed the "real-world" results?

Why, both of course.


>> >> Even moreso for a pre-teenage virgin.
>> >
>> > Even *prayer* is effective in avoiding pregnancy for virgins.  :-)
>>
>> That was my point.
> 
> You're assuming, of course, that she'd *be* a virgin, but I think this
> is way too theoretical to be worth discussing.

Of course the vast majority of pre-teen girls _are_ virgins.

And you just can't stand it, Larry.  Can you.

SF
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 12 Aug 1992 15:49:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <tgreen.713578667@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>In <oeqd9g0@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>[ stuff deleted ]

>abortion has nothing to do with compassion.  If you were truly
>compassionate, you would feel compassion for the baby (fetus) that is
>killed.  Compassion doesn't mean to let everyone take the easy way
>out of difficult or desperate situations.  Compassion would be to
>help them (not just the mother, also the baby) through it. 

Is it possible to feel compassion for a rock? If so, then how can we
stand to have quarrys mined? If not, then why is it possible to have
compassion for a z/e/f, which is no more aware than the rock?

>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.

This is what we call truth by blatant assertion around here.

>-- 
>Todd Greenfield
>tgreen@iastate.edu 

Eric
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:49:58 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1992Aug20.201657.10445@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <91ayc5f@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>The Nurturing Network will provide you all this, Cathi, for your prenatal
>care AND your delivery.   That was _why_ I posted about them.  1-800-TNN-4MOM
>will put you in touch with a local doctor, in YOUR TOWN, who regularly donates
>his services to such women.
 ^^^

Of course in Suzanne's mind all Doctors are men... tee hee.
Caught a bit of you hatred towords women here....!!!!

>So that more women would be able to kill their babies that YOUR OWN baby was

So WOMEN kill their babies??? Nasty nasty women!!!
anne
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 00:01:34 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


js>In article <1992Aug17.204020.8968@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:

js>Gee, my sister-in-law will be interested to hear this.  She must have
js>heard this one when she called her local PP office to seek some
js>pre-natal advise when she was pregnant.  Unfortunately, the office
js>hadn't gotten the word, and informed her that they were in the business
js>of helping her get rid of the little bugger, not making sure it would be
js>born healthy.  Maybe they've changed their stance since then????

Please post details of the location of this Planned Parenthood office so
we can verify your sisters story.  Storys such as this have been posted
many times in the past, but have proven to be fabrications.  I would like
to be able to verify your sister's story.

js>John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
 
Dan King


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:04:28 GMT

In article <28519@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>In article <65918@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) writes: 
>
>
>>>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.


I will call L L Bean myself. If I find out that they're supporting
pro-lifers, I'll most definitely start a phone tree that'll hit every
pro-life node in this country. LL Bean won't go the way of Domino's,
rest assured. 

If, of course, they're just allowing a relative to use their property,
we'll have to support them anyway so that they'll let them use it
again later. 

However, the homophobic part of her campaign, whoever she is, is
highly questionable. 



===============================================================================
			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: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: CONFIRMED---> Re: Randall Terry running for Congress
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:49:32 GMT

In article <BswqJ4.KtH@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
>After searching through a pile of papers, I finally found one of the 
>two mentions of Randall Terry's bid for Congress. This was in the
>July 30 edition of USA Today. It was also mentioned in the Chicago
>Tribune, but that's the one I left on the train.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>OPERATION RESCUE LEADER TO RUN: Randall Terry is running for Congress.
>The founder of Operation Rescue, the abortion foes who blockade
>abortion clinics, is challenging five-term GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehlert 
>of New Hartford, N.Y., an abortion rights supporter.  The campaign
>will "not revolve solely around child killing," says Terry, running on 
>the Right to Life ticket.  He says he'll air TV ads of aborted fetuses
>and pornographic art funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.
>Other issues: trade with China, women in combat and "the welfare state,
>which is literally bankrupting America's soul."  Boehlert says Terry
>"is one of the least popular people in the United States today. People
>are offended by Randall Terry and his tactics."  Two years ago, the
>Central new york Right to Life Federation bought billboards comparing
>Boehlert, a co-sponser of the Freedom of Choice Act, to Hitler.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Can you imagine Randall Terry in *Congress*??? Side show city!
	I don't know about New York, but here in Missouri in 27 of the 44
contested primary races, the NARAL-endorsed candidate won, sometimes by
overwhelming margins.  Whether this was mostly a result of abortion-rights
sentiment or not is still up for grabs.
>
>Vickie
>Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education
>
>                    *** PRO-CHOICE ***
> 
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.164436.28257@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>By the way, I was kidding about the anonymous e-mail. You can now say
>>you're sorry for hurriedly firing this off along with your whining, to
>>my sysadmin.
>
>Chaney, you are insinuating that I, Steve Novak, sent something to your
>sysadmin.  I've never sent anything to anyone's sysadmin, much less a
>colon amongst t.a. text like you.             

It was a joke, kid. It was a joke insinuating that you might read what
I said about the anonymous e-mail, and demand proof via the local
DAEMON, as well as a complaint to my system administrators that I'm
making false claims about e-mail. Not an accusation saying you _DID_
do it, only a joke insinuating you _might_ do it. 

I was parodying Susan Regard, Scott Humphrey/Roby, and Dan Drieux.  

>Would you like to clarify?

Okay, I will. In other words, you're an anal-ostrich Type IV. The one
with the very, very long neck and big head. (Sorry if I plagiarize off
of Steve Franklin's orinthological discovery during his battle with
Lefty...) And this is one time where you royally shoved your head up
your ass. 


===============================================================================
			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: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Dirigible Boy Logic (was Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all thing) )apparently
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:27:19 GMT

Stephen A Chaney writes
> In article <darkstar.713555397@milton> darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu  
(Alden Hackmann) writes:

(Abusive Chaneyisms Deleted)
> 
> >I'm still waiting for your proof that "pro-choice = pro-child/adult sex."
> 
> If you put it in this news thread, it was in my KILLfile (anything
> about religious debates, goes there). Right now, I'm scouring for any
> possible lost.Kaufman.posts, so I see your article now. 

Ah, so you have finally learned to use a KILLfile...

> 
> 1) Did Judge Lockett say that the right to privacy meant an
> invalidation of statutory rape? 
> YES.
> 2) Did he or did he not mention the parental consent law and its
> invalidation because of the right to privacy?
> YES.
> 3) Is there currently a valid law in Florida that makes it illegal for
> adults to sleep with children (under 18) who say "yes"?
> NO. See #1. Such laws were struck down by Lockett.
> 4) Can adult/child sex be illegal in Florida if there is consent
> involved?
> NO. 
> 
> Conclusion: 
> 5) Is statutory rape now legal in Florida?
> YES. 

This is all very nice, and you may even have it right (though I am doubtful,  
based on past performances).  I haven't read any coverage of the case.  You  
still have not proven that a Pro-Choice position advocates sex between adults  
and minors.  

--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: world  
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.164553.29962@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.221723.21091@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>You're wasting time when you could be doing your job as a mechanic. :)
You did it again, dumbshit. The tag line need my .sig
which says "now CM400 mechanic." But it's STILL no use, because
I'm only an AMATEUR CM400 mechanic.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:09:41 GMT

In <5697@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug18104655@conus.shell.com> rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>> [paraphrase:  parent not forced to donate kidney so no forced prenancy]

>>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
>>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
>>take kidney back?

>If I started to experience health problems (such as the remaining kidney 
>starting to fail), I sure as hell hope I could get it back.  Wouldn't you?

Mothers never donate their kidneys to their offspring in utero.  Even
if you could get it back, the analogy fails.  It fails even more miserably
if you can't get it back.  What you "hope" is irrelevant to the
analogy.

As I said on another thread, mothers don't even donate blood 
corpuscles to their offspring in utero.  Plasma, yes.

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:32734 alt.abortion.inequity:3189
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:21:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug20.142025.4064@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>  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?  

Is it right?  Well that is not up to me.  I am not at all involved in the 
situation.  If your question is "should it be legal?"  You bet your sweet
bippy it should.

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion