HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:07:20 -0500
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: slab.mtholyoke.edu

In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:
>As a shareholder in Kodak, and hence (part of) the ultimate 
>authority and employer at the company, I thought I should share my 
>perspective on this.  
>
>[authoritarian policies deleted]

Certainly Kodak has the right to make and implement such policies...
the problem is that independent, creative thinkers won't want to
work for you if you do.  And such people (IMHO) are a company's
greatest assets.  But it's your choice.
-- 
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:31:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>
>>Tit for Tat,
>>
>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.
>
>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.
>
>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>should pay for religious instruction...
> 
So do you believe in "Free Abortion on Demand?"  Why is it that public money
should be used to pay for abortion, but people are stuck with public schools
that teach their children what to think rather that how to think?  The truth
is that anyone who doesn't like the way their kids are being taught, but don't
have the money for a private school basically get told, "Tough Shit.  We'll
teach your kids the way we see fit."  From seeing the changes in public
education, a public school is the last place I would want my children taught. 

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Didn't need no welfare state, everybody
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  pulled his weight...Those were the days!
This University is too Commie-	|  --From theme to "All in the Family"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:19:58 GMT


In article <14044@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM writes:
|What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
|control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
|birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
|gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
|isn't it?

Has the number gone up?  Or has the rate gone up?  If the number
went up without an increase in rate, then I consider it
meaningless-- US population has also increased in that time.

Perhaps you could post these statistics of yours and their source.
Then we have grounds for deciding if your point has merit.

You might also consider moving your abortion conversation to
talk.abortion.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Any respect I once had for Phil [Ngai], Phil [Ronzone], and Clayton 
[Cramer] has gone right down the toilet.  Libertarianism to them is an 
excuse to flaunt their own bigotry." --Ray Shea in *.politics 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sue Hasselbring stops short of protecting sperm and egg.
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:22:42 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan28.120202.2174@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes a classic example of fetus
fanatic logic:

>Are you saying that you must have learned something to be human?  
>Even before we learn set theory, we are capable of learning set theory 
>which distinguishes us from other life forms which are not.  And a
>single cell human has the capacity to grow to the point at which that 
>human will have the capacity to learn.  Skin cells do not have that 
>capacity.  Nor does an unfertilized egg.  Thus the death of a skin 
>cell or of an unfertilized egg is distinctly different from the death 
>of a single cell human or 8-cell human.  The killing of the latter is 
>murder, the killing of the former is not.

While I understand that a skin cell does not have the capacity in
question, I fail to understand why you would claim an unfertilized egg
or sperm does not.  Are you in fact claiming that it is the union of
sperm and egg that makes them sacred?  If your Pope declared that
sperm and egg were sacred, would you support him then?  Why not
declare each sacred and begin forcing all persons to protect those
precious sperm and eggs?  Why should we base state intervention on
your arbitrary decision that fertilized eggs are sacred but sperm and
unfertilized eggs are not?  How about if you decide whether a
fertilized egg in your body is sacred and other women be allowed to
make that same choice for themselves?

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.policy
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Want to adopt
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:38:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.013653.20202@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1993Jan23.040647.298@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>>> In article hammond@stimpy.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Hammond (x37516)) writes:
>>>>My wife and I would like to adopt a baby.  We are in our very early 30s and
>>>>are financially secure.  If you know of someone that is pregnant and would
>>>>like to consider adoption, please put them in touch with us.  Of course 
>>>>we would pay all of their legal and medical expenses.
>>>>...<etc.>
>>> 
>>> Doesn't Kodak have a very strigent policy about company computer resources
>>> being used for non-company purposes?
>>
>>For Pete's sake.  Kodak takes a very dim view of .signatures, posted every
>>day attached to political opinion articles, in which the author claims to
>>speak for Kodak and all it's subsidiaries.
>>
>>THAT is what got Dan Bredy in trouble.
>
>Not according to the original response from Kodak.  It was using company
>resources for non-company business.

Sounds like a fairly vanilla corporate response. What the REAL reasons are,
is anyone's guess...

My problem is not with Kodak, who after all has the legal and (IMO) ethical 
right to determine the use of its resources, CITING ANY JUSTIFICATION THEY 
WISH, OR NONE AT ALL, but with interlopers like Mr. "Justified and Ancient" 
who seems bent on insuring that if Dan Bredy doesn't have his net.access, 
that by golly everyone else who works at Kodak should be punished by losing 
their net.access too (as if their collective misery was going to help Dan a 
bit)!

And he calls ME a "control freak"!?!?! Whadda hypocrite...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:30:24 GMT

In article <kkelly.11.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> 
kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Just about every pro-choicer that I've met on talk.abortion supports
>> third trimester abortion-on-demand.  Some pro-choicers have said that 
>> a person can't be pro-choice unless they oppose third-trimester abortion
>> restrictions.  

> Once again with a sweeping paint brush (or keystrokes) Doug decides the 
> views of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Do me a favour and tell 
> me what your views are, not what mine are or anyone elses.

I'm not deciding anyone's views, I'm just repeating what I see
on talk.abortion.  And for the most part, I see pro-choicers who
oppose third-trimester abortion restrictions, and I see some say 
that you can't be pro-choice unless you actively oppose third-tri
restrictions:

   "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
    doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
    that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
    legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
    third trimester."

          keegan@daisymae.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
          <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

Remember, I'm not trying to define the term "pro-choice", I'm just
repeating the words of people who attempt to do just that. 

---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A Book and an Offer
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:04:39 GMT

kmaloy+@pitt.edu (Kate Maloy) writes:

>        In fact, the main thing that emerges from the stories in our
> book is a private reality utterly at odds with the public debate.  We have
> found, for instance, that when women describe their personal experience
> with the need to choose, they virtually never use the language of the
> political debate.  They do not mention rights, and they rarely ponder
> when life begins.  Instead, they consult a moral standard that has to do
> with matters of human responsibility, relationship and caretaking.  (Many
> of you will recognize the research of Carol Gilligan, Mary Belenky and
> others in this--and we both cite and confirm their findings.)  Their
> concerns are the same regardless of whether they choose birth or choose
> abortion, and these concerns have to do with the quality of their
> relationship with the man, their ability to love a child, their financial
> and psychological resources, their employment status.  They all regard
> the need to choose between birth and abortion as a complex matter.  They
> do not subscribe to the blacks and whites of the debate.  They also do not
> reflect the anger and judgmental qualities of the debate; rather, they
> tend to respect the choices of others who have been through this, even 
> when their choices differ.

I liked this paragraph.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:20:29 GMT

> = cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>[deleted material]

>> This is not the whole truth: taken in context, it's seems rather obvious
>> (to most people) that no woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy
>> and then have an abortion for some trivial reason (on account the rather
>> large natural disincentives to do so, ask a woman for details).  
>> o Is there any reason to restrict late-term abortions?  Ie. can you 
>>   document any "abuse" of late-term abortions?
>> o Assuming such "abuse" existed, would outlawing abortion end this abuse 
>>   while preserving unhindered access for those needing (not abusing)
>>   late-term abortions?

>If it is obvious to most people that a woman should not (would not?) go through
>nine months pregnancy and then get an abortion does that mean those people 
>would support legislation prohibiting that?

Probably not, because while such a law would be useless wrt it's 
intended purpose, it would also have serious and unintended negative 
side effects.  Abortion is legal now, and yet some women have had to
fly from state to state in a desperate attempt to get a life saving 
late-term abortion.  (Has anyone got that 60-minutes transcript?) 
Even now, "abortion on demand" is not a reality, and lives have already
been seriously threated by this lack of "abortion on demand".

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Use of Force
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 18:41:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.114141.9949@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>
>>The upshot of the story is that Mikey probably hasn't changed much since  
>>his enforced vacation; the "use of force" you mention probably does  
>>include bobmings, but not firearms, as it is easier to claim that you  
>>didn't realize that the born doctor/nurse/receptionist/janitor was in the  
>>building at the time thanit is to claim that you didn't realize that a  
>>shotgun could do things like that at point-blank range........
>
>Some OpRisk-lives members have already adopted life-threatening
>tactics again.  During one of the recent protests at a Dallas clinic
>they shut off the power after breaking in.  No telling what could have
>happened to a patient _who_waysn't_necessarily_even_having_an_abortion_
>(Do the OR folks actually think that's the only thing clinics do?).
>Luckily, at least according to the news, no one was hurt.  No thanks,
>of course, to a bunch of brain-washed pre-teens who think they're
>_saving_ lives.
>
In hospitals, all essential equipment is on a seperatewiring system
with a backup generator to rpevent problems like this from causing any
serious harm. Ventilators, anesthesia machines, minimal lighting, etc
would continue to work after such an attack, unless the culprits were
also able to getto the generator and disable it. I don't know if this
holds true for free standing clinics all over, but the 2-3 here that
do surgery have backup generators.
There's still a risk of injury form idiots like this, but it's at
least minimized.

>Two laws I've suggested would work well here: 1) Prosecute minorities
>as adults when they commit gang-related crimes.  2) For legal
>purposes, treat groups of protestors as ad hoc gangs.  This would put
>an end to the tactics of using children who are for all intents and
>purposes currently immune to legal recourse for their terroristic
>actions.
>
Just a minor point, but your limitation of prosecuting gang-related
crimes as adults to minorities strikes me as fairly racist. Are you
operating under the false impression that gang members are minorites?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:43:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.011738.26418@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>How would you offer "life assistance" to someone who is terminally ill
>with cancer, wracked with constant pain, and is living a hell on earth
>s/he cannot escape? "Would you like some more heroin?"

It depends on the situation.  It is certainly better to give medicine to 
someone than to kill them.  I certainly don't think that I could ever
kill anyone in this condition.  Their life is not mine to take.
God has healed people in worse circumstances.  





>
>And of course, you finally reveal your bigoted, homophobic leanings. If
>this is Xianity, then praise be to G-d for not making me a gentile.
>
>Tep
>-- 
>Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:32:22 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
>(Mark A. Cochran) says:
>>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times,
>>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal
>>>and safe, but rare.
>>>
>>He certainly did. Don't you think that's a good goal to shoot for?
>
>Is it? Is it really?
>
>If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then why try to have less
>of them?  Heck, -more- abortions would bring down the birth rate and help
>with overpopulation, and it's safer than childbirth.  Right?
>
>So why have less, if abortion is OK?

Apparently because of your bigotry you don't realize that very few
people think abortion is a good idea.  It's just that a lot of us
think that forced pregnancy is a worse idea.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58252 talk.politics.misc:70112 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13997 alt.rush-limbaugh:15303 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:223 talk.religion.misc:27695
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:28:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan24.200741.9018@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
>>time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
>>abortions that occur.
>
>(Jamie opens his mouth, ready to say something sarcastic about all the
>Planned Parenthood employees who picketed schools that handed out
>condoms...then changes his mind.)
>
>Ted, do you honestly believe that anyone--ANYONE--thinks abortion is a
>good thing?  That anyone wants _more_ abortions to occur?  That
>pro-choicers, upon hearing about an abortion, think "oh, good,
>that fetus was killed, that's great"?
>
>If you so think, I am amazed beyond words at your self-delusion.

If not, why not?  If the fetus is no different than a hangnail, why 
shouldn't pro-abortioners think that abortion was a good thing, and 
that in many cases, especially unwed mothers, that abortion would 
be desired? 

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:01:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.014921.9070@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >>>> it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
> >>>> applied to today's situation.  
> 
> >>> Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
> 
> >> Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
> >> Why are you still arguing the point?
> 
> > Susan never said any such thing.
> 
> Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
> you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
> did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
> abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
> situation:
> 
>   > The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the ruling
>   > in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this vast time
>   > is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
> 
>    Actually, it has something to do with it.  
> 
>        <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu>
>         garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
> 
> 
> And now we see Ms. Garvin furiously back-pedaling from that suggestion.

Oh yes, that is correct.  That's what Susan said.  She is right
in that the laws against abortion put in place in he 19th century
were partly motivated by the dangerous nature of the procedure, and
that the Roe v Wade decision may in part have been motivated by
the fact that illegal abortions were far more dangerous in 1973 than
legal abortions.  But that's not what you said.  Today is January 22,
1973.  Exactly 20 years after the announcement of the Roe v Wade
decision.  So what you are talking about is not what Susan was
talking about.  By the way, they are not "her estimates," but
estimates from sources contemporary to the illegal abortions
discussed.

> > Only a stupid person would conclude that therefore they are 
> > worthless.  
> 
> Her estimates are worthless to the extent that they cannot be 
> used today in any meaningful fashion.  They do help soothe
> yours and Ms. Garvin's precious little egos though.... 

The estimates she quoted addressed the issue under discussion
specifically and conclusively.  The estimates give insight
into some of the motivation of the Roe v Wade decision.  The
estimates are not worthless, unless you try to make them do
something they were not intended for.  I have no idea what you
are trying to do with them.  I don't think you have any idea
either, beyond trying to say "so and so is wrong" just to say
it.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger
 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Gee, I Wonder Where Suzanne Is?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:39:44 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = Steve Novak:

>> After Suzanne's latest amazing hate spew against Humphrey's wife, you'll
>> notice the screeching wretch has disappeared again.  She'll return with a
>> red face, a nominal non-reply (or, "lie") about the furor she's caused,
>> then she'll quickly pretend that nothing happened and start anew.

>I never go away, you jerk.   

(Oops.  Seemed to have touched a nerve.)

Sad but true :).  Actually, you do disappear for a while everytime you
say something extremely stupid.  I'm surprised you haven't noted that
tendency in yourself. 

>I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you nuts. 

Like you're ignoring me now, sweetie?  ...And yes, I'm just *mortified*
that we can't be friends.

>And I'm glad.

You're also crazed.  And you're not a christian, though you can call
yourself whatever.

Could you tell us about that abortion clinic exorcism that sent the
clinic workers "running into the streets in fear"?  Along with your
usual contention that religion has nothing to do with your
anti-abortionism.

Thanks.  
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion