HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:


[text deleted]

#Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
#easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?


You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  

When abortion is illegal, women die.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

Suppose there were some restrictions on abortions - e.g. suppose third tri's
could only be removed if the mother was going to die.  (Maybe such
restrictions already exist).

Doesn't such a restriction constitute making the foetus a special class of
citizen?

Doesn't an anti-abortion law require that a foetus be given *special* treatment,
more than that of any other "person"?

If this is so, how does US law/Constitution regard such a situation?

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Summary: Let's try this again, ok??? 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:40:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.023459.7473@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.073626.1003@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Actually, there will be ice floes on the River Styx before THAT happens.
>>
>>Please post your documentation showing that the River Styx doesn't have
>>ice floes...
>>>
>>>Let me rephrase that--I should have said "Perhaps there are extreme
>>>circumstances where abortion might be an option, but I am still against it.."
>>

******************************************************************************
* SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!! SIMON!!!! READ THIS!!!!    *
******************************************************************************
>>Ok, Simon, let's get to the "extreme" circumstances.  If my Aunt Ann gets
>>pregnant and tries to carry to term, she *WILL* have her spinal column snap,
>>and wind up being paralyzed and in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
>>
>>She's on the pill.  Ed (her husband) uses a condom every time they have
>>sex.  They don't want to go in for steralization on the hopes that they
>>will come up with some sort of precedure that will fix Ann's back, in which
>>case they'd love to have another child.
>>
>>She gets pregnant.
>>
>>Would you let her have an abortion?
>>
>>Why should she have to ask you?
>>
*****************************************************************************
* DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT, SIMON? DID YOU READ THAT???? *
*****************************************************************************

Simon's response so far:
>
>About my River Styx comment: Anyone familiar with Greek mythology will know
>where that River is supposed to be, and will understand that remark.

I'd say he's six years old.  Or maybe a really bright five year old.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Keywords: forced childbirth
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:43:47 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1bcb10INN5jq@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>In article <Bw0Cox.56M@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

>>Doesn't such a restriction (on abortion) constitute making the foetus a 
>>special class of citizen?

>	Not at all, to my mind. It affects pregnant women a great
>	deal, however, treating them as a "special" class of citizen.

If a foetus gets personhood and gets protected by an anti-abortion restriction 
then it is getting preferential treatment that seems to be unprecedented in
all other areas of society.

The woman gets unprecedented "bad" treatment and the foetus gets
unprecedented and unique "good" teatment.


>>Doesn't an anti-abortion law require that a foetus be given *special* 
>>treatment, more than that of any other "person"?

>	No, just that the pregnant woman be given "special" treatment,
>	*less* than that of any other "person."

The woman is certainly being discriminated against.  And that discrimination
is in favour of the foetus.

Why do you deny that a foetus, being permitted by law to use a womans body
*against her will* is not being treated in a special way?

I can't think of many other situations (if any at all) where a woman is
required by law to use her body for the benefit of someone else.

An anti-abortion law would be unprecedented in that respect.  No?

The only possible exception that comes to mind is slavery. 

>	The Roe v. Wade decision et al. have been discussed here. But
>	the above looks more like rhetoric, dealing with hypotheticals;

Dave, the "above" were questions aimed at a weakness in the "pro-life"
argument.  They addressed the point that anti-abortion laws may have to
be discriminatory - for the foetus, against the woman.

My point was one principally *against* anti-abortion laws.
My questions were aimed primarily at "pro-life" advocates, and were a
challenge to them.

>	the reality is that 3rd-tri abortions are not trivially sought
>	nor performed without reason ... or are there counterexamples

Who cares - the question was a challenge to those who would have
greater restrictions on abortion than we *currently* have.

Apparently you have noticed the name "Tommy Kelly" at the top of my post
an went into auto-pilot.

I was laying a challenge to "pro-life".
Underlying my questions was an implicit "you cant have anti-abortion laws
because they create a privileged class - the human foetus".

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Organization: MMAG, VAFB
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:02:55 GMT


In article <1992Oct13.200933.12903@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> 
|> First OFF, I must Agree with Former JCS ADM Crowe
|> that George Bush has missed the mark on the issue.
|> 
|> Now, Let us return again to address one of the older questions.
|> 
|> We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
|> when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}
|> 
|> We also Know that 'Hanoi Jane' { for the kids out there, that
|> is Henry Fonda's Daughter....} provided a prima facia case of
|> treason during war - which, unless they have modified things, 
|> is a CAPITAL OFFENSE - and hence without stautes of Limitations.
|> 
|> Why then is it that Nixon, Reagan, AND BUSH, have not even
|> sought a Grand Jury Investigation of this CRIME?

He, (George) would, if it would help his chances for re-election.
That is his ONLY concern. Not you, not me, nothing except Nov. 3.
  
|> 
|> ciao
|> drieux 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Modern Day Problems:
|> 
|> Don't Just Rock the Vote
|> Kick OUT THE JAMS!

Rich Whitmeyer                Views expressed are solely my own.
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.004419.29767@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan
King) says:

>he says is that pro-choicers are scared to put abortion
>legislation to a vote.  He uses the abortion initiative
>on the Washington State ballot.  He claims their were
>more votes against the measure than for it, but it lost
>because they counted the absentee votes.  Um, Rush, hate
>to have to be the one to tell you this, but absentee
>votes count as votes.

I don't think he said otherwise.  He was just pointing out that in a state
as liberal as Washington (a state which sends Tom Foley to Capitol Hill, as
he puts it), the measure BARELY passed.  Indicating that there isn't over-
whelming support for the pro-choice position out there.

By the way, don't forget to read the other twenty-odd chapters not dealing
with abortion.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Biological Reasons for Reproductive Rights (Let's Play StipUlations)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:13:14 GMT

In article <1bk0euINN4lg@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

[Don]
>>In very real and practical terms, child support burdens are imposed
>>far more greatly on men than on women -- not just in numbers but amounts.
>
[Adrienne]
>I respect your right to your own opinion, Don, but this particular sentence
>is sheer value judgement, and there are millions of women who would argue
>the point with you.  Not that such an argument would be productive , you
>understand....

Leave values aside, and consider whether men or women receive
the bulk of child support awards.


>>You are basing women's rights on biology; but there is no biological
>>factor that requires a man to pay money to a woman or her child.
>
>Nor, frankly is there any biological factor that requires a woman to pay
>money to a man and his child.  This aspect of parenting is a social and
>legal construct and always has been, and is symetrical with respect to
>the sexes involved.  Which means also that it's a bankrupt argument, Don.

Did you want to talk about theory or practice?

Well, it may just be my belief, but I don't see this as being
anywhere near symmetric with respect to the sexes.  Not with 
Tender Years and 90% custody given to mothers.  Not with false
accusations of child abuse being the instant means to custody
(believed against men more easily than against women) -- especially
when apparently 52% of child abuse is by women (it doesn't seem a great
coincidence that women are 51-52% of the population).  Not when
non-payment of support is criminal while preventing visitation is ignored.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Fri,  9 Oct 1992 14:03:31 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: psychological effects of abortion

Author       Leary, Warren E
Title        Koop Says ABORTION Report Couldn't Survive Challenge
Source       New York Times,  Mar 17, 1989,  A, 12:5
Features     Photograph
Abstract     C.  Everett Koop, the Surgeon General, testified in a
             Congressional hearing that there is not enough evidence to assess
             the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION and an unimpeachable
             scientific report was not possible.
Subjects     ABORTION; Congressional investigations; Psychology & psychologists

Author       Okie, Susan
Title        ABORTION Report Koop Withheld Released on Hill
Source       Washington Post,  Mar 17, 1989,  A, 3:1
Features     Photograph
Abstract     A report on ABORTION prepared by Surgeon General C.  Everett Koop
             recommended that the best way to reduce abortions is by educating
             the public about birth control, and by promoting contraceptive
             research.  The report concluded that the frequency of long-term
             PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION is uncertain.
Subjects     ABORTION

Author       Leary, Warren E
Title        Koop Challenged on ABORTION Data
Source       New York Times,  Jan 15, 1989,  1, 1:1
Features     Photograph
Abstract     Surgeon Gen.  C.  Everett Koop's contention that data on the
             physical and PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of ABORTION are inconclusive
             is challenged by experts in reproductive health and psychology.
Subjects     ABORTION; Mental health; Women
PersonalName Koop, C Everett
ISSN         0362-4331

Title        Koop: HEALTH effects of ABORTION unknown
Source       Chicago Tribune,  Jan 10, 1989,  1, 2:1
Abstract     Surgeon Gen.  C.  Everett Koop reports that no conclusive
             evidence exists on how abortions affect a women's MENTAL or
             physical HEALTH.
Subjects     ABORTION; Women; HEALTH; MENTAL HEALTH

Author       Brotman, Barbara
Title        Both Sides in ABORTION Issue Also Remain Divided Over Post-
             Operation
Source       Chicago Tribune,  Apr 15, 1990,  4, 4:1
Abstract     Post-ABORTION stress divides pro- and anti-choice groups as much
             as the issue of ABORTION itself.
Subjects     ABORTION; MENTAL HEALTH; Stress; Women



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: is overpeck everybody? (Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was:THE SUFFERIN)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:13:48 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <Bvpr2K.M4I.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
->   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
->> I guess in Overpeck's twisted mind, this implies an ulterior 
->> motive.

->Twisted mind?  Is that how you characterize people who don't
->share your particular set of values?

she said, "in Overpeck's twisted mind," bill. that's a
specific reference to "Overpeck," which, in case you
didn't know, is you. unless you think "overpeck" is
also a group, that is.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:52:52 GMT

In <1992Oct15.032145.26287@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >

>Soon as those two  loony-tunes get carted off to Happy House
>(did I use the correct scientific terminology, Bill?), 

Happy House is fine, but is often confused with Happy Land
which is where one goes when placed on a healthy regimine
of anti-psychotic meds.  Most people seem to prefer the
Land option, and the food is better there, too.

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:11:16 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>It never fails to amaze me to see the frustration that liberals will
>>demonstrate almost on cue when someone dares to disagree with their drivel.

>It truly amazes me how Adkins can totally ignore what "his" side posts,
>and instead paints all "liberals" with the same paintbrush.

    The only thing that amazes me these days is how people can be "truly
amazed" that other people continue to act exactly the way they have acted 
for years. Of course, people have been amazed about that amazement for years 
so I guess that I should also be amazed that their amazement amazes me. 
You'd think I would have learned by now.

    Actually one other thing amazes me as well, and that's the way that 
people cross-post stuff like this in every group they can think of. Is 
any of this relevant to abortion, guns, conspiracies, Dan Quayle, or Rush 
Limbaugh? The only group this thread *really* belongs in is talk.bizarre.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203512.29312@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >>As for Adrienne Regard, she wrote, *without* a smiley-face (the usual
> >>indicator of humor):
> >>    Who's "we", white man?

> >Who's "we", white man?
> 	- Adrienne Regard

"The Jews are known to be hostile."
-Stephen "Dennis Hall" Chaney

And not a smiley in sight when little borg-brain wrote that
one.

Gee, I wonder which one is genuinely reprehensible?

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:48:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.235516.10901@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Besides, abortion and "forcing" someone to donate parts are two
>>different problems.  Preventing an abortion, and solving the problem
>>of a dying person are two different issues.
>
>Wait a moment here.  A man is dying for want of a kidney transplant,
>and you refuse to coerce a perfectly healthy person to be a donor so
>he can live.  

Problem: Man is dying (cause could be anything)
Proposed Solution: Force someone to donate parts.

>But a woman doesn't want to donate her bodily resources
>to the support of a fetus for nine months, and you force her to anyway?!

Problem: Mother doesn't want child.  No one is dying, however.
Proposed Solution: Kill the human life within the mother.

Check out the two problems and the proposed solutions.  I think you may
agree with me (at least partially) that the relationship between the two
cases is not very strong.

>
>Watch that double-edged sword of yours; you'll cut yourself badly!
>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
> _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
>                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:17:19 CST
 <1992Oct4.190828.6554@netcom.com> <1992Oct4.223007.8561@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct4.223007.8561@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>  
> There is a big difference between an egg and a zygote.  In its current form,
> put the egg in the mother's womb.  Wait about nine months.  Any screaming,
> crying baby?

If a happy lil'ol' sperm happens along at the right moment, then there
just may be a screaming crying baby 9 months later.  I love them
potential peoples.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:20:24 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1b265mINNlka@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
#
#In article <mpsz7r=@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu writes:
## you disgust me.
#
#Let the galled jade wince.
#
#I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.

Oh, *Eric* had to ask.  I wonder where Eric and his magic 
powers were when this whole mess started.  

#Since he tells me he is satisfied with my refutation, I will not
#respond to Keegan's lies any more.  

I take it this means that you won't be posting the letter in
which Keegan asked the mailing list for support.  (Unless, of
course, Eric asks you to do so.)  

#I don't need to test his
#Everready Bunny batteries the way Overpeck did.  I know he'll
#just go on and on and on endlessly, thumping his little drum.

I'm willing to bet that Keegan would quit pursuing it
if you posted proof that he asked the list for support.

#Bye, bye, bunny!

Wow.  Class and wit.  I'm impressed.

Susan
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:10:21 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
 <92281.220346KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Oct8.144400.27076@nas.nasa.gov>

In article <1992Oct8.144400.27076@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan
King) says:

>So why didn't he just say it like that.  Why did he say that
>the initiative got more opposing votes than votes in favor?

I think you're nit-picking. It wasn't hard to figure out what happened, and
what his point was.

>By the way, do you know the Seattle station that cancelled
>the Rush show over the caller abortions?  I'm kind of
>curious if this might be another Rush un-truth.

No, I'm not into researching everything Rush claims.  I'm relatively
sure that he has enough enemies, though, that if he tried to lie about
something he'd be exposed.

>I am enjoying it.  I listen to him when I get a chance to.  It
>really isn't that big a surprise that he has built such a large
>legion of ditto-heads out of all you adolescent white guys.  He
>is really good at simplifying complex issues.

Adolescent white guys, huh?  Don't forget that most conservatives are
older people... or, white males, I guess it must be.  We'll just ignore
all those conservative blacks and women out there, I guess.

Out of curiosity, give an example of how Rush over-simplifies some issue.

...besides abortion, just for a change of pace...

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A hypothetical case: Assault or murder.
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:06:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Dennis G Landsem (dennis@Lise.Unit.NO) wrote:
: 
:     A women is, lets say, 2 months pregnant. She has every intention
:     of carrying the child to term. One evening as she is walking in
:     the park, she is assaulted by a robber. As a direct result of this
:     (a kick in the stomach) she has a spontaneous abortion.
: 
: What I'd like you to answer is this; would you consider this an
: assault or would you consider it to be murder ?
: 
: As I understand Gordon and other pro-choicers they would consider
: this an assault, as the fetus at this stage is merely a part of the
: mothers body. So this would be on par with his f.x. biting of part of
: her ear or cutting of one of her fingers.
:
: Pro-lifers on the other hand, I think would be most likely to
: consider it murder (I must admit to subscribing to this opinion
: myself).

I am very close to you on this, but probably for different reasons.

Can't speak for anyone else; but it seems to me that a consistent
approach for the pro-choice amongst us would be that if the woman
has *chosen* to carry the child to term, then the attack is more
than assault. Her loss will be comparable to the loss of a child.

The woman is the one that matters, and her choice is what counts,
and the attacker's crime is more than assault because he has
thwarted her choice on this very significant matter. What makes
the killing of the fetus so significant is the mother and her choice.

For some of us, at least, we are not saying that the fetus is a trivial
thing like hair or even fingers. I suggest that until the fetus has
reached some basic level of development (12 weeks? myelination? birth?
no simple answer?) society should have no role in setting a value upon
it. The value or worth of the fetus is entirely wrapped up in its
potential, and it is still exclusively the role of parents, especially
the mother, to put a value on that potential. Their choice.

(It can't be murder either, however. No intent.)

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart