HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:08:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <nyikos.721347704@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <SCOTTS.92Nov4160323@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.720418431@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> 
> >   The American public has consistently supported a ban on abortions after
> 								      ^^^^^
> >   the first trimester (except to save the mother's life) in poll after poll.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Except in Arizona, where a measure which would have forbad abortions
> >except to save the life of the mother was defeated, and in Maryland
> >where a referendum similar to FOCA was passed.
> 
> Maryland already had a law on the books STRONGER than FOCA.  What was
> the point of putting the public through a referendum?

This is really very funny.  I often see pro-lifers post that
if abortion were put to a vote, the public would reject it,
and that pro-choice supporters are afraid to have such a thing
happen so they resort to the courts.  Now we have a state put
it to the test with the voters and the voters supported the
initiative.  So we have a pro-lifer complaining about giving
the people a chance to express themselves on abortion.

I am curious as to whether the referendum was a result of
Maryland having Initiative and Referendum (I don't know if
they have it or not) or whether it was an idea of the
legislature's.  I am also curious, if they have I&R, whether
the initiative was undertaken originally by pro-choice or
pro-life supporters.  It would be extremely ironic, and I
admit I doubt it happened this way, if it were an initiative
undertaken by pro-life supporters in an attempt to get the
public on record against abortion.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:27:58 GMT
Distribution: na


In article <1992Nov5.052107.619@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 
>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
>may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
>to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
>definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
>health (see the documentation below).  Additional documentation can be 
>provided upon request.

 
DOD demonstrates fairly well one of the reasons I would oppose third
tri-mester legislation that restricted abortions only for health of 
mother.  It is fairly clear that DOD does not understand the meaning
of health.  He would want health very narrowly defined so that only
women that meet his criteria would qualify.  I don't want people 
such as DOD defining health for others.  I much prefer that health
be defined by the people involved with the help of medical 
professionals.  
 
For those who want legislation to restrict abortions in the third 
tri-mester to only those that threaten the woman's health, how
are you going to avoid people such as DOD narrowly defining 
health?  Do you really want DOD and his ilk deciding what 
constitutes a health risk?
 
Dan King
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:50:22 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) wrote:

>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
>morals again

A pro-life president with morals?  I hope you aren't refering to George Bush.
Read what the American Journal of Public Health ("Iraqi Children Lose in Gulf 
War", Nov. 1992, page 20) has to say about his policies and how they have 
caused the deaths of about 50,000 infants and young children:

    "Despite claims that high-tech weaponry would result in limited casualties, 
    the Gulf war and the economic embargo to Iraq is estimated to have cause  
    a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of 
    age, a new study indicated.

    "Nearly 50,000 Iraqi infants and small children are estimated to have died 
    as a result of the Gulf was, said a study appearing in the New England 
    Journal of Medicine in September."

Doesn't sound very pro-life to me.


				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:00:05 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->Exit polls revealed that only 11% of voters thought that abortion was
->the most important factor in the race.

   "the swing vote is what decides elections. and the 
   swing which will decide this election, imo, will be 
   the issue of choice. while that swing vote represents 
   a minority, whoever gets it, bush or clinton, will win 
   the election. so from my point of view, that vote is 
   the most important factor in the coming election.
        <1992Aug13.234204.27889@crd.ge.com>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc,news.sysadmin
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Son of Forgery Question?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:31:33 GMT

>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!odin!dsh
>>From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
>>Subject: Re: Why genetics can't be used to determine personhood
>>Message-ID: <1992Nov8.022401.20478@ncsu.edu>
>>Date: 8 Nov 92 02:24:01 GMT
>>References: <1992Nov6.013604.13955@netcom.com>
>>Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
>>Organization: North Carolina State University
>>Lines: 39

Please NOTE:

>>vladimir: 41:>uupath odin
>>ub-gate!uunet!mcsun!nuug!nftda
>>vladimir: 42:>uuwho nftda
>>System name:     nftda
>>System type:     
>>Organization:    Norsk Forsvarsteknologi A/S, Computer Technology
>>Contact person:  Geir Haug Hanssen
>>Email Address:   geir@nftda.uucp
>>Telephone:       +47-3-738555 & +47-3-739735 (FAX)
>>Postal Address:  Postboks 1003, N-3601 KONGSBERG, Norway
>>Long/Lat:        59 39 N / 9 39 E city
>>Remarks:         
>>Author & date:   bl@nuug.no 900126, bl@nuug.no 900126
>>
>>#
>>
>>nftda = kark
>>nftda = odin


Here we come up with a bit of a Problem:

1. Doug is saying he is posting from a host 'odin.uucp'
but the data on that uucp cite indicates that it is in Norway.

2. Doug is using an 'interesting' hostname.

3. the 'Sender:' line indicates that it is actually being 
generated out of ncsu.edu.

4. the path line does NOT contain anything indicating that 
this post even passed through ncsu.edu.

Is there a problem here?

Or am I misreading something that I should so obviously 'catch.'


ciao
drieux

 
-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:05:06 GMT

In <1992Nov5.040534.24054@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Nov03.052939.28813@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>><1992Oct29.084242.24379@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Again, since you state "by Storga's atheistic standards..." I assume that
>>>you believe I have some special Atheistic standards that deviate from the
>>>norm significantly.  Please explain what they are, or just confirm that
>>>you did not mean that I had any special standards.

As I said: nothing special, nothing to indicate that they aren't your
average garden-variety atheistic standards.

>>Presumably, you have higher standards, since you can't resort on an appeal
>>to the almighty, or invoke "And then a miracle occurs" in a proof.  :-)

I wasn't comparing Storga's standards with mine.  I'm quite comfortable
with them just as they are.

>Apparently "a miracle" occured:  Mr Nyikos has not responded to any of my
>posts in days.  Maybe he actually has work to do....  Nah!

I do, indeed, but what actually happened is that after the netserver 
"recovered its hearing," it immediately went mute, and the numerous posts
I made last week only started showing up on the weekend.  I don't know
where they hibernated in the meantime.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:35:30 GMT

In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

|> 
|> I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
|> anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
|> "be let off the hook".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
|> child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
|> that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the 
|> future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
|> the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.
|> 

Since you are arguing that the parents of a fetus/child be required by
the state to care for that child regardless of the expedience. Then,
should the state provide for such services as adoption, social services,
etc (after all these services allow for parents to abdicate some or all
of their resposibility to the child)?

Have any argument as to why adoption should be legal? Again, how do you
provide for adoption services and still require both biological parents
to meet their responsibilities to the child?


-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47742 news.admin.misc:318
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:54:24 GMT
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: e204c1178d9b1452d55e6a4216eea418

nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!decwrl!
		concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
>>>>>From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
>
>>>Note, if you will that Doug Holtsinger's post here has
>>>a 'correct' "Path:" line that does specify an ncsu.edu
>>>host in it.
>
>>It would be *nice* if NCSU decided to update its set of maps so that the
>>main news host appeared in the uucp maps, but "the maps" are getting
>>quite out of date in some ways.  There are literally tens of thousands
>>of sites that have news and mail connections that don't appear in "the
>>maps" since they are already in the internet DNS database.
>
>Don't cast aspersions on drieux. He's not the one who doesn't see the 
>point in putting uucp connections on the map if they also run internet. 
>Current uucp rules still state that if it does uucp, it better be on the
>map. Even if it uses internet or dances the cha cha cha most of the time.

Drieux doesn't need defending.  He totally capable of finding his own
clues and figuring things out.  I do object to his *slightly* paranoid
delusions of forgery since the news paths from NCSU have been that way
for a long time.  (Anyone remember djr?  All his posts came thru taco
too.)

I seriously doubt that taco.cc.ncsu.edu is doing any UUCP connections
these days.  Most of the machines connected only to lans, and without
modems, don't even bother setting up the UUCP software.  The UUCP maps
are for the pseudo-domain .UUCP, and hosts that are registered in full
domains of their own have absolutely no reason to register in the .uucp
domain unless they are serving downstream sites that are in the .uucp
domain.  And please, locate the "rules" that you are blathering about.
Quote the RFC number or other similar identification.

You might want to buy some clues about the differences between Usenet (a
logical message exchange network), UUCP (a dial-up file transfer
protocol), internet (a network of networks that interoperate), DNS (the
internet domain name system database), and the .UUCP pseudo-domain (an
anachronism that is getting harder and harder to maintain as folks lose
sight of what it really is.)

Usenet has gotten to the point where it is nearly impossible, and mostly
useless to try and map it anymore.  Brian Reid's postscript maps are
nice, but essentially meaningless since most of the DNS-only hosts
(about 60% of netnews sites I'd guess) don't appear there.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us  news%wolves@cs.duke.edu  ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 06:00:27 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14l by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov4.194744.15033@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <92305.084355ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
>   Linda Birmingham writes: >
>
>>How did the Bells know you were prolife?
>
>I don't know.  Among our small group were the wife of the
>General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee
>and the attorney who is General Counsel to Indiana Citizens
>for Life.  Perhaps one or both of them were recognized.

Perhaps she was addressing them?  If you're at the back of the auditorium,
how could you tell whether she was addressing you, unless she called you
by name?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:08:37 GMT

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

>What difference does it make whether opposition to a particular
>'choice' comes from a specific group of people or from societal 
>and socio-economic forces?  If 'pro-choicers' were truly interested 
>in providing choices, they wouldn't stop at providing only once
>choice.

I kinda' think you might, and I must state that this is only my
opinion, be missing the point that those who support pro-choice
just want to make sure that the right to choose is not rescinded.

Let me back up a little bit here and say that I, being 
pro-choice, only wish that the right to choose abortion be a
choice along with adoption, or any other choice available to a 
woman.  I don't like abortion, but I don't want to see that be
a choice which is taken away.  I would rather that all of forms
of choice be voiced and encouraged prior to abortion.  Yes,
abortion is a very finalized choice and the only one which ends
in terminating a pregnancy before it reaches term.  I would
hope that this is the very last choice, but I realize my hopes
are not always reality.  Still, I want that choice to be
there.

Okay, for those who would like to discuss this with me please
go ahead and for those who wish to flame, the abestos underwear
are scratchy and itchy, but they're on!  =)

allen
-- 
--------------------------------------------------
  Allen Warren 
  TSSI -- Beaverton, OR 
  Disclaimer:  My ramblings are NOT those of TSSI          
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: name one ...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:05:54 GMT

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes to
kevin:
->Name one pro-choice organization that wants or even supports
->jailing women for obtaining banned abortions?

this is such an interesting question that i decided to
repost it.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:31:16 GMT

In <lost id> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
  (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
in a post supporting e.e's anti-choice stance,
   pro-lifer wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <92311.065313ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >>>

>>>>Elizabeth dear in or out of context supporting jail
>>>>terms for women who obtain banned abortions is the
>>>>antithesis of the pro-choice movement.  
>
>>>imo, your demand to criminalize a medical procedure places 
>>>an undue psychological burden on those women who must obtain
>>>the procedure by forcing them to justify why their abortion 
>>>should not be viewed as murder and ultimately requiring women 
>>>to literally plead for their lives.
>
>>Oh, nonsense.  Beth is very clearly discussing the decision
>>to abort *viable*, third trimester humans.  At the risk of
>>focusing on *them* for a moment, these would be fetuses that
>>have an excellent chance of survival when disconnected from
>>the woman *intact*.  Requiring women to make the big "choice" 
>>within four or five months of discovering they are pregnant
>>in no way represents an "undue psychological burden". 
>
>is that your professional opinion? or was this just a
>cute way of making the point that you and ms. bartley
>wish to force women to remain pregnant when those
>women wish otherwise?

This was just my way of noting that viable infants should
not be aborted simply because someone has difficulty making
up her mind.  So yes, I would gladly "force" some poor un-
certain woman to remain pregnant in the third trimester in
the absence of medical advice to the contrary.

>>>You my dear are trying to use a sledge
>>>hammer to swat at flies and in the process this will
>>>create additional disadvantages for women.
>
>>It disadvantages women to require that they make their
>>decision within four or five months?  
>
>i think it does. obviously you and ms. bartley don't
>mind imposing your beliefs/morality on those who don't
>share those beliefs/morality.

I'm sorry (though not surprised) to hear that your be-
liefs/morality would favor the wishes of a given woman 
over the life of a viable infant.  

>>>Oh btw Elizabeth dear, the only heros I have are women.
>
>>While such an assertion is probably just coincidental, some 
>>might wonder if this doesn't represent a bit of anti-male 
>>sentiment...
>
>i wonder if your comment doesn't display a bit of
>misogyny. 

I think Linda's comment was far more indicative of 
bias than my own.  Set aside your own prejudices for 
a minute and consider:  If a male poster had written 
"Oh btw, the only heros I have are men", I am confident 
that he'd be maligned unmercifully for his "misogyny".  
Should Linda be exempt from similar criticism because
of her gender?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: DOD: woman killer
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:27:25 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>Sure, it allows the states to require doctors to perform the
>abortion, for example.  But the states are not permitted to
>prohibit any abortion, during any part of the pregnancy. 

While you might prefer women to die from medical complications late in
a pregnancy, most sane people would like to see doctors be able to
save the lives of at least the women by performing a third trimester
abortion.  For that reason alone, most of us think that the clause in
RvW preventing the illegality of such abortions is a good thing.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:10:01 GMT
Distribution: na


In article <1992Nov7.013532.3051@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
 
>I'm not sure if I support restrictions in the 3rd tri-mester or not, but the
>Rev and his ilk do have [IMHO] a valid argument:
 
>The fetus at some point becomes a human and deserving of human rights.
>This point is not clearly at birth, as feti? have survived C-section at X mos.
 
If the fetus survived the C-section, then it is no longer a fetus and
there is no longer any reason to abort it.  So I fail to understand
what this has to do with abortion restrictions.  
 
I personally don't see it as "when does the fetus gain a right to life?~, but
rather "when does the fetus's right to life become more compelling than
the woman's right to her body?"  My opinion is never.  
 
>If the medical profession defined it narrowly as [just example] possible for
>qualified person [require certificate] could hear a heartbeat using tool Y, it
>would be quite difficult for the Rev and his ilk to prevent abortions before
>that.  [Harrassment at clinics notwithstanding.]
 
But the point in trying to restrict 3rd tri-mester abortions is to take
the decision away from the medical profession and give the decision over
to legislators.  The medical profession has no way of making or enforcing
legislation.  The Reverend DOD does not want the decision left up to 
doctors, he would rather he be allowed to make the decision who can or
can not have an abortion.
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:57:13 GMT

From article <1992Nov14.011725.17690@cs.yale.edu>, by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
> In article <1992Nov14.010810.28264@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> is lyman
>>>since GHWB took it on the chin
>>
>>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)
>
> Even if Bill Clinton were to be impeached, the next person in line
> would be Gore, also pro-choice, and after him, Foley, also pro-choice,
> and after him the President Pro-tempore of the Senate, a Democrat, and...
> Well, you get the idea. Clinton being impeached would do your cause
> basically no good whatsoever.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge how little character Clinton actually
has, given you've just conceded to his possible impeachment before he's
even in office :-)   What does that say for _your_ "cause", ay?   As it 
is, the huge mess Clinton will make of the presidency will hand us the
presidency for the _next_ 12 years, just like Carter did for us :-D


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc