HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: RE: CHILD SUPPORT FOR A B
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:52:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

I think if you rea the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
and the ZCOde of Fed Regulations governing it, you'll see that the Feds
have given the States *bounties* on taking children, turning the whole
quesiton of pro-choice/not into a genuine issue of political population
control. There is real $$$ being handed out there. It's in the billions
and it isn't being audited. Great scam.
                                                                                                                
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:2681 soc.men:13734
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:03:03 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa

In article <Jul.21.14.45.46.1992.3784@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
#stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
##In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
###
###I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
###ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
###problems might be inherited.
###
###Susan
#
##Good.  If you can't respond to the argument, attack the man.  Typical.
#
#I think a more accurate description of what she said is:
#
#"If you explain yourself numerous times and the man still doesn't get
#it, save your breath and use it for something more entertaining - like
#making fun of him"

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

Stevens seems to be incapable of deciding whether he's
opposed to abortion because of his concern for the fetus
or the sperm donor.  

#Have a nice day John.  

If he can.

Susan
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:54:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul21.164522.14524@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
#In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
##ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
##problems might be inherited.
##
##Susan
#
#Good.  If you can't respond to the argument, attack the man.  Typical.

What man?

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:57:12 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa

In article <Jul.21.14.42.05.1992.3246@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
#
##I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
##ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
##problems might be inherited.
#
##Susan
#
#Or perhaps she new that if she had his child, she'd never be able
#to get rid of him.

I have no doubt that she had her reasons.  :-)

#Susan 
#
#Yes!  There are two of us, although for sometime, poor Stevens thought we
#were the same person.

I think that it's probably easier for him, given his low
opinion of women, to think that all of us are the same.
The name thing just gave him an excuse.

Susan
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:39:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In article <Jul.17.11.06.45.1992.20851@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>
>>>In article <Jul.13.13.09.42.1992.9855@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>>>>>In article <nancyo.710308879@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>

>I miss your point.  Please enlighten me.

This seems to be your overall problem.  You are constantly missing the point,
twisting words around, and disregarding earlier discussions.  I'm tired
of running around in circles with you.

>>We can try to make laws that give legal equality, but when they force a person 
>>to use his or her body for a purpose that he or she finds objectionable, thats
>>where I draw the line.

>Why?  The law does that every day.

How?

>>We can't say:  "I can't do X because of my gender so I will make a person
>>of another gender do it for me."

>You skip a whole lot here.

What did I skip?

>>>I do not have the right.  But that is what this discussion is about.  Maybe
>>>I should.
>>
>>See above.  You don't have the right to force another human being to do 
>>something for you because you can't do it youreself.

>We do have that right.  It is exercised everyday in this country.

Where?

>Yes, we can.  You just dismiss "financial" as if it has nothing to do with
>bodies.  Name me a single job that doesn't require your body!  Money is an
>abstract representation of actual, physical, WORK!

Oh!  I see.  Another implied definition.  How far can you stretch these
definitions before they snap?  Or before you snap?  

I think I'll lurk on this subject for a few more days.  But if I don't
see anything new, I think I'll have to put you in my kill file.  Do
you want me to notify my husband first?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:42:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
>ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
>problems might be inherited.

>Susan

Or perhaps she new that if she had his child, she'd never be able
to get rid of him.

Susan 

Yes!  There are two of us, although for sometime, poor Stevens thought we
were the same person.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: cmrozema@eos.ncsu.edu (CARLYN MICHELLE ROZEMA)
Subject: Breeding
Originator: cmrozema@c00117-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmrozema@eos.ncsu.edu (CARLYN MICHELLE ROZEMA)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:13:30 GMT


I am an owner of a 15 year old Paso Fino mare.She hasn't had a foal since 
she was 6. She hasn't come into heat since about she was 9. A couple months ago
I wanted to try to get a foal from her. So I gave her some hormones. Then I 
bred her with two different stallions in a months time. Even then the vet 
said that she didn't take. Well 3 months later she is definitely preg.
The vet checked her and said she was fine. Then she aborted the foal. To our 
suprise she was carrying twins in two separate sacs....
## Do you think it would be ok to try again?
## Would she most likely have twins again?
## Does this usually happen?
## Is she fine to foal?
Please reply.
                  Carlyn
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Adoption.....if.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.185737.17503@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Jul15.214649.11877@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul14.194921.25155@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>>[Whole lot deleted - it was getting toward 5 screensfull]

More deleted.

>>>I hope that no one thinks that I condone racism, by any group,
>>>but to believe that we will eliminate it from the face of the
>>>earth in less than a couple of generations, is quite idealistic.
>
>>Or ever, considering people still consider adopting a non-white child
>>as being 'too hard' or 'too much of a challenge'. If we see a problem but
>>are afraid to live our own convictions, what good is going to come of 
>>our decisions? Really. Think about it. Unless we take *action*, unless
>
>David, see below where you do agree with me.

I have no aversion to agreeing with you!


>This part almost sounds
>like you are advocating forced action.

I thought I had made that issue *perfectly* clear earlier. Perhaps you had
not followed the whole thread?

>I have one 'major' concern
>with your idea of 'to hell with your limitations, do it anyway'.

I thought I had made a distintion too, ealier, between 'limitations' and
avoidance, between 'can't' and 'won't'.  Most people (IMO) are capapble 
of doing MUCH more than they do, they simply have no desire to try. Your
last sentence is an incorrect interpretation of my philosophy.

>What about the child? Life in an orphanage is bad, but would life
>in a family that becomes disfunctional because they failed at a
>dream be better? Hey, you have your beliefs and I have mine. All
>that I suggested above, was that if we teach our children that
>racism is wrong, we can eliminate the problem (Actually, if
>everyone did it it would be gone in a generation, but I am not
>that idealistic.


And I submit that such a lack of idealism maintains the problem.

>I can't know the racism that black people have
>suffered in this (and other) countries. I had some slight indication
>when I lived in Quebec and people hated me as soon as I opened my
>mouth and spoke english, but that is hardly the same). However,
>I still think that your proposal puts the children at risk, the 
>very ones we want to save become the pawns in a battle.

I had experienced being a minorty once. I was the only white in a class 
I was taking for a semester. It was not comparable to a *life* as a 'minority'
but it was certainly an eye opener.


>
>[Your sig deleted as I don't wish to be part of propogating that trash]

Here, I'll propagate it. 

-- 
"Oh please, Lord, break the curse on women's hearts that says we don't need 
our men.  Break that independence...Help men to rise up to take positions
of leadership and authority that we might submit to them."  -Toni Denver,
 operation rescue member, as she is quoted in Life Magazine, July 1992
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:45:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
>>ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
>>problems might be inherited.
>>
>>Susan

>Good.  If you can't respond to the argument, attack the man.  Typical.

I think a more accurate description of what she said is:

"If you explain yourself numerous times and the man still doesn't get
it, save your breath and use it for something more entertaining - like
making fun of him"

Have a nice day John.  

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Kellmeyer's List of T
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:09:05 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <Jul.21.11.56.53.1992.7552@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
>
>>In article <Jul.14.13.40.02.1992.17424@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>>goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>>>
>>>>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes in alt.abortion.inequity:
>
>>Excuse me, isn't the husband presumed responsible for any children his
>>wife may have? Doesn't that make it his business when his wife gets
>>pregnant, gets her tubes tied, gets an abortion? It would be her
>>business whether he got a vasectomy. I thought all of that was part
>>of the point of marriage. Or maybe it's one-sided.
>
>This is a decision to be made by the spouse in question, not the government.
>Does anyone know if there are any husband notification laws in force any where 
>in this country?  I would be very surprised if there were since Doctor/Patient confidentiality is considered sacred by the courts.

My point is that the law makes the husband responsible for any children
born in wedlock (some states - I don't know how many - consider any
children the wife has that the husband didn't father illegitimate),
so that would give him an interest in whether his wife has an abortion
or not - except that it doesn't. To even things up, how about the
husband/father getting to decide, after a pregnancy occurs, whether he
really wants to support any resulting child? If he has no say, why
should he have to pay?

.sig
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: About those UnBornThi
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:48:36 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul22.200354.26116@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.020303.239422@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##In article <Jul.21.14.45.46.1992.3784@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
###stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
####In article <1992Jul20.210151.52562@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#####
#####I wonder if Stevens has considered the possibility that his
#####ex had an abortion because she was worried that his mental
#####problems might be inherited.
#####
#####Susan
###
####Good.  If you can't respond to the argument, attack the man.  Typical.
###
###I think a more accurate description of what she said is:
###
###"If you explain yourself numerous times and the man still doesn't get
###it, save your breath and use it for something more entertaining - like
###making fun of him"
#
#A mature, adult thing to do.  And since I've explained myself multiple
#times, and you still don't get it, maybe I should start making fun of
#you. . .
#
#Nahhhh!  No sport in it.  Just to damn easy.

Try not to make spelling errors when you think you're
flaming, Stevens.  Some people will take advantage of
it.

I get your meaning just fine.  If you can't control the
abortion decision on a private level (forcing women
who have sex with you to have your baby), then you
want to control it on a public level (no woman
can have an abortion.)  Your selfishness is too
disgusting to be believed.


##Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.
##
##Stevens seems to be incapable of deciding whether he's
##opposed to abortion because of his concern for the fetus
##or the sperm donor.  
#
#Why are the two reasons incompatible?  Why must there be only ONE
#supporting reason?

If you think abortion is murder, then it shouldn't matter
if the fetus has some of your genetic material or not.  Oh,
wait.  I forgot who I was addressing.  

#And I don't oppose legal abortion.  Typical, after all of this, you
#still have no idea of what I've said.

You have said that you can support legislation that makes
abortion illegal because it evens things out.

###Have a nice day John.  
##
##If he can.
#
#Most of my days are good ones.  I especially enjoy reading the mindless
#propaganda on USENET.  It's always good for a laugh, to see people
#spout political cant, without actually thinking through the consequences
#of their beliefs.

I know the consequences of my beliefs.  

I'm glad that my beliefs don't reveal me to be a self-centered
control freak.


##Susan
#
#I know, I know, the OTHER Susan, right?

That's right, Stevens.  There are lots of people who don't
view all women as merely walking vaginas and wombs.  They
have little trouble telling women apart.  

Susan,
who hopes you enjoyed debating CJ in misc.test
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:09:19 GMT


Well, John finally came out and said it, however, I won't copy 4
screensful, I'll just leave the references. The gist of his 
statement was that sex was made pleasurable for puposes of
procreation.

Interestingly (whether you are a Darwinist or Creationist) the
same 'creator' of humans also made cats. Now check with your
local vetrinary on how much 'pleasure' cats get out of sex,
yet we don't seem to lack for cats of all sizes. So, maybe
with humans there just might be another reason for the pleasure
aspect? Maybe just the idea that when both the bodies and the
minds join in gentle pleasure that a different form of commun-
ication might take place?

His driving thread I gather is equality. Well, I could go along
with something like the following.

A couple has an inadverdent pregnancy (well, she has it but he
contributed). Both had previously agreed that such an event
would a) result in an abortion, or b)she would carry to term
and if they did not marry, he would provide full support.

If in a) she changed her mind and he offered to pay the cost
of the abortion, then he is not responsible for child support.

If in b) she changed her mind the about the only thing that
could be done is to have her cover the costs for him to adopt
a suitable child.

Now how you could ever get all of this agreed to in a form
that the courts would accept beats the hell out of me, but
then I'm not a lawyer.

In all that I have read I have failed to find any agreement on
when 'personhood' begins, or even when 'life' begins (these
words are not interchangeable, though some posters seem to
believe so). As a physical matter, it would seem that it comes
down to when a fetus is capable of survival outside of the
womb, assuming 'normal'levels of support. So, despite being
a father and knowing from practical experience that achieving
'personhood' takes some time, I could accept that this point
is where 'life' begins.

However, there are times when you must needs make a choice
between 'lives'. Do you sacrifice your wife for a potential
life? If the woman is capable (i.e., conscious at the time)
she is the final voice, but I presume they would discuss it
but if she cannot be consulted, then the husband gets to
make the decision, and gets to live with it afterward.

In general, apart from the analogy above, since I find the
attempts being made by some to impose outside control over
women's right to decide what they do with their bodies based
on the biological fact that they are the ones who carry the
children totally unacceptable. It simply smacks of the old
male dominance crap.

Hell, I promised myself that I would stay out of this area,
and my newsreader pops up this new group, so I thought I
would at least lokk before cancelling it, should have known
better. Had enough trouble with the horse's arses in t.a.

au'voir

REB
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Why restrict thi (1)
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:39:24 GMT
Reply-To: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Center for Computer Assisted Engineering.

In article <1992Jul23.135324.22716@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust
(John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.010130.204112@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu
(Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >I am interested in seeing this option remain for women in the future.
> 
> Actually, I never said that I want abortions outlawed.  I said that of
> the several possible ways to make the situation fairer, outlawing abortions
> was one possible solution.  And it is most probably the easiest solution
> to enact.  But it is not the best solution, in my opinion.

	I agree.  The best solution to the abortion question would be for no
unwanted pregnancies to occur; failing that, for each pregnant woman to
reject abortion as immoral; failing that, for abortion to be forbidden
by law while providing as much community support for the woman and her
unborn child as possible; failing that, for abortion to be illegal,
period.  Note that the simple outlaw of abortion is the least desirable
option, but one which should be made anyway to protect the life of the
unborn child.
	Of course, if option number one were entirely successful, we wouldn't
need to exercize later options.  But at present, option number one is
failing miserably.  So is option number two.  Community support for
women who choose to reject abortion is present, but sporadic, limited
mostly to small, underfunded pro-life groups who recognize the necessity
of supporting such women.  What remains but option number four: the
outlaw of abortion?
	Am I for sex education, handing out condoms, etc?  I would be if I
thought they would reduce unwanted pregnancies.  I am open to proof,
surveys, expert testimony and other evidence one way or another on this
score.  Can anybody show that in the majority of places where condoms
were passed out and sex education taught, that overall unwanted
pregnancies have decreased?

> >I am very
> >grateful that I had the choice at the time.  I would not
> >be able to look myself in the mirror if I advocated forcing
> >women to carry every pregnancy to term simply because I
> >myself am not capable of getting pregnant.  I know that
> >this doesn't bother some people, but it does bother me.

	Of course.  The fact that you are no longer capable of becoming
pregnant, tragic as it is, is no reason to outlaw abortion.  Much
stronger reasons exist.  Actually, I can't see the relationship between
the fact that you cannot get pregnant and the outlaw of abortion: to me,
at least, they seem like two completely unrelated subjects.

Steve