HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Right to Choose
Summary: Whatever passes the time... 
Organization: Those guys that stomped Texas Tech 34-3 Saturday. 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.194227.10518@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
[deletia, between me and Andrew, unwitting dupe of that perfidious school up
there in Austin :) ]

>Hi guys thanx for thinking of reasons for me.
>
>The fact is I have been busy with school work and repling to the articles
>that are replies of mine I plan to let those die out and when I have
>the spare time I will post the article. Probably Tues because I have
>class from 8am to 8pm on monday and only 2 classes Tues I'll be gon for
>the weekend so if you want to get in touch E-mail

Have fun with that schedule -- I'm staying up late on Sunday night (well,
late when you consider I have to be up at 6:15 in the morning) to tie up
some loose ends in this newsgroup myself.  Get it done when you can -- your
classes should come first.  (Yes, there *is* life away from Usenet.)

--PLH (now, if we could just thin out that *&^%$#@! traffic jam on FM 1774
trying to get to the Renaissance Festival...)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The rights of children
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 05:46:45 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 <1992Nov2.194056.755@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct31.201327.22484@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com
>   (Ray Fischer) writes: >
>
>>Pregnancy and birth will probable cause permanent damage and has
>>a chance of death.  It tends to require at least a week away from
>>work, and costs thousands of dollars.
>
>In the case we are discussing, the cost is born by *me*, as I am
>responsible for my daughter's health care.  And most adolescents
>don't have careers.  More likely, the lost time at work would be
>*mine*.

Do you expect you'd have a difficult labor?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Charles Don Hall -- are you paying attention?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:01:13 GMT


Doug says it was all a joke.

Peter says he thought it was all a joke, followed closely by an
assertion that the big, bad math prof was protecting someone.

Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve has not been heard from.  (Thank you, Patrick)

Darcy is liable to look in Black's, and tell us that "joke" and
"protection" do not mean what we think they do.

It's 8:00 pm here.  Why shouldn't I expect the sun to rise?

ps  one thing you can be sure of, however:  bats are better than frogs

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:54:42 GMT

In article <5PTSBN1Q@cc.swarthmore.edu> 
auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:

>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Actually, Roe v. Wade does not allow a state to prohibit an abortion 
>> on the day before birth, if that abortion is necessary to preserve
>> the woman's ``health''.  In essence, Roe v. Wade is unrestricted
>> abortion-on-demand, all the way up to the point of birth.  

> Doug knows where he stands.  I agree with him.  

Thank you, I'm glad to see you have the intellectual honesty to
admit the truth. 

> I dislike the notion of
> abortion-on-demand myself.  I do not think, however, that the legal system
> should be used to impose morality.  The law exists for the protection of
> society, not as a vehicle for forcing one person's notions of right and
> wrong upon another.

But just about every law is based upon morality -- murder laws
are based upon on the notion that it's wrong to kill innocent
people.  Abortion laws would extend that concept to all innocent 
human beings.  

>-dave


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A Call To High Holy JIHAUD!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:29:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.212522.24219@wetware.com>
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>] (And hopefully sometime after FOCA passes, the Supreme Court will
>] bring itself to overturn Roe and *finally* admit that several specific
>] rights to privacy do not a generic right to privacy make.)

>] Pro-Choice              Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>]             Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

>Beth, 

>as you have brought up this Point, I must take up
>the sword and Oppose you on this Point.

>That there have been specific enumerations of the 'right to privacy'
>does not mean that the 'generic right of privacy' has NOT been
>reserved unto the PEOPLE!

To the states or the people, drieux....

>I do NOT see how you wish to deprive a FREE SOCIETY of
>the Rights that are Reserved UNTO IT, collectively and
>specifically, merely as you do NOT wish to admit to
>the fundamental grounds of 'british common law' as
>the seed bed from which american jurisprudence blooms!

I'd be interested in seeing what in British common law you think
guarantees a right to privacy.  I think the whole point of saying that
the rights granted in the Constitution are not intended to deny or
disparage other rights posessessed by the people was to protect rights
already guaranteed by other sources: the state constitutions and
British common law.  So anything in British common law guaranteeing a
right to privacy would obviously be important to my view of the
matter....

Anyway, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, it's not a matter of
my wanting to disparage rights possessed by the people, it's a matter
of my being scared shitless of a Supreme Court claiming things are in
the Constitution that aren't in there because the Supreme Court is
almost impossible to rein in....

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46874 alt.abortion.inequity:4882 soc.men:18745 alt.dads-rights:2562
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 10:59:45 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <92311.015643DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu> <DAB112@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>why don't
>we start from scratch again?  It makes for easy reading.

Generally the reason we don't start from scratch is *not* because we like
hard reading, but because starting from scratch also makes paraphrasing
(and possibly RESTATING) someone else's argument too easy.  Which leads to
flame fests.  Which we *all* want to avoid (-:.

("Who's 'we'....")

>I'll begin.  Now, Don, you replied to a statement made by Adrienne, I
>believe, (funny she is posting to **dad's** rights, don't you think?)

Why?

What's funny about that?

I have a dad of my own, some of my good friends are dad, and my children
have a dad.

>that fathers are positively fawned upon when they show fatherliness, or
>however she put it, correct?  You said that it was definitely a DOWNSIDE.

>And to Adrienne... what would give you reason to say something like that??

Like what?  Don said it was a downside, after I said it people fawned on
dads who meet their parental responsibilities.  Do you disagree that people
fawn on dads who meet their parental responsibilities?  Of course, some
people still ignore dads in the equation.  I think both camps are a little
weird, but that's neither here nor there.  Why would I say that?  Because
I see it.

>statement -- that it was a hit below the belt for YOU because it's good that
>fathers are doing wonderful things for AND WITH their children.

See, this is where paraphrasing gets you.  

I believe I mentioned it was an upside.  That would seem to accord more with
a positive statement than a negative statement.

Whatever do you think is causing you to read this 'upside' into some kind of
hit below the belt?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:02:46 GMT

In <Bx9n9K.Mu2.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>The Reverend Holtsinger has a problem with telling the truth about
>Roe v. Wade.  He hopes to fool newcomers by spouting his lies
>and setting followups to talk.abortion so that the people in
>other groups won't see the refutations.

Funny, I don't see "misc.test" and nothing else up there: I see 5, count
em, 5 newsgroups, all legitimate.  Must have something to do with how
confident Susan is in the rightness of her side.  Dream on, Susan.

>  Chris Lyman has recently
>reposted the relevant passage from Roe.  I'll give it broader
>play here - the emphasis was added by Chris.

The following is NOT the relevant part of Roe.  It merely gives the
theory.  The part that gives the practice comes later.

>	On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
>	argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
>	terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
>	whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
>	Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all
>	in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
>	support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
>	unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy
>	also  acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by
>	that right is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly
>	assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining
>	medical standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT
>	IN PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
>	COMPELLING TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE
>	ABORTION DECISION.  THE PRIVACY RIGHT INVOLVED, THEREFORE, CANNOT
>	BE SAID TO BE ABSOLUTE.  In fact, it is not clear to us that the
>	claim asserted by some *amici* that one has an unlimited right to
>	do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the
>	right of privacy previously articulated in the  Court's decisions.
>	The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind
>	in the past. [citations omitted]"

Now, Susan, let's see you post the part where it is spelled out in black
and white what restrictions states are or are not allowed to impose.
In return, I shall post the relevant passages from RvW and DvB about 
just how broadly the term "health" is understood by Blackmun.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 20:43:45 GMT

In <1d6ns3INN2a3@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.032453.22172@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>[...]

>>An unfertilized egg "has a chance to fully mature if given the
>>chance."  What makes a zygote so much more special than an
>>unfertilized egg?

>An implanted zygote has a significantly better chance of maturing than an
>unfertilised egg has.  75%?.  The chances of an unfertilised egg (or a sperm
>for that matter) growing into an infant are negligible - 0% is a good
>approximation (probably much better than the 75% figure above).

>Chances of an unimplanted zygote maturing? 35%?  Chances of a foetus?
>Probably better than 95%.

>In short the special thing about a z/e/f is that it enjoys a significantly
>higher expectation of becoming an infant, than any _other_ thing which is not
>an infant does.

>I'd also like to suggest that "what is so special about a zygote" is the
>primary reason why many pregnant women _elect_ _not_ to have an abortion, and
>long may it continue to be so.

I can't say I am glad that Frank is pro-choice, but I *am* glad he 
decided to stick with this newsgroup.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:07:06 CST


In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> >
> >>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
> >>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
> >>supreme court.
> >
> >Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (at least, he said he would),
> >and will use R v. W  as a litmus for Supreme Court candidates (at least,
> >he said he would).
> >
> >Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...
> 
> Not a flame, just my $.02, the justices already on the court were appointed
> for a lifetime term, so Clinton can't appoint any new people until one of
> them retires.

Justice Blackmun made it clear at the time of the PA (Casey) decision that
he would not be able to last 4 more years on the Court.  Justice White is
~75, and Stevens ~72, so they may not last either.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Summary: Kevin's Komplete Kluelessness Kontemplated... 
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.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 19:26:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.191213.14422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> [Cochran's restriction, criticized]
>>
>>Secondly, Cathi Cook has recently expressed a disdain for "feelgood" 
>>legislation, which if I recall, she defined as legislation which addresses
>>problems not actually known to exist at the time of enactment. 
>
>I _knew_ I had her exact definition quoted somewhere! Here it is, belatedly:

[Re-post deleted]

>What the hell is the point of passing Cochran's restriction?

Kevin, please provide the evidence where I called for the passage of
"Cochran's restriction"...

--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:09:53 GMT

In <1992Nov5.155055.28256@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU 
   (David Knapp) writes: >

>It seems to me that one of the largest deciding factors, along with the
>economy, in pushing Clinton past the finish line was abortion. It seems
>hat few voted 'for'  WClinton (or even 'for' Perot) but did this as a 
>vote *against* Bush.

Exit polls revealed that only 11% of voters thought that abortion was
the most important factor in the race.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:42:45 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:
>>>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>>> abortions?
>
>>> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

None.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:46:40 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
->>where does it do that, ray? it looks to me like it
->>refers to positions, not labels.
->Clue:  I don't care what you think Ms. Bartley's position is.  

that's nice.

->I can find out for myself from Ms. Bartley's posts what 
->her opinion is.

sure you can. here: i'll help you out.

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

->If you disagree with her, say so and say why.  If you agree with her 
->say so and say why.  

did you somehow become t.a.'s moderator? are you
empowered to tell people what to post?

->If all you want to do is try and establish that 
->Ms. Bartley is anti-choice, go somewhere else.  

are you also empowered to tell people where to post?
gosh! do post your credentials so everyone will know
from whence your authority comes.

->If you don't have an
->opinion of your own, go somewhere else.  alt.flame seems to be far
->better suited to your style of posting.

i see. well, i will see when you display your
credentials.

->If you can't have a life, at least pick on someone else who doesn't
->have a life.

was my quoting ms. bartley's views on abortion in
talk.abortion picking on her?

->>do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
->>abortions, ray?

do you want to imprison the women who have "banned"
abortions, ray?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 01:26:30 GMT


jjp>In article <1992Nov5.205434.369@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov5.162618.15721@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
jjp>>In article <1992Nov3.204620.2480@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

jjp>>I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
jjp>>to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
jjp>>between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
jjp>>to save her life 
 
dk>Now don't all you women folk just feel privileged as all hell.  Jeffrey
dk>has actually decided that he will allow you to live if the circumstances
dk>meet his criteria.  Ain't he one swell guy?  Despite his strong moral 
dk>beliefs, he has decided to grant y'all life.  I can hear a big loud 
dk>Thank you to Jeffrey now.
 
jjp>Please Please  No Applause No really Please no Applause
jjp>Well Thank you Thank you Very Much !!!!! :-)
 
Your welcome Jeffrey.
 
jjp>Dan,

jjp>What exactly is your problem I try to make a concession because I feel that
jjp>it is important and you try and make me into a fool? I must admit i do 
jjp>appreciate what an ass you are.
 
You missed my point Jeffrey.  I was telling women they should
thank you for the wonderful concession you have agreed to make
toward them.  We are humbled in your presence and these small
tidbits you choose to throw thier way are way generous.  We
know how hard it is for you to make these wonderful concessions,
and I sure hope women show you the proper gratitude.
 
I couldn't possibly make you into a fool.  You posted many 
articles here in T.A. long before I started replying to you.
 
jjp>-Jeff Price
 
Dan King
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: usa says the unborn are not alive.
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:40:23 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <markts.721270292@mcl>, by markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.):
 
>  i think i have seen enough scriptures pulled
>  out of context to support the anti-choice
>  movement.

The absurdity of the following is obviously designed to illustrate
some perceived absurdity in the preceding.  I'm intrigued by
the "scriptures pulled out of context" that you have "seen".
Would you care to provide more info?

>  now i will turn the tables and pull a law out
>  of context to prove the us government does not
>  recognize a fetus as living.
> 
>  our laws do not see those born in other countries
>  (outside us property) as americans without 
>  substantial paperwork and proof. it is where you are
>  born that matters. not where you were conceived.
>  the point where life begins is where your
>  citizenship begins.
> 
>  that concludes this week's invention exchange.
>  what do you think sirs?

Good thing I'm a male :-)

>  mark.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion