HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:02:27 CST

In article <markp.726770340@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.015320.11854@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>And until you also
>>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
>>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
>>hypocrisy.
>
>If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
>child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
>able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)
>
There is some arrogance inherent in the belief that
even you are 'able to evaluate the truth of this
statement'.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:52:39 GMT

In article <C0KBxJ.10x@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> My remarks are directed at ideas not people.  

When you said, in our recent discussion elsewhere, that my
"emotional detachment is admirable," that was directed at me,
not at my arguments.  When you said earlier that I was 
"Spockian" in my use of logic, that was directed at me, not
at my arguments.  When you are admittedly and deliberately
sarcastic in our discussion, that is not the work of someone
addressing ideas, but a person.  You, in fact, engage in a
great deal of "people-directed" discussion, and it is extremely
unnecessary.  In fact, just today I read something from you
where you tried to justify your sarcasm by saying something about
me being "thick-skined."

Dean Kaflowitz
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion (again)
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:03:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <markp.726863336@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
}In <7z-3pxc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
}
}>referring to abortion,
}>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>->There is absolutely no other situation in which
}>->an individual is inside the body of another.  Think about
}>->it a minute.  There is no useful analogy.
}
}>i agree fully with galen's comments.
}
}I strongly disagree. Analogy is an indispensible component of rational
}discourse about the real world. If we completely rule out analogies
}to abortion, we leave ourselves no ground for meaningful discussion.
}(Of course, all analogies have their limits, and we must be careful
}to see what those limits are in any case.)

The fact that the two situations are not analogous does not mean
or imply that there can be no rational discussion of the two.  
Neither does it "completely rule out analogies."   It simply
means that the two things are too different to draw meaninful
conclusions about one from the other.  It doesn't mean that rational
discussion cannot be carried out, as you seem to imply.

I knew that thinking was hard for some people...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Minor Request for Assistance
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:12:19 GMT

james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] good for her. i'm pleased she found life after usenet.
] 
] -> If we want to talk about folks running away from talk.abortion,
] -> who can forget Phil S. who was such a major trumpeter of the
] -> traditional 'thou shall not kill' moral dogma right up until
] -> the Persian Gulf War..... Then His confussion about 'killing'
] -> vs. the use of Air Power lead him to opt for other
] -> tompics....
] 
] heh. i remember dear old phil. he's one of the
] hypocrites who disappeared. some of them are still
] here, posting regularly.

James,

Honey BunchKin, Could You Please Help the Young Ossifer
who has come into our Midst to understand that allowing
other to do that which you may not be at liberty to do,
is not a Moral Complication.

Its Why Corpsmen do NOT carry SideArms.....


ciao
drieux

ps: Or does we needeth to explain FragBait.....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:39:00 GMT

In <1993Jan11.015320.11854@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>>>What does a human's right to life have to do with pregnancy?  OK, so
>>>the fetus has a right to life.  That does not, however, also imply it
>>>has the right to use anyone else's body while exercising that right.
>>
>>Exactly the argument defused by my original statement.

>BFD.  Your opinion is worth no more than my own.  

If any proposition concerning abortion is no more than a matter of
opinion, why are you bothering to post to, or read, t.a ?

>And until you also
>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
>hypocrisy.

If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:55:39 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan6181053@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <C0GDvn.DxE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>   In article <PATRICK.93Jan4205438@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
>   patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <C0CAu1.Moo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
writes:
>>
>>   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>   ....
>
>>   >
>>   >   Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.
>>
>>   >Of course -- babies and adults have both been born, nitwit.  Fetuses and
>>   >embryos haven't.  Why all the difficulty with such simple English?
>
>   Maybe its because they use the very 'uncommon' definition of child in that
>   radical underground dictionary, Webster's Ninth Collegiate.
>
>Webster's ninth makes no distinction between "baby" and "adult"?  I find
>that rather hard to believe -- and if only I had known, I could have voted
>for Ike in '56, since I *was* eighteen months old at the time.
>
>Maybe they want to deliberately blur the meanings of such terms as to make
>it that much easier to get their agenda forced on the rest of us?
>
>--PLH, pro-choice and unrepentant about it -- and the wife and I vote.

Sorry, I thought you were making a distiction between the unborn child (Fetuses
and embryos) and "babies and adults"

- Paul
>
>
>--
>
>
From: mch@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Surrey, British Columbia, CANADA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:47:45 GMT

In article <C0MyzH.Bxv@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>
>Further, if abortion is not a medical issue, why should the taxpayer, whose
>religious morals disagree with abortion have to pay through the state for
>abortions?
Are you proposing that we as taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything
we find morally offensive?

Say personally I find the military morally offensive.
Then should I get a x% discount on my tax bill.

Mark
-- 
Mark Henderson, SoftQuad Inc, 108-10070 King George Hwy, Surrey, B.C. V3T 2W4
Internet:  markh@wimsey.bc.ca, mch@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca, mch@holonet.net
UUCP: {van-bc,sq}!sqwest!mch Telephone: +1 604 585 8394  Fax: +1 604 585 1926
RIPEM public key available by Email/finger mch@holonet.net/keyserver
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Another Dopey Rape Analogy, but I LIKE it
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:40:16 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

I am a woman who does not wish to be raped.  That is, having sex against
my will.  I could completely eliminate the possibility of rape by working
from home, never leaving the locked house, having groceries and videos
delivered into a safety chute, no connection to the outside world except
for tv, telephone, and modem.  But let's say I don't want to live within
this limited world, satisfying as it could be to some people.  I venture
outside, taking precautions such as keeping mace in my purse, attending
self-defense classes, and keeping keys splayed through the tight gaps in
my fist when I walk in questionable areas.

But alas, one day I _am_ raped.  He penetrates me, and I experience
nauseous waves of pain and violation.  All I want is him OUT OF MY BODY.
I manage to throw him off and use my training to keep him from attacking
me again.  This does, however, involve deadly force.  I kill him.

When talking about this experience, years later, with members of my church
group, I find their faces go white with mute shock.  Sympathy for me in
that horrific situation?  No.  Horror that I killed the rapist, and as
they wagged their fingers at me, they intoned that when I stepped outside
of my house I knew I was taking a chance.  Freedom to move about, they said,
means you take responsibility for the bad consequences-- you cannot kill,
you could have stayed safe.  It is your fault.  Does that mean, I choked out,
that I can't even defend my life, limb, and sanity?  Yes, they lectured.
Because you didn't remain a recluse, if you get raped, well, that's what
you get.  It's as natural as breathing.  You murderess.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: A Minor Request for Assistance
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:45:31 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ->james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
] ->] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ->] -> If we want to talk about folks running away from talk.abortion,
] ->] -> who can forget Phil S. who was such a major trumpeter of the
] ->] -> traditional 'thou shall not kill' moral dogma right up until
] ->] -> the Persian Gulf War..... Then His confussion about 'killing'
] ->] -> vs. the use of Air Power lead him to opt for other
] ->] -> tompics....
] ->] 
] ->] heh. i remember dear old phil. he's one of the
] ->] hypocrites who disappeared. some of them are still
] ->] here, posting regularly.
] 
] ->James,
] 
] ->Honey BunchKin, Could You Please Help the Young Ossifer
] ->who has come into our Midst to understand that allowing
] ->other to do that which you may not be at liberty to do,
] ->is not a Moral Complication.
] 
] ->Its Why Corpsmen do NOT carry SideArms.....
] 
] that it is. as for your unlearned friend, perhaps he
] understands that which you suggest he doesn't
] understand, which would imply his position was actually
] based on some other, ummmm, urge.

BummerAtions....

You mean that holding the position that anyone who
will allow another to do what they can not morally do
puts all Combat Medics into the catagory of......

] ->ps: Or does we needeth to explain FragBait.....
] 
] i think that might be a bit frightening in this
] context. but you decide.
 
Gee, You might be right....

with an antiCorpman attitude like this Young Ossifer
has, perchance he MIGHT not want to get his self hurt.....

Maybe he might think about this the next time he wants
to call out "Corspman UP!"


ciao
drieux

ps: for the slow readers in talk.abortion, the point
that is being developed here is that one should be
very, very, very careful about calling as a hypocritical
argument, the notion of allowing others to do that which
one may not personally hold as moral.....

Either that or reconsider:

1. living in the USA

2. getting near a combat unit


Now what this has to do with the talk.abortion, 
is the humour that goes with TrendyLittleProLifers who
have NOT thought through their arguments, and need to
get a small clue about reality.


ObdittoHeadIsms: Any More Fun and Trendy little
idiot Arguments we need to sort out??????






-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: squirrel@world.std.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:50:46 GMT

In article <C0JyD0.Kpq@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
> ... No matter what, it does come down to the question,
>"Is abortion murder?"

And the Scriptural answer to that question is a resounding No!  The
supporting Biblical verses have been posted many times in this group.
Listen, you are not arguing against me or any other mortal.  You are
arguing against the Bible--the Word of God.

>  ... If it is not, abortion could still be a
>sin for a Christian to get one, because she would have to trample over the 
>consciences of other Christians to get one.

Why?  Your conscience counts nothing in the eyes of God.  Bible should
be the only guidance to the Christian conduct.  There are Christians,
such as Quakers, Mennonites, ..., who are pacificists, and do we
trample over their consciences by supporting our armed forces?
Do you have to burn your draft card in order not to trample over
their consciences?

And many Christians consider it is wrong to legally restrict woman's
right to abortion.  By your own logic, the anti-abortionists are
sinning by trampling over the consciences of these Christians.


Regards,
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Peter & Gordon don Ted don Alfred
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:09:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.022358.8826@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.725748973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Dec30.004116.8052@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><nyikos.725147807@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>><1992Dec22.010745.13877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>...
>>>>I posted "The Mendacity of Susan Garvin, Part 1" just now.  There will
>>>>be SEVERAL more parts to this series, unlike the one-post shot against
>>>>Gordon Storga, who is turning out to be much less malicious in his 
>>>>accusations than Susan.  I've even developed a bit of fondness for him,
>>>>as for a wayward child.  And he is the child of his parents, and of the 
>>>>universe, as pointed out in the fictional dialogue with Suzanne.  He is 
>>>>also a child of the 20th century, of which you will be reading more in
>>>>upcoming posts, but y'all will have to wait a while unless bozos like
>>>>Novak and Garvin and Mezias and Lefty and Kaflowitz decide to post 
>>>>*documented* accusations against me, thereby reducing their number a
>>>>hundredfold.
>>
>>>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>>>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?
>>
>>Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
>>others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
>>rest of his net.life.
>>
>>>Thanks.
>>
>>You're welcome.
>
>Gee, Peter, I don't suppose you'd mind if I called you Uncle also?  I mean,
>I've already got a Daddy, and you sound like _such_ a perfect person to be
>my Uncle.  We could go horseback riding during the summer, and...

Nononononono Keith! You are *not* to bring PHoney into the family! I
know, you've got this thing for picking up stray animals and such, but
there's a limit...
Besides, if you bring him into the family, our cummulative SAT and IQ
scores would just *plummet*, and we'd never be able to post them on
the net... ;)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your emplyer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:31:19 GMT

In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Deletions]

>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. 
You don't consider contraceptive failure (as in, the surgery didn't
work) to be a case in which the woman was denied her right to avoid
being pregnant?

>As for probable death to the mother: when
>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>
Excellent. I'm sure that women who choose abortions will have no
difficulty telling you that their life is more important to them.
*Every* pregnant woman is taking a substantial risk to her health and
life. So it's nice to see that you have decided to join us in allowing
her to choose to abort that fetus.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion