HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:03:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug31.124138.2184@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.153208.20600@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
> > In article <1992Aug28.200352.20459@ncsu.edu>
> > dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# ##There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
# ##it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
# ##your valuables.  
# # 
# # Names of states, please?
# 
# Well I don't know, but I've been told: in Texas you can shoot a guy
# walking down the street if he came from your house and you think he
# might have taken something.
# 
# possibly naive Brian McBean

Yes, naive.  Texas law allows use of deadly force to protect
property, but "you think he might have taken something" is a bit
less than knowing that the person stole your stereo and running
down the street with it.

Keep in mind that Texas was the first American state to completely
prohibit the carrying of handguns by all civilians, in 1871.  It's
all been downhill there since.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, I have a head ache.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:41:16 GMT

In article <BtK044.IG4@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>In <1992Aug25.161841.1495@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>Somehow, I don't see why you think that this requires
>making a woman who *does* consider it responsible and
>*does* want one, not have one.  The existence of bacon
>in stores doesn't trash Orthodox Judaism, Southern
>Baptists co-exist fine with beer, why should the
>existence of abortion be a problem for people who
>consider it irresponsible?
>
>Riddle me that.

No riddles, straight talk.  Because the analogies you give are false.

They differ from the abortion situation because in your analogy, only
one person is involved, the responsible party (he who eats the bacon).

In the case of abortion at least one, and depending on your beliefs, two
other people are directly affected by a woman's UNILATERAL decision to
have an abortion, the father and the child.

Find a better analogy, say, drunk driving:

[The above quote modified for a different analogy.]

>Somehow, I don't see why you think that this requires
>making a woman who *does* consider it responsible [to drive drunk] and
>*does* want [to drive drunk], not do so.

>Express beliefs?  Sure, why not.  But you're on the side that
>wants to make laws that *rule out* other people being able to
>practice their beliefs, and has already invaded expression.

Guess what?  You are also on the side of those who want to make laws that
*rule out* other people being able to practice their beliefs.  You want
abortion legal, even though passing law to make it so would violate the
practice of other peoples religious beliefs.

And if you are honest with yourself, I'm sure that you would admit that
you support other laws that restrict people's right to practice their
beliefs.

>Since you've traded the moral high ground for a swamp, do you
>want to re-think your position and try again?

???? What swamp?  What moral high ground?

Why should I re-think my position?  You've given me bad analogy, hypocritical
statements of your beliefs, and NOTHING else to give me even the slightest
reason to question my beliefs.

Try again.  I'm always willing to listen.

When you admit that at the very least, the FATHER has a stake in the abortion,
not just the mother, then we may be able to find a common ground.

>>Who hands out rights?
>
>Isn't that a matter of religion -- a PRIVATE matter?

Nope.  It is also a matter of government -- a PUBLIC matter.

[ Rest deleted because the questions have already been answered, etc. ]

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:58:56 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug26.015209.22867@u.washington.edu>, jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:
> I don't normally follow talk.abortion, but I was wondering about something
> and this seemed to be an appropriate place to ask it. How do pro-choice
> people out there feel about a woman aborting a female fetus because she
> wanted a boy instead? 

Sick mommies, eh?

> Does a woman's right to an abortion include the right
> to abort a female fetus because she would grow up to be a woman instead of
> a man? I don't know whether this happens in the U.S., but it happens in
> other countries.

Doesn't this happen in other countries because they need boys to do
all sorts of heavy labour and girls just can't do that (in their opinion)?
maybe the issue here is male chauvanism which is taken to the extreme
societal level fo ignorance.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:21:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.195638.27981@Cadence.COM> 
phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Before Roe v. Wade was handed down, there was never any constitutional
>> right to kill a member of the human species.  

> Note that Congress has the power to declare war, which give Congress the 
> power to allow members of the human species to be killed.  

Governments don't have rights, people do. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Third party request
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:07:54 GMT

In article <Bu18BA.4oy.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>> The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act also included a provision 
>> which prohibited sex selection abortions, in addition to a  
>> provision which prohibited certain post-viability abortions.  
>> Is that law also constitutional, Ms. Garvin?  

> We weren't discussing constitutionality, were we?  We were 
> discussing whether or not the law was being enforced.  

Sometimes the pro-abortion lawyers won't challenge an 
unconstitutional abortion law if it's never been used 
to prosecute anyone.

And please do answer my question Ms. Garvin -- is the Pennsylvania
law prohibiting sex selection abortions constitutional? 

> I called the state attorney general's office and asked if it
> were currently illegal to violate those sections of the
> ACA.  They said "ye"  

Did you ask them whether they would plan on filing charges 
against a doctor who performed a sex selection abortion? 
Have they ever prosecuted a doctor for performing a sex 
selection abortion?  

And what was the name of the person you spoke to, and what's 
their telephone number? 

>> I hope that you and your pro-abortion buddies will be able to finally 
>> understand that the mere existence of a law does not necessarily 
>> imply that it's constitutional, or that it's being enforced.  

> I hope that you understnad that the mere fact that a law is
> unconstitutional does not prevent it from being enforced.

If an unconstitutional law has never been used to prosecute 
anyone, then sometimes it's not worth the trouble to challenge 
it.  


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34501 alt.flame:12500
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:48:13 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug27.233041.22694@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
...
>|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
>|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |

Does this mean that the NRLC is dedicated to achieving civil rights for 
the unborn?  Or is this your own idea?

Please tell me how you plan on providing a fetus with a voting stylus.  Or
were you planning on restricting a fetus's right to vote?



Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Third party request
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:47:15 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep02.023428.15936@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com
(Larry Margolis) wrote:
> 
> In  <Btx4r8.D50.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> > Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in
> > Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
> > reasoning to me, please?
> 
> He apparently believes that a lie repeated sufficiently often acquires a
> ring of truth.

This is, in fact, Lewis Carroll's First Law of Verisimilitude, originally
stated in "The Hunting of the Snark":

                  Anything I tell you three times is true.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Sources on Abortion safer than giving birth
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:06:58 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] In <1992Sep01.063728.32934@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
] >In  <nyikos.715300439@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] >>
] >> Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
] >> table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
] >> study the rest of the info very carefully.
] 
] >Why is it suspect?  Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions?
] 
] No. Because it does not fit in with what I read in _Aborted Women, Silent
] No More_ nor with what I have learned from Charles Wysong, of the
] American Rights Coalition, both directly and from his _Abortion Injury
] Report_.  I'll have lots more to say over the next couple of months.
] 
] >Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter,

may I recommend that you also try to read a few things
like the JAMA or the NEJM....

Or you can ask our own Dr. Len "potentially soft on communism" Howard
and find out that yes, the ODDS are against mommy_to_be.

Then a little stroll down history lane and notice
all the women we have lost to birthing through out
the anals of history....

now...


What were your Factoids....

ciao
drieux



-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Only God Can Help Us!
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:26:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug21.144112.11237@medtron.medtronic.com>,
  Cameron Kaszas writes:

> Now, my problem.  My closest friends, and even my wife, don't like
> my "new" views on this matter.

In this situation I'd tell them to bite me, but I doubt this would
sit well with you.  The next time you're in a nasty mood and want
to get a rise out of them, tell them you don't believe in God
anymore because "It's silly".

> Since I deeply respect these people, and we stand side by side on
> most other matters, I am worried that I have somehow been led
> astray since stumbling onto this network, and being exposed to
> more secular/liberal/radical thought?  

You are starting to question the dogma that people have been telling
you, i.e. you are becoming an adult.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size
 of feet and quality of handwriting.  The boys with the larger feet were,
 on the average, older."        Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:58:46 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Aug29.180604.13845@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> a) Mr. Margolis claims that only three doctors in the United
>    States perform third trimester abortions, but 60 Minutes
>    claims that only three doctors specialize in late-term
>    abortions.
>
> b) The transcript does not support the claim of Mr. Margolis
>    that these doctors perform abortions only for reasons of
>    serious health problems.
>
> The transcript does not mention the source of Stahl's claim
> about the "three doctors".  I may write to 60 Minutes to ask
> them for a source.  It doesn't appear that Mr. Margolis is
> willing to track down the source.

That's right - I'm not.  As far as I know, it's true.  If you can
list more doctors that perform third tri abortions, or you can
document for me cases of women getting third-trimester abortions
for "frivolous" reasons, I would of course change my tune.  Unlike
some, I don't knowingly pass on lies.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34614 alt.abortion.inequity:3425
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>> I take it you are unaware of the attempts to get either law enacted, or
>> to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion.
>
>Oh - you're confusing pro-choice with "pro-abort".

Oh - you're confusing pro-female-choice with "pro-choice".
Oh - you're confusing pro-second-choice with "pro-choice".


>And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
>They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
>to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
>of other people.

Interesting.  So human fetuses are roughly equivalent to cattle.  
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions.  But one problem
with your analogy is that cattle are property which one person
can own, to the exclusion of others, or which two people can
jointly own, with corresponding rights and liabilities.  Are fetuses
property?  If so, why can't they be jointly owned?  If singly owned,
how can a non-owner have liabilities?


>> The people that are being forced to have abortions now, are the fathers
>> who have no legal recourse to stop a woman from murdering their child.
>
>I assume this is simply emotional rhetoric, and you realize that fathers
>are *not* having abortions, forced or not.  If not, you need to take a
>biology course...

Emotional or not, it is an appropriate metaphor.  Especially on
alt.abortion.inequity.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, thank you.  I gave at the office.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:32:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.195727.13802@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.150632.12762@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
>>perfect, we should even try?
>
>No, try all you want. Don't *preach* it to me, though. In fact, don't *preach*
>it to anybody.

Why not?  More personal beliefs, perhaps?

>David Knapp                               University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 12:29:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>I used to be pro-abort, in fact,

*Were* you?  Or were you pro-choice?  What term did you use then?
And if you didn't describe yourself then as "pro-abort", why are
you using the term now to describe those holding the exact same views?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:34:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.130926.14666@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:


> even if I did my own investigation and came up with the same answer
> reported on 60 Minutes and in the Minneapolis StarTribune, 

The Minneapolis StarTribune and 60 Minutes did not report the
same answer.  

The Minneapolis StarTribune quoted the National Abortion Federation, 
which looks like a pro-abortion organization.

We haven't discovered where 60 Minutes got their information.  Perhaps
they misquoted the National Abortion Federation. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:33:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.032249.28218@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

#Excuse me?  I *did* read most of the thread, and I saw nothing that smacked
#of anti-semitism.

Sigh.  Obviously, I did.  The articles, however, have long since
expired on my machine.  

You can, however, read his characterization of the reform Jewish
belief in personhood as "extreme" in some of his more recent
articles.  

#You misquoted me slightly...I *do* read Doug's posts, and yours, but I tend
#to skin through Doug's, because they are somewhat more verbose than yours,
#indeed, more verbose than they even need to be!

Sorry.  I thought that you might have missed the reference since
you skim rather than read him in painful detail.


#Who?  If you are implying that I am biased in favour of Doug, over you, you
#are incorrect.

Okay.


#(For Pete's sakes, Susan, I was *complimenting* you, you ingrate!  :-)   While
#we don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, at least take a compliment for
#what it is! ... regardless of who originates it.)

Why, thank you, Will.  (Happy now?)

#Well, since you insist on insulting me...  I don't care about your posting
#habits, either.  But insulting people who don't agree with you (and you and
#Doug have *both* done it, isn't about to make *you* look like Albert Einstein
#either!

I've never had any desire to look like Albert Einstein.

#If you two MUST insult each other, could you please do it in alt.flame or in
#private e-mail?  Thank you.

No.  Sorry, but I don't tailor my articles to suit other people.  If 
Holtsinger lies, or if he makes bigotted remarks, I will point it
out publicly.

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

>> Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>> an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>> say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>> womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>> unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>> about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>> Plain and simple.

#Gosh Cynthia, it's been a long long time since anyone's started off with
#such a noisy fireworks display like yours.  It's perfectly ok to not like
#abortions, but I don't think that unsupported opinions are a good basis
#for government regulation of private decisions, do you?

Chris, thanks, I missed this one the first time around.

Cynthia, there is no difference between people, cows, pigs, and chickens,
except that they are along different stages on the path to sentience.
Just because they don't yet have speech or can communicate with us is
no reason to justify killing them. You're talking about life, no matter
what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.

Now doesn't that sound perfectly rational to you?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who owns who?
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:46:07 GMT
 <BtLrFw.KHM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute

In article jamcdani@zia.ucs.indiana.edu says:
>
>In article <92238.224407ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.121610.2140@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca says:
>> >> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> >>>In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>
>> >>>>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.
>> >>
>> >>>So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
>> >>>outweigh the damages?
>>
>> Missed this.  It is not for you to decide.  Parents
>> have the right not to vaccinate their children.
>
>Well, not if they want to send the kids to a public school in Indiana...

But isn't the Republican party jumping up and down about
the rights of parents not to send their children to
public schools?

[deleted the warm fuzzies, this is t.a after all]

>> The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is
>> essentially a moral decision and in a free and democractic
>> society the conscience of the individual must be paramount
>> to that of the state.  Justic B. Wilson
>
>I agree, but then, I'm not sure that the state _has_ a collective
>conscience :)

Yet another reason for the state to mind its own
business, eh.


Linda
--
All I know is that it's a matter of choice
I need to hear myself
I need to own my voice
Livin' in democracy
  The Parachute Club, Freedom Song
Newsgroups: talk.abortion