HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part the last!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:31:59 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Finally done: Sorry again about this, I have this problem with article
length constraints periodically and none of the systems people here
seem to know what causes it:

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):

>I was under the impression that people with lung cancer that goes
>untreated generally don't survive, while people with pregnancies that
>are not terminated generally don't die.

I was merely trying to figure out which is part of the `universal
order' as you have defined it: death from lung cancer or death from
pregnancy.  Generally, I believe women should have access to all
options that allow them to prevent and treat potential causes of
death, whether the cause is malignancy or pregnancy.  My suggestion
was simply that if death from pregnancy is more common than death from
lung malignancy among women, then your universal order argument
mitigates for making health options more available for pregnancy than
lung cancer.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: A Hopeful Sign
Summary: tv addicts
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:20:22 GMT

In article <+wt1!x-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#Heard on CNN this evening:
#
#"About three dozen anti-abortion protestors tried to shut down a Boston
#clinic yesterday, but they were met by over 500 abortion rights 
#supporters..."

Heh.  

#CNN also reports that OR has announced a change of tactics.  Instead
#of trying to shut down individual clinics, they will now target Bill
#Clinton directly.  If this were the military, wouldn't that be called
#mutiny?  (resist temptation here, oh drieux...)

I wonder how this fits in with Terry's "If you think abortion
is murder, why don't you act like it?" line.  I'm glad that
they've chosen to harass one man rather than hundreds of women,
but I don't know what they hope to accomplish.  I also
wonder if the troups will fall in line behind the leaders, or
if they'll rebel and continue to block clinics.

(There were >80 arrests in Philadelphia at a PP clinic on Saturday.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:11:12 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>I would like to thank Brian Ceccarelli for reminding us that
>throughout history people have been killing children and denying
>them the right to life.  

And the most recent example would be...hmmmmm...George Bush, right?

            -rocker
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: 17 Nov 92 17:32:46 GMT

In <1992Nov10.062205.11523@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>I see Peter got his system working again.  Coincidently, I'm sure, my
>responses to his last flood of posts has probably expired.  If you wish to
>me to repost them just let me know.

Thanks.  I saved your reply to "Trumped-up....4, 5, and 6" but your reply
to Case #3 expired before I could get to it.  Other posts we can deal with
as time permits, but I would appreciate a re-posting of your reply in re
Case #3.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:01:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.152958.6298@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>eb>In article <1992Nov19.192808.662@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eb>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>dk>In article <1992Nov18.175129.12959@nas.nasa.gov>
>dk>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

>rf>Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
>rf>right of a woman to end the pregnancy? 

>The abortion question is a case of conflicting rights.  The right of 
>the fetus versus the right of the woman.  If you want to answer this
>conflict with legislation, the legislation would have to give the 
>right to one side at the expense of the other.  Ray asked if it was
>possible to answer this conflict by ensuring both rights.  This is
>not possible when they are conflicting rights like this.  I would 
>say there are non-legislative ways to do this.  There are ways to 
>lesson the conflict by encouraging one side or the other to give
>up some of their rights for the other.  But legislation does not 
>have the ability to do this. 

>Of course I could be wrong about all this and perhaps there is some
>sort of magical legislation that I am not aware of.  I'd be 
>interested in hearing it.

Well, there's legislation that can do this, but it's not the sort
you're thinking of -- laws along the lines of "Medicare shall in all
cases pay the medical bills for premature infants" are legislation
too, after all.

In general, I agree with you that laws enacted to protect fetuses will
inevitably injure the woman's right to end her pregnancy, to a greater
or lesser degree depending on the law in question.  In theory, a law
saying "All steps which would help the fetus without negatively
affecting the woman shall be taken at taxpayers' expense" need not
affect the woman's right to end her pregancy -- but in practice, with
the doctors worrying about getting in trouble for killing the baby
when the woman wasn't at all *that* much risk, it would.

However, I think a law (in current practice through definitions rather
than being passed as a law, I believe) saying "Any z/e/f delivered
alive whether by choice or by a botched abortion is a person; killing
him/her is murder and allowing him/her to die is manslaughter by
neglience" does not damage a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
(Of course, it doesn't protect *fetuses* either....)

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.055146.5262@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) 
writes:

}Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
}fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  

Depends on the cat.  If it eats bats, I'd tend to agree with you, but
if it eats 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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:17:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.143315.19418@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.001904.27701@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.194234.14911@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>>>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>>>>That's something I call a lie.
>>>>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>>>>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>>>>to be a lie.
>>>Are you saying that all lies must be deliberate, Eric? You have a narrower
>>>definition than I do -- I'd count something as a non-deliberate lie if it
>>>evidenced a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>Yes, well I would suggest that we have different standards, then.
>If I accused you, right here and now, of raping kittens for fun, would you
>consider that a "lie", Eric? After all, I don't know that you DON'T, so you
>couldn't say I was _deliberately_ speaking an untruth.
Agreed. Substitute believe for know. In my original statement.

>She said "we've just seen Steve Kellmeyer [...] come out of the closet on this 
>issue", implying that he both a) supported child support reform, and b) has 
>recently exposed his pro-life agenda. Truth is, he doesn't support child 
>support reform, and he's never made a secret of his pro-life agenda. Adrienne 
>knows this, or SHOULD know this, given all of the Kellmeyer crap that's been 
>posted here. The statement illustrates "reckless disregard for truth".
It's certainly untrue. I'm not going to judge whether it's reckless or
not.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:23:52 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <3159@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays):
> Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
> abortion is wrong.
> 
> Sometimes contraceptives fail and children get born.  This shows that
> contraceptives are wrong.
> 
> Sometimes people fail at abstinence and children get born.  This shows
> that abstinence is wrong.
> 

Sometimes people fail at using twisted logic to make a point.  This 
shows that the quality of the original assertion has everything to
do with the success of the argument.  It might not be wrong, but it
sure does make the poster look silly...

> Joe

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Does "Pro-life" help the fetus they "save"?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:56:27 GMT
Distribution: na

My perception of the pro-life movement is that they only seem to care
about preventing the abortions.  They don't really care if the child
they save is hungary/abused/neglected because the mother or father was
to poor/uneducated/mentally ill/etc.  

It's great that you saved their life, but now what?  Not everybody can
be a good mother, or father.  If the pro-life movement finds a way to
stop the hundreds of thousands of abortions per year, how are we as a
nation going to handle all of the unwanted children.  Granted, not all
of them will be unwanted, but a signifigant portion will be.  

The mother will have the "option" of keeping the baby or putting it up
for adoption.  If she puts the child up for adoption, he or she, will
weigh down an already pathetic adoption network.  Unwated children are
sitting around rotting wating to get adopted as it is.  What happens
when and extra 200,000 children per year get put into the adoption
centers?  What do you think their chances of getting adopted are?  I
doubt they are very good.

If the mother decides to keep a child she can not finincially support,
are you(pro-life supporters) going to flip the bill for all the new
people going on welfare?

I know I'm setting myself up for major flames, but do you "pro-life"
believers ever think about what happens to the children after they are
born?  Do you care?


-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and his sources or Justice Blackmun, you choose.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:17:26 GMT
Summary: If he weren't so boring I'd catch more of this stuff

In article <33012@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> In his most recent post in the thread Christian values or chauvinism
> Petie <nyikos.722210537@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu writes that Justice Blackmun is a hack legal
> scholar who based RvW on "meager and biased documentation,"
> particularly an article by Cyril Means in New York Law Forum.


I don't read all that Nyikos writes because the "Doctor" is not
especially interesting.  Thanks to Stephen Mezias for following
the "Doctor's" article, else I wouldn't have read this.
Assuming Mr Mezias' summary is correct, I note that Justice
Blackmun was a Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard, graduate of Harvard
Law, clerked on the EIghth Circuit Court, and had sixteen years
of private practice along with 10 years as general counsel for
the Mayo Clinic (one of the reasons he was chosen to write the
majority opinion in Roe v Wade was his experience in medical
law).   If these are the qualifications of a "hack legal scholar"
then I wish I were such a hack.  To say that his decision was based
on "meager and biased documentation" is someting of an evasive
statement.  One might say that this article I am writing now is
so based, since it arises from the article I am following, but in
fact this article is based both on the article I am following,
my lengthy experience in this forum, and a number of articles
I have read about the Supreme Court and Justice Blackmun in
particular.  If I read the "meager...documentation" charge
correctly, the "Doctor" seeks to imply that Justice Blackmun's
researches were inadequate.  I recommend that anyone who is interested
in just how extensive those researches were read The Brethren.
Aside from its being a very interesting book in general, it goes
into detail over how extensive Justice Blackmun's researches on the
abortion issue were.  In fact, the abortion decision was considerably
delayed because Justice Blackmun was so intent on making an
exhaustive search of the literature.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: con't:The Silent Holocaust
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:43:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The majority of abortions are a result of convienence!  Rape and incest are 
horribly wrong.  But it is still a human life growing inside the womb.  Like
I said before, there are no perfect solutions and this is not a perfect 
society.  If it were, there would be no rapists and there would be no child
molesters.  And I would not have to be voicing these opinions.

     I call it a silent holocaust because that is what is it.  A holocaust
is a mass killing of a group of people.  And the people who are being murdered
cannot voice their pain.  

     Thanks for listening to me, I haope you all understand  me a little 
better.

                             -Keira Hauck

P.S.  What is a pazooza??
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:19:52 GMT

From article <adams.722195596@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:
> 
>>In article adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>From article by strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom):
>>>>>
>>>>> The NT God judges us for our beliefs only, and
>>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Not at all.  This is only Protestant dogma.   For a fuller expression
>>>>of Christianity, see Catholicism.
>>>A (minor) nit...Lutherans are catholic.  And so are Eastern & Greek
>>>Orthodox and Anglicans.
>>>
>>Your nit needs to be picked a bit more...
>>Evangelical Lutherans are QUITE protestant...
>>Tho, I do agree the Missouri Synod-varieties are Catholics without a pope...
> 
> I am ELCA.  We are catholic....(ie universal).  The intent of Luther was to
> reform catholicism.  ELCA considers itself a reform movement within
> catholicism.
> 
> Protestant and catholic are *not* mutually exclusive...


Hence the Ecumenical Movement.

Are you ready to come home yet, Steve?  ;-)


>  -Steve

Suzanne.
From: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:26:38 GMT
Reply-To: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: jlharris@c00557-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu


In article <1992Nov19.214208.3324@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
.
|> >|> >There are no laws against having sex, and there should not be any, there
|> >|> 
|> >|> (Actually, there are; I agree that there *shouldn't* be any laws against
|> >|> consensual sex.)
|> >|> 
|> >|> >SHOULD be laws prohibiting the ending of a life if precautions are not taken
|> >|> >while having sex.
|> >|> 
|> >|> And if precautions *are* taken, but they fail?  Would abortion then be
|> >|> OK according to you, or is this just a red herring?
|> >
|> >Like I said before, if you are reponsible enough to have sex, you have to deal 
|> >with the consequences.
|> 
|> If I'm responsible enough to be cutting bread in the kitchen and I slip
|> and slit my wrist should I just deal with the consequences by letting
|> myself bleed to death?  If I ask a street person into my home to serve
|> them dinner and they later decide to rob me or kill me, should I not be
|> allowed to defend myself and my home?  Should I not be allowed to CHANGE
|> the course of events to preserve my health, life, and lifestyle?
|> 
|> Tell you what?  If you ever get pregnant we'll all get together to
|> disallow you an abortion.  Ok?

You knew what you were getting yourself into when you picked up the knife
or let someone into your house, you have to deal with what happens when a.  you
slip and the knife misses the bread and b.  when your perception of people is
not as good as you thouhgt.  If I ever got pregnatnt (biologically impossible)
I would have the baby, an abortion would not be needed.

-Johnathan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity thread: live by the sword...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:04:30 GMT

In <92311.172926ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.154159.23583@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:
>>In article <92305.094124ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct26.154453.277@cs.yale.edu> Eric Rescorla says:

>>>>I would tend to think so.

>>>While you gentlemen are defining insulting and inflammatory
>>>statements, could you tell me if it is insulting and
>>>inflammatory to label someone who opposes abortion legislation
>>>and believes that abortion is a matter to be left to a woman
>>>and her doctor as a radical extremist?

>>No

I agree, if "her doctor" means "the abortionist whom she sees maybe
once in her life."  Because that is not only radical, it is dishonest.

I disagree, if "her doctor" means "her family doctor," or "her gyneco-
logist" [assuming her gynecologist is not also an abortionist].  This
is not radical, only it is unrealistic because the abortion decision
is almost never left up to the woman and her doctor in this sense.

>>I think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
>>to believe that abortion should be legal throughout pregnancy.

>Do you think it's observationally extreme on the scale of beliefs
>to believe that women should be placed in jail for obtaining
>banned abortions?

Yes, because it's never happened in the history of the USA, not
even when abortion was almost totally illegal.

>>Is there something wrong with being extreme?

>Never having been extreme, I wouldn't know.

Dream on, Ms. Birmingham.

>Linda
>--
>Polls show that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion
>is a private matter between a woman and her doctor and are,
>therefore, pro-choice.

No, they have simply been misled as to what they are agreeing to.
Just as SOMEBODY was misled by Ms. Birmingham's use of "You cannot
fit a ..."

But Ms. Birmingham does not seem to care about that.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:51:46 GMT

smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes ...
[...] (it's long; look at the original [what do you mean, you're not
using a threaded newsreader?!?])

>  If someone who lived in an isolated
>area took this action today, believing it to be safer than
>performing major surgery undernon-sterile condition, I wouldn't want
>that person to be prosecuted for manslaughter.  I wonder
>if Fischer would.

Of course not.  But to argue that the life of a born -10 minutes
fetus is less important than the life of a cat is equally absurd.  
Isn't there some way of protecting viable fetuses while ensuring the 
right of a woman to end the pregnancy?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.adoption,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: C.J.'s "Know It All" Attitude...
X-To: C.J. SILVERIO
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:47:00 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes...
CS> In article <1992Nov6.041844.13267@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid
CS> ld.org> writes:
CS> |I saw this err, *mug* at the offices of two women at the
CS> |company which I used to work for.  And if I weren't on my six
CS> |month probation period, I would have had no qualms about
CS> |charging the pair with sexual harassment, seeing as there seem
CS> |to be legions of feminists declaring that pin-up calendars are
CS> |also sexual harassment.

CS> You equate a mug with political slogans on it with a pin-up
CS> calendar?  You think that if nude photographs consitute sexual
CS> harassment, so also must the political content of a mug?

I made no such equation.  I merely stated that if the definition of sexual
harassment is a gender-based action or situation which makes one feel
uncomfortable, then a mug making such "political" statements as the one I saw,
*OR* the "Seminars For Men" flyer, *do* indeed make *me* feel uncomfortable,
thank you very much.


CS> You just don't get it, do you.

But YOU apparently do, according to you, then?


CS> "I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
CS> quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
CS> are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen

And apparently *she* does too, right?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * This space left blankish.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion