HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:29:22 GMT

In article <C0IBst.F62@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:

>If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
>fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
>and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
>OK to terminate before but not after ?)

It's a question of drawing borders, of defining the physical area in which
our government protects people and controls events.  There's little
difference between a child born a mile south of the Mexico-America line
and a child born north of it, except that we'd protect one as a citizen
and deport the other as an alien; who 'counts' is an arbitrary question,
and given that, I strongly advocate drawing the line on the near side of
women's wombs.

Whether it's 'OK to terminate' is a matter of private morality; I'd say
no, not ever.  But I want to see abortion kept legal as a women's freedom,
and as the best of several bad choices given shitty socioeconomic realities.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                        suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:07:43 GMT

In article <PASSARET.93Jan11184034@vane.med.ge.com> Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com> writes:
>link> to diminish their credibility.  If you take a look at
>link> some of the largest pro-life organizations, you will see
>link> that they oppose violence, like bombing clinics.
>
>Actually, you will see that they claim to oppose these
>tactics, but do not put the energy into preventing them that
>they do into blocading clinics, for instance.  Priorities, I
>know, but I had to comment.  Claiming to oppose and doing
>nothing about it bears a striking resemblance to support, or
>at least to acceptance...

How are they to stop them.  You can't be at every abortion facility at the 
middle of the night.  Do you think clinic bombers go to pro-life meetings
and say, "hey, I just bombed a clinic."  Besides, the goal of the pro-life
movement is not keeping the slaughterhouses safe.  What pro-lifer is going
to shed a tear over an abortion clinic being destroyed, even if vehemently
disagrees with the tactic?


>link> Operation Rescue protesters don't fight the police.
>link> They lie still and have to be carried away.  
>
>That explains the black eye I got from being kicked in the
>face by one after having been knocked down by another.  I
>wasn't police, just escort.

Well, that's the policy, anyway. 

>link> I have seen some examples of pro-choice protestors who
>link> did appear full of hate.  One group of pro-choice
>link> protestors blockaded a Catholic Church in New York.
>link> These women were topless except for painted crosses over
>link> their breasts.  THe elderly people who wanted to go to
>link> church were unable to get into the building because of
>link> this lewd display.  
>
>Please explain the hate so evident to you in this behavior.
>Scorn, perhaps.  Ridicule, even... but hate???

Looked like hate to me.

>link> Of course, the news media for the most part i did not
>link> cover this story, because it showed pro-choice in a bad
>link> light.  
>
>Ah, the great liberal media conspiracy.  So buy a(nother) TV
>station, as if the GodSquad(tm) didn't own enough of them
>already. 

No.  I don't believe that people in the media are in a conspiracy.  But they
do show news that they consider important according to their own agendas.
And the media in this country for the most part has a pro abortion bias.

Link Hudson.






>
>link> My point is that I am not so ignorant as the think that
>link> all pro-abortionists agree with these tactics.
>
>Ignorant as the think?   As _to_ think.  Ah.  See my remark
>Re: generalizations above...  
>
>link> Link Hudson.
>						-MM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:10:36 GMT

In <29625@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29611@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Glad to see you concede that the "it's my womb, I can kill ANYONE I find
>>in there for ANY reason" argument is tommyrot.

>Have conceeded nothing, merely kept it short.

>>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right

>Stab?!? Geez, so violent! ;-)

>>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact
>>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of
>>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
>>and so do z/e/f's.

>I see one immediate problem--you confuse the biological definition of
>human with its generic definition. 

Where do I do this? In claiming that newborns are human?

>They are not the same. A single cell
>on your body is human. But it is not human (if you see what I mean:).

>As for the rest, I see no reason to extend any protections to those
>not considered human beings, especially while they're leading a parasitic
>existance using a human being.

Newborns are financially and emotionally parasitic.

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
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: Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:23:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.021010.11782@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan4.180408.23151@hemlock.cray.com>,
>by mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson):
>> In article <1992Dec31.180506.9687@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>> [deletia]
>>>Hard numbers.  Excellent.  To use them in the context of the embryonic-to-
>>>fetal transition (occurring at the beginning of the ninth week of
>>>*gestation*), we must convert your LMP timepoints to gestational time.
>>>This is done by subtracting 2 weeks from LMP weeks, giving us a very
>>>solid approximation of the actual gestational age of the fetus.  The
>>>result:
>> [deletia]
>
>>>Yes, it would appear that Peter (note corrected spelling) erred.  I remain
>>>fascinated by the inaccuracy of the "common definition": I've now found it
>>>in 2 different dictionaries (although both were Merriam-Webster), while
>>>I know of at least 2 embryology books that flatly contradict it.  Indeed,
>>>I have found no evidence that 3 months was *ever* considered the beginning
>>>of the fetal period.  It's a little unnerving, isn't it?
>
>> Actually, if you do a reverse conversion (date of conception
>> to LMP dating) you would get 11 weeks, which isn't that far off
>> from three months.
>
>Don't forget that the embryonic-to-fetal transition occurs at the
>*beginning* of the ninth week of gestation, or the beginning of the
>11th week since LMP, which is after 10 weeks since LMP.  That, I'm
>sure you'll agree, is not 3 months.  The unnerving thing is that
>the writers of the dictionary didn't do the hair-splitting, leaving
>it to the contributors to an unmoderated Internet talk group.
>
10 weeks LMP would be 2 1/2 months. Perhaps the dictionary is simply
rounding? I tend to think in terms of gestational weeks, not LMP, and
honestly hadn't stopped to wonder if others did the same.
Maybe we should take a poll, and settle on either LMP or gestational
ages. Or maybe we should all get in the habit of labeling our numbers
to clarify which they are.

>> I think we argue gestational age issues a
>> lot around here without clarifying which starting point is in
>> use.
>
>That's for sure.
Wouldn't we scare the dictionary writers? :")

--
                  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: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:33:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.143250.8078@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
writes:
>In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
Townsend) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.205628.11758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>|> In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
Townsend) writes:
>>|> >
>>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives one's
>>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>>
>Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
>And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
>point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
>_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
>H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
>your credentials by posting your SAT scores.
>
>
>muriel


Muriel - 

I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent
value outweighs that of the fetus - one factor may be that the unborn is inside
her.  For me, in some cases, say where the mother's life is threatened, this
may be sufficient.  To say 'he call my uterus a place, that woman hater!' is
hyperbole.

- Paul

 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
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: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:50:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.210306.29009@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <7JAN93.16540373@vax.clarku.edu> 
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>
>>> There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>>> about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>>> of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  
>
>> I'm glad you posted these tragic stories.  Imagine how many more of these 
>> stories there would be if abortion were illegal and millions of women were 
>> forced to give birth children they don't want.
>
>Yet another person who hasn't heard of adoption.  And we don't have 
>to "imagine" if abortion were illegal--we can examine our history 
>before Roe v. Wade, and we can see that children were not brutally
>killed like they are today. 
>
Yet another person (?) who hasn't noticed the hordes of unwanted
children waiting in vain to be adopted.
Tell me, how many have *you* personally adopted DODie?
If your answer is zero, you will be exposing yourself (yet again) as
an utter and complete hypocrite.

>It's only after Roe v. Wade has the respect for human life degenerated
>to such a point that a woman could stab her newly born son to death
>with a pair of scissors.  You know, it would have been legal for a
>physician to stab that little baby boy to death before he had been
>born. 
>
Your first statement is utter claptrap DODie. Child abuse has been
around forever. The percentage of parents abusing their children has
not changed significantly.
As for your last little shot, you know it would never happen. Despite
your moronic repititions of your idiotic claims, you have *never*
shown a single case of "a physician stabbing that little boy to death
before he had been born". You prattle on and on about late term
abortions, and never once show any reason for anybody to belive you
aren't just making it up. 
You know why? Because you *are* making it up, DODie, and everybody
knows it.
Go back to your sandbox and play now, little boy.

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: who got whom pregnant (was: Spoken Like a True ProLifer)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:46:12 GMT

In article <ucspbj4@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>[...]
>|>I'm still not sure why you brought up the driving analogy.  But anyways, 
>|>you also do not have a right to force me to stay pregnant against my will.  
>|>You do not have a right to force me to use my body to support a fetus.  You 
>|>are not forced by law to donate bone marrow or kidneys to save other people's 
>|>lives.  Why should pregnant women have less rights than you?
>
>|I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>
>No sir, no men involved!  Just that wanton sluttish woman!
>
>|I'm simply forcing you NOT to murder the helpess, unwilling victim 
>|of your hormonal lack of control.  
>
>So you feel that forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies
>is just punishment for their engagement in sex.  And once they've
>given birth, you'd like once again use force to take their
>children away from them.  What equivalent punishment do you
>suggest for the men involved?  Nine months of slavery?  Organ
>donation?  What, praytell?

There is no "equivalent" punishment, of course. The best we can
do by law is exact a "comparable" punishment. I have no problem with
exacting from those who INSIST that a woman carry a pregnancy to term,
be it the father, or the totality of pro-life, a constructive, fair and just 
compensation (monetary or otherwise) for the benefit of the woman.

Forced organ donation (unless the woman is the recipient), and/or the
mutilation and life-risks suggested in Cathi Cook's notorious "Value of a Man" 
proposal, don't strike me as particularly constructive, though...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: does dodie approve of chaneyhall's and suzanne's attack of patrick's wife?
Organization: William's Other Marsh
	<PATRICK.93Jan9163015@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan10.054005.12872@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:41:48 GMT

On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:40:05 GMT, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) said:

>patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) said:
>-> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>-> >-> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>-> >-> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>-> >-> lifers. 
>-> 
>-> >prove it, unless you're just lying again as you so often
>-> >have in the past.
>-> 
>-> I know where I'd put my money on that bet...:-)
>-> 
>-> >since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
>-> >patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?
>-> 
>-> >do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
>-> >patrick's wife?
>-> 
>-> Of course he does -- he's too cowardly to do it himself.  He's too cowardly
>-> to even respond to anything I direct at him.  It's much easier to let
>-> someone else do the attacking, and defend them.

>that's what i think too. he dodged the question(s) i
>asked him.

Well, you have to give him credit for so ably living up to the implications
of the appellation we crafted for him at TSAKC...:-)

--PLH, a DODger he is, all right.
--

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54889 talk.religion.misc:25684 alt.atheism:25523
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: holtsinger perpetuates an old lie
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.whine.about.abortion,alt.kevin.darcy.wannabee
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
-> all the way up to the point of birth.

this statement is not correct.

in fact, this specific claim has ben debunked
repearedly in talk.abortion over an extended period
of time. one can only surmise that you continue to
repeat it under the theory that if people hear a lie
often enough, some of them might believe it.
unfortunately for you, i suspect, given your
reputation for lying, that many people doubt most
statement which you post; and for good reason.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:33:32 GMT

In article <C0CCo9.DJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

}Pro-choicers who claim that they PERSONALLY believe that abortion is
}murder are perhaps the greatest hypocrites in our world.  

Perhaps that is true, although there are many who do not believe 
abortion is murder, if for no other reason than that murder is 
illegal and abortion is not.  

Close behind on that list, if not out in front, are those who protest
that they think life is one of the most basic things in the world,
but will quickly either rationalize or backpedal when the discussion
turns to war or their own pet method of killing...


--
       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: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:04:22 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>>
>>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>>*not* a person. As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?

>Is a newborn sentient?

Possibly not.  (ask Doug Holtsinger)

>                        Is a person in a coma sentient?

Uncertain.  I would say that they are not a "person".  If you intentionally
put someone into a permanent coma, I would say you have committed murder;
you have ended their interactive life.

>                                                          Is a sleeper
>sentient?

Sleeping is a natural unconscious state.  The individual is still sentient.

>           Is a mentally retarded person sentient?  

Most likely.


>If God himself plopped down in front of you and said abortion was wrong
>you'd still find a way to ignore Him.  

But it would be a lot easier to ignore your secondhand claims that He came
and told *you*.

>>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

>Edward Simmonds

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:33:39 GMT

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

>Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
>like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  The 
>idea is to hurl as many insults and hurtful remarks at Ms. Forgach
>as possible so that she'll respond in kind.  When Ms. Forgach
>does respond with small flames, she gets accused of being
>"hateful", "sick", etc..  

Why does this remind me of someone beating their spouse, screaming
"Why do you make me do this to you??"

Sadly enough, this attitude is not uncommon.  A high school class watched
counselors act out a scene where a girl argues with her boyfriend until
he begins to beat her.  Over 75% of the class felt that the girl was
"partially or totally responsible" for being beaten by her boyfriend.
They said she "shouldn't have talked back to him."

Of course, if I were to use Dougie's logic, I would repost his entire
article and add only the line:

    What does this have to do with abortion?

>Doug Holtsinger

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.060029.1868@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.
>The patients condition is explained to them, and their options are
>outlined. The risks and benefit of each option are detailed, and the
>patient then makes their own choice as to treatment. I would like to
>see you produce an example of a physician performing an abortion based
>on his decision, and not the patients. A physician may suggest that
>abortion is the safest option, but not determine what is best for the
>patient. That decision is left to the patient.

Which is precisely *WHY* abortion cannot be treated as "strictly a medical
issue": there's a whole host of other factors besides medicine which go into
each and every abortion decision -- economics, sociology, religion, ethics,
psychology, etc.

Now that we've dispensed with the naive, dangerous "treat abortion strictly
as a medical issue" chestnut, shall we get on to some constructive dialog on 
how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

								- Kevin

UNRETRACTED LIE
---------------

"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
 himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
				    Susie Garvin
				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:43:59 GMT

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

> Yet another person who hasn't heard of adoption.  And we don't have 
> to "imagine" if abortion were illegal--we can examine our history 
> before Roe v. Wade, and we can see that children were not brutally
> killed like they are today. 

Another invitation for DearOldDoug:

Read the book "A Death in White Bear Lake."  Its subject is the brutal abuse
and subsequent death of an adopted toddler in 1965.  That's before RvW,
isn't it?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion