HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: We want lots of life (was Re: A rather peculiar letter.)
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:28:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr6.132824.14253
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr4.204623.29426@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> > Now, the parents were prevented from giving life (or a better life)
|> > to 8 other infants because of an attitude that values the act of
|> > living over an act of compassion. 
|> 
|> That is a lie, there were no other infants available that could
|> have received the child's organs. Here's what my local paper
|> had to say:
|> 
|>     Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
|> 
|>   "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
|>    Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
|>    the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
|>    found."

So, since there were no recipients immediately available at the time 
of the infant's death, my statement is false? Were there recipients
available prior to her death? Did they check locally, or nationally?
Does this refer to all the possilbe organs, or just the undamaged 
ones?

Since there were no recipients available to recieve the organs, and
thus no operations would have taken place, why is it wrong to prevent
the parents from making what would be a moot decision? IMO, there
would be nothing wrong with it, unless you value the idea of life
over the ideals of compassion.
 
|> 
|>    [...]
|> 
|>   "Although medical experts and national organ-donor organizations
|>    commended the family Monday, they said that the number of potential
|>    organs that could be donated in such situations would be too low
|>    to justify undertaking the enormous legal and moral issues involved.
|>    
|>  ``We have had no interest in it from the organ procurement side
|>    because of all the problems associated with it,'' said Wanda Bond,
|>    a spokesman for the United Network for Organ Sharing. ``It's such
|>    a small number of individuals that could be helped that the question
|>    is, `Does it make sense to go through all this?' Clearly, in the
|>    medical community the answer is it doesn't.'' "
|>

So, it makes no sense to worry about, or go through with an argument,
process, or action that effects only a small number of individuals
especially if there are legal and moral issues involved.

Now, will you please explain why actions are taken to prevent
abortions? After it only effects a small number of people and
there are enormous legal and moral issues involved.

|> Interesting that they say ``baby'', and not ``human tissue.''

So, it is a baby, it was born. However, it is a brainless baby. 

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:23:56 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rants to muriel:
-> Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion while
-> trying to shut others out.

it's odd you'd say that. i don't believe i've ever heard a single
"Pro-Death" person scream. no doubt, this is because i don't know
any "Pro-Death" people, which is also odd. because i've been
around this newsgroup a long, long time while you have just
arrived.  still, you deserve the benefit of the doubt i suppose.
so, please list the name of the people you call "Pro-Death" along
with some evidence that they are "Pro-Death." then we can move on
to this screaming business. once you take care of this wee
matter, i'm sure any questions as to your integrity will be
answered.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:00:17 GMT


In a previous article, rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) says:

> you're also making an extraordinarily dumb
>argument.
>
>	-Nora

this whole Nazi line is extraordinarily dumb. It's just another
euphemism for name-calling.

You don't personally know most of these people. All you talk to them
about is abortion. You've never had a quiet sit-down dinner with
some of them. You've never laughed with some of them. You've never
cried with some of them. You don't know for a fact that anyone here
is anywhere close to a heartless creul human from our past. 

Ever notice how people always run to extremes? Economic woes in
Germany and Red fear ran the Germans to fascism. So, please, think
twice before you make so severe generalization. Nerves are sure
short around here :)

Peace

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:16:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.003258.4670@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
> 
> >>OK.....let's put this in perspective. I've had sex with one partner.
> >>We were both virgins and have remained monogamous. I made
> >>up my mind a long time ago that if this relationship fails and
> >>we don't get married, then I won't have sex again until I'm married.
> >
> >Oh, so you're calling your girlfriend a Slut?  Or did you intentionally exclude
> >her when you made your comment about if you have sex in *2* relationships or
> >100, you're a slut?
> 
> don't put words in my mouth. look up slut in the dictionary. It will
> probably say something about sleeping around. It's up for

You couldn't look it up yourself to support your own remarks?

I just looked it up in my Webster's unabridged.  It referred
to "immoral" but nothing about the immorality being sexual.
Since moralities differ, and since I for one do not consider
a woman who hass upwards of one sexual partner in her lifetime
a slut, your definition is inaccurate in my opinion.
> every person to decide what "sleeping around" is. If someday I have
> another sex partner, which I hope is never the case, then I guess i will
> be a slut. And in my eyes, so will be my ex-girlfriend. According to 
> the definition of slut, I would appreciate you not calling anyone I love
> a "slut." You don't know me, and you don't know them. I have
> no right to call you or your wife or your sheep a slut so I won't.
> I would appreciate a mutual "respect," or whatever. I was using "slut"
> generally. 

If you ask for such respect, give it first.  You called a whole
slew of people you've never met "sluts."  You called many women
whom I love and respect sluts.  You called decent, honest,
hard-working, contributing members of society who have had the good
fortune to fall in love morethan once and done no more than you
have done, which is to sleep with someone not their spouse, sluts.

By your definition, a woman who has never had sex with anyone but
her husbands, but has been divorced or widowed, is a slut.  Your
definition needs work, unless this is what you meant.

> yeah......if you have unsafe sex with multiple partners. That simply
> is and will never be my case.

If your girlfriend get shit by a car tomorrow and dies, you
will never have sex again with anyone?

I wish I were eighteen and not only knew everything today, but
knew all of my future as well.

Dean Kaflowitz

War is peace
-Eric Blair

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:34:21 GMT

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

>In <1992Apr6.204151.25534@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>Rights, in this country at least, are handed out on a hierarchical basis.
>>That doesn't mean that it's right, but that's the way it's done.

>Hopefully our discussions pertain to whether this is right. You
>have a disturbing tendency to quote the status quo selectively in
>support of you position.

If you've got this impression, then either I miscommunicated or you 
misunderstood.  I try to preface statements like the above with a "that
doesn't mean it's right" because it doesn't mean that it is right.  If
I don't say that then someone can come back with, "Oh you think that's right?"
Of course, the answer is "no, not always".  I can't come up with a better
way of distributing rights so, until then, I agree with the current system.
Not because it's right, nor because it's the way it's always been done,
but because I can't think of anything better.

>"That's the way it is" is a rather impoverished
>argument in the realm of morality, ethics, and the law.

My previous statement was not an agrument, just a statement of fact.  Rights
ARE distributed hierarchically.  I think this is good primarily because
I can't think of a better way of doing it.  If you can, then please propose
such and we can discuss it and maybe come to an agreement!

>>You would force a _fetus_ to have
>>more rights than a woman?  Ludicrous.

>It is difficult to see how having the right to continue living gives the
>fetus more rights that than any adult woman.

Because you are giving the fetus the bodily autonomy that you are denying
the woman.

>I merely contend that there
>should be a right enjoyed by both mother and child which takes
>precedence over all other rights attaining to either, that is the right
>of both to continue their life, the one medium through which they can
>give meaning and expression to the other rights they enjoy.

Given current medical technology, there are no options for the woman who
does not want to continue a pregnancy save abortion.  Unfortunately, abortion
results in fetal death.  That is another fact.  I am in favor of medical
research which could lead to some sort of embryonic or fetal transplant which
would enable the scenerio you have painted--both could continue their
lives and all would be happy.  Unfortunately, given the conservative nature
of this country, I don't think that will ever happen.

>For instance you have a right of thoroughfare on a public road, but that
>does not allow you to drive through pedestrian who stray into your
>path.

This "analogy" to pregnancy fails miserably.    Try again.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.210353.5111@nas.nasa.gov>, Dan King writes:
|Who was it that said "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death"?
|I think it was Ben Franklin that said something like
|"Those willing to give up safety for freedom will lose both".

Patrick Henry.  And see my sig.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Sanity of discussion
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:45:07 GMT

In article <57@devl3.UUCP> root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:
>I have been browsing through the articles in this group for a couple of
>hours now and I have seen very little to convince me that there will ever
>be a reasonable solution to this debate.
>
>With the exception of two or three posts, most of the individuals who are
>engaged in this flame-war are so far to the fringes of their respective
>positions that it is virtually impossible to believe that they could ever
>come to any agreement.
>
>I have been a Christian most of my life, but when I see the attitudes
>being carried by some of my fellow "christians" I am, quite frankly,
>frightened.  I took my family to see the Atlanta Passion Play yesterday
>and it was gratifying to me to recognize once again that the Christ I
>serve is not the condemnatory bigot that some "christians" seem to follow.
>I feel that it will not be long before these so-called "christians" will
>find a way to force each of us into their perfect little belief boxes
>whether we actually believe or not.  Even I as a Christian will be in
>danger if I don't toe their party line.  As long as our actions are right,
>they don't care what is in our heads.
>
>I know I will probably get my brains beat out by both elements but I
>am anti-abortion/pro-choice.  The whole kingdom of God is based on the
>element of free-will.  Each individual is guaranteed by God the privilege
>to choose for themselves whether or not they will follow Him.  That being
>the case, I cannot in good conscience make any effort to remove from my
>fellow humans the freedom of choice that my God has given them.  Those
>choices may range all the way from which socks to wear tomorrow morning,
>to whether or not to accept His offer of salvation, including the choice
>of whether or not to have an abortion.
>
>Though the so-called right-to-lifers in this debate appear to be the
>angriest of the two, the vitriol spewing from both sides really gives me
>cause to doubt the sanity of either.  As I said at the beginning, I don't
>believe that there will ever be agreement on a compromise.
>
>->  Steven Foster					<-
>->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
>->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
>->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-


 I'd be extremely surprised if you got flames from Pro-Choicers for this post.
 This is exactly what Pro-Choice is all about.  Many Pro-Choicers are also 
 Anti-Abortion.  They just don't feel they know what the "will of god" is 
 for every other person, only themselves.
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:07:17 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

>MaThiEu a. LeWis
>mal11@po.cwru.edu  writes:

(Matt Hew?  BTW, luv your .sig......that crazy Bono....)

>in the not so recent past, married people have had so-called "accidents"
>and lived happy, productive lives afterwards. Is there anyone left
>to make small sacrifices???

Let me tell you about MY *small sacrifice*, guy.  I had a high-risk
pregnancy, so my doctor yanked me out of work for the second half of
it, for my own health, as well as the health of the baby.  (This translates
to no-workee, no-payee.)  Including the birth (emergency c-section),
and subsequent recovery time, this added up to 7 months unemployed.
The state of Florida, in its wisdom, coughed up a *whopping* $32 a week
in food stamps, certainly not enough to provide for a family of three
(3 1/2?)  Many days I went without food, or ate what I could harvest
off the orange tree in my backyard.  To cap it off, when I returned to
work, all my shit was packed up in boxes, and my office, desk, etc. was
gone.  Now I'm doing busy work (like this).  My career, my one opportunity
to support my family in a non-poverty-stricken manner, is essentially
over.  This is because of the compassionate, caring attitudes of the 
MEN I work for; who, just because they themselves will never be pregnant,
have no empathy for someone who *is*.  Yeah...you're right...that's a
small sacrifice.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  I now have carpal tunnel syndrome
due to pregnancy.  I'll have to have surgery to correct it...

>BTW, just how many abortions are done to married women???
>I'm sure the number of abortions by unmarried, perhaps promiscuous
>women is alot higher. Statistics anyone???

What makes you think *I'm* married?  And, if I am married, what makes you
think I'm not promiscuous?  (Oh, I forgot...only men and sluts are allowed
to be promiscuous...)

Gee, I hope I don't sound like a man-hater.  I'm not, I *love* men. (I 
*have* been pregnant, after all.)  I just think this should be a matriarchal
society! :-)



Susy@ksc
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:51:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.8APR92.16515884
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) wrote:
> 
>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
> 
>No, they aren't Suz.  Children are those whom are outside of the
>mother's supporting body.  Killing a child is murder.  Removing a
>fetus from a womb is called an abortion.  The two are not related. 

That's a pretty interesting view of the word "children".  I'd bet that 99 out 
of 100 pregnant women (who intend to give birth) would fight you if you said 
that it wasn't their child that they were carrying.  

In fact, I imagine that even quite a few women who plan to have abortions 
would also admit that it is their child that they are carrying.

				Loren Finkelstein
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:10:31 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >...you are, in fact, flaming
-> >-> >susan garvin as part of your net.vendetta.
-> >-> 
-> >-> In other words ...
-> >
-> >why do you need other words? don't you understand what i
-> >said?  you can tell me if you don't. as i offered, i'll be
-> >happy to repost a copy of the reply you seem to have missed.
-> >you did miss it, didn't you?
-> 
-> Grow up.

did you understand what i said?

would you like me to repost a copy of the reply you seem to have
missed?

you did miss it, didn't you?

        'Actually, my main reservation at this stage of the game
        is that the sobriquet "net.idiot" may not fully describe
        him. "Lord High Fuckwit", maybe...'  
		-- lefty@apple.com
	        <9108270050.AA04989@internal.apple.com>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:11:24 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18147@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In a previous article, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:

>>> A child is a born person.
>>A child is not necessarily a born person.
>>Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Edition:
>>child: 1. an infant, baby
>>       2. an unborn offspring


>Doug, you can appeal to emotions all you want, but it will never win
>an intellectual, logical argument. A fetus is a fetus, no matter what
>else it might be called that could relate it emotionaly to something
>in your cause. 

   Ron - don't you ever READ the articles? You misquoted me often
enough, and I see now you've moved on to Doug. You see, Doug's whole
point was missed by you. Doug wasn't trying to appeal to your emotional
state with his Dictionary quote. He was trying to show you (unsuccessfully
I see...) that the dictionary (which someone else already introduced)
can prove either argument and thus, is not a sufficient
source of evidence. So, you're saying the same thing as him
but strangely enough, you look stupid when you say it, as the point
has already been made.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy if the sky is blue would you say it was pink
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:56:11 GMT

In article <92100.113020ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.034432.16551@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>>
>>In article <92092.153523ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
>><ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>>>>I think the deterrent works just as well when the objectionable mail is
>>>>described in GENERAL terms, which it was, days before the confidence-breach.
>>>
>>>Nonsense.  Did describing the mail in general terms achieve
>>>anything but Welch's repeated denials?
>>
>>I saw none of these alleged "denials". Can you produce even one?
>
>Just as you saw none of the requests for Ms. Garvin to post
>the mail.  The net, nor I, dear Kevin are here to serve you.

In other words, you can't back up your statements. Typical.

								- Kevin