HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:00:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.185010.27982@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>I suppose here is where we are coming from.  You weigh the mother's
>>right to be free from "unwelcome objects" to be greater than the child's
>>because you don't think the unborn is 'a' human life.  I weigh the lives
>>of the mother and the unborn equally.  Each life is equally important.  So
>>when either one's life is about to be destroyed, I want to find a way
>>to protect it.  If abortion is done to provide a better life for other
>>children, or as a means of birth control, or something like that, then the
>>right of the unborn to life will prevail.  
>
>You should say that you value the unborn's "right to life" as being equal
>to that of the mother's, as I really doubt that you think that even a
>toddler should get the same rights as an adult.
>
>And if you're willing to eleiminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>
>[...]
>>Whether the woman thought it was wrong or right to have the child doesn't
>>change the child.  The unborn child has a right to life just as the mother
>>has a right to live.
>
>And the "unborn child" has a right to vote just as the mother has a right
>to vote?
>

The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
be dead?)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:57:04 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  <gem79Sq00WB55DRYUQ@andrew.cmu.edu>  "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> You may think it's a responsible solution. But I disagree.

And I think anyone on the pro-choice side would 100% support your
decision to not get an abortion.

> Why don't you write 1000 times over:
>
> What's good for me is not good for everyone.

You're getting close.  Now try:
   What's "responsible" for me is not "responsible" for everyone.
   What's "moral" for me is not "moral" for everyone.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:23:06 GMT

In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
>>> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.
>
> No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.

Do you realize what you wrote?  You have equated a child and a
consequence.  All this time I've thought my two sons were small
people.  What a surprise to discover that they are punishment
for the dirty deeds in which my wife and I engaged 7 and 11
years ago. (I admit, we've done it more than twice. :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:54:43 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
->>->You know, I've often felt Overpeck to be a twit.  But I'm 
->>->suprised to find he's the only major participant in this 
->>->thread who doesn't look like a twittering fool.
->>
->>unless you lied about putting me in your killfile, you
->>must be calling susan garvin, cathi cook, and dean
->>twittering fools.  apparently, your judgement has
->>continued to fail.
->Uh, Jim...
->While CJ has killfiled YOU, I don't think she's killfiled Overpeck,
->so she sees your posts secondhand if he followups to you.
->So, not to worry, she still could be calling you a twittering fool.

that's true. but i doubt that cj, net.veteran that she is,
would be so stupid as to comment on posts she'd seen only
in a form which had been edited by a third party. you are
free, of course, to argue that she was that stupid.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Not a flame (was Re:
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:44:56 GMT

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes ...
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>AR>  c164-ad@po.berkeley (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>AR> >We all want real change.
>
>AR> Who's "we", white man?
>
>He hardly warrants a flame based upon his race.  He doesn't call *you* a
>"White Woman" or anything of that sort, although judging by the flaming

It's a JOKE!  An old one too!  Used as a humorous analogy.

Lone Ranger surrounded by hostile Indians.  Lone Ranger turns to Tonto
and says "Looks like we are about to die, old friend."  Tonto turns to
Lone Ranger and says ...  (insert above punch line here)

Although I prefer this version of the punch line:
"What's this 'we' shit, Kemosabe?"

Chill, dude.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I gotta believe Peter is funnin' us (Was: Is it Christian values or chavinism?)
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


pn>In article <nyikos.718390032@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
na>In <1992Oct2.003522.4832@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

na>Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
na>Unvirgin playmates... I like that one. 

pn>Alas, he falls on his face where "falsely" is concerned.  The charges
pn>against Gordon are, sad to say, all too true.  Otherwise I would not
pn>be making them.
 
I got to believe that Peter just can't be seriously posting here.  This
statement has got to be close to one of the most incredible he has
ever made.  Does he really believe our collective  memorys are poor 
enough to believe he would never make a charge unless he knew it 
to be true?

pn>Peter Nyikos

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Tom Lehrer, (ex-?) Catholic [Was:...credentials]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Oct 92 00:30:26 GMT

I have added talk.religion.misc and changed the subject line.

In <1992Sep29.183205.24381@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) auditions for Non-
>Sequitur Dinner Theatre:
>> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>>> My comment here would be that excellence in a field does not necessarily
>>> translate into excellence in another field, even though there may be a
>>> few skills that are shared between the two fields.

>> And you're real skilled at religious bigotry, but nothing else that
>> is of any value to humanity.  Remember that insult against Catholics
>> re "Vatican Rag"?

>You mean that song that was written by a Catholic, Tom Lehrer?

Of course he does.  Tom was poking fun at Catholics he perceived to
be "pre-Vatican II", which translated to the overwhelming majority of
Catholics at the time he wrote the lyrics.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40475 alt.flame:13263 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:435
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:14:46 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
[...]
->I don't think calling pregnancy an illness 
->is really that bad. 

i'm not surprised.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Biblical support for abortion...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:29:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Sep29.180408.6438@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.154812.17843@cs.yale.edu>,
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep26.224638.24714@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep25.213302.16675@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>> >(Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> >Oh, read:  (There is to much for me to type it all)
>> >
>> >MATT 7:1-6
Talks about hypocrisy. (motes and eyes)

>> >MATT 23:1-12
All who exalt themselves shall be humbled, etc.

>> >MARK 7:1-15
The healing of the centurion. No relevance as far as I can tell.

>> >LUKE 6:37-42
Judge not, lest ye be judged.

>> >     11:37-54
Inside vs. Outside.

>> >     16:16-17
Not one letter of the law shall pass away.
>> >John 8:1-11
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

>> >Making abortion illegal is very similiar (if not equivalent) to what the
>> >pharisees were doing, which Jesus hated so much.
>
>> This would support a general argument that ANY law enforcing a morality
>> is wrong. Is that an argument you want to make? Kiss murder laws goodbye.
>
>Please also note:
>
>Matt 22:21:  
>
>"...Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to
>God what belongs to God."
>
>Granted, Jesus was specifically speaking about Taxes in this passage, but
>Jesus is noted for speaking in symbolic terms also.  As is the case here. 
>
>Jesus says here (and in other places) that we are to obey the laws of the
>state where they do not conflict with what he preaches.  Murder laws are
>still
>valid. 
>Sorry.
Come now, Mr. Gorr. Not a single one of those passages has any
direct relevance to abortion. The most applicable ones refer to not
judging others, but if we are to believe your interpretation of
Matt 22.21, there are at least some instances where one IS entitled
to restrict the actions of others. Since there is nothing in the passages
which talks about abortion, and you have explicitly permitted
murder laws, any argument which claims that the passages you
have cited prevents laws against abortion cannot have any force.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39229 alt.abortion.inequity:4121 alt.birthright:481
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:16:13 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

] In article <1992Sep24.184740.10729@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] >] In <16SEP92.17080297@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
] 
] [debate on Human Life Amendment]
] 
] [drieux, addressing nyikos]
] >Also, as you will note, we are back to the Point
] >of resolving why Person A should be allowed to
] >Murder Person B for the actions of Person C toward Person A.
] >
] >That is the case of allowing abortion in the case of
] >rape or incest.
] 
] Your wording is ambiguous -- if "for the actions" means "as punishment"
] then I would certainly disagree; if "for the actions" means 
] "as a consequence of" then I might agree -- although in the sense
] of "terminate obligations to B," not "murder B."  (BTW, do you use
] "murder" as "unlawfully killing a person" or as "killing a person"?)

person A, is raped by person C,
and hence is allowed to KILL/Murder/Terminate_With_Prejudice person B.

This is precisely the case that exists
if one asserts that the UnBorn are Born
Persons, and that Abortion is Murder,
but allowable in the case of Rape.

Note if You will, that the form of the argument
allows that Person A can kill any Person B,
as there is no distinction to be drawn between
born and unborn.....

So it is not my Ambiguity, but the implicit 
absurdity of the argument that I am 'clarifying'
drawn from the 'reasoning' of anti_abortionist Rhetoric!


ciao
drieux





-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:54:55 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
 
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex

Isn't this a wee bit excessive.  I have trouble believing all these groups
really are involved in this discussion.  I changed the Newsgroup line to only
talk.abortion.
 
>	Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil her
>parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require one who signed an
>enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to require one who injures another in
>a car accident to do everything possible to save the life and health of the one
>injured.
>	BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions. 
>Incest, if it was also rape, is consistent as well; but allowing abortions for
>children incestuously conceived between two consenting adults would be an
>INCONSISTENT exception (and therefore one I would oppose).

I don't see this argument as being consistent.  I brought up the 
inconsistency before but still haven't seen an answer.  
 
I would guess from above, you feel that since a woman knows prior 
to participating in coitus sex, that a pregnancy can result, despite
any precautions she may or not may take, she is responsible for 
the pregnancy and therefore responsible for the resulting fetus.  
Because of this responsibility for the creation of the fetus,
she has an obligation to that fetus to carry it to term.  
 
Now assuming all of this fits your argument, to be consistent,
I would think you wouldn't allow abortions even if it is a 
threat to the life of the woman.  A woman that participates 
voluntarily in coitus sex knows a pregnancy may be the result
and should also be aware that a pregnancy is also a health 
risk to herself.  The risk of death is a possibility of 
pregnancy.  If the woman was aware of this risk, and participated
in coitus sex, being aware of this risk, shouldn't she still
have the same obligation to the fetus?  Why would you allow 
her to escape her obligation by using abortion in one instant 
but not in the other?

>Steve

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:47:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.223151.18112@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

#You have. You just don't think it's criticism.

Okay.  I thought maybe there was an article out there in which he
blasted Suzanne.  I didn't want to miss it.

#Ok. Whatever. Matter of opinion.

(Of course, my opinion is better.)

Speaking of opinions, though, I was talking to someone at school
the other day.  They used a phrase that took me aback - "that
new-agey pro-life stuff."  I asked her about it, since I hadn't
ever connected the two before.  She said, "Come on, those people
think that fetuses speak to them, and that's just the beginning."  
I hadn't ever thought of it that way.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:08:46 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct1.213814.25101@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
>human life.

"Human life" won't die out until we've defiled out planet to the point
of unliveableness, and maybe not even then.  "Destroy and kill" is
redundant and sensationalist.  Please say exactly what you mean:
"Abortion kills a human life."

Now that I've amended what you had to say, I'll agree with it.

We're never going to make everybody happy no matter what direction we
go on the abortion issue.  Either a fetus is killed, or a woman's
rights are stepped on.  I wish it didn't have to be this way, but this
is the way the world works sometimes.

The way I see it, there are three possible positions on abortion:

(1) Ban ALL abortions.  If the mother can't afford pregnancy or birth,
tough; she shouldn't have had sex in the first place then, or if she
was raped, she should have fought harder.  If she's on medication that
would cripple the fetus, then she'll just have to suffer without it
for nine months.  If her life will be irrevocably changed in ways that
she doesn't want it changed by having a baby, that's just too bad for
her -- while she was on that hot date, before she had sex, she had
plenty of time to think about what she wanted to be doing with her
life for the next twenty years, and to decide whether or not she felt
like spending most of them worrying about a kid full-time.

(2) Ban SOME abortions.  All we've got to do is find some moral and
upright person whom EVERYBODY will IMMEDIATELY agree with and place
their FULL trust in (the President, perhaps; after all, we elected
him), and have that person decide for us exactly what "good reasons"
for having an abortion are, and what "bad reasons" won't be
permissible.  Then any woman who wants an abortion can have her
situation judged against these criteria (for example, a rape victim
need only prove that she wasn't "asking for" the rape in any way and
that she really didn't enjoy it), and since this is of course a fair
system designed for the common good, any woman who had her request
turned down can seek counseling if she wants it to help her love her
fetus properly, and everyone will live happily ever after.

(3) Ban NO abortions.  The woman is the only person who can accurately
judge her situation and decide whether or not she's ready to have a
baby.  If she's got a good enough reason to want to abort a fetus
during the third trimester (and this RARELY happens), then who are you
to contradict her and tell her she can't?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:00:42 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: n
 <lcpk69INNacu@spim.mti.sgi.com> <2772@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>

In article <2772@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mjcrouch@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Matt J. Crouch) says:

>Also, don't you pro-lifers think about the quality of "life" that the
>unborn child might receive?  I would not like to be born to parents who
>would not want me, or support me, or care for me!  this new "life" could
>only complicate real life for the family and others.  Think about it.

Two problems.

1:  If a life of "poor quality" is a life not worth living, then we would be
    justified in going around to empoverished countries such as Ethiopia
    and painlessly, mercifully killing the starving inhabitants.  Ditto
    for all the "unwanted" homeless, orphans and/or forgotten nursing
    home inhabitants.

    No, this idea is NOT an argument for abortion, not at all.

2:  The idea that the 'unwanted' children are all 'taken care of' by
    abortion.  It's a common argument that the 'unwanted' children are
    abused, and abortion can help to correct that.  Yet, in the 20 years
    that abortion has been legal, child abuse rates have gone up and up and
    up.

    No, this is not a good argument for abortion, either.


If these are the best ideas supporting abortion, then there can't be any
question about it.  Better concentrate on the issues where you have some
chance of coming out on top.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 06:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep30.023021.9364@midway.uchicago.edu>  wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>
>      Ok, Bartlett, what characterizes the 'mind' for you miss Bartlet?
> Is it a bunch of cells organized and working in a corrdinated way, in the
> sense that the whole is doing something like screwing or reading a book?
> Is it being conscious?

This is called setting up a strawman argument.

> Because if it is, then by your logic there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with me first whopping you over the head-
> driving you unconcious, and then decapitating you.  The most I could be
> charged with is whopping someone unconscious.

This is called beating a strawman to death.

> Maybe I don't have a mind

This is called stating the obvious.

> P.S. Bite me weenies

This is called level-setting.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:29:20 GMT

In <1992Sep29.230649.4628@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >
In article <4588@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com 
   (David Favor) writes: >>

>> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
>>been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.  Surely
>>they can wait a little longer while the pro-aborts continue to take the easy
>>way out.
>
> Have they considered a puppy?

Your empathy is touching.

> I am so happy that your aunt and uncle wish misery on someone else so that
> they can attain their version of happy. Personally, such an attitude doesn't
> strike me as one desirable in parental units.

How is it that you're able to infer the attitudes of people you've 
never met or spoken with?  Such presumption seems incredibly judge-
mental.

>> evertime I hear of people 'waiting' to adopt a child I wonder what these
>> people are really 'waiting' for. if they were truely concerned with the
>> care of a child they would simply adopt one out of their backyard... the
>> entire adoption process truely puzzles me.
>
> They are waiting for a blue eyed unhandicapped white child, preferably 
> male.  Ask any social worker.

Ask this one.  The most recent adoptive home study I conducted 
involves a couple who are more than willing to consider a non-
white, handicapped (especially hearing or speech impaired, as 
the woman is a Speech and Language Pathologist) child.  Gender
is irrelevant also.  Perhaps it is Nadja who should be checking
with social workers.  Such families are not as rare as she has
been led to believe.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40961 talk.religion.misc:17781