HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:42:46 GMT

In <1993Jan7.024809.22609@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.060819.22850@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>> This is the first I've heard of Equal 
>>> Protection being applied to the abortion issue. 

>> The EP argument is one of sex discrimination.  
>>  [...]
>> The argument is a standard restricting-abortion-results-in-the-subjugation-
>> of-women-in-a-male-dominated-society-by-burdening-them-in-a-way-that-men-
>> aren't-burdened one, which I trust you can fill in the outlines of.  

>So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>in a way that women aren't?   Most people do accept the unequal
>burden placed on men by child support laws, without any second
>thoughts. 

>If we accept the premise that the sexes should not be burdened
>unequally, how does it follow that permissive abortion laws
>are the *only* possible means for women to achieve equality?  

>And how does it follow that every type of abortion restriction, 
>including waiting periods, informed consent provisions, and
>late-term restrictions, will result in the subjugation of
>women?

Look at it this way. As has been pointed out by many folks here,
third trimester abortions are rarely done. Normal medical practice
requires that surgery of this type comes under scrutiny to ensure
that it is required. All illegal practitioners aside.

Now, there is no law that says that I (as a man) cannot elect to
have a fully functional kidney removed, assuming I can find a
surgeon willing to perform the operation. I imagine I would have
about the same chance as a snowball in hell. If I am not restricted
by anything other than the fact that the vast majority of medical
practitioners are responsible people, why should a woman be subject
to different laws?

It is simply a question of equality, not preferential treatment.

>>ted frank                     


>Doug Holtsinger

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:01:21 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>Well, maybe we are speaking of a different "value".  The value I am referring
>to  is associated with the gene structure which differentiates one human from
>another.  That exists independently of the uteris. I don't argue that to allow
>that valued individual to develop requires the nurturing of the mother's womb.
>The only thing the pregnant woman can willfully do it to destroy a pre-existing
>value.

I simply don't understand.  What makes this unique gene structure inherently
valuable?  I could write a computer program that acts based on random
numbers.  I could sit down and write out a 100,000 digit number to seed
the random number generator (assuming I declared enough memory...).  If
I tear up the paper(s) on which I have written this number the chances of
anyone again producing this exact number are vanishingly small, and any 
information the program might have provided is essentially lost.  I
just don't see why this number is any more valuable than the next one
I may write down.

To deal with the "human" aspect, I spent several fertile years of my
life celibate.  I produced many eggs, and turned down sex with many men.
Through my inaction, I failed to produce many millions of unique genetic
codes.  Yet I don't mourn their loss.

To be more crass, unique genetic codes are a dime a dozen.  Humanity can
produce 'em by the billions at any given time.  What makes a single
genetic code so important to you?

>Referring to the woman's body as a "sewage system" 

This was not done.  He pointed out that the woman's body is used by the
fetus as a sewage system.  I can verify this.

>It seems to be at crossed
>puposes with the objection to the notion that the womb is 'just a place'.

The statement often objected to is "right to life based on location".
I see an essential difference between that statement and pointing out
that a pregnant woman must piss for two.

>- Paul

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:38:08 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>This argument from Steve Adams is especially confusing. 
>First he states that abortion is morally wrong from a 
>religious perspective, and then he goes on to argue that 
>abortion is not morally wrong from a secular perspective 
>(i.e. the woman has a "liberty interest" and a "right" in 
>protecting herself).  How is it possible to argue two sides 
>of the same coin here?  

Easy.

Law and Morality are not the same thing.

Laws are designed to enable society to function.  Morals govern
personal behavior.  Abortion is legal because society works better
that way.  But it is not moral according to some Christians (for
whatever reasons).  Since there is nothing in the laws preventing
Christians from acting according to their faith, it makes perfect
sense to have abortion be legal but proscribed.

Kind of like eating pork for a Jew; legal but proscribed.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Where are Susan Garvin's references?
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:14:09 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University


Has Ms. Susan Garvin ever gotten around to posting her 
references for the numerous unsupported claims that she
made about illegal abortions in article <1272@blue.cis.pitt.edu>?  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:43:08 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>And of course you know I do not threaten people

This statement is not correct.

    [racist .sig deleted]

I bet you're getting love letters from the KKK, you appear to be
their biggest supporter on the net.  (though "Nyikos" is contending
for the title)

               -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:58:07 GMT

In article <markp.726866131@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1iv0hbINNivd@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726855166@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>
>>But it *is* the government's place to mandate child birth?  No this 
>>governments....
>
>No; it's government's place to protect the z/e/f's rights.
>
	No, it's the State's place to protect the rights of *persons*.  
Z/e/fs are not legally defined as persons and I, for one, think that's the
way it should be.
	Parentietical note: Z/e/fs are not mentioned in the Constitution
because, for one thing, abortion wasn't even regarded as an issue at the time
*and* was not illegal before "quickening", I believe.
	I think you'll also discover, if you examine the history of abortion
and abortion legislation in this country, that the impetus behind anti-
abortion laws (which started to crop up in the previous century) was not a
concern for the "preborn" but for the health and safety of pregnant women.
The procedure used to be a heck of a lot more risky than it is now.
The_Doge

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:12:46 GMT

In <1993Jan12.073406.6076@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>>>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>>>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?
>>
>>No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
>>accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.

>Pah.  Nonsense.

>Given the cost of medical care these days, to assert that medical
>treatment for you won't adversly affect anyone else is extreme
>blindness.  The $20,000 it could cost to patch you up could pay for
>the delivery of a couple babies or save the lives of a couple hundred
>starving people.

I have no valid claim to other taxpayers' money. If we're talking my
money (or my insurance company's money), then maybe I should give it
up for the good of others -- but it's not government's place to 
mandate such charity.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What this "Natural Process" worship?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:51:11 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan9.054754.18920@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Breathing and birth are both simply biological processes.   It is absurd
>to think that anyone could legally force a biological process on anyone.
Yeah, and an ovarian cyst is simply a biological process, too.  So what?
If you and your fetus fanatics were to outlaw cyst removal,
you would be legally forcing me to carry that cyst.

I guess you're too busy yowling and scratching at people's wives to bother
using the brain God gave you, hon.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Doodie Supports Atheist Casue....
Keywords: "logic" in drieuxism 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:56:47 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] In article <1993Jan11.093218.15073@wetware.com> 
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >>   "Lack of proof in favor of
] >>    existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
] >>    true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
] >>    many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."
] >> 
] >>        mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
] >>        <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
] 
] > I presume that you will some day grow up
] > to be old enough to have a Beard. May I
] > recommmend that you NOT get yourself 
] > near unto Occams Razor, as it may hurt you.
] 
] His statement is not an application of Occam's razor.
] Occam's razor deals with selecting a 'preferred' theory 
] from a number of competing theories for explaining a 
] specific set of laws.  He's talking about 'proof', not
] 'preference'. 
 

theory one: there is a god

theory two: there is no god

HUM....

Or are you saying that in your mind they
are but one theory...

HUM....

] > by your Brilliant Refutation
] > of Komrade Kokhran's position we understand that
] > you hold that anything Not Yet Prooven is presumed to be true.
] 
] No, I was not arguing that anything "Not Yet Prooven" is
] presumed to be true.   
 

No, you were just posting....

We've yet to see you argue,
as in putting forth some sort of reasoning...

So in essence you are Supporting Cochran's Position?

its a simple XOR option there Doodie....

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"Let's Get Digital, Digital"
	Olivia Newton TheHideousMachOSFKonspirakii
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Greetings
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:47:14 GMT

The Holster's Hourly Lie:

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Ronald Bense writes:

[...]
>> and Chris' observations hold true for them (the majority). We have had
>> one other who claimed to be an atheist (saying you are anti-creationist
>> is redundant, BTW:) but he apparently has religious views, as expressed
>> in his opinions and what he chooses to contest in his posts. 

>I contest what I see as anti-religious bigotry and intolerance.

You see wrong.  Bense is commenting on purported atheists like you and
DJR (or maybe they're both you) who claim to be atheists, yet defend ONLY
CHRISTIANS as if their own mother was under siege.  Makes no sense, does
it, Mr. Atheist?

>Your twisted reasoning is the same kind reasoning which says that
>people who defend homosexuals from vicious bigoted attacks must
>be homosexuals themselves. 

I've rarely heard that type of reasoning.  A much more popular view is
that outspoken homophobes are likely to be suppressing similar
homosexual feelings, hence the hatred and tendency for cruel repression.

Maybe you've heard of Roy Cohn, the power behind McCarthy in the early
50s?  A homosexual Jew, he was violently anti-Semite and homophobic in
his views.

More recently, David Bath in Colorado was just convicted of having sex
with a minor *boy*.  The statute he was convicted under?  The same one
the hypocritical asshole had written and gotten passed as a Colorado
state legislator.

>It's a bunch of nonsense. 

Indeed, your bullshit analogies are, without fail.  

You can't argue on just the facts, can you, widdle Dougie?  

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:37:53 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) defends the people who are
going to Washington DC for the March for Life by saying:
>
>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.....

Nice to know what kind of people we're dealing with here, eh?  This is
precisely the kind of post that makes a lot of us suspect that
"pro-life" really just means "pro-fetus, to hell with everybody else".

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: March for Life
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:57:46 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.....


My, my,
what a positive, nay
                      pro-life
                                sentiment.

Adrienne Regard

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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:33:09 GMT

In article <1icpagINN5ij@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
}In article <1993Jan5.181125.17922@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}|> In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
}|> (John Townsend) writes:
}|> 
}|> }I, for one, have chosen life.
}|> 
}|> Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
}|> over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
}|> and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.
}
}Talk about myopia.  Read me again:

Myopia.  You must mean nearsightedness.  That condition which allows
people to see clearly things right under their noses when they may
not see things clearly in the distance?  Like seeing that people
who claim to respect life but really mean to say that there are things
like "good killing" and "bad killing" are simply rationalizing 
the killing that they prefer and posturing about the rationalization
they do not understand?  Like seeing that people who say they want the 
killing to stop and say they are worried about the regard with which human 
life is held but say of course we should go to war if other conditions are 
met are being at best disingenuous?  You mean people who can distinguish
between the probability of loss of life during bridge building and the
certainty of loss of life during warfare?

I read you the first time, and I think I understood you perfectly.  You
argue against some rationales for killing but fail to see your own.
Perhaps you should try a little of that "myopia."  

No, as you say, neither life or choice are sacrosanct.  Neither are
your justifications for killing.  

}|> ps  I don't think the Guttmacher survey on abortion had a slot for
}|>     "convienence"?  Was that your own "editorial" comment?
}
}Yep.  The actual slots were:  unwanted change in lifestyle, unwanted responsi-
}bility, can't afford it, relationship problems, not mature enough, and already
}have enough kids.  In other words, inconvenient.

"Other" words to be sure.  Your words to be exact.  Not everyone would
consider changes in lifestyle, responsibility (wanted or unwanted), monitary
considerations, relationship problems, lack of maturity, or having enough 
kids to be matters of "convenience."

--
       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: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: March for life (correction)
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:14:11 GMT


In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY
JAMES PRICE WRITES:

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.

This is a typo....I was wondering why I was getting so much off
of this post till I noiced the typo. Can we say Freudian slip :-)

it should read

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does NOT take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.                ^^^


Sorry about that.....If you want to read your reply please see the post I
posted before this in reply to Adrienne. Titled March For life
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:17:35 GMT

In <1294@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>The slavery analogy fails to show that "If you don't like
>abortion, don't have one" is an invalid argument for the
>same reason that it fails as a general abortion analogy.

>People who believe otherwise are ignoring the intrusion on
>the rights of the pregnant woman that an abortion ban
>entails.  

People who reject the slavery analogy are ignoring the intrusion 
on the property rights of the slaveholder that a slavery ban entails.

>Susan

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:09:09 GMT

In article <1ifv7vINNpea@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>> Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>> Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>> had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>> about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>> up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.

> Uh, you did say "her" didn't you?  Well, if the pro-lifers have their way,
> Suzanne, she won't be able to claim her WOMB is 'hers and hers alone', so 
> why should you be able to claim in her stead (especially believing as you
> apparently do) that her organs are hers and hers alone?  If the state can
> commandeer a woman's womb, why not her corneas?  Why not her kidneys?
> Why not her liver?  It's to *save a life*! after all.  So why not?

There's a thin line between killing and refusing to save a life
which you seem to have ignored.  In the cases of abortion and
organ transplant from an anencephalic infant, you're talking 
about killing a living human being so that another may benefit.
No matter how much you wish it to be, abortion is not "refusing
to save a life", it is killing.  Furthermore, Baby Theresa was
not responsible for the condition of people who could have used
her organs, nor was she even related to them. 


>Adrienne Regard


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: OK, it time to put your money where your mouth is (was: Abortifacients)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:42:30 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>I'll start out by matching the first person who will make a contribution
>of $20-$50. Any takers?

If the original posters are up for a gift and want to use it this way,
I am in.. just let me know where to send it.

al

>Eric
From: ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:24:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


<I can't believe how long this thread is!>

Does anyone believe there is such a disease characterized by depression,
nightmares, etc., which could last for a liftime?  This theory is being
touted on another board by Anti-choice folk.

Chris