HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,co.politics
Subject: Re: How many Republicans ... let's get educated folks
Summary: Let's not and say we did
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:39:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug24.201309.2389@advtech.uswest.com> ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:

>Most people in America are in the middle ground -- they
>think "choice" sounds great and so will vote pro-choice if they hear
>nothing else, but if educated on what the "choice" really is (the reality
>that abortion is an act of *violence* that kills an innocent child) then
>they will vote pro-life.  

Gee, thanks, Ron!  I'd never really known what this "abortion" thing
was that everyone keeps talking about before -- you've opened my eyes!
I certainly don't want people shooting or stabbing innocent children,
and by your definition that's abortion, right?

Boy, you have a pretty low opinion of the American voter, don't you?
I think we've all been "educated" to exhaustion, and I doubt
if many people ever change their minds on this issue anyway; you either
think the fetus is either human or you don't, and that decides your position.

Frankly, I don't vote either anti-choice or anti-life;  I think there
are other issues that I'd rather have my elected representatives worrying 
about, especially since this one is insoluble.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Third party request
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 04:07:53 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  <1992Sep3.194440.22741@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> How about the abortion
> laws in some states which have remained on the books despite their
> unconstitutionality under Roe?

Have those other laws had portions challenged before the Supreme Court
(since Roe)?

> I hope that you and your pro-abortion buddies will be able to finally
> understand that the mere existence of a law does not necessarily
> imply that it's constitutional, or that it's being enforced.

I hope you will eventually understand that a law need not be constitutional
to be enforced.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:26:17 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep3.002843.17095@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>If you cannot do this, then who really cares what amuses you?  Let's get
>on with representing the other side correctly and get away from the stupid,
>childish mockery that so thoroughly permeates the flame wars we so often see
>on the net.  People have points of view that should be represented right, or
>else we are not dealing with the issues at hand.



  Wow--not even a .net cop, but a .net private dick!


                                                           MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:50:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.230934.15528@nntp.uoregon.edu> 
eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>> rape, and theft?

> No.  I should have added that legislated morality does not work except when
> the overwhelming majority of society agrees that an immoral act should be
> made illegal.  They have done so in the cases of homicide, rape and theft.
> They have not done so in the case of abortion.

I can kind of agree with you here.  I believe the overwhelming majority
of the people in this country support restrictions on abortion. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 22:47:44 GMT

In <180ulpINNn1a@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
>>quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>>A being, by the way, which would become one of us unless some drastic
>>force intervenes.

>And, as the old joke has it,
>Who's "we", white man?

You in the first clause, me in the second.  "us" refers to all of us 
who are safely out of the most dangerous place in the world to be
inside (unless you are an abortionist going by your nonstandard use
of the word "inhabit") while the drastic force refers to the *Lethal Force* you
have written about so ably in the past.

Note to readers who may
not be old enough: The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by Native
Americans (although in the day the joke was made, they were called a
different name) in full war regalia, and the Lone Ranger says, "looks
like we're in big trouble," and Tonto replies, "What do you mean we,
paleface?"

>You would feel quite free to stake a WOMAN's life on it, but funny thing,
>your OWN life doesn't fit into the equation.  Pretty cheap rhetoric, Peter.

Who said anything about staking her life on it?  I wish you, who know
my views by now, would stop misleading readers about what they are.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:35:50 GMT

In article <92238.230642ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:

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

>> I think some pro-choicers on the net don't want to acknowledge
>> the existence of extremists on their side, because if they did,
>> they couldn't bash the extremists on the pro-life side without
>> looking a little hypocritical.

> There are a number of people in this newsgroup who
> say they are prochoice and who have bashed prochoicers
> they view as extremist.  

You mean like Keegan et. al. bashing Darcy, Bartley, 
and Silverio?

Then are you admitting that Darcy, Bartley, and Silverio 
are "pro-choice"? 


>Linda


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34596 misc.legal:16852
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:48:48 GMT

In article <nyikos.714957125@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}...it is sometimes done by doctors administering lethal injections. 

I recall some discussion in the AMA regarding this when lethal injection 
first became somewhat popular.  I recall some doctors were campaigning 
that technicians administer lethal injections rather than doctors, to
avoid the medical ethical questions.  Do doctors actually perform the
administration of lethal injection (where mandated)?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Randy goes to jail
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:44:05 GMT



According to CNN, Randy Terry started serving a six month sentence
in Houston today.  I hope that Patrick will provide us with
some more details.

(Randy should have waited for his publicity stunt until after
the Republicans left town.  HPD allowed pro-force fanatics
to violate the injunction in groups of 10 on Saturday.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:08:43 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <nyikos.714423816@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[lots of text delete, before and after the quote]

>I trust it is the abortionist who is punished, not the woman.  Despite
>arduous research, nobody has ever found a case, not even in what 
>NARAL calls the dark ages, where a woman was prosecuted for procuring
>an abortion on her.  [If this info is out of date, please correct me.]

Gladly. 

	"Only one woman is known to have been prosecuted for
undergoing an illegal abortion.  Shirley Wheeler, age twenty-
three, delivered a stillborn fetus in a Florida hospital,
the result of a saline injection.  She refused to reveal the
name of the doctor who performed the abortion and was herself
brought up on charges.  She was tried and convicted by the
jury on the charge of abortion manslaughter and was sentenced
to two years' probation."

Catherine Whitney, _Whose Life?_, William Morrow and Co., Inc.,
New York: 1991.  (page 57)  ISBN: 0-688-09622-0

You can write Whitney c/o the publisher for more details.

Susan

(This is evidently the book that Don Porter recommended.
I'm still reading it, but I haven't seen any factual
errors yet.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Hence, stagnation.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:38:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.024720.23681@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.
>
>You do realize, of course, that this gives my lover (possibly my
>rapist) control over my body equal to mine?

Wrong.  It gives the father equal control over your reproductive system
only in so far as to whether or not you are allowed to abort the child,
and of course, that control can only be exercised if you are pregnant.

And if you had read any of my other posts, you would realize that I
support exceptions in regards to rape, incest and to save the mothers
life.

>Hopefully that phrasing makes clear my objection to this proposal.

Hopefully, my explanation outlines where you misread.

You took a single idea out of context, which of course stripped it of
it's disclaimers and exceptions.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:35:59 GMT

From article by mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills):
> 
>"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."


ANYONE voting for pro-choicers is like a human being voting for cannibals.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Abortion safer than giving birth
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:33:59 GMT

In <1992Aug27.191315.36800@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.714864342@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> It will take me very much longer to get a clear picture of what
>> mortality rates are really like today, as opposed to official
>> figures of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.  But that's one reason
>> I am on this net, to report to you from time to time on what I learn.

>It's not clear that you're interested in learning, if you automatically
>dismiss facts because you don't like the source.  Perhaps you'll like
>one of these sources better.

Thank you.  I saved the info you listed below, although the first
table is extremely suspect, and there's nothing to go on.  But I will
study the rest of the info very carefully.

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:26:34 GMT

In article <24559@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>
>>Correct.  So what do you call it when a woman carrying my child kills it?
>>I call it violating my rights by having her beliefs forced on me.
>
>It is not your child until it is born. 

That's your belief.  It is also pretty much upheld by law.  But it does
not imply that there is a consensus.  To be cynical, it is not even the
father's child after it is born, given the inequities in custody decisions.

>>This is not emotional rhetoric.  It is truth.  Abortion is not just what
>>is done to the mother, it is also what is done to the baby, and the
>>father.
>
>Sorry bub. Nothing is being done to the "father" as half the time the
>"father" isn't around or aware of what he imposed on the woman. (Many
>single women get abortions, remember? Of those that are married, I would
>hope that they discuss it with their husbands.)

Statistics or references, please?  After all, you said:
>Could you post a verifiable reference for this please. 

And, especially in the legally-defined situation of marriage,
is a lack of awareness arising from disinformation by the woman
not something that is "done" to the father?

As for "hopes" of nice behavior, we all hope that people don't steal
things or kill other people.  But we do have laws to inhibit such behavior.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.161641.23258@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Aug25.034338.1793@crd.ge.com> 
#james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
#
#dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### I was wondering if there would be any interest in a
### moderated abortion newsgroup.
#
## of course there is! i suspect you'll find that the same
## kind of people who want to reduce or eliminate a
## woman's choice will also want to reduce or eliminate
## the expression of opinion.
#
#I don't want to see the expression of opinion reduced or
#eliminated.  I believe that flames and insults have a
#tendency to discourage people from expressing their
#opinions.  That's why I suggested a moderated newsgroup.

Neither flames nor insults nor the truth have stopped
you from posting your "opinions", DOD.  (Note:  "opinion",
in this case, means "lies.")  

I'm sure that you can find some support for a moderated
pro-force group in which no facts would be allowed.  You
could get all of Chaney/Hall's personalities to vote for it,
at the very least.

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Sex Sacrifices and MultiProcessing Computers
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 20:46:16 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  <1992Sep3.102931.7292@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> If folks need to know about Sex, they can try alt.sex, or
> soc.singles, where there are many knowledgeable persons
> willing to clarify the technical complications of engaging
> in various Sexual Depravities like heterosexuality, and like perversions.

drieux, I am just SHOCKED that you would imply that many people in
these groups like perversions.  I'm sure it's just a few of us.  :-)

> If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
> To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
> Put them back in the Refrigerator.

And watch out for that late-night snacking.  And I keep telling you,
don't eat them in bed - it leaves such a mess.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:21:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>The difference might be that while we can all believe what everyone "should" and
>>"shouldn't" do, we are not all out trying to make laws to force people to 
>>do the things we think they should be doing.
>
>The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
>they think we should be doing.

First, I am NOT "pro abortion".  I would object to anyone forcing an abortion
just as strongly as I would object to anyone forcing pregnancy.  The term
of preference is pro-choice (as in given women the _choice_ whether to 
continue with the pregnancy).

Second, I'm not trying to force you to do anything except respect the
privacy of other people.

>And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
>reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
>their unborn children.

You insistance on being able to force a woman to give birth to your child
strikes me as being rather like the chicken deciding for the pig whether
you should be allowed to eat ham & eggs for breakfast.

While the legal system is rather biased towards mothers in this area, the
solution might be to modify child support & custody laws and rulings, 
rather than to attempt to spread the misery.  Whether I, my fiancee,
or my friends have, are having, or will have and abortion is none of
your business, and I intend to keep it that way.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: aborting females
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:10:35 GMT

In article <5748@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>Here's an idea to hinder sex-selection abortions.
>
>When the results of amniocentesis are given, the gender of the fetus should
>not be given at that time:  only the other medical information.  ONLY when
>the woman has signed an agreement to either continue or terminate the 
>pregnancy based ONLY on the non-gender medical facts, may she then know the
>sex of the fetus.
>
>Would that be acceptable to the pro-lifers?
>

That would NOT be acceptable to ME, a most definite pro-choicer.  Why?
Because someone whould take it upon themselves that they know better than
the pregnant woman.  What if the sole reason for having an amnio is to
know the sex?  She's paying for it, why shouldn't she have the information?

And this idea of signing a document is ridiculous.  "Sign this, honey,
and we'll tell you the test results?"  Is that paternalistic or what?
How would you feel if a doctor made you sign a document saying you wouldn't
sue her before she gave you some test results?

I suppose you'd say that a woman shouldn't be able to discover the sex
of the fetus unless she was willing to sign away her individual rights.


Jennifer

>--Teddi
>------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:53:51 GMT

In <17gm4nINN3mf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <nyikos.714852140@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Aug24.203014.15935@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>Oh, silly Teddi! You fail to understand Peter's logic. Obviuosly,
>>>they're not human beings--they're just women!
>>Who authorized you to speak for me?  

>Let me guess.

>The same person who authorized you to "educate" those poor/defenseless/
>ignorant/mislead/underinformed/pathetically incapable women???


>Nah.

>Adrienne Regard

Well, Adrienne, it looks like you missed out on two long follow-ups
of mine to two of your posts, which makes me wonder whether (1)
the distribution's getting screwed up again or (2) as with me, the
doggone table of contents does not list my follow-ups right under the
posts they follow.  Anyway the last one addresses just such sarcasm
as the above and then tells you that these beautifully competent, 
well-informed, capable, educated women who have determined just how
much they need to know about childbearing, abortion, the relative
drawbacks and advantages of each...are so ignorant of yellow page
listings and other ads for abortion clinics that they have to 
be protected from THE GAG RULE.

Gimme a break.
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion slavery analogy supports pro-choice position.
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:45:24 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <168578928.M21164@mwvm.mitre.org> M21164@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

>For a long time similar logic was used to defend the practice of owning slaves.
>"You think slavery is wrong? Well, then don't own one! But don't try to force
>*your* belief system on me"  Slavery only offended the delicate sensibilities
>of the prohibitionists.

The legislative agenda has to do with control of one's own body not
the body of another.  The eventual decision to outlaw slavery fit in
with common law notions that one person should not be allowed to force
another to support him with their body.  The anti-choice position
implies that a /z/e/f/, which at least legally is most clearly *not* a
person, should be allowed to force a woman to support it with her body.

>This brings us quicky to the crux of the abortion argument, because it will be
>pointed out that slavery involves the rights of another person but, according
>the pro-choice view, abortion does not.  

Whether the /z/e/f/ is a person is immaterial.  A parent is not
legally compelled to use their body to save the life of their child;
for example, you cannot be forced to donate blood or a kidney to save
the life of your ten year old.  Why should a woman be forced to do for
a /z/e/f/ what she is not forced to do for her child?

>Well, pro-lifers believe it does,
>and unbelievable though it may seem to some, there are numerous thoughtful and
>resonable people in the pro-life crowd.

I have yet to see one of these thoughtful and resonable [sic] people
answer the question that closes my previous comment.  I have seen one
unreasonable fool, Dan Dick, advocate passing laws to force parents to
donate bodily organs to their children.

>  This is why the issue of abortion
>belongs not in the judicial, but in the legislative arena, where resonable
>people can argue the merits of each side.  That's what democracy's for.

Since the above `rationale' is incorrect, so is the conclusion.

SJM
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34217 alt.flame:12464