HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.055759.9477@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.184440.6220@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct29.014024.14540@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, Keith Cochran candidly
>>admitted:
>>
>>"...let me
>> tell what sort of *legal restrictions* I support wrt abortion:
>>
>> -------------------------Start Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>> 1)The pregnant woman must voluntarily ask the doctor to perform one.
>> ---------------------------End Of Legal Restrictions---------------------------
>>"
>>
>>Is this as harmless as it looks?
>
>[Kevin attempts to improve his "pro-choice" standing by making me look
>foolish, deleted].

I support no legal restrictions on abortion. You support one. It's as 
simple as that, Keith. My pro-choice stance doesn't need any "improvement". 
Does yours?

>Pop quiz time, Kevin!
>
>(1)Have you ever seen me advocating enacting _any_ legislation wrt abortion?

The above restriction.

>(2)Have we ever seen you advocating "forcing" a woman to give up her child?

That's not a "legal _restriction_ on abortion" any way you slice it. Besides, 
I specifically said in that old stale quote you keep fixating over, that I 
wouldn't enact any legislation to effect this "force" (look at the first 
sentence of the paragraph). Nice fishing expedition, Cochran, but no catch.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 04:59:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

>Appointing 5 would be a godsend.

I find it pretty scary that *any* president could appoint more than
half of the Supreme Court.  Whether or not I agree with his expressed
views on abortion.  There's lots of other issues, folks!

							--  Michal
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Holtsinger slimes again
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:50:45 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>So your argument then, is that infants can be killed when a 
>person can't immediately transfer custody of an infant to 
>another person.  

A pregnant woman cannot transfer the pregnancy to another person,
immediately or otherwise.  You analogy doesn't hold.

Holtsinger, I am becoming increasingly disgusted by your blatant
attempts to attribute such dishonest labels to people you don't agree
with.  No (NONE, nada, zilch, nil, empty set) people here advocate in
any way shape, or form, the killing of infants.  That you keep trying
this line of "reasoning" indicates that your own position is so
unsupportable that you can do nothing better than to try and discredit
your opponents.  It didn't work for Bush, and it won't work for you.

Go away

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:08:04 GMT

In article <3088@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.045746.28299@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a 
>>violation of the right to live which God has bestowed
>>upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether
>>we are concerned already with a human being or not is
>>merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that
>>God certainly intended to create a human being and that
>>this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of 
>>his life.  And that is nothing but murder."
>>                     Bonhoeffer, "Ethics"   Hanged by
>>		     the Nazis in 1945.

>His real belief is, "Because *I* want it that way."  I would have
>liked to have been able to take him to task for this idiotic 
>remark.

But Joe, don't you realize that anyone 'hanged by the Nazis was always
'right?'

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:41:21 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov6.145325.24639@netcom.com>, by
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>Yeah.  But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>>fluffy stuff.
> 
> Try the argument from the other direction, then: does there exist
> anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain?  If
> so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?

Hmmm.  This is interesting...  I'm having a hard time thinking
about this because I'm not sure that a human who "lacks a brain"
can live.  If we were to say "largely lacks a brain" then we can
consider humans born so horribly deformed that they are hardly
recognizable as human, and yes, I would call them "people".
This may be disputed by some, who must therefore consider the
problem of threshold personhood: "Well, doc, would you say she
has enough brain to call her a person?"

I recall a fascinating episode of the PBS series "The Mind" in
which the case of a child born with extreme hydrocephalus was
described.  In this condition, the fluid-filled spaces within
the brain (ventricles) expand, compressing surrounding tissue.
When the child was born, her "brain" was a thin rim of tissue
smashed against the inside of her skull.  Her head was described
as resembling a melon, except that it was easier to see through.
It turns out that her functional impairment is amazingly small
and subtle, and she was shown attending class at a college.
To answer your question:  When a human truly lacks a brain,
he or she cannot live.  When a human appears to lack a brain,
the implications for her or his life are anything but clear.
So I would say that no living thing exists that lacks a brain 
that I would call a person.  <whew>

> 
> Sure, it might be possible to fashion a computer brain.  But then the
> computer's logic circuits would function in the same capacity as a
> human brain.  Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
> organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
> appears to have consciousness?

No, I can't, but that may be due to my inability to understand/
define consciousness.  Shall we continue from there?

> 
> -- 
> _/_/_/  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.
>         "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
>          -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Abortion and the Law
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:48:19 GMT


There are several criteria that people invoke when talking about abortion.
Some would restrict it at one point, while others might choose another.
About the only thing that "pro-lifers" agree on is that there should be
some kind of legislation, though they are rather foggy (collectively, I'm
sure many would assert that personally, they are quite clear) as to
exactly what.  

Given that so much of politics and legislation is based on compromise,
any legislation that is enacted wrt abortion is quite unlikely to be
defined by any one individual's criteria.  

Why then are so many presumably intelligent people supportive of
something which by its very nature is ill-defined.  Is it simple
love of legislation?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:42:02 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov5.145715.25946@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 
hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:

>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

>> Look, for me this is not an issue rooted in religious beliefs.
>> (It is, I think, rooted in my values of human beings, and compassion for 
>> others to the extent that I dislike what I see as the erosion of the 
>> importance of "humans" to our own society.)

> Sorry to question you but I think you're being disingenuous.  Many don't
> believe a fetus is a "human being", so this IS part of the discussion.
> The majority of those who beleive fetus==human tend to hold that belief
> due to religious indoctrination, so it is a religious issue. 

The fact that some people hold a religious belief that human  
beings deserve protection is not necessarily indicative that 
their beliefs cannot also have a secular foundation.  You might
be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  

>-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47746 alt.flame:14695
From: news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:22:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
X-Md4-Signature: f8ca84c4cc5f66b16ec1f3516f093631

In article <s6q9gn0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov10.174712.27216@wolves.uucp>, news@wolves.uucp writes:
>|Casting aspersions on NCSU because you are technically out-of-date is
>|hardly conducive to you [sic] (already lacking) net.reputation.
>
>"G. Wolfe Woodbury" needs a new clue.  Drieux has a healthy,
>robust, & well-established net.reputation.  The state of the
>net's uucp maps has no bearing on drieux's vast fame.

Dear CJ:
	I sell Usenet clues to idiots like you.  It's a nasty job, but,
like being a sanitation worker, someone has to do it.
-- 
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us  news%wolves@cs.duke.edu  ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: To the discussionaries!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:03:25 GMT

<1992Nov11.190043.8658@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Sorry if I have been a bit behind, but school calls, ya know.  I will try to
>keep up now.
>
>I thank God that he has been showing me some personal helps that I thought I'd
>share to help others.

"some personal helps"??  What the hell are they?

>---Clinton is not the enemy. --- Just because he is the president that supports
>many anti- christian ideals (gay rights, abortion on demand, etc.), 

And that all-consuming anti-Christian ideal - FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  (Psst,
Ken, that means that not being Christian is OK.  Got it?)

>                                                                    he is only
>a tool that God uses to wake up his children and to shake the fence that people
>are trying to balance on.  

Why doesn't this wimpy god ever do anything himself?  Sheesh!  He sends
everyone else to do his dirty work.

>                           We need to love our brothers and sisters (even
>clinton) and hate the sin.  This also is true for hating abortion but loving
>those who had them.  We need to tell the truth but not judge, that is up to
>God.

Why don't you just mind your own business? If your god is really the big
cheese, it would seem that he could do all this himself.

>---The only thing different not from before the election is that now we have a
>new challange to face.  Besides, as we see from those resigning before clinton
>comes in.  

Does your prior sentence *say* anything?

>           Many experienced people see him for what he was now --talk just
>talk.  I don't want to side track, but seeing that he wanted to bomb and begin
>a ground war with Serbia just a few months ago.  What will he do know?

Heck, you don't want him starting a war over human rights, do you?  "There
ain't any oil over there for us so why should we get involved."  Is that
it?

>I think that is good for now.  Peter -- stay in there and all you others for
>the unborn.  Maybe people will wake up soon.

Well when you do - welcome to the real world.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Abortion: The Uncontrollable Immorality
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:57:23 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Well, I have some spare time on my hands, and t.a. is looking a little
boring.  Even Bruce Varney is too busy to continue bashing his thick
skull against mine in pointless e-mail drivel, so I thought I'd 
accomplish what I had originally intended to do here.  About a year
ago, I wrote a position paper for my Human Sexuality course on the
morality/legality of abortion, and I'd like to share it with the
readers of t.a.

I'm proud of it since it sorta sums up my position, and helped a lot
in getting me my A in Sex ;)

My thoughts have changed on a few of the platforms presented, but for
the most part, it's still an accurate interpretation of what I think
about abortion.  One thing I must point out is that I used the terms
"conservative" and "liberal" simply to avoid the normal prejudices
and problems encountered with "pro-life" and "pro-choice".  So don't
think I like to label people as being "conservative" or "liberal".
Such labels are destructive to higher levels of thought.  Think for
yourself, not for your stereotype!

This will consist of a number of posts, each with "ATUI:" in the subject
line in case you wish to killfile it.

On with the show:

Abortion:  The Uncontrollable Immorality
By Brian McBean
November 27, 1991

     I believe that the act of aborting a human fetus after implantation
in the uterus is morally wrong, but both the woman's right to have
control over her body, and the judicial structure of our society make
outlawing abortion an unreasonable task.  It is my purpose to explore
various positions on the morality of abortion, and to show why my position
is correct in contrast to others.  The inadequacy of the ability of our
legal system to address the wrongness of abortion will also be dealt with.

NEXT POST:  The Moral Status of the Fetus

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Nov 92 13:51:12 GMT

In <1992Oct30.130948.10139@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720223561@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>}Almost from the day I joined this newsgroup, I have stated that I would
>}allow unrestricted abortion up to the end of the 5th week.  

>That's very kind of you.  I'm sure folks are impressed by your generosity.

>}            ... so I would love
>}to see abortions after the 5th week outlawed because a safer 
>}alternative is available.

I was pressed for time and did not have time to elaborate.  I should,
however, have inserted MOST before "abortions".  Mea culpa.

>Like you, I would prefer to see a safer alternative used to one which
>is not.  Why would you want to drag legislation and politics into it
>after the 5th week?  No "pro-life" type has yet provided any examples
>or statistics that legislation of any type would bring about the
>changes they seem to desire.

Because the idea of a 5-week limit is totally untested.  On the other
hand, LOTS of countries have a 12-week limit [again with exceptions
similar to the ones I would grant after week 5] and that seems to
have worked quite well.  The US is definitely in the minority in allowing
abortion for any reason up to the 24th week.

>  The recent posting about Romania would
>lead one to conclude that exactily the oposite might happen.

I missed that one, and am very curious about it.  I would appreciate
a repost, or an e-mailing.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 6 Nov 1992 11:45:00 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <Bx9o7F.139.2@cs.cmu.edu: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
:In article <1dbr70INNch0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
:#In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
:##Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
:##price of liberty is eternal vigilance...
:#
:#Can someone explain to me the status of FOCA?  Is it just a bill?  I thought
:#it was put to referendum - does this not give it a higher status?  How does
:#Roe vs Wade fit into this picture?

[explanation deleted]

Thanks Susan, that explains a lot.

:#Please forgive my ignorance and all - but the only news in english that I get
:#here is the Irish papers and the BBC world service, neither of which have said
:#anything about FOCA that I know about.
:
:That's okay - I frequently assume that people in other countries
:are just naturally avid scholars of U.S. current events.  :-)

Well, all I know about American civics comes from P.J. O'Rourke's book,
"Parliament of Whores", so my understanding is probably significantly out
of whack :-)

[...]

:It's difficult to amend the
:U.S. Constitution, and fairly easy to pass a law.  
:
:We've been unable to add an amendment, for example, that simply
:says that rights should not be denied people based on their
:gender.  (Of course, a lot of the opposition to the ERA is
:based on the notion that granting full equality to women under
:the law implies the right to abortion.)  I think that the FOCA
:will do as a temporary measure until the Constitution can be
:amended.  The FOCA isn't perfect, but it's a decent first step.

You would cry if you saw the Irish constitution, and what they want to
do to it end of Novemember (I won't be home to vote against, after all).

One of the articles there at present says something like "No woman should
be forced out of financial necessity to work outside the home".  Apart
from the sexism this is unexceptionable - if it said 'parent' then it
would merely be stupid - but in a constitution?  

The Catholic church helped write our constitution.  There is a constitutional
ban on divorce too, and latterly (what purports to be) a ban on abortion
(bereft of legislation - it's the recent attempt of the Supreme court to give
it meaning that has caused the upcoming hassle).  Meanwhile the wellwoman
centre and others try to get through the working day...

:Susan,

All the best,
Frank.

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: My newsserver trashed everything
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: Fri, 6 Nov 92 01:03:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.182850.7828@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>My newsserver trashed all the articles since today.  If anyone
>wants a response from me on an old article, please e-mail it 
>to me. 



Gee, the "Pro-Lifers" sure do seem to be having lots of system problems,
don't they?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some opinions from pro-choicers on the personhood status of infants
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:47:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Nice set of out of context quotes, Dougie ole pal...<pat> <pat>.

Don't drool on the carpet.


Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:18:33 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>>> I'm not defending killing and leaving persons
->>>>> to die; that's the job of the pro-choicers. 

->>>>     I am pro-choice.
->>>>     <1992Oct31.185907.14514@ncsu.edu>

->>> It was a joke, son.  

->> that's what all the newbies say when they're shown to
->> have contradicted themselves.

->You mean, you didn't notice the smileys in the Keywords
->line of that post?  

	Penn Jillette described the smiley as 
	"the hateful :) which means 'just kidding' 
	and is used by people who would dot their i's
	with little circles and should have their eyes 
	dotted with Drano."
		San Francisco Chronicle, 10/06/92


Newsgroups: talk.abortion