HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:14:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.142445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>Some abortion statistics according to the Abortion Surveillance Report of the
>Centers for Disease Control:
>
>o  Half of all minority pregnancies and one-third of all pregnancies in the
>U.S. end in abortion.
>
>o  77.5% of women who obtain abortions in the U.S. are unmarried.
>
>o  41% of women obtaining an abortion had previously had at least one
>other induced abortion.
>
>o  75,000 admitted having had at least three previous abortions.
>
>o  States reporting the highest abortion ratio include:  California, where
>40% of all pregnancies end in abortion, and New York, where 34.4% are
                                                             ^^^^^
>aborted.  In New York City, 42% of all pregnancies end in abortion.
>

If 1/3 is average, then so is 34.4% (approxiamately).
Make up your mind.

>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW in 
>1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in 
>World War II.

It is also but a fraction of the number of people who have died in 
religious wars. Use your brand of logic to conclude as you wish.

Robert Johnston
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 8 Jan 1993 14:05:43 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan8.163822.11406@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
>>... By the way, I've been on the net longer than you have been.
>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

.Cripes, Suzanne, get some tact.  You're a hateful, spiteful woman
.living in your own dream world and refusing to come out because
.everything is so very pretty in there. 

Now, now, Brian.

This is Suzanne, remember?

She's "just joking", remember?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:18:20 GMT

In <1993Jan12.193550.6011@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726862548@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>[deletia]

>>A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
>>individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
>>to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
>>hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact
>>with the above definition only by expanding that definition of
>>humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
>>for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential
>>and so do z/e/f's.

>That won't do for this boy, chum. Severely retarded individuals cannot
>reason, yet we grant them status as human beings (at least, any halfway
>caring individual does).

I did say "a first stab." Why do YOU regard the severely retarded as human?

>I'm majoring in mol. biology. I can't hear, see, smell, taste, or touch
>reasoning, individuality, or "potential". Give me something physical,
>something concrete, something that occupies space, and then maybe
>you'll be in business.

I majored in physics, and I have no problem with reason, free will,
individuality, or potential.

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:54:36 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <root.726854793@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Steve...you sound like a whining 15-year old.  Grow up, will ya.
>
>Mr. Adams, my 15-year old greatly resents this comparison!
>
I apologize to your 15-year old and retract the statement....

Chaney sounds like a whining little kid...no offense meant to other peoples'
kids.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Statistics
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:24:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.142445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>Some abortion statistics according to the Abortion Surveillance Report of the
>Centers for Disease Control:
>
>o  Half of all minority pregnancies and one-third of all pregnancies in the
>U.S. end in abortion.
>
So minorities have a slightly higher rate of unwanted pregnancies.
And your point is?

>o  77.5% of women who obtain abortions in the U.S. are unmarried.
>
So women who are unmarried are less likely then married women to want
to have children.
And your point is?

>o  41% of women obtaining an abortion had previously had at least one
>other induced abortion.
>
So women who have had abortions don't object to having another. Sort
of dumps on the old "abortion trauma" myth, doesn't it?

>o  75,000 admitted having had at least three previous abortions.
>
A clear argument for better contraceptive education, and further
research into more effective, cheaper, easier to use contraception.
Or did you have another point you wanted to make?

>o  States reporting the highest abortion ratio include:  California, where
>40% of all pregnancies end in abortion, and New York, where 34.4% are
>aborted.  In New York City, 42% of all pregnancies end in abortion.
>
Insignificant difference. Especially in light of the minority
population of these cities, and the above "50%" claim for minority
abortions.

>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW in 
>1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in 
>World War II.

Weak emotionalism. Just call the embryo/fetus what it is.
Your attempt to compare abortion to the holocaust is cheap
emotionalism, and smacks of anti-semitism to many of those who have
personal conenctions to that time period.
*yawn* All in all, a pretty feeble article, not unlike most of those
submitted by the anti-choice side.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:48:09 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

> I demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
> in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
> and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.
> (And many of them are Christian too.)

Which is fine and dandy, if the woman _wants_ to be pregnant and bear a
child.  But if she _doesn't_ want to be pregnant, would you (or Jesus) put
her under house arrest to make sure she has that baby?

> Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.

So what would Jesus do with a woman who didn't want to be pregnant?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: talk about projecting!
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:09:38 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to mark
cochran:

->Why is it so difficult for you to admit a simple mistake? Is this an ego
->thing?

some statements require no comment. heh.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:57:48 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

>From article <root.726249006@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
>>>I see many pro-choice people saying hateful stuff at pro-life people here
>>>and I think maybe they should think about why they're saying that stuff.
>
>> Hateful???  The pro-life crowd are the ones tossing around the accusations
>> of murder, etc.
>
>Hi Steve.  I've seen a lot of your posts here and in alt.atheism.  You
>seem to be an intelligent and thoughtful person.  You seem to be a
>little too intelligent and thoughtful to believe that the "pro-life
>crowd" has a monopoly on "saying hateful stuff" like "accusations of
>murder, etc."  
My point was to counter what was said by Mr/Ms Anonymous...there is no
monopoly on hateful...there are hateful people in both camps...

>Let's see, I was once called a "twit" after challenging
>some scientific claims regarding personhood, and I was recently referred
>to as "pro-force" by someone with no knowledge of my position on the
>legal issue of choice.  Not "hateful" enough for you?  I find that there
>are *several* regular posters to t.a who routinely resort to far more
>strident methods of verbal abuse (i.e., slams that easily qualify as
>"saying hateful stuff").  Most of these folks are not members of the
>"pro-choice crowd".  Come on, Steve.

The question of when a personal comment becomes hateful is a difficult one
to answer.  Being called a 'twit' doesn't seem hateful to me, personally.
I've been called worse! (How does heretic grab you? ;-)).  As for being
called 'pro-force,' that's no different than calling a pro-choice person
'pro-abortion'...labels are important to some people, not to others...

Being called a murderer seems more hateful, but then again, I would let
that thing simply go by, and consider the source, as it were.  Unless it
were a law-enforcement official or a prosecutor, it wouldn't bother me a
whole lot.  It's not more offensive than being called an idiot...

Take everything that is said with a grain of salt...rhetoric tends to get
real thick on both sides - no unusual for such an emotional issue.  Now, if
someone actually threatens you, that's a different topic altogether...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:51:59 GMT

In <1992Dec30.012145.13731@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is
>>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use
>>certain words in certain situations.

>Well, say "pro-choice-for-abortion" if it makes you happy.  But saying
>"pro-abortion" in place of "pro-choice" is simply wrong.

OK -- all those supporting the right to choose drugs, pornography, and
prostitution are hereby permitted to call themselves "pro-choice."
(Please note: I know many of you on the net do meet this criterion; I just
wonder if ALL do. Also note: out in the non-net world, many "pro-choicers"
are anti-choice wrt drugs etc.)

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Ethics, absolute and otherwise
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:21:42 GMT

In <1993Jan10.215310.28728@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:

>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
>( Steve Novak) writes:

>[deletia]

>>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you
>>>using?

>>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>>pointless or self-contradictory?

>Not at all. There are no absolute ethical standards because no single
>system of ethics can possibly cover all 5 billion+ people in the world.
>Individuals, however, do have personal systems of ethics by which they
>live their lives--by which they _should_ live their lives. 

But why DEBATE them? 

>Tep

Mark Pundurs
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 23:23:54 GMT

In <1993Jan12.205807.10200@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>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.

Ron Bense and I are hashing this one out, in "Who are you guys" (I think).
Come join the fun!

>The_Doge

Mark Pundurs
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:08:00 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

Mark A. Cochran writes:
|> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >Mark A. Cochran writes:
|> >>John Townsend writes:
|> >>
|> >>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
|> >>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
|> >>
|> >>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
|> >>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
|> >>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
|> >>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
|> >>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
|> >>*another persons* body.
|> >
|> >Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
|> >body.
|> >
|> I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
|> was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
|> Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
|> evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
|> How sad...

Oh good.  You won't mind, then, if I choose to go bludgeon to death a million
and a half baby seals tonight.  How I love to see the body parts fly!

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:29:12 GMT

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>Pregnancy is not a punishment.  Pregnancy is a responsibility one must
>>accept for one's actions.  Men who consent to sex should be legally
>>responsible to support the child emotionally and financially.

>I'd be absolutely fascinated to hear how you propose to legislate that
>men emotionally support their biological children.  Or is abortion the
>only fit subject for legislation, and should we just trust that men
>will "do the right thing"?

Did I claim we could legislate that?  

Oh, by the way, it's you liberals who are now helping children sue
their parents for "non-performance"... so in effect YOU are trying to
legislate this.  

>I'm also assuming that you are strongly against the concept of adoption,
>since it allows all those horrible, slutty men to escape their emotional
>and financial duties.

You're an idiot if you think anything I have said indicates this.

I am adopted.  My sister is adopted.  Several of my cousins are adopted.
Several of my friends are adopted.  I can't say how glad I am to know
that all of these people's biological parents didn't scrape them out
into a garbage can because my life is enriched by their existance.  

>>This society is going down the hill MORALLY.  All of these problems stem
>>from the same thing: lack of moral absolutes.  Abortion is a great way to
>>escape maturity, regardless of your actual age.  

>Do share with us your currently fashionable set of politically correct
>moral absolutes.  I need to keep up, since these "moral absolutes" seem
>to be as changeable as the weather.

Don't use the term "politically correct" with me.  Political correctness
is in the vanguard of support for moral relativism.  

I will give you a moral absolute.

Murder is wrong.  


>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers

>                    -rocker


Edward Simmonds

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:43:10 GMT

In <1993Jan8.205621.2142@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>
>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>right to life.
>>
>Why?
>How?

Analogy: If I altered your biochemistry to make your survival dependent
on transfusions of my blood (nobody else's would do), then I would be
responsible for providing such transfusions. 
General principle: One who creates a human dependency incurs an 
obligation to meet that dependency.

>Says who?
>And why should I take that person's reasoning as my own?
>Just asking some fundamental questions here, as I don't agree that a woman
>has "obligated herself" to anything except having a good time in bed by
>having sex!  Please tell me in what rule book this "obligation" is written.
>And who wrote it and why. 

I hope the above also answers these questions. (Otherwise, they're 
expressions of ethical relativism, which is incompatible with ethical
debate.)

>Jennifer

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne 
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:32:09 GMT

From article <1992Dec30.003444.7408@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> <1992Dec22.182521.8808@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
>> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)
> 
> I have to admit that I don't like being around kids in general.  I refuse
> to babysit for anyone unless I have full corporal authority.  


What does "full corporal authority" mean?   A whack on the behind?
Several whacks?  A fat lip?  A black eye?  Broken legs?  Cigarette burns?
Capital punishment?

Well, I know these are extreme, but speaking as a parent, I find your
term extremely *vague*!


> So far no
> one's taken me up on it. ;-)  

I'm not surprised!  Perhaps you should explain yourself more clearely.


> Most children are smelly, 

All those diapers just like you once needed yourself, Gordon, which somebody
else changed for you.


> noisy 

All that laughing, crying, yelling, singing, gleeful squeals, general life
stuff.  (Disgusting, ain't it.)


> and messy.

All those wet kisses, tears when you hurt their feelings, noses they
haven't quite got the hang of blowing yet, mud pie gifts they try to
make you eat, and bubble baths that somehow soak the whole bathroom.
The sweetness life is made of.


> Not unlike a lot of my friends in general, but at least I can tell them to
> go home.


You and your wife are missing out on quite alot by having aborted your
child, Gordon.
 
 
> Gordon

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You had to encourage me... (formerly: Let me state my view...)
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:24:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan8.094418.26919@wam.umd.edu>,
by judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein - you can't prove otherwise; it must be me):
> What: <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu>
> Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)

>>1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>>   can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

> *rolls his eyes*

> I can't prove otherwise, so it must be true?  Oh, geez.

> Elvis is alive on Mars.  There are exactly 223 chemical elements.  You will
> be hit by a crazed toddler on a tricycle in your lifetime.  In a previous
> life, I was Paul Revere's horse (gratuitous straight line to see who will
> sink to the cheap shot).  Cats have souls.  You can't prove otherwise, so...

Aw, Jay, why did you have to stop?  Paul is dead.  Bill Clinton didn't
inhale.  And, of course, the check's in the mail.

See, Mr. Price?!?  I *told* you this would happen.  I must admit it's
a lot of fun, so thanks for the excuse.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion