HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:43:25 GMT

> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

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

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:56:28 GMT

In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.180930.5328@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

[Deletions of old text]

>|> I must have made a wrong turn someplace. I could have *sworn* I was in
>|> talk.abortion, not talk.animal.rights...
>|> BUT what the hell, I'll give it a shot...
>|> Those baby seals are not *your own* body either bozo...
>|> Why do you have such a hard time differentiating between your body and
>|> others?
>
>Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
>body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
>definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
>and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
>to grow to any given level of maturity.
>
The difference, of course, being that I am not taking my nutrition or
environment from a womans body. 
However, if you personally want to provide a fetus with nutrition and
asafe environment, feel free.

>Given any thought lately to what might have happened if abortion had been legal
>and morally acceptable when Bill Clinton's father died while little Billy was
>swimming through his second trimester, leaving a single mother without any
>welfare or job skills?  There would have been no "Hope" for Billy.
>
Wow, another mind reader! What evidence can you provide that Moma
Clinton would have made the *choice* of aborting?
What's that? You can't provide any?
Not suprising.
This oh-so-oft repeated argument makes no more sense then this:
How about if your mom had been suffering from a headache John? There
would have been no hope for you, either.
Neither of these scenarios is any rational basis for legislation, or
even debate.
But you knew that already, didn't you?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Reading Skills...
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:32:23 GMT

demonstrating that he's illiterate as well as
dishonest,

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> 4.  The Drieuxster is dumb as a doughnut.

quite the contrary, twit, dieux is most intelligent.
equally important, he's honest. you're not equipped
to deal with the intelligence aspect. you could
learn from drieux when it comes to honesty.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:28:54 GMT

In <#g+3!fc@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>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:


>>>>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

>Which "absolute ethical standards" are you referring to?  If you refer
>to your own ethics, are you certain that they are as absolute as you
>claim?  

My ethics are the best approximation I know of to the absolute. (If
I knew of a better approximation, I'd switch to it.)

>Are you saying that you have never changed 
>your mind about whether something is ethical or not?  If you have, are
>you saying that your ethics are now correct and have ceased to evolve?

No, and no. My ethics don't evolve without reason, and so far the 
pro-choicers haven't given me any.

>As for the existence of some absolute ethical standard for everyone
>that's floating around out in the universe somewhere I say hey, why
>not?  I've never seen an extraterrestrial, but I don't discount the
>possibility that they exist.  I've just never seen any evidence that
>any human is privy to that information, if it exists.  

Of what would such evidence consist? (Or is this an unfalsifiable 
statement?)

>I really don't
>believe you could get any two people on the planet to agree on a 
>comprehensive ethical code.  Some people believe it would be ethical
>to kill if necessary to protect 50% of the population of the planet 
>from being wiped out.  Some believe it would be ethical to kill to
>avoid physical or emotional pain, i.e., self-defense against rape.
>Others believe that it is never ethical to take
>a life.  The Jains sweep the path before their feet to avoid killing
>any living thing, even bugs.

Relevance?

>Now, _this_ is a debate over ethics.

>>Isn't it either pointless or self-contradictory?

>If you feel that debate between persons of differing ideas is either
>pointless or contradictory, 

Not at all -- assuming they recognize that there is AN answer toward
which they both strive.

>may I expect that I won't see a reply to
>this?  After all, _I_ feel that the _only_ interesting debate occurs
>between people of differing opinions.

Amen!

>                      -rocker

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:20:03 GMT

In <q_-3=rq@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>Perhaps we have a fundamental communication problem here.  This is the
>best guess I can come up with.  So let me ask a question to clarify
>the basis of this discussion:

>When you use the term "absolute ethics", do you mean a single,
>comprehensive moral or ethical code which defines the ethical
>action in every situation for every person?

That's what *I* mean. 

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:26:45 GMT

aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:

>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
>(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
>each one individually).
>Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
>him or her of all rights.

You're missing something here.  Your first statement asserts that there
is _potential_ to rpoduce a child (I doubt anyone woulde argue this),
but by your second statement the child already exists.  When did the
child come into existence?  If you believe the zygote is a child, why 
did you insert the qualifier "potential"?

>The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
>or her death does not give the other party total control
>of the situation.

Well, in fact it does.  The zygote isn't in control of the situation,
so someone else has to be.  What you have failed to explain is why that
someone should be you instead of the woman carrying the zygote.

>Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
>representation.

And those who are incompetent to make medical decisions are often
represented by their next-of-kin.  In this case, that would be the
woman carrying said zygote.

>A IDLER

                  -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54724 talk.politics.animals:10855
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:24:35 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

Robert  Johnston writes:
>>>You should try doing some reading on fetal development.
>>
>>Well, I may not know everything, but I don't think there's *any* way
>>an aborted fetus could be construed as a vegetarian dish.  I'd like to
>>see your research.
>
>True, true. But just add a little A1 and sprinkle with garlic. Yum!
>
>Try not deleting the entire relevant part of the article next time.
>It might be easier to reply in a somewhat serious manner.

I don't know, his question about "the fetus as an appetizer" seemed as
serious as any other discussions going on in this news group...

   don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a fetus is a person, why does it look like a steamed prawn?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:55:21 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>   walking down dark city streets; but
>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>   right to self-defense.

A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
   right to an abortion.

C'mon.  At least come up with some _decent_ rationale.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:21:11 GMT

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

[nothing much]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:06:56 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> 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.
>
>I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
>intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?

What does a human's right to life have to do with pregnancy?  OK, so
the fetus has a right to life.  That does not, however, also imply it
has the right to use anyone else's body while exercising that right.
Similarly, while I may have a right to life, that does not mean that I
am therefore justified in stealing from you in order to support
myself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:43:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan5.020530.8271@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
[everything else deleted]
(PHoney said:
##'Course if you are relying on the words of your net.bosom-buddy
##Susan, you probably think Elizabeth Bartley is laughable and the 
##consensus on her credibility is almost as low as mine.)

Gee, I was just thinking, "Dammit, Keith, now I have to read another
long, boring set of lies by Dr. Giggles just to see what you said to
him.  As it turns out, I'm glad that I did.  I didn't see this
bizarre claim by the little coward when he first posted it.

I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
her extremely credible.  (That's one reason why I was a bit 
surprised when Phil Buckland cited her as a source for a rather
odd claim about late term abortion procedures - I never saw
Beth confirm Buckland's claim, though.)  I disagree with her
stand on abortion, as well as her stand on some other issues, but
I neither think she is laughable nor a liar like Nyikos.  (PHoney,
of course, won't read this, or will say he didn't read this, so
he can continue to believe that I'm only calling him a liar
because I disagree with him.  He will never bring himself to
face the fact that other people people can argue their positions
without lying, and that I do not call those people liars.)

#E. Elizabeth Bartley is an extremly intelligent woman who has a consistant
#position that is logical and well-thought out, if hazy in certain areas.  In
#order to achieve this, she has spent a great deal of time wrestling with
#social, religious, and personal issues.  A lot of people don't agree with
#her on parts (or all) of her stance.  I know I don't.  I know that Susan
#doesn't.  E. Elizabeth Bartley is, however, respected for her beliefs.
#
#You, on the other hand, say things like "now listen, son" to people.  You
#post your SAT scores at the drop of a hat.  You can't get attribution lines
#correct.  You have inconsistant, and illogical views on pregnancy and
#abortion.  You threaten people.  Would you like to debate with everybody
#about your hungarian bible again?

I think that PHoney would love to be associated with Beth Bartley,
rather than with Chaney/Hall and Holtsmussen.  If so, he should
start emulating her rather than those guys.  I don't think he's
up to that.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:45:36 GMT

In <1993Jan7.154830.5314@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.725742291@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

drieux, oh drieux, here's another one!

>>
>Which does not equal consent to staying pregnant, no matter how much
>you might dream that it does.



>--
>                  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.

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Jan 93 14:39:54 GMT

The sysadmin disabled the main netserver to install new software on
New Year's eve.  Since then, it has received no new messages.  I hope
that once he is contacted he can fix things up and then the new software
will be ultimately of benefit, but...well, see the thread title.

In the meantime, I would appreciate people sending me copies of posts
they would like to see, and not making snide remarks about the *amazing*
coincidences of when my netserver breaks down unless I fail to post
responses to the messages they e-mailed me. [I will acknowledge receipt
of these as soon as I see them.]

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:55:44 GMT

In article <markp.726160675@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <ueguljc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>---
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>|Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
>>|to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. [...]
>
>>Oh, really?  Can you show me the contract she signed when she had
>>sex?  Can you show me exactly where the US Constitution says that
>>people who have sex give up these rights?  
>
>It's not a contractual or a Constitutional, but a biological consequence.
>
Hey!  I resent the fact that you called my two kids "biological
consequences"!  I'd suspect that many folks here would be upset at
your dismissal of children in that manner.

Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
we feel it is necessary? Or is heart disease just a "biological consequence"
of a lack of exercise and a high-fat diet and therefore, not be able to
seek treatment for abusing our bodies as such?

Oh, I get it.  Only fertile women have biological consequences.  Some
folks have another word for "biological consequences"--some people call
them babies.  Others call them oh-shit-now-what-am-I-gonna-do.
I guess your label is as good as another.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:30:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.184804.14179@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>Well, I know it's a nice thing to do and all that, and several people
>recommend it, but I can't find "God's law to protect the innocent."
>Could you tell me where it is?

I was speaking in general terms.  Off the top of my head I can think of the
command in James to assist the fatherless, but there is probably something
even better I could show you in the prophets with some time.

Link]


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- lurk on, lurk off)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:49:47 GMT

What: <nyikos.725734675@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Who:  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)

>1. Why do so many pro-lifers say of a pregnant woman seeking abortion, "She
>shoulda kept her legs crossed?"
>
>ANSWER:  I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely 
>resembling this, not even on talk.abortion.  On the other hand, I regularly
>see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.

This is simultaneously one of the strangest and saddest things I have read
or heard in the abortion debate.

Strange because of the frequency of posts that essentially say what Peter
claims not to see posted.  Ed Simmonds is not the only one to have said
that "she made her choice when she had sex."  This, indeed, is a regular
staple of pro-life posts to this newsgroup, and it's also a very battle-
worn statement made by clinic protesters and blockaders, particularly
Catholics United for Life and Operation Rescue.  As a clinic escort, I
hear that sentiment regularly.  And, "she made her choice when she had
sex" sounds really close to "she shoulda kept her legs crossed" to me.

Sad because Peter's statement is a perfect illustration of why abortion
debate is often so pointless.  Have we become so self-censoring that we
can't even see what people on our own side are arguing?  This is really
depressing.

>	[...]  She was in a lot of pain and
>	really afraid.  He got angry and told her, `Spread your legs!
>	You've obviously spread them for someone else, now spread them
>	for me!'"

The medical profession is replete with bad apples.  _60 Minutes_ once did
a segment about how blatantly some doctors inflate costs when they know
those costs will be covered by insurance.  Some doctors will recommend
unnecessary surgery if there is insurance involved.

This doesn't mean that surgery is inherently dehumanizing.  It means that
some providers dehumanize their patients.  Big difference, and it applies
to providers of abortion as well.

>To date, I have posted concerning FIVE  bad apples, on three of them
>extensively, with information from PRIMARY sources, [...]

You've posted about five `bad apples.'  Question:  How many `bad apples'
do you suppose you'd find if you looked at delivery units of hospitals?
I have no answer for this, it's just a thought experiment.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __                -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /              
   |   |  in  |   |  |                Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__                GEnie: J.STEIN18
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:35:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.013918.9500@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1iqk4fINNflh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
>au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>> None of us has the right to impose our views on this
>> subject on anyone else, least of all the government. 
>
>I agree, none of us should have the right to impose our views 
>about abortion on an innocent child in the womb.
>
You have yet to show any evidence that there is a child in any womb.
All I've ever found in them is a z/e/f.

>---
>Doug Holtsinger
>finger this account for often debunked propoganda
>which purports to show that RvW is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
>throughout pregnancy, when in fact it shows nothing of the sort.

I've taken the liberty of correcting your .sig, since it was so
obviously incorrect.

--
                  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
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:25:42 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>You might be surprised how many pro-choice beliefs I share.  Has abortion
>been used to oppress women? Yes.  Could it be used that way in the future?
>Yes.  Can pregnancy be a terrible burden and a life-changing trauma? Yes.
>Many pro-lifers agree about the existance of these problems, and would
>like to find a way to rectify them.  We just don't feel that killing
>an innocent human being is the way to do this.  
>
>I know that I would be personally overjoyed if 100% reliable birth
>control became available that was cheap and safe.  This would mean that
>abortions would become totally undesirable.

Wow.  Now THIS is the kind of posting I like to see.

I really do appreciate that you've responded to my post in a
thoughtful considerate way, and phrased your opinions in a way that I
can relate to.  Keep up the good work.  :)

-- 
_/_/_/  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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics