HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:21:38 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:
>>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.
>
>I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
>instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.

Generally, being able to pick and choose your voters is not an option.
And as you haven't shown that readers of this newsgroup are partial to
one view or another (or that any partiality is even relevent), it
seems that this population is a valid one.

In any case, I vote no.  If anyone wants to know why, they can refer
to Voltaire.

>This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
>democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
>voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).

Not correct.  When it comes to Federal legislation, the people never
vote for anything.  That job is handled by elected representatives.
Even in those situations where popular vote _is_ used, it is not 51%
of the population that prevails, but 51% of the voters.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Suzanne's "Abortion kills children"
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:05:41 GMT

eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
->cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson) writes:
->>i wonder what you folks out tehre woh are pro-choice think of refering 
->>to "pro-lifers" as anti-choice.....

->I do them the courtesy of using their chosen label as long as they pay
->me the same courtesy.  If I were to use the label I considered most
->accurate, it would be "anti-abortion" rather than "anti-choice", as
->most of them are anti-choice only as a result of being anti-abortion.

all the pro-choice groups to which i contribute refer
to those opposed to choice as anti-choice. many in this
newsgroup believe people should be referred to by their
chosen labels. for example, ms. bartley refers to
herself as pro-choice. she does this in her .sig in
almost every post she makes. ms. bartley also espouses
anti-choice positions. she wishes to legislate against
some abortions and imprison the women who have the
abortions ms. bartley wishes to legislate against.
there are many labels which could be applied to ms.
bartley.

->Pro-Choice         Anti-Roe             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 11 DEC 92 17:54:45 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
> 
>>It is the same as someone going to college, only younger.  Being as young as 
>>as it is, it, like a baby can not make informed decisions about whether it 
>>wants to live or die.
> 
>So, Loren, who died and left you in charge of making that decision for the 
>fetus?  And what makes you more qualified to decide that than the woman 
>carrying the fetus?

The woman is no more qualified to decide if the fetus wants to live or die then
I am.  It is generally accepted that, unless you have facts to the contrary,
living{beings do not want to die.  You imply that the woman carrying the 
fetus should be able to decide it it wants to live or die.  Then a mother of 
a 1 year old is even more qualified to make that decision.  She had been with 
the child longer.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:14:43 GMT
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 

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

>In article <Bz3q8p.I68@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>You currently have to sign consent forms, etc for *any* surgery (or your legal
>>guardian has to, or a relative perhaps in some situations...).  

>I'm not aware that this is a statutory requirement, I think it's just 
>something that physicians and hospitals PREFER you to do, because it protects
>them from certain kinds of civil liability. I may be wrong on that.

When you are facing the possibility of a million $$$ lawsuit if you *don't* do
those things, they sure feel like "requirements".

A requirement in civil law is still a requirement in law.  ;)

>Since he has not offered any clarifications of the exact extent of his
>"legal restriction", my interpretations are all I have to go on.

Unfortunately, you are using your inadequate interpretations to try to argue
that he was contradicting himself.  It is possible that the contradiction
stems from your interpretation and not from the position itself.

>								- Kevin

-Rob
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MURDER
Summary: Must be "Michael Lurie"'s evil twin...
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:52:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Somewhere southwest of Crawford County

In article <1992Dec16.052143.11437@pellns.alleg.edu> romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
>
>ABORTION IS MURDER
>no elaboration required.

Abortion is legal.  Murder isn't.  Now, what were you saying?

(Gad.  Alleged College are doing their best to replace Penn State as
Usenet's black hole...)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
 
 This space for rent, cheap.  Call +1 606 848-3950 for a deal you can't refuse.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025342.12892@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Pro-choicers will often argue that even if the child is 
>considered to be a person, the woman should still have the 
>right to separate herself from the child, and that this 
>right stems from the so-called "right to bodily autonomy",
>or the "right to bodily privacy".
>
>This right of separation does not lead to an unrestricted 
>right to abortion, since most abortion procedures directly
>violate the child's "right to bodily autonomy".  In their
>defense, pro-choicers will argue that the woman should have 
>a right of separation which guarantees that all associated 
>risks of the abortion should be carried by the child, and 
>not by the woman.

Actually, that's not how _I_ formulate it. First of all, I restrict
this argument to non-viable fetuses. Secondly, I point out that there
are essentially no "risks" to the fetus that need concern us, since
regardless of the removal method, the fetus will die. Thirdly, the
principles of Utilitarianism demand that, since the method of removal
makes essentially no difference to the fetus, and DOES make a difference
to the pregnant woman, that she should be allowed to pick the method 
that SHE prefers.

>But since both parties are assumed to be "persons", with 
>presumably an equal right to bodily autonomy, it would appear
>difficult to justify this particular assignment of risk. 
>One could justify it on the grounds that the child will die
>anyways after separation, but this rationale would also 
>justify intentional homicide in situations where a person 
>can choose between leaving someone to die, or helping them 
>to live.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Can you give an example? 

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice, How? 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:01:07 GMT

In article <bob1.724701599@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>OK. We will inscribe male choice in law. Now, just how do we go
>about doing this?
>
>	Prior to all sexual encounters a legal form *must* be signed
>	by both parties.
>
>	If the woman changes her mind and proceeds with the prgnancy
>	she relieves the man of all responsibility.
>
>Hmm? Guess we will have to ensure that all singles bars have copies of
>these legal forms along with the bowl of condoms.

I'm unaware that "condom bowls" are a statutory requirement now. Of course,
if individual establishments WISH to offer their patrons these forms, I see
no reason to forbid them from doing so...

>Now, as to the woman changing her mind, maybe she is just afraid of
>doctors and hospitals, and being pregnant seems the easy or do
>nothing way out.

Doesn't sound like a very responsible choice to me. Perhaps it's just as
well that the contract exists, so maybe she'll approach the situation with 
the seriousness and gravity it deserves.

>Suppose she is incapable of supporting the child? Well, society will
>simply have to force adoption. But, as a reasonably humane society,
>we are unlikely to get such legislation. 

Ah, I see -- it's more "humane" to have the child grow up in poverty than
it is to be raised by non-biologically-related parents, huh?

>Aw, just add her and the
>child to the AFDC rolls. Well, society (read taxpayers) aren't all
>that humane. So we will just have to get another payroll tax to
>cover the expected increase in spending.

Aren't you forgetting an alternative, Bob? Bill the natural father for the
shortfall.

>Or maybe the woman did have a change of heart and decided to be a
>mother? 

Why should the man's liability be dependent on her "changes of heart",
Bob?

If I "changed my heart", and decided that you should send me all of your
money immediately, would you do it?

>Gosh, this is beginning to be more complicated than I thought.

Only because you decided to raise a whole bunch of silly complications
that are tangential at best to the main issue. Anything can be made to
seem complicated if enough "what if"s are thrown at it.

>The present law is maybe archaic, but was seemingly created to be
>certain that children receive a level of support. 

It seems to be having the opposite effect, as far as I can tell. The more
illegitimate children that are produced (and I really DO think that the
current system encourages the production of illegitimate children), the
less resources there are available to support the average child. If you
really cared about children, I'd expect you to support changes which maximize
the chance that any given child is wanted and voluntarily supported by BOTH 
of its natural parents.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: restrictions
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.141141.10910@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.073650.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.225328.16271@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>"Get a clue."   Ray specified late-term abortions.
>
>>Good idea. I'll run out and get one. What's your address so I know
>>where to ship it?
>>Late term abortions are *before* viability. After viability is reached
>>(26 weeks is the legal cut off here) there are no abortions. If it is
>
>Forget the clue.  Get some *facts*, Mark.
>
>Post-26 week abortions are rare, but they happen.
>
>>necessary to terminate a pregnancy after 26 weeks, then it is not an
>>abortion. Premature labor is induced via IV pitocin, or a C-section is
>>done. In either case, every effort is made to salvage both mother and
>>baby.
>
>This is usually true, but not universally and not legally required in
>all states.  Ray was proposing making it legally required.
>
Can you site cases in which it is not true? Documentation please?
I would be *very* interested in seeing any documented cases of
post-viability termination in which no effort was made to salvage the
child.

>>So if you are talking about keeping a fetus alive after a late term
>>abortion, then you *must* have some sort of mechanical womb to sustain
>>it. And the technology just plain isn't there.
>
>Only in your world, Mark; please come to Earth now?
>
Again, documentation please? Can you show me the technology for
sustaining a fetus in a mechanical womb?

>-- 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
>
Agrred, but it should also remain a personal and medical decision,
with the emphasis on personal. Reproductive choices should not be made
by any legislative body.

>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

Can I searve on his campaign? Send me some autographed photots and
I'll pass 'em out. :)


--
                  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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:29:57 GMT

lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes ...
>In a previous article, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>If someone is raping you, occasionally causing permanent injury, but
>>not physically threatening your life, you must put up with the assault 
>>if you cannot make them stop without killing them?  No matter how much
>>agony you go through?
>
>That doesn't change anything.  Rape itself is a violent and threatening 
>assault.  

Giving birth ain't no picnic neither, cowboy.

>Also, assuming there is no chance of a STD (Which is probably how you intended 
>the question), rape is a violent act, which generally includes beating 
>physically beaten, which could also lead to death.  

Unlike pregnancy, which, as everyone knows, never causes the death of
the mother and never causes any injury.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: just passing through on way to alt.real-men.grunt.thud ....
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 22:13:13 GMT


In article <1992Dec18.162323.21575@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>, conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu writes:
|Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comment, but I'm not sure
|it would be considered a responsible decision to abort a child
|just because birth control failed.  The fact is, if I'm engaging
|in sex, there is *always* the possibility of a pregnancy.
|That's the way our bodies were designed.  

And just *how* is obtaining an abortion not keeping the
possibilities in mind, and acting appropriately?  Just *how* is
deciding that one is unable to care for a child right now an
irresponsible decision?

|Just because I take every precaution possible doesn't mean that
|I shouldn't also take the responsibility for the possibility of
|caring for a child that may come out of the act.

Or take responsibility for making sure no child comes out of
the act, if no child is desired.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:13:58 GMT

In article <BzD9GL.L7s@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <Bz3q8p.I68@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>
>>>You currently have to sign consent forms, etc for *any* surgery (or your legal
>>>guardian has to, or a relative perhaps in some situations...).  
>
>>I'm not aware that this is a statutory requirement, I think it's just 
>>something that physicians and hospitals PREFER you to do, because it protects
>>them from certain kinds of civil liability. I may be wrong on that.
>
>When you are facing the possibility of a million $$$ lawsuit if you *don't* do
>those things, they sure feel like "requirements".
>
>A requirement in civil law is still a requirement in law.  ;)

Not really. They could opt to just run the risk of a lawsuit. The point here
is that Cochran has thrown his support behind a "legal restriction" that 
doesn't exist right now. Above, you even admit that persons OTHER than the 
patient, can sign the consent forms, but Cochran made no such qualification
when he announced his "legal restriction". Above, you seem to admit that 
while the consent forms may "feel" [sic] like a statutory requirement, that 
they may not in fact be a statutory requirement. Unless you have a rabbit to 
pull out of your hat now, I think it's time to admit that no such "legal 
restriction" exists.

>>Since he has not offered any clarifications of the exact extent of his
>>"legal restriction", my interpretations are all I have to go on.
>
>Unfortunately, you are using your inadequate interpretations to try to argue
>that he was contradicting himself.  It is possible that the contradiction
>stems from your interpretation and not from the position itself.

It is at least as possible that Cochran was full of shit when he wrote in
support of his infamous "legal restriction", and his ego is so large that he 
can't admit he made a mistake. His inconsistent, vague followups on the 
subject, and his pigheaded refusal to clarify tends to give more credence to 
that interpretation than to yours and Larry's.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 DEC 92 14:41:51 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu proves yet again what a 
hypocrite he is:

>Unfortunately, some people think that a public forum is a perfectly good place 
>to flame people.  This is probably because they are so insecure in their own 
>beliefs that they think the best way to present their case is to publically 
>smear their adversary.

Cute Loren.  Criticize me for flaming, after you've called me all kinds of 
things.  You're the one who thinks the best way to present his case is to try 
to publicly smear me by posting your bizzare teenage boy sexual fantasies 
about me, which have absolutely nothing to do with anything.  But hey, keep 
bringing it up, it just proves who is avoiding the issues.  And I am not 
the least bit insecure about my beliefs.  Notice that unlike you I am not 
afraid to answer people's questions.  If you want issues, here are some 
issues:

So, Loren, now that you've learned that some methods of birth control work 
after conception, do you still think using birth control is okay?  Or would 
you like to see IUDs and birth control pills banned because they can cause the 
deaths of innocent little fetilized eggs?

Now that you've seen statistics and references showing the frequency of 
miscarraiges and health problems resulting from pregnancies, do you still 
think most pregnancies are not a threat to the woman's health?

Do you still think rape victims should be forced to give birth to their 
rapist's child just because you want them to?

Are you still insisting that women's bodies be used against their will while 
you yourself are unwilling to let your body be used to save the life of a 
fetus?

Have a smurfy day.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 18:47:18 GMT

In a previous article, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote:

>THE BET IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
>$100, the population being the known posters here in talk.abortion.

I don't think so.  Why don't you just choose the population of your home 
instead.  I could just as easily call for a vote from all of my friends.

This started by talking about the united states government, and the way 
democracy works.  I seem to remember saying that if 51% of the population 
voted that way, then it would be law (but you seem to have deleted that).
I was considering the population of the United States.  If really want to make 
this bet, I demand a more impartial population representing a better cross 
section of the United States.  Most likely, people who have never heard of 
either of us.  Not to mention a much more impartial ballot counter.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:31:37 GMT

<1992Dec18.003658.13726@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >
>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>someone who prefers suicide.
>> 
>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.
>
>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

OK.  All us Atheists will now stop forcing death on unborn children.
Since there are no such things as 'unborn children' it should be pretty
easy to do.  Now then, can we get back to the abortion issue?


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51756 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9946