HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:09:05 GMT

In article <93005.065552ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>"Support for total repeal of all abortion laws also came from
>some unexpected sources. Lyndon Johnson had appointed a
>Presidential Advisory Council on the Status of Women, with former
>Senator Maurine Neuberger of Oregon as its chairwoman.  Its
>report, released in 1968, called for the repeal of all abortion
>laws." L. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes
>
>"NAC came out in support of abortion as the woman's right.  Women
>might seek abortions after twenty weeks with the most compelling
>reasons - a teenager afraid to tell, a meonpausal woman who had
>not realized she was pregnant, a woman who has just discovered
>that she is carrying a deformed child.  A time-limit on abortion
>was thus seen as an arbitrary denial of these individual
>circumstances". S. Rowbotham, The Past is Before Us
>
>"The answer to later abortion is not further restrictions - the
>answer is access early in the pregnancy.  Sex education and birth
>control counselling not only reduce the need for abortion per se
>but also reduce the number of later abortions.  Ready access to
>an abortion facility eliminates delay.  And full insurance
>coverage means that women must not spend time looking for money
>to pay for the procedure.  Thus, people who oppose these measures
>are, in fact, contributing to the incidence of later abortions"
>CARAL (Canada), The Case Against Criminal Sanctions
>
>"Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself,
>free from government interference, whether or not to have an
>abortion.  Today, more than ever, American families do not want
>the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating
>how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters.
>That is why even though Americans may differ on what
>circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent
>with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question
>of who should make this personal decision, the majority of
>Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this
>private choice for herself.  Anti-choice proposals to ban
>abortions for sex-selection" or "birth control" are smokescreens
>designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this
>fundamental issue and trivialize the seriousness with which
>millions of women make this highly personal decision.  Any
>government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain
>legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force
>all women to publically justify their reasons for seeking an
>abortion."
>NARAL, Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues Manual

So much for groups that oppose any and all criminal sanctions against 
abortion. Big deal. We knew that already. Care to take a shot at disproving 
what Ray _actually_ said, i.e. "almost nobody seriously proposes that there 
should be no restrictions WHATEVER on the PROCESS of getting an abortion"
(emphasis added)?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:01:29 GMT

an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:

>Killing babies is wrong because they are human beings just like everyone
>else. They didn't do anything wrong and killing them says a lot about the
>way we treat each other. We should help pregnant women experience pregnancy
>with dignity instead of having to get abortions because of circumstances
>they can't control. We as a people are forcing pregnant women to destroy their
>babies when we say a woman must turn to violence to keep her job or survive.
>It sickens me to hear of pregnant women having to get abortions because
>they didn't have the support system they needed to nurture and protect their
>babies. That is the biggest injustice ever perpetrated on a woman. Turning
>a blind eye to the plight of these women is cruel and inhuman treatment.

Possibly, but in the mean time, it is even more cruel to force the women to
carry to term and suffer the indecency of society.

I assert that is it more important to avoid the suffering of *sentient* beings
than to protect the life of a *non-sentient* being.

>We will always remain a nation of violence when we say babies can be killed
>because they can't be helped. We must never tell the weakest and smallest
>members of society they must sacrifice their lives. We must never tell
>pregnant women violence is their only solution.  We must show our love and
>compassion towards pregnant women and their babies, or we will never be
>able to show our love towards other members of society.

No one is saying that aboriton is the only solution.  An *individual* may
decide it is the best solution in her particular situation and her belief
system.  Another *individual* may decide to take a different solution even
in a similar situation, and they should feel better that they *chose* what
to do than to have it *forced* on them.  We would like *all* members of
society who find themselves in that situation to have the *choice* of
abortion, to take or avoid as they choose.

If we had the wonderful "support system" you dream about, then it is likely
that no one would *want* an abortion.  Until we have achieved that idealistic
goal, banning abortion only forces suffering on members of society.

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Tabless Quoters, Ltd.
	<PATRICK.93Jan6191716@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan7.041120.13967@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:17:08 GMT


#<PATRICK.93Jan6191716@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
#><1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#>   From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
#>   > In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
#>   > a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
#>   > 
#>   > #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
#>   > 
#>   > Nice trick, Heather.
#>
#>   Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
#>   to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
#>   from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
#>
#>Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
#>haven't seen any such activity -- and I don't disappear for a month at a
#>time because of work, or "news server problems", or such.  Seems to me this
#>claim's got at least the potential for being as funny as your backpedaling
#>about the clinic exorcism.
#>
#>   Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
#>
#>How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
#>fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
#>really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
#>really did that.)
#
#Maybe Heather was visited by an angel, and when told she would be pregnant
#by a god she shouted "YES!"  Whatya think, Suzanne?

I don't know what she might think about that -- but I think she ought to a)
switch to decaf; b) go back to doing clinic exorcisms...

--PLH, of course, there's always Crystal Pepsi, too...:-)

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:14:54 GMT

In article <root.726528897@spssig> 
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>In article <root.726503770@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>> Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>> to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>> belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>> light of my Christian  belief.  

> In the case of a pregnant women, she has a liberty interest in protecting
> herself medically (both physical and mental), financially and socially.
> The extent to which she can exercise these liberty interests are limited by
> the conflicting liberty interest of the unborn child.

This argument from Steve Adams is especially confusing. 
First he states that abortion is morally wrong from a 
religious perspective, and then he goes on to argue that 
abortion is not morally wrong from a secular perspective 
(i.e. the woman has a "liberty interest" and a "right" in 
protecting herself).  How is it possible to argue two sides 
of the same coin here?  


>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       

Is that anything like a "borg"? :)


Doug Holtsinger
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:39:32 GMT

I hate to follow up my own post, but I wanted to make it clear to 
Dr. Phoney Giggles that Doug did not write the following:

}}> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
}}> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
}}> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
}}> the woman had had an abortion.  

It shoes up as being marked with a "}>" in my earlier follow-up to
Re:  I became pro-life...and pro-choice...

I think it was written by Gordan Storga, known to Kevin Darcy as "Galen."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:31:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.011959.17538@zooid.guild.org>
Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...

>>Some of us (meaning women in general) are also quite puzzled that you can't
>>seem to understand that the responsibility is conferred upon the parentS
>>by social expecations once a child EXISTS.  And that the responsibility is
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Yes, but no woman is under ANY obligation to make sure that a child
>"exists,"

Guess what?  I don't think any man should be under an obligation to
make sure that a child exists, either.

>nor do I recognise anyone's right to force responsibilities
>upon me which I do not consent to.

>>due to the CHILD, not to the mother.  But, I suppose the myth of the nasty
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>This is a clever diversion, but unless there is some mechanism in place to
>ensure that EVERY DOLLAR is accounted for, and is legitimately spent on
>a child's NECESSITIES (and I don't count ponies as "necessities," either),
>then the transfer IS essentially to the *mother*.

*sigh*  Oh, please.

You're trying to claim a firmly gray area is black-and-white.  What
about a known average cost of food per child?  A known average cost of
clothing per child?  Are those transfers to the mother?

I agree, ponies aren't necessities.  I don't think private bedrooms
are necessities, either -- but I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect a well-off father paying child support for the increased rent.

You can't classify everything into absolute NECESSITIES and absolute
luxuries (such as ponies).  There is a middle ground: private school
(in an area with mediocre public ones), books, one's own bedroom, etc.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:24:06 GMT

In <1993Jan12.055714.26836@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>And until you also
>>>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
>>>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
>>>hypocrisy.
>>
>>If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
>>child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
>>able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)

>If you care so much for other people, why aren't you doing more to
>save the lives of people worldwide?  Why aren't you contributing most
>of you money to charitable orginizations?  Why aren't you working
>directly to save people's lives?  

You know exactly 0 about what I do outside this net. (BTW, what do 
YOU do about the above?)

>Does your "commitment" to life extend
>only as far as making someone else do all your dirty work?

What's this blather?

>Or is abortion "different", because while abortion actually kills, you
>only let people die?  

How many bullets have YOU thrown yourself in front of lately?

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs (hoping the REAL pro-CHOICErs in t.a will set Ray straight)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:24:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.151527.17439@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu
(The_Doge) writes:
>In article <C0EKLv.CI@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <bob1.726256611@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>>In <ueff8ho@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>>
>>>>---
>>>>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) snipes:
>>>>|>>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  
>>>
>>>Paul, to my recollection you haven't been posting here for very
>>>long. Of course, you may have been lurking in the shadows for
>>>some time, but there is no way to tell.
>>>
>>>However, if you work at it really hard, you might achieve the
>>>level of humanity that Muriel has shown, so it might behove you
>>>to cease making snap judgements. Just a thought.
>>>
>[...]
>>>I'd tell you some of the things I've been called, but I normally
>>>don't use such language.
>>>
>>I'm not sure why you left off the invective Muriel rattled off just prior to
me
>>making that comment.  I don't doubt her humanity, but I'm surprised at how
>>quick people are to jump to name-calling as a first resort.  I'm sorry, but
>>that sounds pretty bitter to me. 
>>
>	Maybe she just had one line too many of the smug, self-righteous stuff
>you've been posting here, my man.  I've been tempted to turn on the flame-
>thrower once or twice myself, but have resisted said temptation because I know
>how pointless it is -- and how boring it is to everyone else.

If one is adamantly anti-abortion he is deemed, self-righteous.  If his
sensibilities are offended by a comment made by someone from the pro-abortion
camp he gets labelled, "smug".  I personally don't know these people, nor do
they know me.  My remarks are directed at ideas not people.  

>	You can't repeatedly attack people and their beliefs without expecting
>the occasional return shot. 

If by return shot you mean personal attack, I'm sorry, I did not expect it.

> And so far you seem more interested in attack
> and counterattack than actual discussion.

I'll take you at your word when you say "seem".  I am not interested in attack
nor counter attact, but when people make incorrect and hurtful statements
regarding my beliefs I respond.   Mine are always subject to change given a
convincing argument. If you can point out instances where I warrented personal
slurs I will take them seriously. 
 

>	Which puts you right in the mainstream on t.a, unfortunately.
>	If you can't stand the heat, either get out of the kitchen or do your
>   bit to cool things down, OK?


I want very much to know why and how people arrive at their beliefs.  I hope it
is not assumed that to understand yours I first have to reign in mine. 

>
>The_Doge
>ObQuote:	"If you convinced me
>		And I convinced you
>		Would there not still be
>		Two points of view?"
>			-- "Argument", by Richard Armour
>

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Statistics
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:05:14 GMT

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>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.

You're equating abortion with the deliberate murder of live, breathing
people with friends, families, and personal accomplishments?  You are
equating the removal of a zygote with the gassing of adult humans in
giant killing chambers?  You are one sick, sick, sick puppy.

>Stokes McMillan 

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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 01:51:37 GMT

In article <markp.726853299@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.022734.2897@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726793936@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>>[Deletia]
>
>>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so 
>>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.
>>>
>>Ho hum, I guess it's another week, and time to point this out again...
>
>Again?
>
Yes, again. This sex = possibility of pregnancy stuiff comes around
about once a week or so. And nobody who posts it seems to realize
until it is pointed out that possibility of sex != consent to remain
pregnant

>>Consent to possibility of pregnancy != consent to remain pregnant.
>
>You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?
>
New thread, old thread, same answer. Any right to life the z/e/f may
have is secondary to the womans right to control her own body.

--
                  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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:00:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.031610.14505@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.232819.14083@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>>
>>Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say
>>
>>"Is a fetus sentient?"
>>Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...
>>
>Could say? Looks to me like one just did...

Look again. Without your psychological astigmatisms this time.

>To which I could reply
>*You* give birth to it and ask it yourself.

Relevance?

>Of course, this overlooks the simple fact that by the time you give
>birth to it, it is no longer a fetus.

In *EXACTLY* the same way that your answer overlooks the simple fact that
a person who has been woken up is no longer asleep.

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

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 00:00:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.163519.5896@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.074243.9436@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>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.
>
>> While Christ would probably not assist in any abortion, nobody is
>> suggesting that _any_ Christian be required to do so.
>
>Some people are suggesting that Christians should be required
>to assist in abortions.  The Freedom of Choice Act, which Congress 
>is planning to consider soon, contains no conscience clause which 
>would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for refusing
>to assist in an abortion procedure.  

No such clause is needed. If you don't want to assist in abortions,
don't work in an abortion clinic. That seems simple enough. Simple
enough for even *you* to understand it. Further, this issue is
addressed by both medical ethics and hopsital policy. Both of which
state quite plainly that no employee is to be required to assist in
any procedurethey find morally offensive. This applies equally to
abortion or circumcision.
Why do you feel it is necessary tolegislatenon-problems?
Unless the FOCA *mandates* that employees be given no choice ion the
matter, your argument is spurious. As you going to start lying again?

>And Bill Clinton has said that
>he would have no objections to using federal tax dollars to pay for
>elective abortions.
>
This is, obviously, a Good Thing [tm]. If you have some evidence that
it is not, kindly present it. If you don't, then kindly crawl off into
a hole someplace and re-insert your head into it's normal resting
orifice.


--
                  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,alt.abortion.inequity