HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parker@eehp3 (Robert Scott Parker)
Subject: Re: Men and Abortion
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:41:41 GMT

slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>In article <Bx5wtu.Guw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>>In <1992Oct24.012303.1987@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>
>>>>Steve Novak writes...
>>>>SN> venture that Steeves' "deeply felt agony" is misplaced and unwarranted -
>>>>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>SN> unless you wanna start sanctifying the fetus again.
>>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>>Try telling that to a couple who suffered a miscarriage.  Do you also deny
>>>>*their* agony at their loss?  And what about a single woman who *does* want
>>>>the child - will you tell her that she's out to lunch and that *her* deeply
>>>>felt agony is misplaced and unwarranted because it amounts to "sanctifying
>>>>the foetus"?
>>
>>>Excellent point, Will.  Whole books have been written on the subject of the
>>>loss felt in miscarriage.
>>
>>No, it's a lousy point.  A couple who has "suffered" a miscarriage *wanted*
>>that child (I assume, otherwise they won't have "suffered" so much).  I
>>certainly sympathize with their loss.  It is about as painful to lose a child
>>that you wanted to have as it is to lose a child you have already had.

>It's a point that emphasizes the variety of responses to human reproduction:  
>Just like the sex act can be a most wonderful expression of love, commitment,
>and joy; the exact same sex act, as practiced by a rapist, brings pain, 
>devastation, fear and hatred.  One woman's most anticipated and beloved 
>pregnancy is another woman's deepest fear.  One man longs to see his 
>expression of love take the form of a child; another man will quail at the 
>thought of enslavement to mother and child for 18 years.

*THAT* is a good point.  8-)

[Some other good points deleted...]

>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:14:21 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu (Ken!) scolds drieux:

> Besides, are you a christian?  I know you are not.  If you were you would
> realize that true christianity has no doctrine.  We just go by what we see
> that God tells us.  There is a difference between Religious people and
> Christians.

No doctrine?  Sounds like something a New Age Illuminatus would say.  Be
careful, Ken, Pat Robertson will be on your trail if he ever catches wind
of your heresies.

Hey, but if you're right, I guess I wouldn't have to take Paul seriously
anymore.  His thoughts on sex are just so un-PC, you know.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 11 Nov 1992 05:58:40 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In talk.abortion nyikos@milo.math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#In <1992Nov4.200613.25480@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
#>In article <#xg15pp@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
#># Ok, Frank, I'll play.  (I suspect that you're playing devil's advocate
#># here...)
#
#No, he is still morally opposed to abortion, only does not want legislation
#against it.  Like Brian McBean, to take a well-known example.

I don't know about Brian, but this is not a correct summation of my view.

I have insisted from the day I started posting here that abortion is not
_always_ immoral.   The clear consciences of many women who have had
abortions testify to this.

In my own personal view of morality, I have no problem with one individual
refusing to save another's life, if they are unable to do so.  And (again in
my personal view) I see abortion as person vis-a-vis person - other people,
most of them enlightened and reasonable people - don't.  I have no problem
with those people either - until they claim their view as objective fact, and
deride alternative views as being silly.

The thing that I _do_ have a problem with is the common pro-abortion stance
that says, for the most part, an individual _should_ be sacrificed to serve
_society's_ pragmatic needs.   That while women should be allowed to choose,
this is the choice they should make.  In other words, abortion is usually the
moral option.

I don't say this view is unreasonable - it _is_ reasonable.  I _do_ say that
it offends most people's values at a pre-intellectual level that is _not_ an
emotive reaction.  Individuals do not serve society, society serves
individuals.  Since when should we feed individuals to society in order to
keep society alive?

Robert M. Pirsig proposed an unusual scientific morality in his philosophical
novel 'Lila'.  Two of the conclusions he reached were: 

     "It is more moral for an idea to kill society than it is for society to 
      kill an idea", and 
      
     "It is immoral for parents to dominate their children".

z/e/f's and newborn infants are clearly potential sources of ideas.  And they
are also our children just as surely and literally as the books we write are
our children, and it may be considered immoral to kill them for that reason
alone.

It soon becomes apparent that in an ideal world the most moral options are
not to conceive at all, or to give birth.  Since we do not live in an ideal
world, neither goal is fully achievable, and abortion emerges as a woman's
right, and an unfortunate necessity.  To portray it as better than this, I
believe to be wrong, in both senses of that word.

#Peter Nyikos

Frank O'Dwyer
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:39:00 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov8.022830.20646@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
> what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?

Sounds like fun (for Keegan, at least)!  What's wrong with it?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:18:33 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related to
>sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?

Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.

>  All the outward signs are
>that 49% of the population think with the tip of their penis.

Sexist bigotry.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:30:05 GMT

In article <lefty-121192142516@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.033956.9468@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <lefty-111192113534@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <1992Nov11.160837.7443@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>> >Darcy) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?
>> >> 
>> >> What business is it of yours?
>> >
>> >How about _me_, Kevin.  Is it _my_ business?
>> >
>> >So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?
>> 
>> I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.
>
>Gee, Kevin, I hope its going to be soon.  

Anytime you want to make a formal request for a bill, you may do so, Lefty.

But be forewarned that the request could be interpreted legally as an 
admission of liability and/or the existence of a binding contract between 
us.

Care to take the plunge, Lefty? Or is all this "when are you going to bill me"
verbiage just more empty, impotent blustering?

>I can't wait to see what your "archival fees" are.  Have you paid Q for the
>legal advice yet?

Q has not rendered me any advice which I could reasonably consider valuable. 
Plus, I rejected his/her/its offer of services within a reasonable time after
it was made. No contract exists between us.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Active & Passive, Natural & Artificial
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:15:20 GMT

usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>In a recent post the concept of "active" verses "passive" killing was 
>presented.  That is, not saving the small child is different than actively 
>ending the life of the fetus.  To equate the two would require a revamping 
>of the role of the 'good samaritan'.  Namely, it implies that a person could 
>be forced to be a good samaritan using the same laws that prohibit murder.  
>I'm not an anthropologist, but I can't think of any cultures where this is so.
>
>So, refusing to be an organ donor is not the same as refusing to carry a 
>child to term.

The conclusion does not follow.  Assuming that elective surgery is
generally to be regarded as an individual choice, then so must
abortion.  Just as a person cannot be forced to donate a kidney, a
woman cannot be forced to donate a uterus.  The fetus is not
necessarily killed (an 'active' killing), but even if removed alive,
it will die in short order (a 'passive' killing).  The death of the
fetus isn't necessarily an 'active' killing.

>There's more.  Pregnancy is a 'natural' process, attempts to label the 
>fetus a parasite notwithstanding.  Slicing away part of someone's body 
>to give to another is pure technology.

Disease is also a 'natural' process; are you also proposing that
medicine be outlawed?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:00:39 GMT

sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes ...
>From article <1992Nov7.173857.12080@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com
>(Ray Fischer):
>> Maybe so.  And maybe everyone in France really speaks English at home,
>> and the Earth really IS flat, and Elvis really IS alive.
>> 
>> Taking any bets?
>> 
>So Ray- do you see now why you've been called a "science fundie"?
>Stating your position as though it's self-evident doesn't make it
>accurate, or even self-evident.  Your zeal is remarkably similar to
>that of... well, I get sick of ceaseless labelling, so I won't
>indulge, but you can see where this is going.

My comments were self-evident only if you consider to flatness of the
earth, Elvis' death, and the language of France to be self-evident
facts.  I don't.  I consider those, as well as the fact that
intelligence resides in the brain, to be sufficiently certain so that
any wagers on the matter would put on the side of common "knowledge".

While it may well be true that intelligence it completely unconnected
with the brain, I don't consider that to be a useful speculation.  The
likelyhood is low enough so that I wouldn't care to bet anything on it.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: If clifton knows jesus
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:13:44 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

Then why is he supporting the HellSpawn
and the FetalIdolators of AntiAbortion?

Do YOU NOT READ YOUR BIBLE?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:52:42 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>here's an anti-choice stance if i ever saw one:

Keegan, go back to picking on Darcy.  If you can't have a life, at
least pick on someone else who doesn't have a life.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: Froggy PolyGonality
Summary:  Honoured by another Drieux reply
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  9 NOV 92 11:15:47    

In article <1992Nov8.001834.24890@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
> 
>hold on a moment here folks....

I tried to follow directions, but I just couldn't hold onto a moment.
How is it done?

>what is this concern with trying to tell
>the difference between frogs and persons?

Some people just can't tell the difference.  They don't know the frogs are 
the cute ones.

>It is simple to tell the differences:
>1. people have souls.

Proof?  I thought that OnlyGoodChristiansWhoBelieveInTheOneTrueGod had 
souls.  All the rest of us must just make do without.

>2. frogs know that circles are two sided.

Much as I admire frogs, I have yet to meet one who has the slightest grasp 
of geometry.  They seem mostly concerned with food, the occassional 
SexOrgyAtAPondOneNight, and perhaps MTV.  Perhaps not MTV.

>lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>] This message has been brought to you courtesy of the frogophile association 
>] of nowhere. Membership in the association is 2 and we are growing fast.  
>] Join now, and be introduced to the wonderful world of frogs.

I have been disappointed by the lack of mail from people clammering to be 
in the frogophile society.  Have you people no appreciation of the good 
things of life?

>] I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
> 
>Well maybe it went the way of some of my
>spaces... one Moment they are present,
>and then POOF.....

I think this may be a problem only answerable by Miss Drieux.  You see, 
netiquette seems to demand that you mark every opinion with IMO or IMHO.  
But sometimes, my opinions just leap into the article while I'm not 
looking.  So then they don't get tagged, and when I look for the opinion 
later, I realise that another one has escaped on the net.  What shall I do 
to keep these opinions under control?

>Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
>The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.

I *like* this one.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/    o\
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Today's Quiz
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:56:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



Who has less character, Holtsinger or Nyikos?  (I tried
to provide a comparison chart, but I can't seem to find
any distinguishing characteristics.)  

Holtsinger                             Nyikos

quotes out of context                  quotes out of context

makes false accusations                makes false accusations

reprints false information             reprints false information
about court cases                      about court cases

lies habitually                        lies habitually

cannot admit errors                    cannot admit errors


A prize will be awarded to the first person who can find a real
difference in these two.  (Smaller prizes to people who can extend
the list.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ATUI: Conclusions
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:48:09 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Conclusions

     Because of the impossibility of finding a legal solution for
abortion, I believe that the case must be decided by personal choice.
Although I know abortion is wrong, I do not feel obligated to enforce
my belief upon another person's body.  I do believe abortion is a moral
crime, and there should be blame placed on at least one party in
practically every case of abortion.
     In the case of rape, incest, or statutory rape, I believ the 
perpetrating party should have to face  additional criminal charges
if an abortion is performed on the victim of the crime.  In these
cases, it would not be the responsibility of the victim to take the
blame for abortion, but an evil is still being done which should
not go without extra punishment on top of existing penalties.  Cases
in which abortion is used as a final method of contraception should
be blamed upon the couple responsible for impregnation.  Even if the
couple used reliable contraceptive technique, they should be aware of 
the small chance that pregnancy still may occur.  I don't see how there
could be criminal punishment in these cases, but perhaps a fine could 
be laid for requiring an abortion for reasons other than risks to the 
mother's health.  Couples who intentionally conceive, and then change
their minds should have to pay the same fine, but the the fine should
increase with each week following conception.  In these cases where
only fines are laid, I would suggest that true punishment should be
found in the personal guilt of the persons involved in the abortion.
I sadly doubt that everyone would feel the same guilt that I would.
A doctor performing an unnecesary abortion which goes un-fined
should be considered negligent, and punishable for his criminal offense.
     It may be noted that the male half of the conceiving couple should,
in fact be punished equally as much as the female, assuming both parties
were willing to engage in intercourse.  A man must make an attempt
to realize that he is partly responsible for conceiving any fetuses
that would not be carried to term by the mother.  Just because the man
does not want the woman to have an abortion does not mean that he
is not guilty for helping to bring about the situation.
     I firmly believe that implantation is the point at which a fetus
should be considered to have a significant moral standing.  Therefore,
morning after techniques which impede the route of the sperm to the ovum,
or which prevent implantation of the zygote on the lining of the uterus
are morally correct, and should be used as a last resort.
     It is by all means impossible to convince a nation to agree upon
one view of abortion, but I firmly believe that the opinions put
forth in this paper come very close to "the right way".  Whereas
I leave myself open to the criticisms and prejudices of the public,
I stand by these views adamantly.


NEXT POST:  References

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Fischer: woman killer
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.012725.26923@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...

>> Sure, it allows the states to require doctors to perform the
>> abortion, for example.  But the states are not permitted to
>> prohibit any abortion, during any part of the pregnancy. 

> While you might prefer women to die from medical complications late in
> a pregnancy, 

I never said that.  I said that the states are not permitted to
prohibit any abortion, during any part of the pregnancy.
  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:03:58 GMT

In <bob1.720811199@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <1992Nov1.220127.9405@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <Bx20sw.JEt@cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>>> Show me a so-called "pro-lifer" who doesn't eat meat, doesn't use any 
>>> animal-derived products, is against the death penalty, wants to outlaw
>>> cigarettes and automobiles as well as guns, and is willing to take a 
>>> trip down to the Barrio in L.A. and talk to gang members, and I'll accept 
>>> that the term "pro-life" is meaningful, at least in that one instance.

>>Show me a so-called "pro-choicer" who supports the "choice" to kill
>>and abuse born children,  who supports the "choice" to commit
>>murder, rape, robbery, and arson, who supports the "choice" to
>>evade income taxes and the "choice" to sell drugs to children, 
>>and maybe I'll accept that the term "pro-choice" is meaningful. 

>>Gosh, it's so much fun to launch meaningless, content-free attacks
>>on labels, rather than to address the issues!

>I can't believe my eyes! Did you actually type this DOD, or is
>someone using your account.

*Smile* when you say that, podner!  You can believe your eyes, you
called him DOD, you know he does this kind of stuff all the time.

And I kinda like the way he put it, given that he feels that a child in the
womb (or, as the great common-law scholar William Blackstone put it in the 
18th century, "An infant *in ventre sa mere*") should have the same 
rights not to be harmed as one outside the womb. 

I agree with him once brainwaves are detectable.

Of course, he did insert some stuff about arson and income taxes, but
that's a matter of taste.  Which Blackshaw obviously does not share,
nor does he share Blackstone's view that an infant *in ventre sa mere*
should be thought of as born for many legal purposes.

Blackstone, Blackshaw, Blackmun.  I'll take the first over the other
two any day.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion