HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New outlook!(was:Facts of Life!!!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:33:39 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1992Oct30.203009.8300@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>The concern of the extremes going all the way
>to a 9th month abortion is incredible.

Perhaps a few facts will set your mind at ease.  Half of all abortions
performed in the US are done within the first 8 weeks since the last
menstrual period.  89% are done in the first trimester.  99.4% are done
at 20 weeks or less.  Only about 100 abortions are performed annually
after 24 weeks, and those are performed only for serious health reasons.
(I would hope that if you had to choose between the woman and the fetus,
you wouldn't condemn the woman to death.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46876 alt.abortion.inequity:4884 soc.men:18748 alt.dads-rights:2563
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 11:08:08 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxAr7L.201@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1dbgs0INN5gh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>>>>>to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?
>>>>Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>>>>blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>>>>told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>>>>those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.
>>>I'm trying to learn from your debating style.
>>Oh, this should be fun.  Let me return the favor.
>>>So, in other words, these judges were ignorant of the law and
>>>made mistakes?  Or they intentionally went beyond the bounds of law?
>>"So you are saying that no judge has ever disagreed with another judge,
>>and that no ruling of one court has been overturned by any other court?"
>
>Your claim +seems+ to be:

Ah, paraphrasing again.  Is that really a *good* appoach to investigating an
issue, or merely for setting up a straw man to knock down?

>. Some judges think the law says they can order an unmarried man 
>  to pay pregnancy/childbirth expenses;
>. the law is otherwise;
>. so other judges would disagree or overturn these "few occasions."
>. Therefore unmarried men are not liable for any costs other than 
>  child support.

My claim *is* that, as a general rule, the states that make up the United
States GENERALLY follow a philosophy outlined in (I can never remember the
real name but it's something like) the Family Services Act, which is a 
federal guideline that covers such thing as child support obligations.
While *some* states depart from this, MOST of the states support MOST of
the stipulations in the Act.  

My claim is also that, as a general rule, judges would NORMALLY not
require an unmarried man to asusme pregnancy/birth expenses, unless there
were factors within the relationship that were presented to the court and
were compelling enough for a judge to decide to do so.

Judges get that kind of latitude.  It's part of being a judge.

But as a *general* rule, they do not do this.  Because as a *general* rule,
there is no presupposition within the relationship that the man should for
some reason shoulder these costs.

Now, do you disagree as to what the GENERAL RULE is, or not?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:35:37 GMT

In article <1dbr70INNch0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
##Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
##price of liberty is eternal vigilance...
#
#Can someone explain to me the status of FOCA?  Is it just a bill?  I thought
#it was put to referendum - does this not give it a higher status?  How does
#Roe vs Wade fit into this picture?

The FOCA is just a bill.  It's a bill that has a very good chance of
passing both houses, but it's still just a bill.

There were abortion referenda in Maryland and Arizona this year.  I
believe that there was one in Washington last year.  There has never
been a national referenda on abortion.  (Some people would like to
count Clinton's election as such.)

Roe v. Wade is still in effect, according to the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Roe clearly stated that there was an unrestricted
right to abortion in the first trimester, and the provisions of
the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act (the law challenged in
PP v. Casey) restrict first trimester abortions.  The FOCA was
proposed to preserve the right even if the Court overturned
Roe.

#Please forgive my ignorance and all - but the only news in english that I get
#here is the Irish papers and the BBC world service, neither of which have said
#anything about FOCA that I know about.

That's okay - I frequently assume that people in other countries
are just naturally avid scholars of U.S. current events.  :-)

#Also, I have come to think that the proper place to affirm the right to
#abortion is in a constitution - for precisely the reason that Steve gives
#above.  You wouldn't want other basic freedoms to be placed at the whim of a
#government would you?  Does anyone else agree?

Oh, sure, I think that the right to choose abortion more properly
belongs in the constitution, explicitly stated.  I believe that
this is a long term goal, though.  It's difficult to amend the
U.S. Constitution, and fairly easy to pass a law.  

We've been unable to add an amendment, for example, that simply
says that rights should not be denied people based on their
gender.  (Of course, a lot of the opposition to the ERA is
based on the notion that granting full equality to women under
the law implies the right to abortion.)  I think that the FOCA
will do as a temporary measure until the Constitution can be
amended.  The FOCA isn't perfect, but it's a decent first step.

Susan,
who realizes that this post will be heavily edited by t.a. liars
but wanted to reply to Frank anyway
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bicker@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Brian Charles Kohn)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: /home/fsg/bicker/.organization
	<1cste7INNlqr@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <1992Oct31.173727.12705@ncsu.edu>
	<Bx0002.Koo@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Nov1.185359.4577@ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.185359.4577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   In article <Bx0002.Koo@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
   v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson) writes:
   >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
   >>> What's worse IMO is people who are willing to stomp all over the
   >>> rights of others in order to impress their morality on others.
   >> Yeah, those people who support murder and rape laws are scum.
   >> How dare they impress their morality on rapists and murderers!
   >> Anarchy all the way!
   > Try again Doug.  I don't accept logical fallacies as arguments.
   > In this case, you've slid down the slippery slope.
   You object to abortion laws because they are based upon morality.
   Murder and rape laws are also based upon moral principles, and
   so it follows that you must object to murder and rape laws.
   There's no slippery slope in that reasoning.

Cute argument.  Not a good argument, but a cute one.

The distinction here is that rape and murder involve violating the
rights of another person.  As you know, many people feel that a xygote
is not a person so abortion does not violate the rights of another
person.

Having said that, how would one propose the resolve the disagreement
between fold who believe that the unborn are persons and those who do not.
I believe in religious tolerance so I'd really like to find a solution 
that would satisfy everyone.  

I guess my beef is that the anti-choice fold won't agree that that kind
of definition should be a person decision made by the woman for herself.
Why must it be THEIR way?  It's almost childish.  "If you don't play by
our rules we're gonna pass laws against you..."  Ugh.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 1992 07:29:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1da0gmINN1tt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political

Yeah, try Vista.  In all the other school districts in our area, the 
bulk of the Pro-life Christian candidates were defeated.  (Which is
really kind of a shame, because I'm sure somewhere in that roster of
candidates, there were probably a few good people, but that's where 
extremism will get you....)

>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>finally over.  Thank God.

Well, folks, don't celebrate too soon.  Clinton is a political animal still
and he's going to want a second term, too.  Let's get the FOCA signed
FIRST, and then talk about victories.  Y'all pack up your tents and go home
now, and it'll never happen.  Keep the heat on.

Adrienne Regard
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: BUSH LIED ABOUT HIS POSITION ON ABORTION!
Date: 9 Nov 1992 00:13:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   What killed Bush will be debated for quite some time.  But the
position he took on abortion was not, in and of itself, damaging.
But the fact that he LIED about his position on abortion was very
damaging.
   The problem is that we have no way of telling exactly WHEN the
guy was lying.  Was he lying in the 1970's, when he was staunchly
on the side of a woman's right to choose?  Or was he lying to the
nation when he said that he was opposed to abortion unless incest
or rape was involved.  Or was he lying when he committed to a GOP
platform that advocated the adoption of a constituional change to
prohibit any woman from choosing an abortion, no matter what kind
of circumstances surrounded her getting pregnant.  It would allow
a woman to get an abortion if she would otherwise die.
   George Bush is a man who spent a great deal of energy painting
a picture of an elected office which cannot tolerate a man who is
a 'waffler.'  The voters decided that he was correct.  They chose
Bill Clinton.  They chose a man who believes that abortion is NOT
murder.  They elected a man who knows that a right to choose is a
basic human right.
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:05 GMT

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

Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
the term of pregnancy.

[-- rest of post including citations from Tushnet et al. deleted--]

Doug, you must be insane.  In the first presidential debate, Perot said that
repeating a behavior over and over and expecting different results is insanity.
Every time you have posted your lies about Roe vs Wade, someone has posted the
text that refute your lies.  Here we go again (caps emphasis mine):


	On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
	argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
	terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
	whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
	Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all
	in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
	support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
	unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy
	also  acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by
	that right is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly
	assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining
	medical standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT
	IN PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
	COMPELLING TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE
	ABORTION DECISION.  THE PRIVACY RIGHT INVOLVED, THEREFORE, CANNOT
	BE SAID TO BE ABSOLUTE.  In fact, it is not clear to us that the
	claim asserted by some *amici* that one has an unlimited right to
	do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the
	right of privacy previously articulated in the  Court's decisions.
	The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind
	in the past. [citations omitted]"


Again, I thank you for reinforcing the perception that the anti-abortion
stance is based on lies.  Perhaps your school counselors can help you find
a LyingAboutRvW support group so you can work through these issues that
compel you into such unproductive behavior.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:34:35 GMT

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>Sentience implies a sense of "awareness".  The newborn baby has about
>an equal sense of this as he/she did just prior to the event of being
>born.

Agreed.  Is either what you would call sentient, compared to other
sentient and non-sentient beings?

>If you believe that the unborn fetus has no awareness (and thus
>sentience), then you just plain don't know what you're talking about.
>Hell, I've played with an "unborn" child before.  They do respond
>to outside stimuli.

Bugs respond to outside stimuli.  You can't be sentient without being
aware, but you can be aware without being sentient; a fetus may be
aware, but can you demonstrate signs of its sentience?

>Besides, you *keep* forgetting:  this is about valuing our own humankind.
>NOT about reproduction.

Precisely!  It's more important to value a woman than to force her to
reproduce.

-- 
_/_/_/  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.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some opinions from pro-choicers on the personhood status of infants
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:02:21 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <32325@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> 
smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

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

>  [.. Mezias deletes the entire article, since he's afraid
>      to recognize that some pro-choicers don't recognize
>      infants as persons ..]

> What this article convincingly demonstrates is that one should not
> engage in pointless debates with [Mr. Holtsinger]; sooner or later, out 
> of frustration, you will say something that he will take out context to
> make some twisted point.  

My point is that some pro-choicers have entertained the idea
that infants are not persons.  Are you claiming that every
one of the quotes which I provided in this thread was taken 
out of context?   Can you demonstrate that for me please?  

> For the record, [Mr. Holtsinger], let me make it
> perfectly clear what my position on this irrelevant issue is: Infants
> are persons.  

Fine, but your opinion is not shared by every pro-choicer. 

> The law is quite clear on who qualifies as a person: any
> born human being.  

The law can be changed to make any entity a legal 'person'.
It just so happens that today, certain human beings are
not defined as legal persons.  

> The issue is also irrelevant: A woman should no
> more be forced to used her body to support a /z/e/f/ (not a person)
> then she is forced to use it to support her 5 year old child (a
> person).  

But you haven't shown any relevant difference between a 
late-term fetus and a newborn infant.  And even if we
accept your premise that a woman shouldn't be forced
to support a child,  it does not logically follow that
she should have the right to kill that child. 

> Personhood is irrelevant to abortion because the set of
> legal persons does not intersect with the set of entities that can be
> aborted.  

But legal personhood is simply a definition which can be changed.  


Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47809 alt.abortion.inequity:5066
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 13 Nov 1992 07:53:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.721589850@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>[I know this is blatantly *ad hominem*, but I can't help wondering whether 
>Adrienne is training her children to be just as non-altruistic as she is,
>and I wonder whether they will take her into their homes in her old age.]

Yes, and an interesting example of how people don't even think their ad
hominem attacks clear through, either.

See, we could take a vote here, Peter.  Let's have everyone in talk.abortion
vote on who is more likely to have raised better children -- you or me.  Who
has children more in need of remedial childhood, me or you.  And then we'll
see who gets -- enforced through legal means, since this is a democracy --
to force one's child-rearing ideas upon whom.

This is a parallel to the notion that anybody in the reading audience should
so much as presume to have an opinion on someone else's life.  Petey Honey
wouldn't for a MINUTE submit to such a vote, because he'd be out on his ear 
in a flash.  And, frankly, he SHOULDN'T submit to a vote, because how he
raises his children isn't any of our business.

Though, of course, how *I* raise *mine* is good enough bait for him.

Yawn.  Well, at least it provided an illustration of a more important pair
of principles:  that we don't, in this country, vote on matters of privacy,
and that ad hominem attacks are pretty damned stupid.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 16:41:58 GMT

In <Bwss6I.9Bv@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <nyikos.719773928@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>of Jesus, which Paul Harvey [whose world-view is worlds apart from that
>>of _the_ Paul Harvey] was UNFAVORABLY comparing to the alleged 
>>In a similar vein, I was comparing networker Paul Harvey to THE _the_
>>Paul Harvey up there.

>Excuse me son! I AM THE PAUL HARVEY! Worlds above and worlds below, no one
>in the world like me!

Ah, but you are not THE _the_ Paul Harvey, the person whose famous
trademarks you are copying below.  [Earlier, I merely said _the_ Paul
Harvey, as you can see above, then amended it, as you can see above,
precisely in anticipation of such an egotistical comment.]

>>Peter Nyikos [so far as I know, I am the only research mathematician 
>>		who bears this name.]

>Research mathematician, oh that is rich!

Do you disbelieve me?

>And now you know ... the rest ... of the story. GOOD DAY!

Peter Nyikos
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: jjprice@c00093-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu


To all thoose celebrating Clinton's election,


I congrratulate Bill for his wonderful comeback and election to the White House.
Although I feel he will not be a good president I am hoping I am wrong.

Now as to his views on abortion:

All you Anti-Lifer's ( I use this wording because I have seen pro-lifers called
 anti-choicer's so turn-abouts fair play) think (and are probably correct in
 that you feel Clinton will do alot to keep abortion legal and secure a woman's
 right to kill (I could have said choose but since ya'll say we want to take 
 away her choice I'll say you want to take away the baby's life).

Yes the FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) will probably pass but I don't think it
 will be by a large margin and I know North Carolina will having nothing to
 do with it because both our senators are anti-choice and N.C. went to 
 Bush anyways (Ha! Ha!).

Yes if a Supreme Court Justice resigns an anti-life justice will probably
 replace him upsetting the delicate balance we now have.

Many feel that the War is over if FOCA is passed because what states feel
will no longer be important. 

The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait
for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
morals again

-Jeff Price

	"What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as
	 morally acceptable" 
			- Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland
Newsgroups: talk.abortion