HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What if???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:27:09 GMT


nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <ywxyd5c@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>>>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>>>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

>>It would be even that incredibly MORE difficult to be pregnant.
>>Also, the fetus would be vulnerable to the slightest bumps,
>>temperature changes, and infection, and it's not likely we'd
>>GET many newborns.

>Not necessarily.  Kangaroos do develop outside their mothers
>(mostly in the pouch, true, but still visible) starting
>at a stage where humans are still called embryos, rather than fetuses, 
>and they've been around many millions of years longer than humans.

This is idiotic.  One free clue, Nyikos:  When the joey is in the
pouch, can you SEE the eyes, ears, etc, as the original poster
specified?

>Peter Ny.

                    -rocker

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Self-Interest
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:48:44 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <193fckINNe59@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:

> I'm curious how both sides of the issue will tackle this:
> 
>    In terms of personal self-interest, which side has more to gain in the
>    batte between "abortion rights" and human's "right to life?"

  Well, I suppose in terms of "self interest", the pro-choice women have the
most to "gain" here.  Economics, bodily "freedom".  In general, the pro-life 
group "gains" satisfaction that babies (as they see it, remember) are not 
being killed.  Some would say they also would get control over people's
sex lives, although aside from abortion, I think "they" would have a much
harder, if not impossible task confronting them.  Pro-choicers certainly
have a lot more TANGIBLES to gain in this battle.

  Having said that, I think it is VERY important to realize that just because
someone may have a lot to gain from X, does not not make their support of X
suspect, and that goes double in this particular area.  Technically speaking
a pro-choice win does not really gain them anything tangible, but rather
protects them from *losing* what they have.



semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gypsies and the Down's Syndrome:  McBean and Nyikos email
Date: 11 Sep 1992 08:03:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep9.153121.2243@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>As for handicaps, if the woman wants to abort her z/e/f then
>what sort of life do you suppose she would offer that child if
>forced to give birth?  Maybe she's financially incapable of
>such a burden.  Maybe she's mentally incapable.  Would you want
>to propose that a psychological survey of such women be conducted
>before allowing them a legal abortion? 

Now wait just a COTTON PICKIN MINUTE, you guys!  What a brilliant but too-
well-hidden example of how foolish, shortsighted and just plain STUPID
the prolife viewpoint is (thanks, Brian, but I think you should have 
underlined it.)

A Psychological survey of women before allowing them a legal abortion for a
handicapped fetus?!?!?!?!??

What about a Psychological survey of women before allowing them to BEAR a
handicapped fetus?!?!?!?!?

Which woman is more likely to *need* psychological resources -- the woman who
KEEPS the handicapped fetus or the woman who ABORTS it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.100334.5288@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>: I agree that more damage is done by assuming z/e/fs aren't people if
>: they are is greater than the damage done by assuming z/e/fs are people
>: if they aren't.  On the other hand, I think the probability of
>: something with neither memories nor a functional past being a person
>: is infintesinal (sp?).  Remember to take the probabilities of the
>: propositions into account, not merely the damage done by guessing
>: wrongly each way....

>Probability doesn't enter into it.  The proposition "a fetus is
>a person" is either true or false.  It's not a 0.5 chance that it's
>true - its 1 or 0.  You can't flip ten fetuses and count how many
>of them come up people, elizabeth.

Oh, dear, I seem to have confused you.  Let me type very slowly.....

Fetuses (at a given stage of development) are either people or
non-people.  I believe they aren't people prior to myelination, since
they don't have functional brains.  Since I am not omniscient, my
beliefs can be wrong.  Therefore, I assign a probability to my beliefs
being wrong.  That too can of course be mistaken, but is at least a
measure of how certain I feel about a given belief.

>Your definition of "person" is extremely bizarre ... why does a 
>functional _future_ not count for as much a functional _past_?  What 
>has memory got to do with personhood?  Sounds like an utterly abitrary 
>criterion to me.  Is an amnesiac a person?  

This was legitimately unclear if you haven't read some of my other
"personhood" posts.  My primary criteria of "personhood" is a brain
capable of sapient thought.  However, I think that a hypothetical
entity not capable of sapient thought but with previous sapient
thoughts stored inside it (N.B. sleeping people, people in comas, etc.
*are* capable of sapient thought, just not thinking at the moment)
might or might not be a person -- I'm simply not sure.

As for why not the future....  What someone may or will become doesn't
seem to me to make them that now.  Someone taking violin lessons is
not a concert violinist (and is a lot less like a concert violinist
than someone who once was and now can't perform because he has
arthritis).

>What does a past have to have to make it functional?

Previous sapient thought, if it's relevant.

>And why have you chosen this definition of person over "something 
>with neither an amex card nor a funtop jeep cannot be a person"?
>Wouldn't that be equally arbitrary?  

No.  I think personhood is based thought and capability of thought.
This may be wrong, but it's no more arbitrary than human = person.

-- 
"The fools and the wise are equally harmless; it is the half-wise and the
half-foolish who are the most to be feared."       - Goethe

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu                              E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:06:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes ...
>How do I explain this, it's rather like having to explain why life has any
>value at all.  If a babies at 21 weeks are surviving, then it seems by
>definition that they are persons, with all of the inalienable rights that
>are guaranteed by our US constitution.  To purposefully take their lives
>is wrong, just as it is wrong to take the life of a person at 2 years, 30
>years, or 80.  I think it is hypocritical for people to decide that
>someone is a person in one case, but not another.

One might also ask why it is alright to spend $250,000 on an operation
in an attempt to save the life of a 50 year old adult while allowing
others to freeze to death on the streets.  It is a question I don't
really have an answer for.  Maybe it's a matter of economics.

>You once asked me if I had an analogy for why abortion is wrong.  I
>thought about it a lot, so here goes.  Do you think that it is ok to
>remove a person from a life support system? (Many people say yes!).  Now,
>however, do you think that it is ok to remove a person from a life support
>system if you know that in 9 months they will be fully living on their own
>again?

Now what if it is _your_ body that is keeping that person alive?
And if you're willing to do it for one, then why not for another?
And if two, why not more?  Six?  Ten?

How much are you personally willing to spend to save lives?  Abortion
could be nearly eliminated overnight with no legislation, no force,
and no demonstrations.  How?  Easy, pay women to keep their children.
Find some women who's about to get an abortion and offer her cash to
give birth to the child.  Yes, it _will_ be expensive.  I'd guess
some women would ask for $100,000.  But, you get what you pay for.
TANSTAAFL.

The other approach, taking women's bodies and resources by force, 
isn't working as well and requires more of a consensus from the 
population at large.  Since half+ of the population are women, this
is not likely to succeed.

>Your thoughts?

Just though I'd jump in here.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:00:31 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep5.163902.9450@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
|> In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
|> >> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
|> >>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> >
|> >>>> And abortion is not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of what's "right".  
|> >>> Of course it is!  If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one!
|> >>And if slavery isn't right for you, don't own a slave!
|> >
|> >Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking,
|> >talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
|> >a slave.

	In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being sufficiently
like you to deserve a right to life, while the other (again in your arbitrary
opinion) is a human being not sufficiently like you to deserve a right to life.
	Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
prerequisistes to personhood.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Arrogant Indians and Susan Forgach
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:58:48 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:


>Terrifying post!  Someone who actually thinks Suzanne is "comforting".
Ye gads....

><92250.091118RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>...
>>         However, the business about abortion  has bothered me a lot.   How
>>    can people with souls be so STRONGLY pro-choice?

>Obviously, you think that everyone is religiously deluded.  Please open
>that mind of yours to the possiblity that some people don't supscribe to
>the notion of "souls".

One of the biggest problems with convincing fundamentalists or evangelicals
is that people who don't subscribe to their particular version of God:

    1. Don't give a hoot what God thinks about the issue;

    2. Don't feel any need to seek approval from some organized religion;

    3. Don't want to have some particular set of values imposed on them.

They need to go back and read the Scriptures about love and tolerance, and
about not imposing the Word by force...

>>                                                      I can understand that
>>    abortion might sometime be the lesser  of two evils.  But a `right  to
>>    choose' seems to imply that we need not even consider the other evil.

>What other "evil" is that?  And why should *we* even be involved in
>someone else's personal decision?

Amen, and preach it!  (Now, how often does an atheist hear this one!) ;-)

The right to assert values stops at my body, my mind and my door.  My kids
have to put up with it until their 18...other than that, I control my own
values, thank you.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36650 alt.abortion.inequity:3786
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:03:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep9.125907.202725@uctvax.uct.ac.za>,
wnljam01@uctvax.uct.ac.za wrote:
> 
> If only more people would realise the truth and stop trying to sweep it 
> under the rug.  Congrats Sean P. Curley for making a stand for the right to 
> life of the unborn.  
> James Wanliss, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Am I the only one who feels a twinge of irony while reading this?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Allegations of "botched", again...
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:54:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <Bu7uvK.GA5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>I have read similar stories of women who died of legal abortions.
>I have met two women who have long-lasting physical damage from
>botched but entirely legal abortions.
"Botched", meaning unsuccessful?  Causing damage?  Are they suing?
If they were truly "botched" (as opposed to:  I just got a new bunch
of friends who would rather that I regret and be traumatized by my
abortion), I would hope they are pursuing the legal avenue.  Quacks
of any denomination need to be rooted out.

>I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
>women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.
Please be more specific.

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:24:13 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sc>In article <1992Sep8.153658.10289@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg
Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

sc>Most of all, Rush Limbaugh gives pro-lifers a fortress on the airwaves, to
sc>take a stand against pro-abortionists. No more badmouthing by the Phil
sc>Donahue's, Joan Rivers and so on, of the world - for once, they can hear
sc>someone bash abortion, openly and frankly, for millions of people to hear.
sc>For once, someone gets up and says abortion should be banned, and all the
sc>pro-aborts' efforts to shut him up, fail miserably. He just scoffs at the
sc>pro-aborts, calling them things that no media-fearing person would ever
sc>say, making statements about feminists that could get a man shunned for
sc>life. If the words "fight back" come to a pro-lifer's mind, Rush Limbaugh
sc>is a clear definition of what "fight back" means. When the Gloria
sc>Steinem's of this world get up and crazy, just look to Rush to provide
sc>a counterattack. 

Not to mention all the laughter he has supplied us folks that get the
joke.  He is a lot of fun to listen to once you understand the joke
and it's a riot listening to the little pimply faced boys that don't 
get it.  Keep it up Rush.  I'm thrilled you have such a large
listening audience.  Rush's radio show is about as dangerous as 
your postings Inturdgent.
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: T*d, Peter, why didn't you just *ASK*??? (Was: some sort of bird)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc 
Summary: The only sin is incompetence 
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.
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:33:06 GMT

[Note:  Followups set to talk.religion.misc, and heavy deletions...]

In article <nyikos.715733663@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>No, I merely assumed the connection between the first part of his sentence
>and the second part was different than it actually was.  I was hoping that,
>by drawing attention to the fact that he was male, he was thereby trying
>to refute the statement that Wicca is a feminist movement.  Now all I
>have to show for my pains is a rebuke and not even an outright denial.
>And no clue as to why Wicca is not feminist.

Jesus Christ, Peter, then why didn't you just *ASK* that?

Here, it's easy.  I'll even help you out this time:

(Note:  < used to simulate quoted text...)

<Gee, Eric, I don't understand.  Are you saying that men are not part of the
<Wicca movement, or that the Wiccan movement is not femininst?  Or what?

See, isn't it EASY?

Next week I'll teach you how to two-step, ok?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Gun Posts
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:06:12 GMT

     My apologies regarding the posts responding to Kevin Darcy,
who appears to, for some reason, demand cross-posting to talk.
abortion.
     I've tried to remove talk.abortion from the newsgroups header,
but I may have let a few get through.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Oh, so Rush ISN'T serious, eh, Astro Boy?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:03:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.152903.17258@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <BuD0Eu.nE.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep10.040713.32172@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >#In  <1992Sep10.004307.17436@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> >##
> >## I've run you over with facts. Take the Gloria Feldt debate.
> >## You're about to be majorly embarrassed by my facts and your lies.
> >#
> >#Yes, like your "fact" that Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion
> >#(at age 89???).  We're still reeling from the shock of that one.  (Or is
> >#that shaking with laughter?)
> >
> >Now, Larry, she was only 83.  (Dennis will probably argue that those
> >six years *matter.*)  I don't think that anyone has explained the
> >facts of life to the little boy.
> 
> I asked the library to see if they can find that News & Review issue
> and I talked to the newspaper staff here in Sacto, too. When it comes
> in, I'll see about making a .gif out of it and seing just how much
> embarrassment "red" we can see on your face after that. 
> 
> >(I'm still amused that POC thinks that the 1st Ammendment prohibits
> >Ms. Feldt from practicing her religion.)
> 
> No. It only prohibits her from slamming her RELIGION into POLITICS. 

No, Dances With Fantasies, it only prevents Congress from making
a law establishing religion.  It does not in any way prevent
Ms Feldt or any other private citizen from seeking to prohibit
a law that conflicts with her religious views.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Because I was an unreflective fool once ...
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:06:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <Sep12.070153.47076@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) adds to a new
chorus in the pro-LIE propaganda campaign.  The argument, summarized
in the header is empitomized in the posts of stevens@eatdust (John
Stevens):

>Now that the subject comes up, I was once pro-legal-abortion.  At the
>time I really didn't think much about the issue.  I would have called
>myself "pro-choice" out of an impulse to make myself look good even
>though I was dead wrong.  Now I call pro-choicers either
>"pro-choicers," or if I've got an attitude, "pro-legal-abortion,"
>since (after all) that's exactly what they are.

(1) I love the part where they admit that they didn't think much about
abortion, but then they ruin it by adding the unnecessary qualifier
`At the time.'  The positions they articulate reveal that they still
don't think about abortion; they also reveal that a misogynistic
resentment of expanded rights for women is what is causing this mental
incapacity.  

(2) The impulses to engage unreflective attempts at enhancing
self-image despite being dead-wrong is still quite clear in the
behavior of both Arnold and Stevens.

(3) I call fools who want to impose inequitable restrictions on the
rights of women misognyists since (after all) that's exactly what they
are.


SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:15:13 GMT

In article <nyikos.715645080@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu14nJ.LK.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <1992Sep02.233517.35825@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
#
##[massive deletions]
#
###Larry Margolis, wondering why Dishonest Doug relies on the description
###of a "pro-abort" regarding the organization, but then questions the
###veracity of the organization's facts on the grounds that it's a
###"pro-abortion organization".
#
##DOD never answered this, did he?
#
##I wonder why.
#
##Susan
#
#I don't know why, but seeing as how you've dismissed every single one
#of my sources (even pro-choice ones like Janice Raymond and Luhra Tivis)
#as propaganda, you certainly have no cause for complaint.

I have yet to see your quotes from either of these women.  I
don't know who they are, and I have only your word as to
what their stand is on legal abortion.  Unlike DOD, if I
accuse someone of being dishonest, I don't assume that they're
being honest when it's convenient.

Do you even know what Larry and I are talking about, or are
you just continuing your whine about being outnumbered?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion