HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 9 Jan 1993 14:52:39 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Several replies to my posting indicate that the posters misunderstood
the point.  I quoted from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to show that
the Supreme Court LEGALIZED abortion on demand for the full nine
months of pregnancy.  That is, neither the federal government nor any
state or local government can pass any law outlawing any abortion.
Any woman who wants to have an abortion at any time during her preg-
nancy need only find a physician who is willing to perform it.  The
law cannot effectively forbid her to get an abortion nor can it
forbid a physician from performing an abortion on any woman who wants
one at any time during her pregnancy.

If very few physicians are willing to perform abortions, especially
late term abortions, that is wonderful.  It would be even better if
all physicians refused to perform abortions.  However, that does not
affect the legality of abortion.

Incidentally, after I posted my original statement someone sent me
directly some documentation supporting what I said. Because of a
glitch while I was reading my mail, the message was lost.  If that
person would send me the material again, I would be grateful.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:28:10 GMT

In <1993Jan12.182838.11208@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>In article <markp.726626607@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <C0KC4u.13L@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>
>>>In article <1ifvijINNpia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>>>Regard) writes:
>>>>In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark
>>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>>>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>>>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>>>>right to life.
>>>>
>>
>>>I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
>>>intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?
>>
>>Nothing directly. I was responding to the "She's in my womb against my
>>will, so, human or not, I can evict her" justification for abortion.
>>
>>>- Paul
>>
>>Mark Pundurs

>I think you are confused on something, Mark.   Being pregnant "against my will"
>does not mean I did not consent to sex.  I could have consented all night long
>and still become pregnant "against my will".  Having sex "against my will" is rape.  Being pregnant "against my will" isn't the result of rape.  

I nver said any of those things.

>Consenting to
>sex is NOT consenting to becoming pregnant.  

But it IS consenting to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy.

>Likewise, not consenting to sex is
>also not consenting to becoming pregnant.  just because one action (sex) can,
>bring about pregnancy, that does not mean that the consent to pregnancy is
>dependent on the consent to sex.  I have consented to sex thousands of times.
>I have consented to pregnancy once.  And once, I became pregnant "against my
>will"--I did not consent to become pregnant at that time.  Additionally, if
>a woman IS raped, she MAY consent to being pregnant. It does not follow that
>if a raped woman consents to being pregnant that she wasn't "really" raped.
>By equating consent to sex with consent to pregnancy you are also equating
>the reverse: that consent to pregnancy is also consent to sex.  

No, I'm not. "A implies B" is not equivalent to "B implies A".

>Jennifer 

Mark Pundurs
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:14:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29528@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>No; it doesn't; but the mother's implicit consent to the possibility
>of lost bodily autonomy (to which she has a presumptive, but not an
>absolute, right) DOES depend on the circumstances of conception. Also,
>she may ethically choose her own right to life over the fetus'.

WHere is the implicit consent to the possibility of lost bodily autonomy?
Furthermore, can you give a case where a person doesn't have an absolute
right to bodily autonomy? (Other than the death penalty, where this
right is forfieted through due process)

Another free clue: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy

And please don't just state "yes she did" but "prove" it.

>The fetus' right to life is a VERY important consideration -- but NOT
>the only one.

The fetus has no right to life. As a matter of fact, no one does.

>(Help me out, here; where's the irony?)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.

If you need this explained, it brings to light much about your consternation
with those in this group who have opinions other than yours.
From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:20:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.055148.27892@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|> In article <C0IBst.F62@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >If you oppose abortion at any time before birth how do you justify
|> >this usurping of a woman's right to choose ?
|> >
|> >If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
|> >fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
|> >and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
|> >OK to terminate before but not after ?)
|> >
|> >
|> 
|> This is too easy. Before the mother had only the options to carry to
|> term, or to abort. As forcing a woman to carry to term is an unjust
|> invasion of her rights, this is not to be tolerated.
|>

I agree that it would be necesary to invade the womans rights in order
to prevent an abortion.

|> After birth, there is an option, other than killing the baby or
|> keeping the baby which is available. At NO COST to the mother,
|> the child can be put up for adoption. No cost in the sense of 
|> without infringement on her bodily autonomy, as well as in a monetary
|> sense.

Agreed. There are usually emotional and psychological costs, however. Certainly
if a child is removed from an abusive environment the parent is hurt, but the
life of the child is paramount.

|> 
|> The difference has nothing to do with the fetus/baby itself, but
|> rather with the options available to the mother.

This is where I differ.  If there is no difference between the fetus/baby
I need to consider the rights of the fetus/baby balanced against the rights
of the mother.  It's not a pleasent choice but I think
society has an obligation to consider this when they determine
abortion policy. IMO the fetus/babies life should be the overiding concern
even though this may cause emotional or psychological harm to the mother.
(I guess that sounds cruel but whenever conflicting rights are involved somebody
is hurt.)

mike

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne 
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:58:52 GMT

<1993Jan6.233209.3096@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
><1992Dec30.003444.7408@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>> <1992Dec22.182521.8808@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
>>> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)
>> 
>> I have to admit that I don't like being around kids in general.  I refuse
>> to babysit for anyone unless I have full corporal authority.  
>
>What does "full corporal authority" mean?   A whack on the behind?
>Several whacks?  A fat lip?  A black eye?  Broken legs?  Cigarette burns?
>Capital punishment?

Basically it means be authorized to use physical force to insure proper
behavior - spankings and slapped hands.  I find your characterization of
me as a child-beater to be extremely rude and uncalled for.

>Well, I know these are extreme, but speaking as a parent, I find your
>term extremely *vague*!

Then you won't ask me to babysit (get the idea).

>> So far no
>> one's taken me up on it. ;-)  
>
>I'm not surprised!  Perhaps you should explain yourself more clearely.

You missed the idea.

>> Most children are smelly, 
>
>All those diapers just like you once needed yourself, Gordon, which somebody
>else changed for you.

It doesn't make them any less smelly.

>> noisy 
>
>All that laughing, crying, yelling, singing, gleeful squeals, general life
>stuff.  (Disgusting, ain't it.)

It can be very stressful.

>> and messy.
>
>All those wet kisses, tears when you hurt their feelings, noses they
>haven't quite got the hang of blowing yet, mud pie gifts they try to
>make you eat, and bubble baths that somehow soak the whole bathroom.
>The sweetness life is made of.

I can understand the kisses, to a point (kids will put *anything* in their
mouths - I don't really want to deal with that).  But how can you possibly
find "sweet[ness]" in blowing someone else's nose for them, or eating mud,
or having to have your hardwood floor replaced because junior misbehaved?

>> Not unlike a lot of my friends in general, but at least I can tell them to
>> go home.
>
>You and your wife are missing out on quite alot by having aborted your
>child, Gordon.

What are my wife and I missing out on because my ex-wife and I got an
abortion 9 years ago?  I mean, exactly what are we missing?  We love
each other - We spend *HUGE* amounts of time together (and it's never
enough) - We go places - Buy gifts for each other (it's amazing how
much money you have left over when you are not trying to over-populate
the earth), and generally are having the times of our lives with no
regrets.

You're not claiming to be able to read my mind again, are you?  Or did you
somehow earn a degree in psychology when I wasn't looking?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,talk.bizarre
From: jac@doe.carleton.ca (James A. Cherry)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:58:59 GMT

In <1993Jan5.070734.20380@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
writes:
>In article <jfRcs*aO0@prolix.apana.org.au> dac@prolix.apana.org.au (Andrew
>Clayton) writes:
>>
>>Kevin Darcy - Anagram.
>>==============
>>Ar, dick envy!
>>==============
>Ho hum...
>Andrew Clayton - Anagram.
>===============
>Yon rectal wand 
>===============
>							- Kevin

"Ho hum"?  Well how 'bout these then?


THE TOP TEN ANAGRAMS OF "KEVIN DARCY":

  10. Cave-dry ink

   9. Icy end rack

   8. Dry via neck

   7. Dicky raven

   6. Cranky Dive

   5. Icky red van

   4. Navy dicker

   3. Crave dinky

   2. Kev: cry a din!

AND THE NUMBER ONE ANAGRAM OF "KEVIN DARCY" IS:



   1. Kevin Darcy: A nervy dick

Bwa ha ha ha!

And while I'm at it, here are...


THE TOP TWENTY ANAGRAMS OF "ANDREW CLAYTON":

  20. Tawny colander
  19. Nary clowned at
  18. Drown canal yet?
  17. Went rayon-clad
  16. Wad: nector only?
  15. Raced wantonly
  14. Lead town carny
  13. Want lead crony
  12. Lewd at canonry
  11. Wanted corn lay
  10. Canary letdown
   9. Contend raw lay
   8. Wren-clan toady
   7. Tawny acne lord
   6. Cry, "Wanton deal!"
   5. 'Ware, canny dolt!
   4. Caw, "No!" ardently
   3. Andy: wart clone
   2. Nylon recta wad

AND THE NUMBER ONE ANAGRAM OF "ANDREW CLAYTON" IS:



   1. Rant, yowl, dance

Go to it, dac!
--
James A. Cherry                                         "Deal with it, pal!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 13:08:07 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan11.190256.14562@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>In article <1iijf5INNfhd@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|>Now, just assume, just for a moment, that we could pop an aborted fetus
>|>into an auto-mama and bring it to term.  No sweat, and pretty cheap, too.
>Don't we wish...but I'll play along.
>|>If this were possible, would women be ALLOWED to 'abort'? 
>Yes I would
>|>Now, assuming you said yes -- really, what sense would a 'no' answer make?--
>|>WHY did you say yes?
>I said yes because she is not aborting it...she is only removing and the fact
>that it will be kept alive and healthy this option would be welcome but face
>it..it is not optional today. Abortion kills it does not remove first it 
>KILLS. No one has a "right" to kill in today's society.

By which stream of logic we discover that it's ok with JJ Price if women
remove fetuses from their bodies, so long as they don't kill them first.
If those fetuses cannot survive, well, that's too bad.

I suppose we could create such a situation.  That would solve the problem
for jj.

Adrienne Regard

Ok, yeah, I forgot.  The quote of the week.

(actually, I made a type-o and wrote "The quote of the geek".  Not sure I
like this version better....(-:)

>|>You *do* see a small difference between the living breathing corporeal
>|>physical body of a woman and your inanimate, printed-by-the-goverment 
>|>spending money, don't you?  
>|>
>No. If a fetus uses a woman's resources without permission she has a right
>to kill the fetus and there by alieveate(sp?) the problem.


!!!!!!!




Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:54:18 GMT

In <1993Jan9.075521.10717@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>>   walking down dark city streets; but
>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>>   right to self-defense.

>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
>   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
>B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
>   right to an abortion.

Try again, Ray. The parallel conclusion here is

B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent right to 
   an abortion if your life is imminently imperiled.

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

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:43:49 GMT

In article <1io9cjINNk8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith
Ramsay) writes:

>I know this is a tangent to what you are arguing here, but note that
>while gender is determined by the genes, number (or individuality) is
>not (as far as I know), as in cases of identical twins, who certainly
>are distinct people. An `identification' of people with their
>precursor zygotes doesn't seem appropriate to me.

There was an excellent article in a recent _New_Republic_ on just
this topic, with regards to RU-486. I'm really busy studying for
exams right now, but when I can find a spare moment I'll look it up.

Tep

-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:55:19 GMT

In <5971@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
>>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

>The woman hung out a sign that said "rapist welcome" when she went outside
>her home.  It is one of those laws of nature, when women go out in the world,
>rape will result.  Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the rapist
>would be an intruder, then don't hang out the welcome sign.

[Background Music: "Singing in the Rain" by Rogers and Hammerstein. 
The glorious "Ninth Symphony" by our old friend, Ludwig Van.]

Believe it or not, there are some foolish people out there who
actually buy signs with the word "Welcome" written on them,
and then put these signs [sometimes called "mats"] on their 
front doorsteps.

If you can find one of these houses, then you're legally
allowed to break in and do whatever you want.  If the owner 
complains, then all you have to do is point out that if they 
didn't want visitors, they shouldn't have put out a "welcome mat". 
If they start spouting a bunch of nonsense about the door having 
been locked, then just remind them that no lock is 100% effective. 

We at the North American Applied Philosophy Association find
this to be an effective method for teaching people that 
"property" is an illusion, and that they would be better off
if they weren't so materialistic. It's just one of the many
public services we offer. "The North American Applied
Philosophy Association: Solving All Your Problems For You
Since 1647."

>--Teddi
>-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date:  7 Jan 93 19:44:05 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <aidler.726345716@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>By all means make whatever choices you and your spouse
>>feel most comfortable with.
>Thank you for joining us in the pro-choice camp Idler.

I most certainly am pro-choice.
Our difference hinges on our opinion of when the choice
is made and just how accountable people should be for
the choice they make.

>>However, the least the both of you can do is agree to
>>accept responsibility for your progeny.
>>
>I'm certain they will. You *do* know that abortion is aresponsible
>method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy don't you?

Abortion *may* be a responsible medical treatment for
a pregnancy.
However, any decision needs to recognize that there
are now two lives to consider and that the mother and 
father agree to some parental responsibility when they
consent to sexual relations.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: holtsinger perpetuates an old lie
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:36:22 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
-> >> all the way up to the point of birth.

-> > this statement is not correct.

-> > in fact, this specific claim has ben debunked
-> > repearedly in talk.abortion over an extended period
-> > of time. 
-> 
-> I have provided documentation which demonstrates that
-> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand all the
-> way up to the point of birth.

you have posted the opinion of one person, and a
non-expert at that, whose opinion has been
repeatedly debunked in talk.abortion over an
extended period of time.

don't you think you'd be better off posting fresh,
new lies, rather than the old stale lies?
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:03:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <5JAN93.03010896@vax.clarku.edu>, by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:
> In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>These are the facts... there is NO statistical variation in the decline
>>of abortion related deaths before and after the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.
>>In other words, the legalization of abortion had NO effect on the safety
>>of abortions.  90% of all ILLEGAL abortions before Roe v Wade were done by
>>licensed physicians, in their offices!  The figures quoted by NARAL were
>>patently false, and they have since ADMITTED that they lied through their
>>teeth.  (NARAL is one of the primary forces that convinced the Supreme Court
>>to rule for abortions in Roe v Wade).  NARAL claimed 5,000 - 10,000 women
>>died every year from illegal abortions.  The actual figure was more like 50
>>women.

>>So in fact, statistically speaking, proscribing abortion would probably
>>DECREASE the number of women killed each year from abortions.  If nearly
>>all illegal abortions are done by "real" doctors, then those women who
>>decided to break the law would still be in no greater danger physically.

>>Chew on these for a while.  References available upon request.

> He's a request.  Please post the references.

Hey Edward, it seems there have been plenty of requests for the
"references".  Maybe a polite request from a fellow pro-lifer will
help expedite the process.  I don't know about you, but I'm
positively _starved_ for facts, and until I see some verifiable
and credible references, all I'll see here are some [sigh] assertions.
So post those references, posthaste.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion