HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:29:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <tzwnpsr.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep12.072322.84133@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><xbnnk4=.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> Pretty close.  I agree pretty much with Jennifer here.  If you are going
|> >|> to legislate that the state controls a woman's womb then you had better be
|> >|> prepared to have your testicles controlled by the state too.
|> >
|> >	Nobody on the pro-life side (that I know of) proposes to enact state
|> >controls over the womb.  
|> 
|> So a woman can choose to empty out the contents of her womb and you
|> won't mind?

	No, I wouldn't, unless of course she killed her unborn child in the
process.

|>  Why do I find this hard to believe?

	Couldn't tell ya.

|>  Gee, if the state
|> gives you control over your car, as long as you don't drive it
|> anywhere, do you still feel like you have control over it?

	If the state acknowledges my right to drive a car provided I don't kill
or maim anyone else with it, yes, I feel like I have pretty good control over it.

|> >                         We're merely proposing that a woman not be allowed to
|> >kill the child for whose existence and presence in her womb she is responsible.
|> 
|> There is no child in a woman's womb.

	This is a factual error.  A young human being lives within her.  You have
already acknowledged elsewhere that the unborn child is a living human being;
don't try to back down now.  You merely believe (if I interpret you correctly)
that this particular living human being's life isn't worth a plugged nickel.

|> >That the creation and development of the child occurs in her womb is incidental. 
|> 
|> So many pregnant women would be surprised to hear this.

	The location of the development of the child is not the issue.  If it is
within a woman's financial and technological means, she may certainly remove the
child from her womb.  But she must not kill it or allow it to die.

|> >I would not object to a woman removing the child from her womb so long as she did
|> >not kill it in the process.
|> 
|> So if there was a way to remove the 8 week fetus from the lining and hand
|> it to you still alive, then you would approve of abortion?  Of course,
|> the fetus would die shortly after removal, but heck, as long as it was
|> removed alive it's ok.  Right?

	No.  If it died, the woman was clearly negligent for removing it.  She
must have some reasonable method of preserving and protecting its life after it
is out of the womb.  Merely removing it and then neglecting it to death hardly
satisfies her responsibilities as a parent to her child.

|> BTW, please set your right margins such that a few responses don't cause
|> the ugly line wrap you see above.  If you need help with this let me
|> know.

	I need help with this.  Thanks.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Five questions for Doug Holtsinger
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:46:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.172406.5963@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Sep04.161541.40172@watson.ibm.com> 
#margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
#
##garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
### Well, DOD, can you answer any of these questions?
#
## Of course he *can*

but he won't.

#
#But apparently you're incapable of remembering the answers which I 
#have already given.  
#

You haven't answered them all, Holtsinger.  Why are you lying?

Susan

#      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
# that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
# we want to be precise)..."
#   -- Gloria Feldt,
#      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
#
#  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
#    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu#
      -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here
      -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
      -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here
      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
      -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
      -- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)
      -- lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
   "Neither do I" -- ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) <2ymn8gh.ray@netcom.com# 

What is it about Judaism that bothers you so, Holtsinger?

Susan
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:25:02 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, patrick@is.rice.edu (That's MISTER Patrick L. Humphrey to you, Steve.) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.151810.9463@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Stev
>e Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

]>Quite obviously, PatricKKK, I am seriously superior to you, and am way

superior fertilizer, maybe, since Patrick is a human being.

]>above your league. It is better for you and your pro-abort contingent that

as far as leagues go, are you in one? (Besides manure pushers, unl.?)

]>you just leave me the hell alone, and just stick to the facts as well as

leave me alone, leave me alone, leave me alone
crying for mommy yet, steve?

]>your feeble mind can comprehend them, because your lies sure as hell are
]>not blowing over. When you try to tackle me, you're pissing into the wind,

something you've had a lot of experience with? So those aren't tears
after all....

>(Of course, brain surgery *would* be a waste of time, in your case...:-)

Patrick, I have to disagree, I think brain surgery would be a boon for
Steve. They might be able to find the single nueron that connects to
his speech center and shut him up forever.

]>Someone can bash my ego in this post, because it does look quite inflated

If it was anything other than hot air, and I could find it, yeah, I
guess I might be able to bash it, provided I could hit it with my pinkie.

>                        The SubGenius MUST have Slack!

Just enough to hang themselves with....

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re:  False, false, wrong, wrong, wrong.  (Was: TPPILH)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support 
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: You expect me to mark my delitions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 18:26:59 GMT

[Note changes in newsgroups and followups-to lines, please]

In article <Bu60ov.Int@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.222638.17658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <Bu4FLt.EB5@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>Moreover, the judge bases the support amount on the maximal return of 
>>>your LABOR (ie. imputed salary), not on your subsequent inheritances or 
>>>gifts.  It cannot be assumed that any given person has enough inheritance 
>>>to cover that amount, hence the use of that person's body, time, and labor 
>>>is required.  If breaking rocks makes you the maximum money, then you gotta 
>>>break rocks.
>>
>>Wrong.  False.  Nope.  If you've got a PHD in CompSci, and currently make
>>$100,000/year, and you have to pay child support, you can always go work at
>>McDonald's for minimum wage, and the judge will _have_ to reduce/eliminate
>>your support payments.  A judge _cannot_ force you to work at a specific job.
>
>Maybe New York is different, but in Pennsylvania, if you're a CompSci PhD
>with a $100,000/year job, and you take a job in McD's earning you 
>$20,000/year, then the judge will impute to you a salary of $100,000/year
>and calculate your support payments accordingly.  "Voluntary" decrease in
>income is not grounds for reducing support.  And, when support can be as
>much as 40-50% gross, you are +not+ going to cover even support alone on a 
>McD's job.

Somehow, this doesn't sound right.  Could somebody [else] who lives in PA verify
it for me (I have a hard enough time finding legal stuff for Colorado).
--
=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: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:00:09 GMT

From article by eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley):
> Actually I put the dividing line at the beginning of "myelination" in
> the brain, which I see as the last clear-cut step needed before the
> brain can come "on-line".  

Much as some people would like to remold these little children 
into little machines and robots, they are LIVING BEINGS. 

 
> This is at 23-24 weeks, which
> coincidentally is the the current viability age.

Oh, and did you miss my post about the 22 week premie that just
went home from the hospital?   The age is moving younger and
younger all the time.  And you know what?  It's NOT the babies
who are changing.  It's just our medical knowledge of how to
care for them that is.

Suzanne Forgach
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:34:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not today, thanks.

In article <24559@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com write
>>Murder doe NOT just refer to unlawful killing, it also refers to unjust
>>(immoral) killing.
>
>Could you post a verifiable reference for this please. Murder is not
>given any kind of "moral" definition in anything I have available. Just
>legalities and slang.

Try any bible.  Really, any one!  :-)

>>Correct.  So what do you call it when a woman carrying my child kills it?
>>I call it violating my rights by having her beliefs forced on me.
>
>It is not your child until it is born.

I disagree.  Or, if this is the case, then how come I'm not allowed to deny
it?

>How do you feel if your "child" with
>a woman you don't really care for (pretend a moment of weakness/confusion/
>changing attitudes) miscarried? Do you weep for your "child"?

I wouldn't know, as I've never been in such a situation.  Ask somebody
who has.

>>This is not emotional rhetoric.  It is truth.  Abortion is not just what
>>is done to the mother, it is also what is done to the baby, and the
>>father.
>
>Sorry bub. Nothing is being done to the "father" as half the time the
>"father" isn't around or aware of what he imposed on the woman.

I see.  So damage that you receive that you are UNAWARE of at the time,
is not damage?

>You weren't a father to begin with.

Yes, I was.  You state your beliefs as if they were facts.  They are not.

>What about all those z/b's you might
>have fathered that got flushed? (Remember Dr. Howard's statistics about
>2/3's of all conceived z/b/e/f's not making it to term?) How do you
>feel about those?

Damn sick.  Which is why I always use some form of contraception that
is designed to prevent conception.

Ask any couple who has been trying to get pregnant (and keep the baby)
for a protracted period of time about how they feel.

>As for the rest, what if the woman wanted your testicles
>so that she could produce an offspring since none resulted from your
>copulation, and she feels that she's been wronged and you didn't want
>any?

If I understand you correctly, I believe that she has not right to
require just my testicles. :-)  It's all or nothing, babe.

>(Note, I know that this is ludicrous,

Then why bring it up?

>Ron

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Is Peter going to be enrolling at NCSU? (Was: Badges of Honor)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:11:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>For the benefit of readers who might miss the import of the word 
>"thought", let me point out that the umbilical cord connects to
>the placenta, which is still not a part of the mother's body, coming
>as it does from the original fertilized ovum, along with the cord,
>fetus, and bag of waters.

The placenta contains the mother/fetus interface which permits nutrients
and waste products to pass but prevents cells/tissue from passing.  The 
placenta, umbilical cord, bag, and fetus all have come from the mother, 
but their development has been guided by the genes of the fetus and their 
tissue type is also that of the fetus.

There _is_ a point, however, where fetus tissue isn't and mother tissue is.
Whether it's in the uterus or placenta strikes me as being pretty much
irrelevent to the fetus, mother, or abortion issue.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Corn (was Re: Badges of Honor)
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:05:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <nyikos.715656383@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

}The other thing I hoped you might say is that since your head and
}shoulders always stick out of that thing that looks like a body 
}bag otherwise (what's the word for it?) 

It's called a "pod."  The thing that looks kind of like an ironing
board cover is called a "cocoon."  Only those who plan ahead fly
in a body bag...hmmmm...sounds like a good idea...it probably has some
psychological drawbacks, though...

}you are not in the same 
}relationship with your harness that a fetus is with its mother.

I should hope not.  By the way, I checked with someone who has
done both and she assures me that hang gliding is not even remotely
like being pregnant.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:56:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep12.225124.20051@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In  <Sep12.082914.20657@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> > In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes
|> > |> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >
|> > |> >        It certainly involves force against the living human being inside th
|> > |> >mother's womb.
|> > |> >        I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving
|> > |> >the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.
|> > |>
|> > |> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.
|> >
|> >      The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
|> > tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.
|> 
|> "Human being" is a term that means "human" (noun) or "person".  You're using
|> human being as a noun phrase - the fetus is certainly a being that is human
|> (adj.), but it is not a human being in the usual sense of the term, so the
|> connotations associated with "human being" don't apply.

	A fetus is a living member of the human species.  On t.a, a common
distinction is made between "person" and "human being" (a distinction, of course,
which I do not believe is valid).  A human being is any organism which is alive
and which is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Unborn children, all of them,
fall into this category.  A "person" is a human being who is recognized by some
group or another and by some standard or another to have human rights, including
the right to life.

|> > |> >|>  Unless of course, you mean offending the delicate
|> > |> >|> sensibilities of the pro-lifers.
|> > |>
|> > |> >        As it happens, the sensibilities of the pro-lifers inside the mother
|> > |> >womb are pretty delicate, so I suppose this covers it...
|> > |>
|> > |> I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
|> > |> or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
|> > |> persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)
|> >
|> >      If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
|> > children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.
|> 
|> No, it's not.  Sensation is "the power or process of receiving conscious
|> sense impressions through direct stimulation of the bodily organism or of
|> the sense organs".  Consciousness is one criterion.  Of course a fetus
|> reacts to stimuli.  So does a paramecium.  Big deal.

	In your humble opinion, does a newborn have sensations?

Steve
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:28:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep05.072518.28382@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>om> writes:
>
>>In  <nyikos.715648972@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pet
>er Nyikos) writes:
>>> In <24537@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>Have you ever heard of the Universal Almanac?  The Federal Centers for
>>Disease Control?  Any of the *other* sources that have been quoted?

>Sorry, missed them all. On which thread should I have looked?

My, either you are rife with sarcasm today, or you have very limitted
reading habits. They have come up repeatedly in many threads.

>Also, I have not heard of a single abortionist turning in someone
>for incest.  It takes a while to find out whether any such cases
>have actually occurred, though.  Stay tuned.

Could it be that the woman getting an abortion refuses to tell about
this condition? After all, it's not required to give this information,
you know, so the doctor could very well be unaware of this information.

>You wanted to know whether your guess that abortionists reported
>incest 100% of the time was correct.  (Would you say that was
>"founded"??) I did not want to leave you completely in the dark.
>I see you would have preferred to go on believing in that 100% figure.
>Go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy, but you may be
>rudely surprised later.

I would imagine if someone came in and talked to the doctor privately,
as in don't tell anyone, but this pregnancy was caused by my father,
etc, and she was 17 or older, that the doctor might respect his patient's
confidentiality. What do you think? After all, journalists don't give
out their sources of information either, most of the time. Several have
even gone to jail for this.


Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:26:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.051033.13306@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep08.051249.41378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Sep7.185405.21784@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
> >> In article <1992Sep3.191051.13478@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com wr
> >> >In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John
> >> ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no
> >> ># woman can have babies without the kindness of a man.
> >> >
> >> >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
> >>
> >> >I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
> >>
> >> Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
> >> at all?
> >>
> >> Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?
> >
> >Do you believe that if a man rapes a woman and a child results, that the
> >man performed an act of kindness?
>
> This is pure, vintage MARGOLIS.

Thank you.  <bows>

> As any body can see, I made no reference to rape at all.

Of course you didn't; I was using it as an example to point out the
ignorance of your statement.  I'll say it again, more slowly.  Please
try to follow.  You claimed that *no* woman can have babies without the
kindness of a man.  There have been cases where a woman was raped and
subsequently gave birth to the rapist's child.  Are you claiming that
the rapist performed an act of kindness, or is this an instance where
a woman *was* able to have a baby without the "kindness of a man"?

*Either* your blanket statement was incorrect, *or* you're claiming that
rape is a kindness if a baby results.  Which is it?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Peter, do you even know how to READ? (Was: 3 docs in a 3-way).
Summary: If Peter actually read a t.a article, would the world continue to exist? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 16:25:08 GMT

In article <nyikos.715733197@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Sorry, I missed that one.  And it seems so out of character, I find it
>hard to believe he wasn't being satirical.  Which thread was it on, so
>I can see the context?

Peter, have you read ANY article on talk.abortion?  I mean, you post so much
crap here that I assumed you actually READ what you were replying to...
--
=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,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity