HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Lost boy, please speak for yourself.
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:48:08 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BzF13M.9Cx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes several incorrect
statements regarding what he terms 'most prochoicers.'

(1) He asserts that most of us who support a woman's right to choose
consider /z/e/f/s persons by the third trimester.  Personally, I think
personhood is a red herring in this debate, as I have made clear on
many occasions.  With respect to claims of murder, however, personhood
is clear, it begins at birth.

(2) That the right of separation argument is consistent with a
statement that a fetus gains rights by achieving personhood.  This
shows that he misunderstands the bodily autonomy argument almost as
much as DODIE does.  A five year old child cannot demand the use of
the tissue, organs, or bodily fluids of either of its parents.  By
symmetry, the /z/e/f/ also cannot use the body of its parent.
Personhood is irrelevant.  A right of separation (to cease unwanted
use of bodily resources) exists until birth.

(3) Buys into DODIE's equivalency between intentional homicide and
refusing to donate bodily tissue, fluids, or organs to save another
entity.  Then uses this to reiterate his belief that the fundamental
disagreement between anti-choice and pro-choice involves the
personhood of the fetus.  This is not what I hear most pro-choice
people saying at all.

(4) Buys into DODIE's caricature of the pro-choice position as being a
self-defense argument.  Then repeats again a claim that most
pro-choicers favor abortion because they believe /z/e/f/s are not
persons.  

(5) Falls into the trap of engaging in a debate with DODIE about the
differences between late term /z/e/f/s and newborns.  The only
difference between them relative to the right to abortion is that one
is in the mother's body and the other is not.  A 5 year old child, who
is clearly a legal and ethical person, cannot demand that its parent
use their body to save its life.  Why should a /z/e/f be given this
right?  Personhood, a clearly defined legal term, and the differences
between a zygote and a child, while obvious, are irrelevant.

I'm happy with anyone whose position is consonant with support for the
Freedom of Choice Act, so I'll refrain from attacking the logic of
Lost Boy's position save one question: Why does he want to grant
rights to 3rd trimester /z/e/f/s to use the body of their mother that
are routinely denied to 5 year olds?  I also wish Lost Boy would cease
attributing a lot of irrelevant stuff about personhood to `most
pro-choicers.'  

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 DEC 92 19:14:43 GMT

In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>In a previous article, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>>>I know that you would like to think that I am a hypocrite.  You probably 
>>>assume that all pro-lifers would turn to pro-choice if they became pregnant, 
>>>but that is not the case.  Some of us really believe in what we are saying.
>> 
>>Gee, Loren, what a surprise!  You deleted my offer to carry a fetus to term if 
>>you would agree to Keith's nine months of fisting offer.  I've given you the 
>>perfect opportunity to prove that you really would be willing to use your body 
>>to save a fetus' life, and you ignored it.
> 
>No.  I deleted your offer for 2 reasons.  
>1. I do not believe that being pregnant is quite the same experience as being 
>fisted for 9 months.  You would probably say that I have no clue what it's 
>like to be pregnant.  Well, unless you have been fisted for 9 months, you 
>don't really know if it's the same thing, do you?
> 
>2. I know from experience that you are a liar, and that even if I did take 
>this offer, you would still, probably, have an abortion.

The bottom line is, as I expected, that you are not willing you let your body 
be used to keep a fetus alive, although you expect women to do just that.  
Make all the excuses you want, it's plain to see that you are a hypocrite.

>If anyone really wants to find out if I am a hypocrite, you would have a 
>better chance of learning the truth from any of my friends, rather than from 
>Heather who, obviously, has something personal against me.  (Which, has 
>nothing to do with this discussion)

You obviously have something against me, since you would force me to use my 
body to support a fetus when you will not do the same.  As for your friends,
they call you Captain Clueless to your face.  I think this says it all.

>I said that I wouldn't withdraw my friendship from someone because they did 
>something I didn't agree with.  I also said that if a friend said that 
>something they did was a mistake, then I would believe them.  I never said 
>that my friends should have any special privileges.  

But if a woman you didn't know had an abortion and later told you it was a 
mistake, would you still consider her a murderer?  Or does that term only 
apply to women who had an abortion and think they did the right thing?

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:00:40 GMT

prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:

>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>and stupid.

 How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
 the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
 total liberal.

>He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.

>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.

 Hmm, sounds like "wishful thinking" --- "let's just hope he goes away so
 it can be business as usual for us liberals"
 
Mark
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:41:36 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Dec13.095755.6204@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.222611.95075@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>> In <1992Dec12.040358.6377@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>
>>>"4-6-8-10  Why are all your leaders men?"
>>>
>>>....you'd almost believe that there were more *men* in the "Pro-Life" movement,
>>>at the very least.
>> 
>> Why would you believe that?  The chant is talking about leaders, and you're
>> talking about members.
>
>Just take a quick look at the Pro-Lifers.  Every time I've seen a demo on
>TV, the spokesMAN for the group is just that, a man.  The leaders of the
>local Pro-life group are local businessMEN.  When you see picketers at the
>local clinics, a large percentage of the group are men.  
>
>Yep, looks like a large percentage of the Pro-life leaders are men, all right!
>
>Sue

Why is that surprising?

As long as women insist on having all the reproductive rights, and sticking
men with all the bills, you should expect that a goodly number of men will
take the other side of this issue out of self-defense!

Sue, do you support the right of men to choose whether or not to become a
parent with all the obligations that are entailed?  Women currently have
this right, and they also have the right to impose their choice on men.

Do you support the right of men to have >equal< custody of their children
when marriages dissolve, without the punitive child-support?  (ie: equal
custody, and no child support payments since the kids spend half the time
with each parent -- and therefore receive half their support >directly< from
each rather than through transfer payments.)

If you can answer "yes" to both of the above, then help us get the same
rights you currently enjoy.  With these reforms the reason for many men to
be on this bandwagon will disappear.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 03:08:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.172908.14123@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.043628.3553@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 
>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>> [.. story about an abortion to save the mother's life ..]
>
>> Apply this to today's situation.  Some people still oppose ANY abortion,
>> even in cases like the above.  Some people oppose abortion, except for
>> health reasons.  To those people, I ask:  who is qualified to decide
>> when the health reasons are sufficient to justify an abortion?  
>
>I believe that most physicians are qualified to determine whether
>an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  Why do
>you believe otherwise? 

First - there are health risks other than death (the point has been
made before - I guess you missed it).

But yes, I'm quite willing to leave the decision to abort between the
woman and her physician.  Are you?

Or do you disagree the woman should have any say in the matter?  If so,
consider the opposite (and not uncommon) situation - the physician
believes the pregnancy to be too risky, but the woman chooses to
accept the risk and continue with the pregnancy.  Now, tell me the
woman doesn't have a say in the matter . . .

Now, which side has been saying that abortion is a matter only for a
woman and her physician?  It ain't the pro-lifers . . .

>> Are you really prepared to judge for yourself how much a woman 
>> should face?  
>
>No, because I'm not qualified to be a physician.

But you've already set limits - only to save the life of the mother, and
other health consequences be damned.  So you do consider yourself
qualified to dictate how much health risk someone else should be
prepared to face, don't you?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator etc.
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:20:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <10DEC92.17553975@vax.clarku.edu>, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
wrote:
> 
> I don't know that the AMA uses percentages like that...

For someone who doesn't seem to _know_ much of anything, you certainly
_believe_ a lot of nonsense...

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:17:18 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Maddi Hausmann):
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >

>>>Don't be stupid.   When the child trips of her own accord and is hanging
>>>over the cliff, all she has to do is answer "yes" or "no" to God's question:
>>>"Do you want Me to save you?"   He will not _force_ His saving grace on
>>>someone who prefers suicide.

>> Then if that's the case, kindly stop forcing your odious religion
>> on us good-hearted atheists.  Sheesh.

>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.

There is no such thing, twit.  And thanks for admitting the religious basis
for your fanatical anti-abortionism.

Gotcha!  

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: New Hypothetical question for pro choice.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:14:23 GMT

In <1992Dec11.032153.17333@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
># chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

># But even if we accept your premise that pregnancy can 
># be likened to "involuntary servitude" (which also implies 
># that child support is "involuntary servitude"), it does 
># not logically follow that abortion should be considered 
># as an unrestricted right.  At best, it implies a right 
># of removal, but not a right to kill the child. 

I'm already on record as believing that the right to abortion
is the "right of removal", and that the fetus should not be
killed if it could be removed alive without significant health
risks for the mother. 

>I think the challenge to your argument goes something like this: if a
>man abandons his born child to its mother, that's a crime and it's
>punishable by the `involuntary servitude' of mandatory child support
>payments, but the act of becoming pregnant is not in itself a crime,
>and therefore does not deserve to be punished by the `involuntary
>servitude' of being forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

I have to disagree here. The man isn't neccessarily committing a
crime; he may simply have gotten a divorce and lost custody.

I view child support as more like a tax. It takes a certain amount
of money to raise children, and society has decided that the parents
should be primarily responsible for earning the money. If they
can't earn all the money needed, then society as a whole will pay
the difference (through welfare programs, etc.). Now, it's possible
that some parents are paying too much money, and others are paying
too little, but this isn't really a constitutional issue. It's
something that the legislature has to work out.

Now, I've seen the talk.abortion article about the father who was told
that he would be sent to jail if his income fell below a certain
threshhold. In my view, this _IS_ involuntary servitude, so I'll 
go out on a limb and predict that this will be overturned on appeal.
(If it isn't, it will just confirm my belief that the Supreme Court
doesn't understand the constitution.)

[I take great pleasure in deleting the rest of the article, which
consisted entirely of petty semantic quibbles. Mr. Woodyatt's 
interpretation of my original posting was the correct one. In 
particular, when I write "forcing women to be pregnant" in the 
context of a discussion on abortion, it is reasonable to assume 
that I mean "continue a pregnancy", and not "become pregnant".]

>| J H Woodyatt              |  own people earns the future it is
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:44:09 GMT

todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes ...
> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>>Remember, people, the inconvenient choice is the only moral
>>choice. 
> 
>You seem to be admitting that it is a convenience.  Wonder
>how many other people could justify abortion in the same
>way hairdryers are justified.

Kind of like how you justify letting people worldwide starve to death
just for the sake of YOUR own convenience.  After all, YOU don't need
to be wasting money on rent, TV, or meat.  You could live on the
streets, read used newspapers, and keep to a vegetarian diet.  That
way you'd have more money to give to people (like pregnant women) to
allow them to survive and be healthy.

Oh, and by the way, you're a jerk.

Just though you'd want to know.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren and Heather should bicker in person, not on net
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 21:38:06 GMT

In a previous article, hsims@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
>In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>>Let's limit the net to worthwhile discussions, ok?
>>nuff said.

While most of our "bickering" has been on the topic of abortion, I agree that 
the net is not a good place for personal flames.  


>What's the matter, David?  You used to be Loren's number one cheerleader.  Did 
>the pompoms get too heavy for you, or are you just to embarrassed to continue 
>supporting such a clueless pro-forced-birther?

Unfortunately, some people think that a public forum is a perfectly good place 
to flame people.  This is probably because they are so insecure in their own 
beliefs that they think the best way to present their case is to publically 
smear their adversary.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:49:32 GMT

In article <adams.724724398@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|>madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
|>
|>>bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash) writes: >
|>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes: >>
|>>>|>Sure, if you stop forcing death on unborn children.
|>>
|>>No one believes you, Suzanne.  You lied.  Now you're going
|>>straight to H-E-L-L!
|>
|>No, she can conveeeeniently go to confession and say a few Our Father's and
|>Hail Mary's and she's all set.
|>
|>>>Maddi is killing unborn children! Wow! How did you find this out?
|>>>Is this true, Maddi!?! How many have you killed?
|>>
|>>Well, I had two eggs in an omelette on Sunday, does that count?
|>>I suppose a Christian would claim I've killed hundreds of
|>>unborn children because I've never been pregnant, and allowed
|>>all those potential lives to waste away every month.
|>Hardly all...I'm a Christian, an Evangelical to boot, anti-abortion, yet
|>pro-choice.  Strange eh?
|>
|> -Steve
|>--


1) I never said any of those things (but I agree with them).
2) I don't think that my lack of pregnancy can be blaimed on me.
3) Anti-abortion and pro-choice is a stand I can certainly understand.
4) The terms "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" should be replaced with
   "Pro-Death" and "Pro-BackAlleyAbortions" to get everyone
   off their high-horses.
5) I didn't know there were Christians just for booting!

Brian /-|-\
=======================================================
The Truth is still the Truth 
unless its a Lie.  Then it's not
the Truth. Or is it?
=======================================================
                            
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52372 alt.dads-rights:3006 alt.abortion.inequity:6013
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Efficiency in child support
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:43:40 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Well, if our *ONLY* concern is that the child is supported adequately, why not
>just jetison -completely- that whole ikky nasty complicated notion of personal 
>responsibility, and go to random picks? ... Then whenever an 
>illegitimate child is born, we just pick a child support "donor" at random 
>Just imagine of all the money we'd save on court 
>cases, blood tests, tracking down "deadbeat dads" etc. And imagine how many
>illegitimate children Donald Trump would end up supporting...

>Sounds much more efficient than the current system. You got a problem with it?

More efficient?  Would you stop at national borders?  Why?  
Or would you just have rich Americans support the burgeoning 
population of the third world?

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cjohnson@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Re: ANTICHOICE vs PROLIFE or whatever (was Re: Suzanne's abortion....)
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:18:15 GMT


It's late, once again i feel dumb for the complete pile of typos in all 
of my posts.....sorry...i'll try very hard not to let it happen again...
at least so that you don'thave to read stupid apologies like this one!

cj

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: The constancy of the universe
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:56:27 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Dec14.214245.29822@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-091292143713@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >
> >You might want to consider reading something by Berkeley or Hume before you
> >continue babbling in this vein.
> >
> >You might also end up sounding like less of a halfwit.
> 
> You might also sound less like a halfwit, Lefty, if you learn
> to recognize sarcasm....

Oh, were you being _sarcastic_?  Sorry I didn't recognize it.

After reading your contributions to the "Rape != Pregnancy" thread, I
decided that you must be a full-time fool.  Or were you being sarcastic
there as well?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The BET IS ON!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:08:28 GMT

In article <15DEC92.17345152@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>But my point is that the constitution can be ammended.  If the majority wants 
>something that is unconstitutional, all they have to do is elect people who 
>will make ammendments to the constitution.  An example of this is prohibition.
>When it was ammended to the constitution that drinking was illegal it became 
>unconstitutional to drink. Then, prohibition was repealed, making something 
>that was once unconstitutional legal again.

Try reading the Constitution.  Try the section on how one passes an
amendment.  Hint: not by simple majority vote.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty