HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:27:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Aug31.150632.12762@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
><1992Aug25.220041.15875@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>><1992Aug19.163139.22864@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) :
>>Don't preach responsibility. I'd be willing we could dredge up quite a lot
>>of irresponsible behavior in your past, just as we could do for everyone 
>>else, including me.
>
>And this is a good reason for acting irresponsibily?  Because we aren't
>perfect, we should even try?

The point is that "irresponsible" is a subjective label wrt abortion.

>>Get real. I mean it. Not sarcastically either. You are quite naive if you
>>think you can just tell people "hey, get your act together. Be responsible"
>>It won't happen, hence, smell the coffee, dude, get real.
>
>Hmmm, so maybe we should repeal all law, and stop expecting people to be
>responsible, since it will never happen.

We do not make laws against irresponsibility.  Ex: It's irresponsible to
forget to water your houseplants - should it be illegal?  It's
irresponsible to not balance your checkbook - should it be illegal?  It's
irresponsible to not check the oil level in your engine resulting in 
damage to it - should it be illegal?

You may expect all people to act completely responsibile.  You can not 
enforce it without establishing a police state.  Is that what you want?

>Get real.

I suggest you just reread what you are writing, and learn tolerance for
other peoples opinions and lifestyles - it will improve your health.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Clinton == !Choice
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:08:09 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu

	Regardless of his stance on abortion, Clinton does not support an
American's right to choose.  This is ashame since he claims to be
"pro-choice."  Well Gov. Clinton, I want to choose my doctor and where my
kids can go to school.  I do not need the government telling me.


Bryon Lape
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ich fahre Blei frei.  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: control
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:02:40 GMT

From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> 
> Legislation is always part of the "pro-life" agenda.  If you try to ask 
> them about that, they are quick to point out legislation isn't all they do, 
> it is merely a facet.  It's as though there is this bond between 
> legislation and killing that is assumed to exist.  I don't see it, I've 
> never seen it, and try as I might to either cajole someone or piss off 
> someone so bad into doing it, no one has ever even attempted to show 
> that such a bond exists where abortion is concerned.  But legislation is 
> always there -- beats me as to why.  


Surely you are glad for the anti-homicide laws that protect YOU, as best
they can, from getting knifed and mugged on the street.   Does that make
you a 'control freak', because you _are_?   Don't be stupid.



> Shoot, I might as well attribute it 
> desire for control, at least I got a response this way.  

Seems to me you simply do not wish to look at the obvious.
Anti-homicide laws protect _you_, Galen, and there is no reason they
should not protect ALL of us.   Including all of our children, no matter
how young.


Suzanne Forgach
From: ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:27:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute


>From martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 27 18:54:06 1992

>However, if abortion is merely a "medical operation" similar to heart surgery
>or removing a tumor, then why do women who have gone through abortions
>feel very miserable?  Why does it become such a hard task?  There are even
>group-therapy sessions for women who have had abortions.  Imagine having
>a group therapy session for people who have had their tumors removed
>wondering if it was the right decision to remove their tumor and feeling
>bad about removing it.

There are support/therapy groups for cancer and
heart patients.  What was your point?




Linda
--
They're complicated people leading complicated lives, and
he complicates their problems by telling complicated lies
     The Flag, Barenaked Ladies
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: aborting females
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:01:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug27.190809.26107@u.washington.edu> jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris) writes:

>Well, I was wondering if there was anyone here who supported abortion but
>wanted to stop sex-selection abortions, and so far it appears there isn't
>anyone.
> 
   Actually, it seems that there are many people on the .net (some of
whom have applied to your posting) who would like there to be no
sex-selection abortions, but realize that there is absolutely no way it
could be legislated.

>Joel

                                                            MP
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: List of unsubstantiated accusations by Susan Garvin
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I had no idea that DOD was that obsessed with me.  This is great.
Like his idol, he's saving old articles from me.  I wonder when
the lawsuit threats start.  (And where is Miss Kitty when we need
her?)

Pretty good, DOD.  You didn't, as far as my memory can verify, change
anything that I said.  You did, of course, call a question an accusation
(again), and you did neglect to mention that the actual accusations
had been substantiated, but this is a good start.  I'm glad that
you're taking my advice and heading down the long path to
recovery from your problem.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.234712.9260@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>If you all agreed with him, then why is it that killing that anencephalic
>infant, would have been okay in their minds? That WAS a child, or has Roe
>vs. Wade expanded nonpersonhood past birth?

It may have been a child, but it was not a person.

In case you don't have a dictionary handy, Mr. Chaney, "anencephalic" means
"lacking all or most of the brain".  It means that the child was not a human
being in the sense that it could sense, think, reason or even know that it was
alive.  It also means it will certainly die once it has been born since the
lack of brain means that, absent massive machinery, the body doesn't have
anything to tell it what to do to stay alive.

An anencephalic child is basically a collection of human organs that
superficially resembles a human being.

So exactly what is your point, Mr. Chaney?

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity
-- the rest is overhead for the operating system.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:45:28 GMT

In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
|> 
|> In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
|> a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception (reference my article on
|> abortion in historical comparision in alt.abortion.inequity).  If it is not
|> human then you can do any bloody thing you want to it (please no slams from
|> animal lovers), but if it _is_ human then abortion is pre-meditated murder.
|> 
|> You can't take your argument half way just because it gets you to where you
|> want to be.  People that say the ____ is human at conception and don't consider
|> abortion murder are self-serving people comming up with incomplete arguments.
|> 

The fetus is a member of the human species from the moment of conception.
It is alive (as are the ova and sperm that created it). It is acceptable
to kill it, just as it is acceptable to kill born members of the human 
species under societally approved situations.

The termination of that life is no different then the termination of any
other life (life being cellular respiration and growth) and it is simply
hubris on the part of humans to classify our lives as more valuable then
any other life. As for an act of pre-meditated murder, can there be anything
more premeditated then the raising and subsequent slaughter of an animal
for food?

Now, if human life is more "valuable" then animal life, what factors make it
so and are those factors immutable? Is it this "value" that makes it wrong to
terminate human life? Now, if the factors that determine "value" are immutable
and that "value" makes termination wrong why  shouldn't war be considered
murder on a grand scale? Now, if the factors that determine this "value" are
changable, how does one test for their presence?
 
-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.162949.968@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <dzhnshd.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>>And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
>>>country through the use of law.
>>
>>Well, not exactly right.  You want to enact legistlation, I don't want
>>legislation enacted.  See the difference?
>
>You don't need to enact more legislation, so long as the supreme court
>remains willing to make an end run around the constitution.

Which 'end' were you referring to?

I tried to email you but the mail bounced.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34914 alt.abortion.inequity:3494
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:01:18 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust
(John Stevens) wrote:
> 
> We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
> fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
> the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
> picture.

I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, John, but does the name
Carol Anne Quinlan ring a bell by any chance?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: An update from Hermann Hospital
Date: 4 Sep 1992 03:56:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

For those of you who are wondering how Dale Ann is doing:

Today's angiogram showed no irregularities -- and the results from yesterday's
MRI scans indicate a concentration of calcium in a 1-cm area on the left side
of the brain, near (but not at, thankfully) the speech center.  The doctors'
consensus is that this area should be removed, pending a biopsy -- and the
surgery will be done tomorrow (Friday) afternoon.  Given Dale Ann's response
to medication and procedures so far, they feel that there is every chance that
she'll recover completely -- so I'm heading home from Rice after I post this
to get a little sleep.  We're not out of the woods completely just yet -- but
things look a few orders of magnitude better than they did just 24 hours ago,
and that'll get no argument from me.

To those of you who expressed your concerns, and sent your good wishes, you have our thanks.

(To a certain party at the University of South Carolina, you will be getting
your just desserts later -- I have more important things to do at the moment.)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
    +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 793-5109 at Hermann Hospital. 

(after 54 months together, we're just getting *started*, for crying out loud...)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:19:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
>pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
>simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
>"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
>yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
>"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
>appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

>	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
>open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
>of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
>particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
>for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.

  (Tragic article deleted).

    Peter, why is it so hard for you to understand that yes, it is WRONG
for someone to perform an abortion on a woman against her will (because
it is interfering with her reproductive independence), but it is ALSO
wrong for someone to refuse to allow a woman to get an abortion IF AN
ABORTION IS HER DECISION (for the same reason)? You seem to be an
intelligent man--why do you struggle so hard with this concept?

                                                               MP
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33983 alt.abortion.inequity:3327
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:45:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Aug29.032249.28218@zooid.guild.org> 
goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes to Susan Garvin:

> Well, since you insist on insulting me...  I don't care about your posting
> habits, either.  But insulting people who don't agree with you (and you and
> Doug have *both* done it, isn't about to make *you* look like Albert Einstein
> either!
>
> If you two MUST insult each other, could you please do it in alt.flame or in
> private e-mail?  Thank you.

I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.  You may have 
confused me with some other poster.  I respect Ms. Garvin tremendously,
even though we strongly disagree on a lot of issues. 
 
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"


Doug Holtsinger

      "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>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.bizarre
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:08:21 GMT

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
# regardless of sex.

It's Hellerian statements like this that make me love you, John.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade permits the purposeful killing of viable fetuses
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:40:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.013508.773@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

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

>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>> Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
>>> fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
>>> fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
>>> three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
>>> fetus in the third trimester. 

>> The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's 
>> decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits 
>> a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
>> an abortion procedure.  

> ...when the health of the mother is endangered by the prospect of
> giving birth, as the deleted analysis by some lawyer type admits.

No, you didn't read the analysis carefully.  The author suggests
that Roe v. Wade allows the woman to have a viable fetus purposely
killed, even if her physical health is not threatened:

  "In some cases, however, the risks posed to the mother may be the
   same whether the fetus is saved or destroyed[97]. In this setting,
   the physician's choice will not be dictated by a judgement as to
   the safest medical procedure. Even under such conditions, it can
   be argued that Roe bars the state from restricting the physician's
   option to deliberately destroy the viable fetus. The Court explicitly
   excepted from the range of permissible state regulation those abortions
   necessary to preserve the woman's health[98]; no mention is made of
   a qualification or a condition on that exception. Furthermore, those
   very health considerations that justify the abortion decision may also
   entail the destruction of the fetus; for example, a woman's 
   psychological health might be impaired unless she were assured
   that the fetus was dead[99]."


>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)


Doug Holtsinger
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:01:49 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.715387086@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
> pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
> simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
> "pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
> yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
> "would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
> appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]
> 
> 	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
> open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
> of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
> particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
> for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.
> 
> 	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
> 	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
> 	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
> 	against her will.
> 
> 	 {remainder of article deleted}

So, Peter, were you aware that Jimmy Swaggart was arrested last year for
driving an unregistered automobile down the wrong side of the street, with
a suspended licensed, while intoxicated, and in the company of a known
prostitute?

I don't think we should allow Christians to drive.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:47:49 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  <1992Aug25.182118.13682@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug23.235355.8281@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer
> >In article <1992Aug20.141415.3923@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
> >
> >Either way, it's not YOUR decision to make, Mikey, it's the woman's.
>
> If it's my z/e/f/child that she is carrying, it IS partially my decision.
> As it's partially my z/e/f/child that would be aborted.

Is it partially inside your body?  Getting it out of *her* body is *her*
decision.  What you do *after* it's out of her body is a joint decision.

> The law considers me legally responsible for the child AT CONCEPTION, so
> I ought to have the right to help make the decision.

I don't believe this is true.  Can someone be sued to provide pre-natal
care?  You're not legally responsible until there is a child to be
responsible for - after birth.

> >Even Georgie Porgie recognizes that, and he's the one
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Who?

"Georgie Porgie" is from a nursery rhyme.

> >who's done the most to remove the individual right to choose than any other
> >person so far.

It should be obvious from the clues that she's referring to George Bush,
the "pro-fetus, anti-child" president.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)