HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Meaning of "Abortion" (Re: Fetal Heartbeat)
Summary: The value of life and death
Keywords: abortion fetus-waving sex
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:56:05 GMT
Organization: You see, Burke Lee.

In <1992Jul27.001936.29387@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In <1992Jul26.224951.3065@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>
>}OK.  If you want to insist on a broad usage of "abortion" you
>}are absolutely right.  The majority of abortions do not stop 
>}a heartbeat.  However, you also have to concede the truth of 
>}several other statements when you demand this usage:
>
>}1. The majority of abortions are involuntary.
>
>}2. The majority of abortions involve women who are not pregnant.

What the hell do they mean?  (From the context, and by making an >gulp<
assumption, I'd have to say that you mean "fertilized, non-implanted
zygotes."  But I digress from my post.)

>}3. The fetus carried by Rev. Schenck at a protest a few weeks
>}   ago was the result of an abortion.
>
>It was statement #3 that made the issue rather clear, at least for
>me.  When I hear the word "abortion" I tend to think in the 
>general case.  If someone were to bring something dead and "unborn" 
>to me (I can't imagine this one) I'd probably say it was an abortion.
>If I were to be asked what Rev. Schenck was waving, I'd probably say
>that I heard it was stillborn, not an abortion.  Clearly, I have
>at least two definitions for the term "abortion" and I tend to use
>the one where I decide it should apply.  Perhaps others do so also.
>The difference might be in our criteria to apply context.  Perhaps 
>that contributes to why we often talk past each other, rather than 
>to each other.  

Regardless, if Rev. Schenck values human life so much, why should he go
swinging around the "fetus", like it was some kind of circus sideshow,
instead of giving it a proper burial that it must deserve.  Now that's
exploitation...


-Richard
Life begins at fertilization?  Not always...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Who's really doing the Unwanting?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:13:21 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
>> Gee, Suzanne, please enlighten us as to who all these _other_ people are...


>ANYONE who suggests that abortion will "solve" any third world "problem".

Please cite people who have done this.

>If Planned Barrenhood 

Is this a new organization?  Funny that I've never heard of them...

>bothered to ask any of the mothers in those countries,
>before presuming to promote abortion as the solution to everything that
>maybe these women don't consider problems, they would discover that those
>mothers LOVE AND WANT their children!!

Every single one, Suzanne?  Every last woman with children in the 
developing countries LOVES AND WANTS every single one of her children?
The child abuse rate is 0?  Unwanted pregnancy/childbirth is STRICTLY
a phenomenon of the developed countries?

>The problems are simply food distribution and waste management.

You call these "simple" problems?

>         NOT "there are too many brownskinned babies".

Geee Suzanne, that's a pretty harsh statement.  Did you make that up
all by yourself?

>SF

                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 20:19:12 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER

In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca> Steve "misc test" Franklin says:

>In <1992Jul28.023927.29220@crd.ge.com> James G Keegan Jr writes:

>>darcy expresses pleasure that a loved one of one of his
>>many adversaries has been sexually abused.
>
>>franklin defends darcy.
>
>>darcy and franklin; the similarities are overwhelming.
>
>   Go away little man. You see, you state I was defending Darcy. I ask
>you to consider what he actually meant.

You silly ass.  It was perfectly obvious, and should have
been even to you, what Darcy meant.  He attacked Susan
because he has a hate on for her and was willing to sink
to a new low even for Darcy.

The man has the decency of malignant dysentery and your
condoning such behaviour puts you a level below.

>   I was merely giving Darcy a chance.

Well I bet Kevin is, right this minute, down on his knees
paying homage to the net gods that you are his friend.
You two deserve each other.

>   I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
>because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an
>adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.

Then you're a dimmer blub than even I gave you credit.

Tell us Steve dear, did your daddy get the local Tory pol
drunk down at the Legion Hall to get you into Dalhousie
and out of the boats?  I for one, can't believe that
that fine old institution has lowered its standard for
the likes of you.



Linda
--
"There's a kind of nice simplicity about a Canadian
 that education abroad seems to destroy"
Robertson Davies, Tempset Tost
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 08:43:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Jul16.064242.14084@cc.uow.edu.au> nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos) writes:
>regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>> Giving the fetus the right to inhabit a woman's body against her will is
>>>> giving it a right over and above ANY rights any other humanbeing on this
>>>> planet has.  NO OTHER HUMAN BEING has the right to inhabit a woman's body
>>>> against her will,  yet you would suggest the fetus should have that
>>>> right?  I think that's bogus.
>
>Where is this "NO OTHER...will" right enshrined?  
>Or is it your position that it OUGHT to be
>a right?  If so, your case is parallel to that of the prolifers who say
>the fetus OUGHT to have the right to life.  Why should your OUGHT take 
>precedence over their OUGHT?

I believe this is what might be called the 'penumbra' of the Bill of Rights.
Frankly, I don't know what's been invoked in cases (if there have ever been
cases) where one person wanted to seize the kidney of another person; maybe
it'd be the 'right' to privacy, or illegal search and seizure, I don't know.
The 9th and 10th amendments will do fine, thanks.  We are presumed to have
control over our own bodies in the precident of many laws.

However, I'd like to ask:  are you arguing the point?  Do you think that 
other human beings have the right, or should have the right to inhabit
a woman's body against her will?

Do you intend to argue that other people SHOULD be entitled to inhabit a
woman's body against her will?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.184822.25784@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

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

>> So why doesn't the fetus have the right to bodily autonomy? 

> 1) I'm only interested in granting personhood to intelligent
> life forms. A fetus isn't one. Personhood is what gives one the
> right to bodily autonomy.

If you use intelligence as a criteria for personhood status, then 
the late-term fetus and the newborn infant should have the same 
personhood status.

> 2) Even if one were to grant that a fetus were a person, it's
> right to bodily autonomy would be symmetric with the woman's right.
> I.e. it would be permitted to request that it be separated from
> the woman. I don't believe that a woman's right to be separated
> from a fetus extends to the right to kill the fetus IN PRINCIPLE.
>
> However, in the case of early term abortions, the fetus's death
> is a necessary consequence of removing it, so I see nothing
> wrong with reversing the order. [Remember that I don't
> buy into your distinction between letting a fetus die and killing it
> in this instance.]

This is for another thread. Right now I'm just trying to understand
why some pro-choicers believe that a late-term (viable) fetus should 
not possess the right to bodily autonomy.

> The case of late term abortions is more of a problem. The way I see it,
> the woman should be permitted to terminate the life of the fetus
> in order to separate it, provided that this significantly reduces
> the risk involved in the abortion. It's not clear that a D+E does
> this, however. [And I don't really want to get into a debate
> about whether it does or not. I don't think that's productive.]

If the late-term fetus and the woman are both persons, then shouldn't
they share the risk associated with detachment? Unless the late-term
fetus is not a person, I can't see how you can completely discount the 
risk of death to the fetus. 

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29255 alt.politics.homosexuality:5220
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Catholics on Vatican's Ruling?  (WAS SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS & PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:05:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Now you *want* to know what we think?  I may have my folks
mixed up here, but I could have sworn you're the same guy
telling me that Catholics weren't to be trusted or taken
seriously.

If I'm wrong...please straighten me out here...

nopunintended


--->sej5g
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: PP executive says "personhood...begins a month after birth"
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:59:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.172932.2760@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- a kinder, gentler t.a poster) writes:

>>> Yes - I'm saying it's a religious issue for the anti abortion protesters.
>>> Which falls right in line with my observation (and gripe) that the pro-life
>>> movement seems to have strong religious connections.

>> In the second sentence, you insinuate that no pro-lifer can hold
>> non-religious views on abortion.

> Doug, Doug, Doug.  That conclusion does not follow from what I said.
> I mentioned a correlation, I did not say that the correlation was +1.
> In fact, I implicitly said that it is not.

I saw no mention of "correlation". Are we reading the same sentence?

You said "the pro-life movement". That's inclusive of all pro-lifers.

Promoting stereotypes of the pro-life movement is a pretty pathetic
argument, Mr. Stein. 


> [.. rest deleted ..]
>Jay T Stein 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:38:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Jul22.225042.15548@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <nkkbsug@fido.asd.sgi.com>
> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>>> Oh? Then please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term
> >>>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
>
> >>> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
> >>> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
> >>> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
> >>> woman.
>
> >> It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it
> >> from the pregnant woman.  [...]  Try again.
>
> > Could Holtsinger please explain the crucial difference
> > between "sometimes necessary" and "not always necessary"
>
>
> Sorry, I should have said, "it's never necessary to kill a late term
> fetus to remove it from the pregnant woman during an elective abortion.
> Try again."

Why should you have said that?  Susan didn't limit her comments to
elective abortions.

> It is sometimes necessary to kill a late term fetus during a medically
> indicated abortion.

Oh - then you agree with Susan - it *is* sometimes necessary.

[Typical of Doug - he winds up disproving his own argument.  Let's see
if he stays true to type, and attempts to weasel rather than admitting
he's wrong.]

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:59:56 CDT

In article <1992Jul24.130259.2852@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>                                               ...  Muriel had cast the debate
>at that point in terms of "whats the worst that could happen, and how likley
>need it be".  I pointed out that was not the way to go.  You have actually
>supported my point, and my thanks.
>
This is not a particularly accurate portrayal of the context for
those remarks, IMO.  If it matters.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- digital schmutz)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle's remarks.
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:52:19 GMT

What: <92205.201247JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Who:  Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>

>Quayle should be banned!  Last night, he said that if his daughter were
>an adult, he would go along with whatever her decision was.  However, today
>he said that "last night, it was suggested that she was an adult, as a
>child, she would definitely have the child".

Yes, and his wife said simply, "She *would* have the child."  No hint of
concern for their daughter's health, no trace of compassion for whatever
situation she might be in... a fine example of why parental consent
laws are dangerous.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:15:46 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Jul28.113040.25342@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <Bs3oIH.9rp@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>
>>   I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
>>because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an 
>>adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.
>
>One question: as much as you may disagree with Susan Garvin,
>has she ever said anything that would give you the impression
>that she would condone child molestation?  That she would share
>her life with an individual who made a practice of that sort of
>thing?  How would you feel if Kevin had implied that your sister,
>or aunt, or mother, was consorting with a child molester?
>
>Do you honestly believe that Kevin thought for _one minute_ that
>Susan would hang out with someone like that?  

As stated elsewhere, I would not expect even Susie Garvin to share her life
with a PRACTICING child-molester. But I do believe her gullible enough to
fall for a supposedly "cured" one...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:58:15 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <tgreen.712431740@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu>  tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>
> If you have sex, you have made your "choice" already.
> Grow up and be responsible for your own actions.

Aborting an unwanted pregnancy *is* a responsible decision.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29750 alt.birthright:211 alt.abortion.inequity:2808
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: No comment
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:48:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


I've decided to start re-posting some gems from the "I'm
pro-MALE choice" camp.  

This was in alt.abortion.inequity:

In article <1992Jul22.203147.26584@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

#My belief that abortion is murder, is a personal religious belief, and I
#would prefer not to pass legislation to that effect.  The only good reason
#for passing such legislation, in my opinion, is that it gives both
#men and women equal rights and responsibilities (ignoring the biological)
#in respect to children.


And this was in alt.politics.clinton:

In article <3537@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:


#And not that I'm calling for men to be able to force women to abort but if
#I did what would be so terrible about that?  Women force men to become parent
#against their will EVERY SINGLE DAY, then force them to pay for the privilage
#and lock them up if they refuse.   Why not apply the same standard to women?



Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:45:04 GMT

Quotes without any surrounding context seem to be all the rage right now,
and as I like make Kevin foolish (it isn't hard to do -- simple pleasures
for simple minds, you know) I jump into an ongoing discussion...

In article <1992Jul22.041436.8393@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}How the hell else does a woman become a parent other than by being pregnant
}and giving birth? 

Even I, who is allegedly confused, inconsistent and irrational can answer
that one.  Adoption.


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: INFO: Seamless Garment Network mission statement
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:13 EDT  

The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) consists of 50 consistent-ethic-of-life
organizations.  Here is their mission statement:

	We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened
	in today's world by war, abortion, poverty, arms races, the
	death penalty, and euthanasia.  We believe that these issues are
	linked under a consistent ethic of life.  We challenge those 
	working on some or all of these issues to maintain a cooperative
	spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the
	unprotected.

For more info, here is the address:

	SGN
	c/o Harmony
	PO Box 210056
	San Francisco CA   94121

They have a 30-minute video, entitled _The Seamless Garment_, which 
features Nat Hentoff, Juli Loesch Wiley and others.  To order a copy,
send $19.95 w/3.50 for postage/handling to:

	Credence Cassettes
	115 E. Armour Blvd.  
	Box 281
	Kansas City MO   64141

And contributions to SGN go to:

	SGN
	c/o Andy Lipscomb
	Rt. 1 Box 161
	Shiloh GA   31826

A tout a l'heure.

RG
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Anti-stalking laws?
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.test
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:33:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.114844.24002@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

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

>>In article <1992Jul23.065831.8735@chinet.chi.il.us> 
>>katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:

>>> You hear about Pro-Choice activists who protect and escort women who
>>> are going to clinics, but is there a similar program to protect
>>> doctors? I feel *SO* sorry for them, and it's this tactic, more than
>>> any other, that has made me despise the Pro-fetus movement.

>> Is your position on abortion derived in part from the actions of a 
>> few radicals? If so, do you think that's a valid reason for holding
>> a particular position on abortion?

> The poster to whom you responded did not say she derived her
> position on abortion from those who engage in the execrable tactics
> described.  

Where did I say that? I'm simply *asking* if her views on abortion
are derived in part from the actions of a few radicals. Since you're 
not Vickie, how would you know how she feels? 

> One can, I will further explain in
> case that was too difficult for you, disagree with a position on
> an issue without despising those who hold the opposing viewpoint.

Let the woman speak for herself -- she doesn't need anyone telling 
her how she feels about the issue.

 
>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 04:19:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Babies?  Who's advocating the killing of babies?  I've never seen a post
>>where Tim or any pro-choicer/pro-abortioner advocated killing babies.
>
>Pro-abortion means pro the choice to kill a baby.  I would appreciate it
>if you people would just admit that.  Saying that killing the fetus is
>not killing a baby is exactly the same as saying that murder shouldn't
>be illegal.  If it isn't illegal to steal the probable future of a
>baby, why is it illegal to steal the probable future of a child, or
>adult?

A zygote consists of just one cell roughly this => . <= big.  An embryo,
while more complex, may have a tail, gill slits, stubs for arms, and
in general is nearly indistiguishable by casual inspection from a pig
embryo.

Are you claiming that there is no difference between these and a newborn 
baby?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29635 alt.flame:11542
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: who is next?
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:24:33 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

now that darcy is busy backpedaling from his recent attack of a
victim of sexual abuse, i wonder who he'll attack next?

someone else who has honestly told their story in t.a.?

someone from talk.rape?

or, perhaps someone from alt.abuse.recovery?

or, maybe he'll go after someone from alt.handicapped.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: The Borgoid Boy hallucinates...
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:01:58 GMT

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

>===============================================================================
>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
>===============================================================================

Best laugh of the day, A.B.!  

Support it or lose it. 

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus
Newsgroups: talk.abortion