HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:58:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.164302.460@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

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

>>But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 

> autonomy, n.
>
> 1. The quality or state of being self-governing
> 2. A self-governing state
> 3. Self-directing freedom esp. moral independence
>
> source: Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary
>
> In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a 
> self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
> which is completely contained within the body of 
> another. 

Why not? 


> In the second place, it's impossible for the woman
> and the fetus to have 'the same right to bodily
> autonomy'.  

Why not? The woman and the fetus are both members of the 
human species, and so they should enjoy the same right to
bodily autonomy. A late-term fetus is not much different 
from a newborn infant, and so if you deny rights to the 
late-term fetus, then you will automatically deny rights to 
the newborn infant.
 

> If you start awarding any rights whatever
> to fetuses, you do so only by removing rights from
> the woman who must defer to it.  

You simply presuppose that the woman has the right to kill the fetus
in the first place.

> Since a fetus is
> generally incapable of enjoying or expressing such
> things as 'self-directing freedom', removing the
> autonomy rights of the woman in favor of the fetus
> seems ludicrous.

Since a newborn infant is generally incapable of enjoying or 
expressing such things as 'self-directing freedom', your logic 
would require us to deny rights to newborn infants.

>muriel


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: SCARY C.C. (WAS Re: FUNNY PP)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:51:46 GMT

> = (Gregory S Clausen) writes:

>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>child you cannot have it."

These two assumptions concerning health are wrong today, with safe, legal 
abortions (so far) still available.

The third assumption meant to say "fetus", instead of the erroneous "baby".
Obviously, Planned Parenthood has learned.  I suggest you do the same.

>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.

The Catholic Church didn't outlaw all abortions until 1869, and even then the
C.C. in its ruling said of the fetus "...though not ensouled..." (Pope Pius IX).

Of course, the big difference is, the C.C. claims its pope is "infallible" in
church doctrine.  The problem with this kind of goofy claim, given the C.C.'s
flip-flop on this issue, *many* popes were wrong no matter what.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:47:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing

>>>>WHY WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS
>>>>Source: 1987 survey of 1900 abortion patients
>>>>        by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.  
>>>>        Published in the LA Times, Mon 17-Apr-89, Part I page 16
>>>        Each woman was allowed to cite more than one reason.
>>
>>>-> 76   Concern about how having a baby could change her life
>>>-> 68   Can't afford a baby now
>>>   51   Problems with relationship or desire to avoid single parenthood
>>>-> 31   Not ready for responsibility
>>>   31   Doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant
>>>-> 30   Not mature enough, or is too young to have a child
>>>-> 26   Has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children
>>>   23   Husband or partner wants her to have abortion
>>>   13   Fetus has possible health problem
>>>    7   Woman has health problem
>>>    7   Woman's parents want her to have abortion
>>>    1   Woman was victim of rape or incest
>>>    6   Other
>>

>
>>>Of course not. Women are SELFISH SELFISH creatures
>>>who can pop babies like pez if they only feel like it, and are way too
>>>stupid to realize that adoption can solve 97% of their problems.

>
>     The problem is, Kevin, that espousing the view that women have
>abortions not to become "unpregnant" but to avoid parenthood means it is
>only a timely step to espusing adoption as the logical answer. 
>

Actually adoption would solve many of the problems that are listed
above as reasons for having an abortion.  Women are not stupid, but I
believe that many hold misconceptions about about adoption, the birth
process, and the resources available to them.  Better education is
definitely called for.

-Carol
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:14:14 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <adams.711832512@spssig> adams@spss.com writes:

> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> 
> >Well, I'll rush to someone else's defense here. I believe the argument goes
> >that if one is to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," that it is
> >meant to apply to innocent human life. 
> 
> Well, the Hebrew says 'You shall not murder,' implying a pre-meditated act
> of killing.  The question then becomes how one defines human life...does it
> begin at conception or not...The Bible suggests personhood while in the
> womb, and in fact before the womb in the case of Jeremiah.
> 
> But, none of this has any relevence as to whether or not abortion should be
> legal or not.  The Bible counts for me because I accept it.  If you don't
> accept it, it means exactly nothing to you, and doesn't rule your life.
> 
> Once again, even though being anti-abortion is a proper Biblical position,
> it is untennable as a political position in a society that is meant to be
> secular.  In fact, the Bible commands believers to subject themselves to
> the laws of the land, and to disobey them only when they contradict God's
> will.  Noone is forcing them to have aboritons, therefore they have no
> biblical standing to disobey the law that permits abortions.
> 
> Religious convictions do not make law...thank God.
>  -Steve

  I just wanted to thank Steve for putting forth something I happen to agree
with very clearly.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Well, I lost that article...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:22:56 GMT

In <1992Jul23.003313.18002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >

>[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
>children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
>use them against their wills.]
>
>[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
>teach about abstinance?]

Here's the article...

(Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?))

In <1992Jul8.010926.8658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >
In article <1992Jul6.210332.13220@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Jul3.153144.2879@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>

>>>>>If "the state" has to teach anything, it should be extensive human 
>>>>>biology/ sex ed/why _nobody_ should touch you there from grades K-12...
>
>>>>This, of course, would be "value neutral" education?
>
>>>Not at all.  What it should be is fear-eliminating schooling.  When an 8 
>>>year old girl understands what "her privates" are for, the odds of somebody 
>>>being able to molest her falls to a low.  When a 7 year old boy understands 
>>>what "Uncle Timothy" is trying to do, and knows that he _can_ tell people 
>>>and be believed, the odds of him being sucessfully molested (multiple times) 
>>>falls drastically.
>
>>So you support the idea that values should be taught in the public 
>>school system?  Interesting.  Which values should we endorse?  What
>>criteria should we use to select the "right" values to teach? 
>
>If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
>foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.
>
>If they're going to teach it in terms of "Saving yourself for your future
>husband/wife, because sex is for marriage", then no.
>
>If they're going to teach it in terms of "Six is ikky; be abstinant", 
>then no.

Six *is* ikky - I prefer seven... :-)

>If they're going to teach it in terms of "The Bible says..", then no.

You've articulated some guidelines that, as you previously indicated, 
are anything but value neutral.  What you haven't done is explain *why*
your values are the right ones, which is a bit tougher.  Are you willing?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:07:57 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  <1992Jul29.044123.29610@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.114925.3395@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
> >In article <1992Jul26.223011.20865@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darc
> >>In article <3728@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes
> >>>In article <1992Jul25.045504.15172@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Da
> >>>#In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Ga
> >>>##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.
> >>>#
> >>>#I assume by "necessary" you mean medically indicated, right, in order to sav
> >>>#the life of the mother?
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >>>By "necessary", I meant "unable to accomplish without."
> >>
> >>That definition is **USELESS**, Susie, since it is _never_ strictly
> >>"necessary" to kill a viable fetus -- we could just rip the thing right out,
> >>and who cares about the effect on the pregnant woman's health or life, right?
..
> You know, another thing strikes me: here we have Susie Garvin defining the
> key term in this thread -- "necessary" -- without giving so much as a passing
> mention of the effects on the pregnant woman, and yet there are no
> thunderbolts from Adrienne (or anyone else) about how Susie is making the
> woman "invisible" yet again (?)

1.  She was only defining it in response to a direct query from you.
    Most of us know what the word means.
2.  Doug claimed there was no difference between a late term fetus
    and a newborn, and Susan proved him wrong by pointing out the
    woman.  I don't see how you can claim she's *ignoring* the woman.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sej5g@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan Elizabeth Juroff)
Subject: Re: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS AND PROLIFERS IS BIGOTED
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:10:37 GMT


> >In THEORY homosexuality is just fine.  Two people of the same gender
> >who just so happen to be sexually attracted to each other.  In PRACTICE
> >homosexuality is an unmoral cesspool.  If you want loving Christians to
> >stop wagging their fingers at you, try keeping your damned pants on.
> 
---> I'd like to address my "loving" brother who wrote this.
Be careful...very careful when you hide under such a flag as
"loving Christians"...the attitude you present here is *neither*
and those of us whose faith you misrepresent resent it.  Much.

The Christ I emulate was not a bigot

and YOU are not my judge.

--->sej5g
--
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:52:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul26.182132.21664@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
#dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#-> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#-> > The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is
#-> > Jewish.
#-> 
#-> Oh, so now you're telling everyone how Mr. Miller's posts
#-> should be read?
#
#you must really be intimidated by ms. garvin's posts to
#misrepresent them so thoroughly.

Oh, I didn't think that his misrepresentation of my words was
based on his feelings of intimidation.  He misrepresents what
everyone says.  (See his thread with Jay Stein, for example.)

I don't think that DOD is capable of telling the truth any
longer about what anyone has said.  (Which doesn't prevent him
from demanding that other people not misrepresent him, oddly
enough.)

His interpretation is interesting, to say the least.  I note
that Miller has backpedalled on his chauvinistic-Christian
remarks, leaving DOD, as usual, left to defend an abandoned
stand.  

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:22:56 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

>I know the Catholic Church years ago
>logically concluded even a newly formed embryo to be innocent human life, 

Whatever happened to Original Sin?  (for drieux, that's OS/1)

>matter of fact, is considered sinful - following from an argument that God's
>purpose is being frustrated when people do these things. I think most other
>Churches have either adopted or agreed with these beliefs. 

What are you referring to?  Vasectomy?  Masturbation?  Contraception?

I believe you would be wrong in thinking that "most other churches" have
condemned all these things as sinful.  In fact, in the fundamentalist
philosophy I grew up with, DirtyIkkySweatySexForNoOtherReasonThanOrgasm
was considered a Good Thing between husband and wife.  In fact, I
understand that there are even fundy porno tapes out now, starring porn
stars.  Of course, they go by innocuous names like "Christian Marital
Relations" and "Bringing the Christian Husband and Wife Closer" or 
somesuch, but I know couples who claim to have used them.

>Maybe someone should begin an alt.theology ?

You mean, like talk.religion.misc?

                                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Hypocrites?
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:32:48 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul30.164357.13291@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:

>Even though there are huge numbers of women and people who aren't
>religiously motivated, not to mention liberals of every stripe, in the
>pro-life movement, not to mention a huge feminist group, the media
>never, ever lets anyone see them. All you ever see are Christian
>males, and hardly any minorities, as if that's all there is, in the
>pro-life movement. 

	Give me a break.

	Look who does the actual activism, and who leads it.

	According to some pro-choicers' chants:

	2-4-6-8, Tucci doesn't ovulate!
		[referring to one anti-abortionist]
	4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?


	Women are much better represented among the pro-choice
leadership than among their anti-abortion counterparts.


	And as for blaming the news media, the pro-choicers are just
as pissed off with the news media as you are :-)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:25:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.160408.11500@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
#In article <1992Jul22.023334.257962@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##Pity is right.  I don't understand the relevance of the 1974
##market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, either.  

Rather than making any attempt to tell us what relevance
he sees in the 1974 market for OB/GYN's in Dallas, Clause
chose to reply to an old article written by a third
person.  Could someone explain why he did that?

[included article deleted]

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religon.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Comedy on AIDS, and religious bigotry
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:53:54 GMT

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
] gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] 
] >If you are referring to AIDS then you are sadly mistaken.  AIDS was
] >originally a heterosexual disease believed to be spread primarily because
] >primitives practiced anal sex as a form of contraception.  See what a lack
] >of viable contraceptives leads to.
] 
] Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
] remained monogamous. Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.
] See what a lack of monogamy leads to, you mean.

Once Upon a time all those Silly ToolsOfTheQueers were saying
that the nations Blood Banks were at risk, but of course, folks
liker Andrew Fusco Understood that Aids Attacks Only Sinners and
moral Perverts.

Recently the USN settled out of court, to the tune of a couple of
million for Killing off a CPO, his Wife, and their Newly Born Child
by using infected blood. The Remaining Child has a trust fund but
no parents....

Funny, but suddenly the Blood Banks started testing their blood
supply for HIV....

Need we discuss the case of the Florida Virgin who contracted AIDS
from her Dentist and Still Remained a Virgin...

Now there is a New Something out there that Causes AIDS, with the
patient NOT showing signs of HIV I, or HIV II. And again the folks
who run the Nations Blood Banks are Reassuring US that there is no
way to get AIDS from Blood Transfussions.

And of course we can all feel safe, as Obviously Only those who
are Sinners and Moral Perverts will get this new version of AIDS.

So Andrew, what does all of this do to your presumption that
moral purity is the best defense...

And to add just a little more spice of life to this whole debate,
let us turn, again, to the recent florida court ruling that mandated,
upon the authorization of an estranged husband, that a woman who's
religion forbids blood transfussion be given a transfussion. Should
the state, and/or the Hospital be held liable should she contract
aids for violating her religious principles, as well as standing
Medical Ethics? The Worst part of all of this is that the State of
Florida argued that the reason that they wished to violate the woman's
religious principles, and medical ethics, was based upon their concern
for the welfare of the children should the Mother Die. Now did I miss
something, but they had the ability to find the FATHER, and hence a 
legal guardian for the children....

But that too requires that we look at the ISSUES, and not merely
religious BIGOTRY!!!!!!


ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh dear, I've pissed off Galen (Re: I'm a bit pissed...)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:36:02 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<1992Jul24.034129.17606@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> Oh, and if you can prove that your dictionary can beat up
> my dictionary (actually I checked several) then you can rest assured that
> will humbly appoligize.
              ^^^^-------- Better check another one :).

No thanks, Galen.  You can play Dictionary Wars with someone else.

It is clear to me now that we have no disagreement on the facts.
Our only disagreement is on the words used to express those facts.
This is a shadow disagreement, not one of substance.  Big deal.  The 
truth is out there now.  That's what is important.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@milton.u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:17:41 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> #If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
>> #his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child 
>> #sex, what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
>> 
>> Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,
>> and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
>> adult/child sex involves so that you will no longer feel a need
>> to misrepresent this crime as an innocuous action.

>Susan, I was representing an innocuous action, the classroom scene, as a crime.
>Innocuous, but disgusting all the same.

Innocuous = harmless, innoffensive
Crime = a harmful action or event. 

You say that the classroom scene you described is both innocuous and a
crime.  Explain yourself. 

Alden 

FounderOfDrieuxidsForJesus