HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Apr15.055321.19702@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:


>        The following two statements seem to be fairly common on t.a. :
>
>                   "Abortion is a cop-out"
>
>              "Well, Adoption is also a cop-out".

I was at least one of the people that may have given you the mistaken
impression that I believed adoption is a cop-out.  I do not believe it
is.  My question was that assuming abortion is an escape from
responsibility for the woman (something I don't believe) then why
wouldn't turning your newborn child over to the state also be an escape
from the same responsibility (Something else I also don't believe)?
I was only questioning people that believed the first premise.

*           Mikeey Jean Lin                     | / \ |     (() ~ ~ ())    *


Dan King
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Adoption vs Abortion
Summary: Which one is better?
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:53:21 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)


	The following two statements seem to be fairly common on t.a. :
   
                   "Abortion is a cop-out"

              "Well, Adoption is also a cop-out".

I'm curious to how people feel about the benefits and consequences of both
alternatives. So let's hear some responses folks, and please keep your hands 
off the flamethrowers. It would be nice to see some constructive criticisms, 
NOT new ways of putting down the other side. Here's two questions to get the
ball rolling. Thanks in advance to everyone that responds.

Pro-Choicers : Would an adoption be a resonable alternative for an abortion
               to you? 

Pro-Lifers : How would adoptions actually help the situation? Wouldn't
	     it just create more "unwanted" babies?


****************************************************************************
*			   						   *
*          Brought to You by:			lililil	      lililil      *  
*                                               (lllll)      ((((l))))     *
*           Mikeey Jean Lin                     l / \ l     (() ~ ~ ())    * 
*           Vice President                      ( 0 0 )     (() @ @ ())    *
*           Gymnastics Club                     |  ^  |     (()  ^  ())    *
*        University of Rochester                 \ U /      (()) O (())    *
*    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu        Prince Charming  Snow White    *
* 			  						   *
****************************************************************************
* Today's Question : Why does Donald Duck have a top and no bottom and     *
*		     Mickey Mouse have a bottom and no top?      	   * 
****************************************************************************
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Date: 12 Apr 92 01:43:20 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
-> >In article <1992Apr4.193857.22743@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
-> >>In article <p8rt_j=@rpi.edu> James G. Keegan Jr. writes:
-> >>>>>kwelch@eniac (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
-> >kw> Well, since we all go by the law around here
-> >kg>wait a minute sonny!
-> >
-> >kw>        "I harass pregnant women who kill their children."
-> >>>>>              <67853@netnews.upenn.edu>
-> >>>>>
-> >kg>and this?
-> >>>>>
-> >kg>     >did you get to intimidate any women on spring break?
-> >kw>     "No, just harass"
-> >>>>>     <69866@netnews.upenn.edu>
-> >
-> >>Please cite chapter and verse as to how and why Welch's
-> >>harrassing acts might be construed as being in any way
-> >>"illegal", or withdraw the whole line of questioning.
-> >
-> >Well isn't this interesting.
-> >
-> >Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything
-> >other than "harassing pregnant women", behaviour you seem
-> >to think shouldn't be construed as illegal... 
->                  
-> Shouldn't NECESSARILY be construed as illegal, that is. If you
-> wish to imply that Welch's particular form(s) of harrassment
-> are in violation of some applicable law(s), then please
-> identify exactly which statues/ordinances/ bylaws/whatever he
-> has supposedly broken. Otherwise, stop slandering him.

why should ms. birmingham cite statutes/ordinances/whatever to
support allegations -you- imply.

you also forgot to answer ms. birmingham's question of -you-.
'Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything other
than "harassing pregnant women."'

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14854 alt.abortion.inequity:697
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:21:08 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr11.160950.8203@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
> >
> >The man *is* uninvolved in the physical aspects of pregnancy, Kevin, his
> >best wishes and sympathy create no rights stream.
>
> You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of
> pregnancy.

My dictionary says "pregnant" means "having a fetus or fetuses growing in
the uterus", so conception is a precursor to, not an aspect of, pregnancy.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:19:33 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
>right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
>to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
>should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>unless their own existence is threatened.

Agreed.  Of course you realize that you have not logically established that
the fetus is "human".  Go on...

>The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others,
>and the right to receive support from others, but it does not
>necessarily include the right to expect support from others.

I don't get this statement.  How can you have a right to support from others
but not have the right to expect such support?  This seems to be a pair
of contradictory ideas.

>The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any
>rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is
>equal to that of any other human being.

Aha.  The phrase "any other human being" implys that you feel that the fetus
IS a human being.  Why is this so, and why should I adopt your opinions?

>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right
>of the fetus to exist.

But you said earlier that the right to exist "does not necessarily include
the right to expect support from others."  You can't have it both ways.

You have not established that the fetus is "human" and therefore has this
"right to exist" of which you speak.  Until you do so logically, you can't
expect to change the laws of the USA based merely on your own opinions.  Ours
is a diverse nation with many subgroups (including the anti-choice minority)
and if yours wants to promote its particular viewpoint, go ahead.  The First
Amendment give you that right.  However, don't try to legislate your brand
of morality/religion/ethics and impose it on the rest of us.
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The Pope's self-control
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:54:52 GMT

A short catechism for the confused ...
-
In article <1992Apr15.172921.11453 at midway.uchicago.edu>
eeb1 at midway.uchicago.edu (e. elizabeth bartley) writes:
-
| In article <1992Apr13.200223.942noao.edu>
| forgacnoao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-
| >Listen you two clowns, the Pope does not ask anyone to do that which
| >he is not willing to do himself:
|
| >          that is, exercise a little self-control.
-
| Hm.  Does the Catholic Church permit abortion in cases of rape?
-
No.
-
Is the Church's teaching against abortion based on 'self-control'?
-
No.
-
Is it based on what the Pope himself does?
-
No.
-
Does Forgach have *any* idea what she is talking about?
-
No.
-
-
Suzanne Lucia.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:28:55 CDT

In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
>>psychological studies).
>  Can you quote cases? I guess I'll have dig out the books to prove you
>wrong which is annoying, but there have been many studies supporting
>the mental and emotional disadvantages of the "latch-key child"...
>
Steve, I'm going to borrow Kieth's tutu and play Clue Fairy for you
here.

If a child is in daycare, it's not exactly the same thing as being a
"latch-key child".

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:21:02 GMT
Reply-To: conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department
Originator: conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu




rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes..... 


>The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
>be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now
>n its belief that abortion is wrong. Given its 
>past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the Church 
> is _likely_ to be incorrect




Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
is guided by Divine will.
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:55:10 EST

In article <1992Apr7.120241.13144@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
 (Steve Franklin) writes:

> I am referring to the life of the fetus. Not the mother, the fetus. 
> That is what is most important to me. 

Well, that about sums it up, Steve Franklin, another embarassment to the
Catholic Church.  -J.J.
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:22:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:


   The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
   right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
   to freedom. ...

Rocks exist.

   The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 

Rocks cannot be killed.  They can be destroyed, and I am willing to make that 
substitution here for rocks.

   and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
   necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 

"Please support your local rocks and pebbles."  :-)

   The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any 
   rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
   equal to that of any other human being.

Rocks either have rights, or they do not. If the rock has any 
rights, then it must have the right to exist.

   Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
   support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
   of the fetus to exist.

Mining destroys rocks, and it prevents any rock from receiving support
from others.  Therefore, mining violates the right of rocks to exist.

Please distinguish a fetus from a rock in your argument.  I think your
argument is incomplete in this respect.

________  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (scotts@ri.cmu.edu)
  \  /      \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
                                           Carnegie Mellon

"Indeed, to quarantine a person with AIDS or the AIDS virus does
entail a loss, in the short term, of human freedom.  Agreed.  But the
idea of human freedom isn't now, and never has been, absolute.
Besides, in the long run, as I have noted, all people with AIDS die."
             John Lofton, columnist The Washington Times, March 31, 1989
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.165848.17978@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>
>funny......the eggs of a spotted owl or a California condor
>have rights.......but a fetus doesn't. Use your fucking brain.
No, none of the above have RIGHTS. Rights are a construct owned
only by PERSONS. Spotted owls and condors are protected, but
they don't have rights. Fetuses and computers aren't protected
and don't have rights.
None of the above are persons.

>and drop some stupid line about them being endangered and humans
>have overpopulayed the earth. the point is that we spend more effort
>proecting some stupid bird than we do our future.
It's not at all obvious that protecting fetuses constitutes
protecting our future. It seems more likely that having
the birth rate about where it is now is most likely to protect
our future.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:07:55 GMT

In article <9APR92.02500272@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
>>a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
>>and the lives.
>
>We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
>it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
>killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
>you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
>this issue.  

No, Loren, nobody is killing CHILDREN.  If you must attempt to use this sort
of emotionally loaded sentence constructs, please talk about people killing
FETEUSES.

You know, I'm beginning to think that we need to save both the haploid AND
the diploid branches of humanity...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:21:25 CDT

In article <1992Apr12.164727.23413@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.053925.19066@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:
>
>>"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
>
>As I told Ms. McCabe, a mother cannot normally act to cause birth to happen, 
>birth is an event that happens to her. Birth can be induced with drugs, but
>that's not what I was referring to. Please extend me the same courtesy
>that I give to you by not quoting me out of context.  

You cannot determine when the light turns green, but you still drive 
through the intersection actively.

Though the timing of labor's onset is presumably determined by the 
same dread class of gremlins who set the timing for flat tires and
lost dental fillings, giving birth to a baby is not something that
'happens to her' with no effort on the woman's part. 

Once labor has begun, women take _active_ steps to deal with the 
situation. in the absence of any such activity on her part, live
births would be far less common. Examples of actions which a woman
might take:

1. Go to the nearest hospital and undergo major surgery, subjecting
   herslf to general anesthesia.
2. Go to the nearest hospital and have a vaginal delivery with
   spinal anethesia, in which her ability to push may be hampered,
   increasing the likelihood that she will have a large incision
   between her vagina and her rectum, and be assisted by forceps
   in expelling the fetus.
3. Go to the nearest hospital and have a 'natural' delivery-room
   birth, in which her entire body is draped except her genitals,
   which are hanging out in the wind in full view. Her body will 
   be aligned _against_ gravity for the convenience of her OB and
   other delivery-room personnel.
4. She may summon a midwife to her home, or meet a midwife/doctor 
   team at a 'birthing center' or hospital 'birthing room' in order
   to attempt a more 'natural' birthing in which she might be allowed
   to squat, thereby using gravity in her favor during the process
   of pushing. 

In my own case, the process of pushing out my first baby involved
two-and-one-half hours of the most intense effort I have ever put
into _anything_. Climbing out of the Grand Canyon on a sprained 
knee with a full pack didn't even begin to compare.

For the second experience, the effort required _not_ to begin
pushing until help could be reached for my beech delivery was
equally intense.

Please try to understand that comments made in this forum which
trivialize the physical demands that are made on women during
pregnancy and childbirth are generally seen as evidence of a trend
which we call 'ignoring the woman' syndrome. 

If we see evidence of this syndrome too often in the same 
poster, flames are the inevitable result.

I think the comment you made about childbirth was quite insulting 
to mothers, in light of the efforts which most of us are called
upon to make during childbirth.

muriel
standard disclaimer.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <JBATES.92Apr14155642@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>  jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
>    Or do you agree entirely with the
>    tactics and arguments of a certain poster, who shall remain nameless,
>    but who sometimes thinks he's an airplane?

Why should he remain nameless? He uses so many names - Interceptor,
Inturdgent, Dennis Hall, ...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Gems from the Birth Control Handbook
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:21:39 GMT


Hey Chaney, you never responded to my last post - even when you said you
would do so if I left the subject intact.  Care to try again?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:48:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.152300.28970@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>Good, we could probably use a billion less people on Earth. Too bad
>>it's actually *growing*. Why don't you pull your head out, get a breath
>>of freshh air, and get a reality check. I'm really beginning to wonder
>>about the education system in Canada, but then, you're probably a real
>>abnormality.

>   Heh... Ron - I said that the Population Growth is on the decline.
>Thus the rate at which our population expands is lessening. This means
>that eventually the rate of growth of the population will likely 
>be 0 and then delve into the negative. You see, this sucks, because
>when trends as large and universal as population growth recede, it is
>pretty damn hard for them to stop. I apologize that I had to point out
>that your point sucked, but I do believe it was just a misinterpretation.

Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would 
logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

>steve

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *