HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:50:30 GMT

From article <1993Jan7.023419.11909@Princeton.EDU>, by datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper):
> In article <1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
> Forgach) writes:
>>
>>Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to
>>donate. Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS
>>alone, and she had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who
>>that like to talk big about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies,
>>this case shows them up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.
> 
> And you're pro-life? If "life" is your most overriding principle, surely
> you would jump at the chance to save at least seven lives, maybe more.

Sorry you lose.  "Not killing" is my overriding principle.  No one killed
those other folks.  They died of natural causes, which is neither illegal,
nor immoral.  But they _didn't_ get away with killing a baby just to
cannibalize her parts.


> (Life's full of tough choices, inn'it?) Can an anencephalic baby even
> have an identity beyond numerical identity, or is it merely a mass
> of biological tissue shaped like a human being?

She had her own identity.  Her parents even agreed with that premise enough
that they named her.  She was never "Baby XYZ", "Baby 978", or even "Baby Doe".
She was "Baby Theresa" and she was a human being.

 
> Tep

Suzanne Forgach
From: gfritz@tesla.ecn.purdue.edu (Geoffrey M Fritz)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:46:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.011901.9877@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu
(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
>that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?

Well... not really.  But I can picture God *himself* aborting a child for
someone.  

Oops! -- that would be called a miscarriage, wouldn't it? 

My mistake.  :-)

-Geoff
--
This a post with a message in, and the message is: "Beware."  This not a post
for reading -- it is a post for laying down and *avoiding*.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:18:52 GMT

aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes ...
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.726560622@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
>>Any sperm/ovum has the *potential* to produce a unique child.
>>Do you have a point to make?
>
>Once fertilization occurs, the genetic basis for a 
>unique human being is cast.  Before fertilization, the 
>sperm and ovum could combine with any of its
>counterparts so a unique individual does not exist.

Are genes then to be the determinant of humanity?  A unique set of
genes is what makes us human?

Genes alone do not make a person.  They may not even make up most of a
person, since environment play a very large part in the forming of any
person.  

>>I can *and have* shown that 2/3 or *more* of all completely fail to
>>produce the "unique child" you are so enamoured of. Which makes a
>>child a far cry from the inevitable result you claim it is.
>
>However, until you can determine that a z/e/f at any
>stage in his or her development will not thrive, we
>must give each of them a full opportunity to develop. 

The problem is that the same thing can be said for each ovum and every
little spermatozoan.  You don't know what kind of person a given egg
might turn out to be until you give it its full opportunity to
develop.

>When a woman consents to sexual relations she should
>be prepared to offer those resources at part of the
>biological contract.

Why?  Because YOU say so?

How about _this_ statement.

When a person attempts to force continued pregnancy on a woman, that
person should be prepared to offer any needed financial resources as
part of the social contract.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:24:10 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.
>
>> (1) Hold your breath for ten seconds.  Did you die instantly?
>
>She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
>"temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
>it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.

She said "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  I figured she
means "ceasing to breathe brings instant death."  You interpreted her
as saying "the moment you stop breathing PERMANENTLY, you're dead,"
then admitted that death doesn't come the MOMENT you stop breathing.
In other words, you've totally changed around what she said.

Do either of you even _think_ before you post, or is your knee wired
up in such a way that when it jerks, a flame is generated and posted?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55335 talk.religion.misc:25912 alt.atheism:25743
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 1993 08:06:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) says:

>In article <1iqk4fINNflh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
>au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
>
>> None of us has the right to impose our views on this
>> subject on anyone else, least of all the government. 
>
>I agree, none of us should have the right to impose our views 
>about abortion on an innocent child in the womb.

When was the last time you spoke with *your fetus? When I was carrying
mine, before he *breathed the breath of life* and became my human
child, I never, ever imposed my views on him. He was just along for the
ride. Nor did I ever shove my views down the throats of my eggs. I trust
you give your sperm that same consideration?

>
>> How would it be if the government decided to make abortion *mandatory* 
>> in certain cases.
>
>If the respect for human life plummets much further than it 
>already has, I would expect it.

I don't see how much further it can plummet than waving a dead fetus under
the nose of a woman at a clinic. Again, it comes down to the definition
of human life, which I happen to respect greatly, thank you.

I repeat, if you don't want an abortion (oh, I forgot, you'll never 
have to make that choice), don't get one!

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.012145.13731@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <C01Mxq.1I5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>
>>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its
>>availability.
>
>No, "pro-choice" means you favor the availability of that choice;
>"pro-abortion" means you favor the choice itself.

Hmmm... Is this the same Larry Margolis who insisted to me that arguing for 
the AVAILABILITY (via popular concensus) of some abortion restrictions was 
equivalent to arguing for those restrictions themselves?

Seems Larry can _easily_ make the crucial distinction when it's HIS position 
that's under the microscope, but not when he's trying to smear someone else...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Doug's Unrestricted Claim Disproved By...DOUG!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:38:03 GMT

> = (Doug "Christian Atheist" Holtsinger) writes:
>> = wendymas@gnu (hell here) wrote:

>> once again, i feel i must correct something which is seriously amiss.
>> the claim was made that Roe v Wade allowed abortions up until the 9th month.

>This claim is correct; Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
>all the way up to the point of birth.  Under Roe, the states are
>prevented from restricting third-trimester abortions performed for 
>broadly defined ``health'' reasons, including emotional and psychological
>health. 

Doug, you lying weirdo: if abortions are allowed in the third-trimester
for "broadly defined 'health' reasons" then, of course, RvW is not
unrestricted.

Boy, you just keep sticking your lead head into the paddle wheel, son.
Won't you ever learn?

Now, since your premise is dead wrong (as usual), apologize to "wendy"
and go shine Chaney's shoes again.

[rest of post, obviously flawed, not needed...]



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:36:48 GMT

In article <nyikos.726162894@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.050943.25509@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>-> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>-> >Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>-> >the term of pregnancy.
>>-> 
>>-> Dougie just can't stop lying about this.  Perhaps 
>>-> we should add the refutationof his lies to the FAQ?
>
>I have yet to see a definitive refutation.  Can anyone cite an instance
>of a woman who had to give birth because of third trimester restrictions?
>
>If not, I would hardly think Holtsinger is guilty of *lying*, even 
>though he may be repeating a false statement.  However, he may allow
>for a few exceptions via the loophole "essentially," especially if
>the exceptions simply failed to avail themselves of the options open
>to them and changed their minds about having an abortion after 
>encountering a bit of resistance on their first tries.
>
Why doesn't it suprise me that you see a difference between lying and
repeating a false statment that he knows is false?

>>oh dodie lies about everything. peohaps it's just a
>>necessary emotional outlet for him. maybe he needs
>>that. his therapy seems not to have worked out for him.
>
>geez, and we pro-lifers are regularly flamed for indulging in 
>baseless speculation.  Where is Larry Margolis when you really
>need him?
>
He's probably wading through one of your long pointless diatribes. If
he reads the whole thing, it could be an hour before he gets here...
Lukily, Larry has good sense, so he'll probably get tired of it and
hit N soon.

>BTW perhaps the reason that third specialist in late-term abortions
>(Tiller and Hern being two) is such a "mystery man" is that he may
>not put any restrictions on reasons for aborting at any time before
>birth, and so his identity is revealed only to those whom Tiller
>and Hern have rejected as being too blatantly out of line with
>their already lax standards.  Can anyone confirm or refute this much?
>
Of course noone can confirm it PHoney, it's more of that baseless
speculation, totally unsupported by facts that you so consistently get
flamed for. At least you deserve wha tyou get.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:06:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.195306.862@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.163857.10936@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> >dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> >>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> 
|> >>> 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.
|> 
|> >> Position 4 is not logically consistent if a person does not
|> >> condone infanticide in all cases. 
|> 
|> > Your statement is only correct if the person believes the infant
|> > is not a person.  Position 4 is logically consistent if the person
|> > believes the fetus is not a person.  
|> 
|> The belief that a child becomes a person when the child is born
|> is a belief with no logical foundation.  I have not seen any
|> reasoning which could support that belief, in which the position
|> is derived from a set of general moral principles.  I don't see 
|> why an unsupported position can be labeled as being 'logically 
|> consistent'. 

An argument is logically consistent if it follows from it's premises.
The premise is that one becomes a person when one is removed alive
from the womb.  The conclusion that all abortions are ok is the logical
result.  If *I* were to attack this argument, I would attack its
premise, because the rest of the reasoning appears to be sound (i.e.
it is logically consistent).

|> > This does not make it correct.
|> 
|> Agreed.
|> 
|> > The main point of my post was that the two extreme positions seem
|> > to be logically consistent to me, and that I required more
|> > explanation to understand (position 2) why if abortion is wrong
|> > there can be exceptions ("liberal pro-life"), and (position 3) why
|> > abortion is wrong for one person and ok for others (pro-choice).
|> 
|> Positions 1,2, and 3 have some logical foundation, in which 
|> the position is derived from a set of general moral principles.
|> The differences between the positions is a result of the differences
|> between the underlying moral principles.  Position 4 has no 
|> similar foundation--it is an unsupported belief.
|> 
|> > I appreciate your attempt to explain position 2.
|> 
|> You mean I wasn't successful?  :(

You did help.  I believe the most logically inconsistent position
to be 3 (pro-choicers who think abortion is wrong but think they
have no right to lobby for legislation against it).

Alas, I shall never know as this is the last time I will have access
to the net for several (read 5) months.

|> >Mike Noonan
|> 
|> 
|> Doug Holtsinger
|> 

Goodbye.

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:49:59 GMT

Darcy> It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to 
Darcy> incentivize it, than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", 
Darcy> and it achieves the same economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth 
Darcy> rate among poor people.

Simmonds> Ahh.. I see.  You don't think poor people are capable of making 
Simmonds> intelligent decisions by themselves.  You want to make sure you 
Simmonds> hold their hand since you are so superior.  

Sims> You seem to think that female people are incapable 
Sims> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.  
Sims> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
Sims> not they stay pregnant because you think your 
Sims> views are so superior.

Keegan> people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
Keegan> years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
Keegan> to as a "pro-forcer."

Sims> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote 
Sims> something similar in response to Kevin.

Thanks for the correction, Heather. Keegan seems to be losing it.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:59:39 GMT

In <ujd95fs@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:


>In article <C0CuIx.75w@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|Are you for real?  The issue is whether or not Heather has the
>|right to FORCE her baby to die (ie. have it murdered).

>Of course Heather doesn't have the right to kill her baby.
>That would be murder.  But we're not talking about babies
>here.  We're talking about abortion.

>Free clue:  Some people don't think fetuses are babies, or
>in general worthy of protection.  To convince these people,
>you have to make a case for treating fetuses like babies.

And what this young puppy can't seem to get into his head that even
some former fetus' would have approved abortion. In my own case,
had I been sentient and had I been consulted it would have been a
simple choice. My Mother's health was poor, there were three siblings
to care for, and there was my Father who would have been bereft.

As it turned out, I'm here and Mother made it to her 91st birthday,
but the last 40 years were in constant pain from Padgett's disease.
I'll never know how much I contributed to that.

>---
>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
>kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
>aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
>should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion

REB
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54178 soc.men:22171 soc.women:22156 alt.feminism:6829
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:51:59 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1993Jan02.044419.17590@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan1.020450.218@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.202557.22636@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>
>>>Men have the same rights as do women regarding bodily autonomy.  Since the
>>>fetus isn't growing in the man's body, though, this doesn't help him much.
>>
>>The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
>>Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
>>as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently
>>have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.
>
>What economic right is that?  Are you saying that a woman has a *right* to
>not support her child?

She has a right to not support her _potential_ child, by aborting it. No child,
no child support. This right comes IN ADDITION TO her right to physically
terminate her pregnancy, and I think equity demands that the other person 
potentially "on the hook" for child support should have the parallel economic 
right.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:27:27 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes ...
>To label me as anti-abortion is accurate, but not the most accurate.  
>Pro-life means that I consider life to be the single most basic and
>fundamental right of existance.  Not only do I oppose abortion, but I
>support standards and policies of morality which seek to improve people's
>lives after birth.

I've seen this line before, and as before I'm left with the following
two questions.  To wit ...

1) ALL people?  Even those on the other side of the world?  Even those
   you feel are "immoral"?
2) Does "support" actually mean YOUR money/time/health/life are at
   stake?  Or does it mean you think it's a good idea for someone else?

>Are not all other rights moot if one is not alive to enjoy them?

How many children do you have?  Why not more?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:40:49 GMT

In <1993Jan2.174743.27170@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
>conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
>because of natural factors.

ANALOGY:
I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
for more than a few years.

>Do you think only women have equal worth with embryoes, or
>do you ascribe this valuation to men as well?  

The latter.

>You seem to think that a woman incurs the responsibility
>to suffer _any_ amount of physical damage, up to, and possibly
>including _death_ (since we'd sacrifice all the women whose
>deaths could not be predicted with certainty) as a result
>of consensual sex.  What equivalent _physical_ responsibility
>do you propose for a man who has sex?  

The woman's greater physical responsibility is a fact of biology.
What do YOU propose to do about the fact that women live longer 
than men?

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Judith Naomi Grossman)
Subject: Re: Saturnalia I: "She shoulda kept her legs crossed"
Fromn: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- keeping my keyboard crossed)
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:29:02 GMT

What: <1iglf2INNbid@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
Who:  ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)

>| = Peter Nyikos

>|I have never heard of a pro-lifer say anything even remotely resembling
>|["She shoulda kept her legs crossed"], not even on talk.abortion.  On the
>|other hand, I regularly
>|see pro-choicers lampooning pro-lifers by depicting them as saying this.

>$ = Jay T Stein

>$[...] Ed Simmonds is not the only one to have said
>$that "she made her choice when she had sex."  This, indeed, is a regular
>$staple of pro-life posts to this newsgroup
>
>I suspect that some of us (perhaps Jay Stein among them) are hearing
>"she should have kept her legs crossed" and "she made her choice when
>she had sex" in a way which makes them mean roughly the same thing,
>and some of us (perhaps including Peter Nyikos) are hearing them in a
>way which makes them rather different. To me, at least, the former
>idea is loaded with extra implications which the latter doesn't have
>(and somewhat vice-versa).

Really?  I can't think of any pair of interpretations which would make
the two phrases different enough to warrant Peter's "not even remotely
resembling" claim.  True there are subtle differences - but the sentiment
is the same.  Can you provide me with some interpretation that shows me
wrong?

My point stands that Peter Nyikos is selectively self-censoring what he
reads, just as I claimed in my original followup.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __                -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /              
   |   |  in  |   |  |                Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__                GEnie: J.STEIN18
Newsgroups: talk.abortion