HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade permits the purposeful killing of viable fetuses
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:35:08 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# 
# > Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
# > fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
# > fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
# > three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
# > fetus in the third trimester. 
# 
# The following analysis of Roe v. Wade, written before the Court's 
# decision in Colautti v. Franklin, suggests that Roe v. Wade permits 
# a woman to have the physician purposely kill a viable fetus during
# an abortion procedure.  

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

What's yer point, Mr. Holtsinger?  That the State actually ought to
have the power to mandate procedures that increase a woman's health
risks so that viable fetuses can be saved?

Get your hands off that band saw!


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

"When people reached the last drop of their drinks, the face of Larry
Storch would seem to look out at them from the bottom, belch
contentedly and say, ``Now I am truly what I always was.  Pass the
corn nuts.''"
						     -- Larne Pekowsky
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:30:23 GMT

In <1992Aug25.121138.22714@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>-> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>-> >    I'll make a deal with all of you who want to
>-> > prohibit elective third trimester abortions.
[lines deleted]
>-> > It you agree that all adult women, before
>-> > fetal viability, have a right to an abortion, I
>-> > will agree to oppose third trimester abortions.
>-> > Any takers?  I didn't think so.
>-> 
>->   Wrong, RVW breath!  You're on.  That is, in fact,
>-> exactly what I support.  Now, please start
>-> supporting a ban on 3rd trimester abortions.

>it's interesting watching you guys trade away the
>rights of women.

>do you have special powers to do this or do you think
>any male has the power to barter away the rights of all
>females?

No, only Harry Blackmun and the six justices whom he either
conned or was in cahoots with back in '73.

They bartered away the rights of women vis-a-vis abortionists.

[In all fairness it should be added that they maybe knew not what
they were doing.]

Peter Nyikos
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: All discrimination is not equal -- or wrong
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:18:12 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug27.215753.8063@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>The same kind of discrimination that leads friends of yours, like PatricKKK
>>Humphrey, to refer to people like me as "black ass".

> [Kathi does some verbal manuevering]

Aw, come on.  It may be that we've all heard a lot worse, but it is (IMHO)
racist.  Patrick's comment showed poor judgement (and unimaginative flaming,
may I add :-).

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
(Though getting "anti-Catholic bigotry" out of Tom Lehrer's lyrics is quite
 a hoot.  He *is* Catholic, you know.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: We'll worry about that later, first, get the code working. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:54:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.202750.18927@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.165853.11816@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.211903.25718@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>My beliefs are just as valid as yours, so if you tell me what I 'should'
>>do, then I take it I have the right to tell you what YOU should do.
>
>The difference might be that while we can all believe what everyone "should" and
>"shouldn't" do, we are not all out trying to make laws to force people to 
>do the things we think they should be doing.

The pro abortion camp IS trying to make laws to force people to do the things
they think we should be doing.

And no, this law will not force women to get abortions, but it WILL further
reduce the probability that fathers will EVER have any rights in regards to
their unborn children.

>There is a group of pro-life folks who *are* trying to make laws to force
>people to do what *they* think is right for them.

I've already stated, repeatedly (four times now, to be precise) that
I support the idea of legal abortion, but I do NOT support abortion as
a unilateral choice.  It is a choice that should only be made by the
couple.

I simply support making abortion illegal, because it is the most politically
expedient way of making the rights of men and women equal.

As an ex-feminist, I am VERY supportive of the idea of equal rights,
regardless of sex.

>I support your right to CHOOSE what you want to do with yourself. That is
>why I'm pro-choice.  If you want to smoke cigarettes, torture yourself,
>shoot heroin, smoke dope, drink till you puke, masturbate, or kill your-
>self, more power to you.

Thanks, awfully.  But your support for my right to CHOOSE does not change
the fact that the government has passed and enforces many laws that make
such actions as killing myself, smoking dope or shooting up heroin
illegal.

>That is *your* choice.  While I may not agree with
>what you are doing with your body, it is about all you really have and I'm
>not going to try to force you to do one thing or another with it.

Of course, the difference between getting really drunk every night, or
getting really drunk and driving is whether or not I involve other
people.

Abortion by definition is NOT a personal choice.  It involves a minimum of
two people (father and mother) and depending on your belief system,
one or more babies.

>The pro-life folks, on the other hand, will.

Yup.  And I will support them unless I can be convinced that an equally
just arrangement can be worked out that leaves abortion legal.

>David Knapp                                 University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:44:57 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
#                  ... Should women who are fertile and sexually active be
# forbidden from high stress jobs, strenuous exercise, poor diet, or heavy
# drinking and drug intake?  There is no way of knowing how many zygote
# needlessly died during the women's events at the recent Olympics. ...

Oh no -- now you've given them Yet Another Excuse to forbid women in
combat roles in the armed forces.

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What if???
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:43:20 GMT

j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) writes:

>What if the human fetus developed on the outside of the mothers stomach,
>where everyone could see the eyes, ears, nose, etc. forming?

It would be even that incredibly MORE difficult to be pregnant.
Also, the fetus would be vulnerable to the slightest bumps,
temperature changes, and infection, and it's not likely we'd
GET many newborns.

>I'm not talking science here, I'm talking psychology.

You're talking nonsense.

>We humans have a tendancy to disregard with ignorance things we cannot see.

Like the suffering of a pregnant woman.

>How tragic future generations will view our blindsided stupidity.

Well, yours anyway.

                          -rocker
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:54:37 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>There is no constitutional right to kill a burglar.  In some states,
>it's not legal to kill a burglar, even if they're walking off with
>your valuables.

Pardon?!? Where? I've never seen anyone convicted of manslaughter or
murder that *simply* killed an intruder in their home.

>Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to kill certain members
>of the human species.

Again, it created a right to not be pregnant. There are limits on this,
also, as set in RvW.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34851 talk.bizarre:28793 alt.flame:12524 alt.sex:28317 alt.evil:2457 alt.irc:3027
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.flame,alt.sex,alt.evil,alt.irc
Subject: Re: Alright... I'm gone. (summer ends!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:42:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep3.154102.20862@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>The kill file is best used not for closing your mind to opposing views, but
>rather for closing the discussion to those who will argue properly with
>respect, addressing the real issues.  

  Ummmmm, perhaps you're a bit confused, Danny Boy, but most of us would
prefer to OPEN the discussion to those who address the real issues.

                                                   MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:22:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>The PRO-LIFE point is that just as the color distinction was a wrong
>and unworkable form of discrimination, neither is the "born" and
>"unborn" distinction a workable form of discrimination. Our POINT, is
>that discrimination is unworkable in any form. 
>
>Which is why you find it so hard for pro-lifers to accept legalized
>abortion: it is discrimination against the unborn, where even "under
>the age of majority" people (as you mentioned) do not have to die at
>someone's will. 

Lets hear it for equal rights for _all_ humans, regardless of age!
No more of this "can't drive/drink/vote until you're 18/21" nonsense.
All people should have equal rights.  Although who a 5 year old might
vote for in the presidential election is a subject for some mildly
interesting speculation.  And of course, parental consent will become
irrelevent once children have the same rights as their parents.

>The day the unborn child's right to live is given higher priority than
>their mother's "choice," we will have a fully consistent and workable
>civil rights law. 

Unfortunately, this requuires giving the z/e/f greater rights than the
mother, since you'll be denying mothers any redress from assault by the 
z/e/f.

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34521 talk.religion.misc:15404
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Why is Larry a Toady of InternationalZionism????
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:29:37 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

] In  <1992Aug31.210559.14664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] > In article <1992Aug31.194119.26396@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov
] > (Dan King) writes:
] >
] > }DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  DOD, if it
] > }wouldn't be too much trouble could you add my name right below
] > }Susan's in your cute little .sig.  I agree with Susan so I wouldn't
] > }mind being added.  I bet you could make your own little list of
] > }people who agree with Susan here and come up with a way cute .sig.
] >
] > I agree with Dan and Susan, too.  So you can add my name.
] >
] > }>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
] > }> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
] > }> we want to be precise)..."
] > }>   -- Gloria Feldt,
] > }>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
] 
] You people are making fun of Doug for being an idiot, but I think it's
] incredibly offensive how he's making fun of the Jewish religion.  If
] someone put down Catholics in the same way Doug is putting down Jews,
] he would be the first one screaming about it.
 
Larry 

I know that you are slow on the Uptake,
but DearOldDoug is NOT worrying about 
the InternationalZionistThreat, he is
upset as this is a Christian Position....


ciao
drieux





-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 21:25:56 GMT

In <Btrrt3.4w5.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715037146@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <BtM9BC.7sq.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##In article <nyikos.714853495@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>###In <1992Aug24.222123.25747@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>##[text deleted]
>#
>#Talking about the Becky Bell case:
>#
>####What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by a septic abortion.
>###
>###What I heard was that it was pneumonia caused by vomit going back down
>###the wrong way, said vomit being caused by the drugs she was taking
>###recreationally.

>##Some fools will continue to give voice to the lies of a twisted
>##old man, but the facts remain.
>#
>#I'll need to see them to make a judgment.  I have a very open mind on this
>#case, by the way.  In the Spring 1991 _Issues in Science and Technology_
>#(a national magazine available, I hope, in most university libraries
>#despite its biases) I wrote the following:

>You have an open mind, but you repeat Willke's slurs in a public
>forum.  Right.  

Well, how else am I to get at the truth?  You have a perfect right to
post the coroner's slurs--sorry, cheap shot, let me start again--

You have a perfect right to post the coroner's account of what happened,
and also why he considers Willke's judgment to be fantasy.  Let the
readers judge for themselves who has the stronger case.  

>#    O'Keeffe and Jones...treat as undisputed fact the claim that Becky Bell
>#    "died from an abortion obtained outside the health care system,"
.....
>#	John C. Willke, the focus of the attack, has made a case that
>#    (1) Becky Bell's "abortion" was a miscarriage, not induced; and
>#    (2) that the cause of death was a lung infection brought on by drug-
>#    taking, not the "abortion".  His case is still open to debate, but
>#    it is certainly much better documented in his published writings 
>#    than anything in the O'Keeffe/Jones article.

>This was a letter to the editor, right?  I'll look it up.

Yes, although the place is not called "letters to the editor," it's 
called "Forum", and when I wrote to the editor I did not think it had
a chance of being printed.  I thought these "Forum" letters were solicited by
the editors and they would not print unsolicited letters.  Had I known
otherwise, I would have chosen my words even more carefully than I did,
although I am reasonably happy about the outcome.  They did very little
editing, fortunately.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors ... perform third trimester abortions"
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:39:26 GMT

>>> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>  = smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>   = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"List more doctors?"  I'm still looking for someone to complete 
>>>the list of three.
>
>>You and your roving band of terrorists will just have to
>>do your own research, Nyikos.
>
>I resent that crack about terrorists.  I am no more a terrorist than
>Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King.  

You may not be a terrorist, but it seems you're self-righteous enough 
to compare yourself to Mahatma Ghandi & Martin Luther King.

>>>So far there is George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas.  Who and where are
>>>the other two?

#2: Dr. Warren Hern in Boulder, Colorado.  I mention this because it seems
the terrorist wing of the "pro-life" movement already nows where he is
and has fired rifle shots through the clinic windows.  I think this 
falls squarely in the category of "terrorist".  Dr. Hern now works 
behind 6 layers of bullet proof glass.  

If I recall correctly, 60 minutes explained how one woman, who needed an
abortion to save her life, was refused an abortion at several hospitals
either because they had no doctors that knew how to do it, or because 
they had doctors that knew how but refused to do so because they know 
what happens to doctors who do abortions (remember the rifle shots?).  
Finally, after traveling by plane through several states, being turned 
away from several hospitals, she arrived unconscious at the clinic of 
Dr. Hern and received the abortion, apparently narrowly avoiding death.  
Is this what is known as "abortion on demand"?

By indiscriminatly terrorizing all doctors who perform abortions, many
in the pro-life camp have a defacto policy of banning *all* abortions 
for *any* reason, INCLUDING to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Further, the "pro-life" "Lambs of God" may well find some "Hands of God" 
to answer their prayers for the DEATH of all who might perform an abortion.

One might argue that technically the US law grants "abortion on demand",
but this anecdote illustrates that in reality it can be extremely 
difficult to obtain an abortion EVEN IN LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
and EVEN IF YOU HAVE LOTS OF MONEY to fly from state to state.  I think
this explains why many are opposed to ANY restrictions on abortion
even though they may agree with the spirit of SOME restrictions.

-Brian  (Have a nice day)
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion-adult/child sex link.
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:56:36 GMT
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

In article <nyikos.714858926@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

|> 
|> Alas, this is incorrect.  I can give you the name of at least one
|> woman who "had an abortion" when not pregnant, and reports of lots more.


Please do, and please provide enough information so
that your list of names can be independently
verified.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not until I can find my day planner. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:17:54 GMT

In article <78817@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>Nope.  It is, however, partially my body.
>
>What if the sperm mutates, and is no longer carrying your DNA?  Does that
>mean it's no longer partly YOUR body?

Reverse:  If the egg mutates and is no longer carrying the mother's DNA,
does that remove her right to an abortion, since the z/e/f is no longer
a part of her body?

>>I disagree.  Obviously.  Getting it INTO her body was a joint decision.
>
>Only if both partners consented to unprotected sex, and even then the
>woman should be able to do with her own body what she pleases.

More statements of belief, not fact.  Obviously, I believe differently.

>If the
>couple took reasonable contraceptive procedures, the question is even
>more clear-cut; through no fault of their own (assuming the contraception
>was used properly) the woman has been impregnated.  This is not 
>negligence, and treating it as such is pointless.

Then why IS it treated as negligence?  Remember, what kind, and whethe or
not contraception was used by the man, he is still liable for child
support payments if the woman has the baby.

Bringing contraception into the issue strikes me as something that we
SHOULD add to new law.  In other words, if the man uses or was informed
that contraception was in use, then he should not be held responsible
for any children that occur.

This would resolve the abortion issue, as it would imply that after
sex, fatherhood is a null and void concept and that the woman is the
only one responsible, and the only one who has rights over, the child
both during pregnancy and afterwars.

Of course, this might further damage the concept of family, but that is
a price we would have to live with.

>Leave blame aside and concentrate on dealing with the problem.

This has nothing to do with blame.  It has to do with equal rights.

>I agree, it *should* be, but if the man and woman disagree, whose views
>take precedence?

Addressed in another article.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
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.
Keywords: From: Decay@ no longer works, Susan!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 00:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.154425.16868@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you pro-lifer's just _hate_ this?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame