HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:32:33 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug28.134954.12863@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.195513.12494@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>Ummm, perhaps because if they called themselves
>>"pro-illegal-and-septic-abortion," people like Suzanne and Wes wouldn't
>>be fooled?
>>
>Why is it that Suzanne and I are fooled? 

 I really couldn't say, Wes. There's enough information available for
you both to come to informed and compassionate conclusions, yet you both
fail repeatedly.

> Are you going to go off on
>the argument that Suzanne really doesn't have a brain of her own and
>accepts what other men are saying.  

 Of course she has a brain of her own. She obviously uses some of it to
function in daily life. Are you suggesting otherwise? BTW, as far as I
know, she's not a man.

Am I fooled because I take a 
>moderate position to abortion based upon logical beliefs. 

 No, Wes, it's because you are fooled that you think your extremist
position on abortion is either moderate or logical (IMHO, of course).

 Are you 
>going to ask me if my opinion would be different if I were a woman

No. Suzanne, as I pointed out above, is a woman.

>(BTW, my answer is no).  I have never said that it would be wonderful
>to be pregnant while not wanting to be.  I have always stressed the   
>importance of recognizing that with abortion we are killing other 
>human beings.

  Ahah! A moderate position!

>  The dilemma comes in when the development of the unborn

>is pitted against a mother who has no desire to bring it to term.
>The dilemma continues when the unborn attains fetushood.  It would 
>seem evident that when we kill a fetus we are killing a human
>child. 

 To you, perhaps. Hence my characterization of your position.

> Its characteristics are inargueable (except when presenting 
>the extreme).

    Oh, so all of the arguments we have on t.a. over myelination and
other aspects of fetal development are "the extreme.'

    Sorry. Won't do that again!

>Wes


>     I love Bugs Bunny!

Hmmm. This wouldn't be because BB is small, slightly human-looking and
all his supposed activities are purely imaginary would it? Gee, this
wouldn't have anything to do with your position on abortion, would it?
(Or is it that the initials could stand for Big Brother? ;-)

                                                          MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:18:52 GMT

In article <66941@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

> I do wish the vast amount of flaming and personal attacks were 
> not present, but I don't know if I could be an unbiased moderator -
> maybe that makes me a little qualified, I don't know. :-)  To be 
> honest my stomach and spirit churns at some of the things I see 
> posted and so I would not want to have to read over things with 
> which I strongly disagree to the point of approving the posting 
> of the same.  [I guess that's is what a moderator is to do, 
> correct?]  Does that make sense?  

Yes, that makes sense.  But I think you're basing your feelings 
on the posts that you read in talk.abortion, rather than on the
the submissions that you might receive as a moderator.  I think 
people would eventually get the hint that flaming, insults, etc. 
would not be accepted on a moderated newsgroup. 

> Additionally, I may soon lose my net access, but you never know. 

There are public access sites available.  Some kind soul could
offer you net access. 

> Has someone been picked to moderate the new group?

Unfortunately, nobody's been brave enough to volunteer.

>Richard Pitts


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not bloody likely.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:33:46 GMT

In article <180v8qINNn64@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.221905.15681@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>So, here we have it.  In the cases where the two people agree, there is
>no need for a law.  In those cases where they don't agree, John sees the
>need for a law that WOULD RESTRICT WOMEN TO THE OPINION of the man.

Wrongo Adrienne.  Try reading, before posting.  Or at least admit that
you are lying.

To prove you are not, post IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND UNEDITED where I wrote
that.

>>Wrong.  I can be legally forced to 'support' an abortion.  Remember, under
>>the current system, I have NO SAY AT ALL.  Just an obligation to pay
>>through the nose.
>
>Bullshit.  You have no obligation to pay for abortion, period.

Bullshit.  I CAN be legally forced to support the child if the woman
decides to have it.

>Bullshit again.

You evidently aren't a country girl, as you don't know bullshit when
you spew it.

>It happens that there are laws on the books that punish
>certain behaviors.  It *happens* that these laws COINCIDE with certain
>Christian beliefs.

Stupid, just plain stupid.

Why do you suppose those laws just HAPPEN to COINCIDE?

>That's not the same thing as forcing people to conform
>to christian ideology -- not by a long shot.

So if, for instance, the Human Life ammenment gets passed, it won't be
forcing people to conform to christian ideology.

Nope. Not at all.

>It also happens that these laws COINCIDE with certain Buddist beliefs,
>Jewish beliefs, Islamic beliefs, etc.  Funny how christians never bring
>that up, huh?

Meaningless drivel.  If you knew anything, you would know that the
Jews, Buddists, Muslims, etc, have never had a majority, and therefore
could not influence law like the christains could.  Until the latter
half of this century, America has been a christian nation.

The coincidence is just that.

>More hateful and disgustingly foolish drivel deleted.

You mean the truth of what I really wrote deleted to keep you from looking
like an idiot.

>Adrienne Regard

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:56:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Sep1.204314.19152@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> > ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> >> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
> >> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
> >> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
> >> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
> >> 
> >> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
> 
> > That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
> > think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
> 
> If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
> manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
> of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
> menstration.  Just a little reality check here...
> 
Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking about are
most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not be blamed.

> > - and my wife has said the same thing...
> 
> Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
> child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.
Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.  As another
opinion, I think sauna's are debatable (in Japan they are encouraged to go to
saunas during pregnancy and are discouraged from going into cold water), but
smoking and excessive drinking are endangerment.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
> "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
> they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush

-- 
=================================================================
Sean P. Curley	(sean@Unify.Com)		Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager				Sacramento, CA.
=================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 17:13:22 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  <nyikos.715471571@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> South Carolina
> requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases
> brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?

Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
100% of the time.

What do I win?  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35102 alt.abortion.inequity:3541
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:21:16 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# >Guess again.  It ain't illegal for a man to impregnate a woman against
# >her will, if he can do it with her consent to sex.
# >Maybe you think it should be?
# 
# PPS,  all joking aside, WHY wouldn't this actually work, folks?

Actually, I think it would work -- to turn the balance of sexual
politics around so that women have the advantage of power in sexual
relationships.  Might serve them right.

-- 
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: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 05:26:44 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  <1992Aug31.222306.18028@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.201052.26599@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
> >>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
> >>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
> >>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or
> >>> older.
>
> >> No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to
> >> employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
> >> for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
> >> Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).
>
> > For being vague, Holtsinger.
>
> We agree.  How does that change the fact that Ms. Mill's statements
> are incorrect?

The statement that the states *may* enact legislation is correct.  The
Pennsylvania legislation was struck down in Colautti v. Franklin for
vagueness, *not* because the Supreme Court ruled that the states may
not enact such legislation.  Since everyone is in agreement that CvF
was struck down for vagueness, it seems totally irrelevant to Ms. Mills'
statement.  The only reason I can see for your mentioning it in the
first place is to attempt to insinuate that the decision somehow
negated the truth of her statement.  If there's an explanation other
than dishonesty and backpedalling, do please share it with us.

> > The decision specifically says that the Pennsylvania law
> > was overturned because it was vague.  It does not say that
> > no similar legislation could be constitutional.
>
> Did I say that anywhere in this thread?  No.
>
> Why do you keep raising these extraneous points?

But you raised Colautti v. Franklin in the first place.  Why do *you*
keep raising these extraneous points?

> Ms. Mills claimed that ``EVERY state may enact legislation requiring
> a physician to attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 week's
> gestation or older''.  This type of law was struck down in Colautti v.
> Franklin.

We know it was struck down, and we know *why* it was struck down - and the
reason is *not* because states can not pass such legislation.  Why do you
keep raising these extraneous points?

> >> That's not the reason why the law was struck down.  It was struck
> >> down because the law was vague.
>
> > That's right, Holtsinger.  The decision says nothing
> > about the consitutionality of other, clearer stautes.
>
> Please stick to the topic Ms. Garvin.  I was merely correcting
> Ms. Mills' erroneous statements.

The topic is that states *may* enact such legislation.  That the Pa.
law was struck down for *other* reasons is irrelevant.  Please stick to
the topic, Doug.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:10:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.152443.26511@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
# have babies without the kindness of a man.

You didn't really mean to write this, did you?

I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.

-- 
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: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<JASON.92Sep3151004@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <Bu2259.K2M@encore.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:58:30 GMT

In article <Bu2259.K2M@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
-> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
-> |> 	Row vs. Wade was a women suing for the right to abort her own
-> |> baby.  Trying to apply this to a murderer who killed a women and her
-> |> unborn child wouldn't work.  
-> 
-> This is funny.  A fetus is a *child* in cases of murder by anyone
-> other than the mother (mother-to-be?) or her agent(s) (the doctor),
-> but is a glob of tissue in cases of abortion.  Simple as that.
-> 
-> The funny part is how sure you are about such a controversial issue.
-> 
-> Please follow up to talk.abortion.

	I wasn't making a statement whether or not a fetus is legally
a child.  I was just answering the question about why Roe vs. Wade
could not be used as a precedent to overturn the double murder
conviction of a man killing a pregnant women.  I don't think there
will every be something as simple as a legal determination of the
status of a fetus; it's always going to be based on the situation.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:32:13 GMT

cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

> Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
> an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
> say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
> womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
> unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
> about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
> Plain and simple.

Gosh Cynthia, it's been a long long time since anyone's started off with
such a noisy fireworks display like yours.  It's perfectly ok to not like
abortions, but I don't think that unsupported opinions are a good basis
for government regulation of private decisions, do you?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Larry Margolis
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 19:43:13 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  <1992Sep4.173922.6747@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Why should anyone accept your pro-abortion sources, like the Alan
> Guttmacher Institute and the National Abortion Federation, if
> you're unwilling to accept unbiased sources from anyone who
> disagrees with you?

I'm willing to accept anything, regardless of source, but take it with a
grain of salt.  I won't accept speculation as fact, and if I don't believe
things presented as fact are correct, I might investigate.  What you
keep missing is that you haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: On The discussion about moderating t.a
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:55:09 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

] In article <1992Aug26.170931.13175@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu 
] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] }People don't seem to have read the original proposal carefully.
] 
] Look who posted it.  That may give you some idea as to why...

And its been about the same as the last time some one got
called out for being unable to defend their weirdness and
decided that they needed to get a moderator to protect them.

] }If we can find a solution to the moderator/volume problems,
] }then I plan on putting out a CVD.  

What is the 'problem' that will be 'solved' by having
a 'moderator.' As the various seasonal discussions about
what is, and what is NOT a flame keep turning up, some
folks are going to be offended.

Get someone else to play at 'moderator' is not likely to
change the fact that there will be folks who are offensive.

ciao
drieux

ps: the really fun part will be to ponder, how long
DearOldDoug would be able to keep trying to slip
his posts past some 'moderator.'






-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:13:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug25.170837.12308@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.181046.29135@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >They'll get an abortion.  That is acting responsibly.  What's your problem?
> >
> >(If you want to claim that aborting an unwanted pregnancy is irresponsible,
> >you'll have to prove it, not merely assert it.)
>
> You miss the point.  It doesn't need (and cannot be) proved.  It is a
> belief.  Just as what you say is a statment of belief.

That's exactly the point I was demonstrating.  He said "Abortion is
irresponsible", not "I believe that abortion is irresponsible".  The
former is an assertion of fact, which I challenged.  The latter is
an expression of belief, which is perfectly acceptable.

> The problem, Mr. Margolis, is not his alone, it is shared.  Both sides
> need to realize that they are stating beliefs, not facts.

It's when people start trying to legislate their beliefs as though they
were facts that we start to get agitated.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:31:49 GMT

In article <BtyquB.C9A@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>>In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
>>a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception
>          ^^^^^
>
>It is interesting to note that "fetus" is the Latin word for "baby"
	BZZZT!  Sorry, wrong answer.  It's Latin for "pregnancy", not "baby"..
This particular line has been tried here before.  Sorry.
>
>ata
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion