HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:15:01 GMT

In article <C0FBv6.DnF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

> I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
> history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
> preborn.  The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
> protect their atrocities.  

I disagree, I think there are very good reasons to discuss 
the medical risks, ramifications, and history of illegal
abortion.  How can you be "pro-life" if you don't consider 
the risks associated with illegal abortion?  People may 
disagree on the degree of risk, but how can you ignore it 
completely?

 
>Edward Simmonds


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:44:20 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <aa+34sa@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Doug, Ted was just responding to a call for information on Constitutional
>>arguments for abortion (from Michael P. Noonan), and a subsequent call for
>>elaboration (from me). Since the EP argument HAS been made, albeit not in
>>a court of law (yet!), 
>
>	White came back: "You're relying in this branch of your argument
>	simply on the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"
>	I responded, "We originally brought the suit alleging...the
>	due-process clause, [the] equal-protection clause, the Ninth
>	Amendment, and a variety of others." "And anything else that might
>	have been appropriate," White cut in.  I had to laugh and say yes.
>	The truth was that we had included every argument we could think
>	of.
>
>	We had not emphasized the equal-protection clause when we filed
>	the suit in 1970, because the Supremem Court had not yet applied
>	it to gender-based discrimination.  The first time it did so was
>	days earlier in 1971, in _Reed v. Reed_, an Idaho case.
>
>		-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, Grosset/Putnam,
>		 1992.  p. 116-117

Thanks for the correction, Cathi. I had forgotten about this, and 
apparently so had Ted. Tsk, tsk...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Reply-To: kahlers@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: NA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:37:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.152922.1191@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
|> In article <C0IBst.F62@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
|> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> 
|> >If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
|> >fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
|> >and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
|> >OK to terminate before but not after ?)
|> 
|> It's a question of drawing borders, of defining the physical area in which
|> our government protects people and controls events.  There's little
|> difference between a child born a mile south of the Mexico-America line
|> and a child born north of it, except that we'd protect one as a citizen
|> and deport the other as an alien; who 'counts' is an arbitrary question,
|> and given that, I strongly advocate drawing the line on the near side of
|> women's wombs.

I think who 'counts' is not an arbitrary question.  Both clearly 'count'.
However,the consequences (death/termination) to the child/non-child seem
to be more drastic and as such I advocate his/her rights as being the
controlling factor.

|> 
|> Whether it's 'OK to terminate' is a matter of private morality; I'd say
|> no, not ever.  But I want to see abortion kept legal as a women's freedom,
|> and as the best of several bad choices given shitty socioeconomic realities.
|>

 I think almost all of societies rules in some way address a collective
morality or set of ethics and in the case of abortion I hope society eventually
recognizes rights for the unborn.

BTW I agree that abortion is usually socially and economically advantageous
as are several other actions I think should be regulated by society.

 
mike
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54018 alt.abortion.inequity:6281
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Killing a "wanted child?"? Seems okay if ONLY the man wants "it"...
Date: 4 Jan 1993 05:45:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>>> In article <1fohrnINN47o@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
>>>> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>> >>Every child a wanted child -- by *BOTH* of its natural parents.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>> >You don't mean that a child who is wanted by one parent -- who is
>>>> >willing and able to provide for it -- should be killed, do you?

>>>So are you REALLY saying that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion when
>>>ONLY the MAN, who is "one parent," wants the child and is willing to support
>>>the child?

>>I don't consider an abortion "killing a child".

>Then why did you say, in response to Kevin's "Every Child A Wanted Child,"
>that "You don't mean that a child .... should be killed, do you?"?

>What else did you mean by "should be killed?", then?  I take it that you
>don't think that Kevin was implying that children should be killed *after*
>birth, because I have seen *nobody* here, saying this.

That is precisely what I thought he was implying.  After all, he *didn't* 
say "every foetus a wanted foetus".  Note that I *did* say "killed" rather 
than "aborted".
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:47:38 GMT

in a post where he repeats the same old lie which he's
been repeating for months.....

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand
->throughout the term of pregnancy.  

this statement is not correct.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Equal rights
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.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 04:05:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.031346.10375@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1298@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.021250.25307@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>#In article <1276@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>##In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>##[deletions]
>>###BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>>###willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?
>>##
>>##I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
>>##I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
>>##right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
>>##in their quest for absolute equality.
>>#
>>#Um, Susan...
>>#This *is* possible...
>>#All you need isa surrogate mother, and an in vitro fertilization, and
>>#a little luck in the implantation...
>>
>>Sorry, Mark, I've decided to be ridiculous about this.  Your reply
>>makes perfect sense, so I have to reject it.
>>
>>You've involved a third person.  I want to see support for a woman's
>>right to have her biological child with only the help of a willing
>>SO.  Otherwise, things wouldn't be exactly equal.
>
>Well, this is pretty far fetched, but...
>
>Take a lesbian couple.  Extract the DNA from one woman.  Implant it into an egg
>from the other woman.  Place the egg back into the other woman...

Not so far fetched, the technology to do this is already present.
But it still invovles a third party, (the entire staff involved in the
fertilization) and Susan said she won't let  us do that.

How about this: Extract a cell from one woman, clone it, and implant
the developing embryo in the same woman. Since we're counting the
clinic staff as one party, that doesn't involved a third party.
How's that sound Susan?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your emplyer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why is vengance Anti Military?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:33:04 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
] 
] >psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:

Paul, You might want to talk to you boy here....

] 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.  Pro-life means that I don't think it is up to anyone
] to decide for anyone ELSE what a "meaningful life" means, or to
] decide if that person has the "potential" for "meaninful life".


so Ed, you don't mind if we get personal here.

but why are you anti_military?


ciao
drieux

ps: is this where we get to talk about Close Air Support,
Co_ordinated artillery fire.....




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:16:06 GMT

In article <markp.726781736@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>In <1993Jan11.182448.456@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>In article <markp.726771489@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>>>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com
>>>>(Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>>>>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>>>>>the conception.
>>>>>Which IS an important difference.
>>>>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!
>>>But it is to the mother.
>>Irrelevant, if you're a pro-lifer. The poor, helpless, _defenseless_
>>z/e/f couldn't possibly help the circumstances of its conception. Why
>>are you punishing it by denying it your supposed right to reside in
>>a woman's uterus for nine months?
>I'm not. I'm balancing it's rights with the rights of the mother --
>the extent of which DOES depend on the circumstances of conception.
So consent to sex-->consent to pregnancy-->loss of the right to control
	one's own body. Gee, Mark, didn't you say before that
	"No serious ethical questions are this absurdly simple"?

You've just _got_ to muddle this up a bit. :-)

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:23:48 GMT

In article <1ijeitINNr6g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>[tirade deleted]
>
>Why thank you so much, Kevin.  After reading all that Freud I was still so
>puzzled by what it is that women really want.  (It's hard to decipher such
>astute masculine logic when one's puny brain suffers from estrogen-induced
>hysteria.)  But now you've made it all so clear to me.  And just as soon
>as I finish my PhD at Caltech I'll go back to being barefoot and pregnant
>in the kitchen, which you've just informed me is every woman's true desire.

INTELLECTUAL COWARD! Only PART of my article was, er, passionate enough to 
be considered a "tirade". You're using that part as an excuse to avoid the
rest of the article, which was a solid frontal attack on the alleged 
"logic" behind the current paternity child support laws. 

Here is a summary of the intellectual points you're trying to run away from:

	1) The goal, which you have endorsed, of ensuring that every child is 
	   supported is essentially a socialist goal. The capitalist paradigm
	   would let the children starve.

	2) The "pure" lottery system I proposed to meet that goal would be
	   far more efficient than the de facto "genetic lottery" system we
	   have now, yet you dismiss it for no coherent reason. 

	3) Genetic similarity isn't really a solid foundation for ANY kind of
	   social policy.

	4) The method of scapegoating one segment of the population for
	   universal problems is a favorite tactic of fascists and other
	   opportunists. Men are currently being scapegoated for the problem 
	   of illegitimate children. Compare the Old South's attempt to 
	   "solve" its economic problems through the institution of slavery,
	   or Hitler's attempts to blame all of Germany's problems on Jews. 
	   Is this the precedent we want to follow?

	5) The current paternity child support situation is a legal aberration,
	   in that it PRETENDS to assign child support liability according to
	   personal responsibility, but conveniently "overlooks" the unilateral
	   choices made between conception and childbirth -- choices that are
	   not only important as incrementally liability-attracting, but 
	   particularly important in that they represent the Last Clear Chance
	   for anyone to avert the social expense of bringing an illegitimate
	   child into the world. The only thing propping up the continuation
	   of this aberration are special interests. 

If you ever grow a backbone, and decide you do actually want to address ISSUES,
Michal, I'll still be waiting here...

								- Kevin
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: does dodie approve of chaneyhall's and suzanne's attack of patrick's wife?
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:30:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: William's Marsh

On 9 Jan 93 21:48:23 GMT, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) said:

>In article <1993Jan9.172802.7769@ncsu.edu>
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>-> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>-> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>-> lifers. 

>prove it, unless you're just lying again as you so often
>have in the past.

I know where I'd put my money on that bet...:-)

>since you seem to have defended suzanne's attack of
>patrick's wife, do you approve of her tactics?

>do you approve of chaney's tactics in attacking
>patrick's wife?

Of course he does -- he's too cowardly to do it himself.  He's too cowardly
to even respond to anything I direct at him.  It's much easier to let
someone else do the attacking, and defend them.

--PLH.  Anyone want a cold?  I'm tired of the one I have...
--
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Yes, it *is* killing:  IN SELF DEFENSE (was: Re: You ARE killing)
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:19:03 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Dec29.173600.14785@fuug.fi> an4149@anon.penet.fi writes:
>The majority homeless and poor in our society would not be able to survive if 
>it were not for outside intervention of some form, we should therefore be able
>to terminate their life when they become an inconvenience.

You clueless... look.  Are the homeless living in your womb, distending your
belly, sucking blood nutrients out of you, dumping hormones into your
bloodstream that make your chest swell painfully?  Do the homeless make you
pee every 20 minutes?  Do the homeless rest painfully on a nerve within your
body that makes every tiny step a symphony of hurt?  And in nine months will 
the homeless burst from your scrotum/vagina in a cacaphony of pain and blood?

All the above has happened to pregnant women, especially the last.  All this,
and much, much, much more.

Do you GET IT NOW, fool?

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:12:49 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <C0BJBH.45q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>A fetus is *not* independent; it requires the processed resources of 
>>the mother.  

>Wrong. A viable fetus does not need the processed resources "of the mother"
>specifically -- it can survive off of processed resources from various sources.
>In this sense it is not dependent on a specific person. This is a form of
>independence.

I did not say "viable fetus" I just said "fetus".  I will agree that a
*viable* fetus could be removed (induced labor, usually) and sustained by
other means (which tend to be rather expensive).  (just to clarify this for
those who are following along)  I have heard many times (in t.a) that
relatively few abortions are performed after viability, and I don't fight
as hard to support them.

>I would also suggest that perhaps you should procure a better dictionary.
>I'm too lazy to type the whole thing in, but in my OED, the subsection of
>the "autonomy" entry dealing specifically with biological meanings of the
>word gives a couple of quotes -- one which refers to the branches of a
>tree having "autonomy", and one which refers to the different types of
>body tissue (muscles, nerves, etc.) as having "autonomy". If these things
>have "autonomy", wouldn't a viable fetus have it too?

First of all, as an American, I don't want to turn to an *English* dictionary
to find definitions of words as I see them used around me.  ;)  Second of all,
I don't have room for a really large all-knowing, all-powerful dictionary,
and I probably couldn't afford it anyway.  My dad got a free *unabridged*
Random House dictionary (longer title than that, but I forget it exactly),
but it is a few hudred miles away from my network access.  And besides, many
of those definitions you cited are obviously out of the context of this
discussion.  Since you are the one making bodily autonomy arguemnts (aren't
you?  I'm getting a bit confused), I would hope that you would understand
the context meant by "bodily autonomy" (as opposed to "organ autonomy" or
"tissue autonomy").

>								- Kevin

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:46:56 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


---
cj wrote:
|>"Sorry this causes you conniption fits.  But it's reality.  Lump it."?

Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
|Why so sarcastic and insulting?  Do you support my right as a father to
|declare I don't want the child before it is born and thus be absolved of
|any responsibility for raising it?  

Text you deleted from the quoted post:

	She can abort without his approval.  She can bring to
	term without his approval (though in this case I feel
	she has no right to any support from him, subject to
	some conditions).

Does that answer your question?  Try reading more carefully next
time.

|Also, if it were as simple as "it's reality", I don't think
|there would be such a hot debate not only here but
|internationally going on about it.

Do you deny the reality that women gestate while men contribute
sperm?  Do you deny the reality that it's women who get pregnant,
and not men?

There's a hot debate because men *can't* legally absolve themselves
right now.  There's a hot debate also because divorces & custody
disputes can be nasty & unpleasant, and one side often confuses
child support with alimony.  They rant & rave against the child
support because they want to hurt their ex-partner.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:29:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan12.043511.7335@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
> In article <1993Jan12.013918.9500@ncsu.edu>
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>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.

> You have yet to show any evidence that there is a child in any womb.
> All I've ever found in them is a z/e/f.

Mark, don't look now, but, um, there's a guy behind you holding a
dictionary.  I can't be sure, but I suspect he's going to look up
the word 'child' and show you that the second definition is "an
unborn offspring".  If he's really sharp, he might note that the
word comes from a root that means "a swelling up ... rounded (sense
development: swelling--womb--fetus--offspring)".  Unfortunately, it's
just as likely that he's going to scream and rant and insult you
and ask you if you want to be an "abortion doctor" when you
"grow up".

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion