HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:19:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.040617.6347@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
> In article <lefty-030992145928@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust
> >(John Stevens) wrote:
> >> 
> >> We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
> >> fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
> >> the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
> >> picture.
> >
> >I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, John, but does the name
> >Carol Anne Quinlan ring a bell by any chance?
> 
> No?  Well how about Karen Ann Quinlan then?  :-)

That's the right name Sarah, but whoever chose Karen Quinlan
picked a poor example.  She was not executed, but rather the
"heroic measures" that had been applied to preserve her
life were removed.  That amounts to quite a difference in
legal terms.  An execution being an active taking of a life
and the withholding of life support being a passive matter
that may or may not end a life.  In the case of Karen Quinlan,
she continued to breathe and live on her own after the
machines were turned off.  I don't recall if or when she
finally died.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Time Poll
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:26:26 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle):
>> In article Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>>>A woman should be able to get an
>>>abortion no matter what the reason             49%

>> Count me right here.

>> The reason is NONE of my business, none of YOUR business.

>It certainly IS the unborn child's business.

Then let him/her say something about it. What? You don't hear an objection?
Carry on.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations: Dan Dick Question
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:14:31 EST
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep3.204116.10797@pony.Ingres.COM>, dan@Ingres.COM
 (Daniel J. Dick) writes: 
> On a slightly different topic, have any of you seen the Nightline interview
> of Bailey who is running for Congress on a pro-life platform?  Apparently
> he has taken hold of the law prohibiting the television censorship of
> campaign ads and has used it to bring to the people in full color a clear
> view of the products of abortion.  A living, smiling baby was shown first
> followed by a shrivled up late-term aborted baby, slightly brown and slightly
> pale slumped over in a corner.  Tiny, bloody hands and feet were shown.
> Someone--perhaps a physician--using white plastic tweezers reassembled a
> small child on an off-white board--a leg here, an arm there, half a head
> with an eye still in place over on the upper right, etc.
> 
> One man was suing over the distress this could bring to children, however
> he didn't have an answer for why these ads were being singled out instead
> of other grotesque shows on T.V.  A pro-choice feminist challenged the
> honesty of his ads saying that a tiny fetus was blown up to cover the whole
> screen.  But what could be said?  It was there in color for the world to
> see.
> 
> I believe these ads are beginning to spread and are here and there in spotted
> places in several states across the country.  Do any of you have any thoughts
> on this and what is likely to become of it?

My thought, "Sensationalism". It would make more sense to me for a politician
who is running for County Coroner to show footage of the slicing and dicing
done during autopsies. At least this would be much more job related and attempt
to show the quality of his departments work.
On the flip side, his opponent may show someone hacking up a body to show
the lack of quality.

How long before we see a National Enquirer headline like "Child attempts to
reassemble infant sibling s/he dissected, says s/he saw it on TV".
..or is that DOD logic? - J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Gag Rule (was Re: The Nurturing Network 1-800-TNN-4MOM
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:54:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.204836.12151@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago):

>> Nothing. What the hell is WRONG with informing pregnant women what
>> abortion services they're entitled to? 

>These are not private agencies and they wish to use tax money in doing
>the informing.   There is no restriction where they do not insist on
>using our tax money to do it.    That's 'what the hell is WRONG' with it.

Well, I'm a taxpayer too (you said "our tax money") and it doesn't
bother me. You could think of it as them using "Vickie's" money, not
yours. 

Vickie
Anti-abortion, Pro-adoption, Pro-birth control, Pro-sex education, Pro-life
    
    *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***   *** PRO-CHOICE ***
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:16:22 GMT

In <oealXgC00Uh_A8qGBD@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes
>>#In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
>>#Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
>>#yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
>>#Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus. 

For once Mr. Loomis and I are in agreement: there is no moral distinction.
Beyond that, we diverge to opposite sides of the fence.

>># In particular,
>>#why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>>#a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
>>#The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
>>#reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
>>#greater pain.

I would support euthanasia in cases of truly uncontrollable and agonizing
and permanent pain, from womb to tomb.  I also doubt that there are more 
than a few hundred cases like this in the whole United States, whose pain
cannot even be controlled with heroin (a much more potent painkiller than
morphine, and one I would legalize for exactly this purpose).


>Ms. Garvin, I am quite aware of the difference between infanticide and
>euthansia.  I am also aware that the difference can be quite fuzzy.  Why
>can't you be aware that the line between third trimester abortion is
>also quite fuzzy. Its fuzziness is not some plot devised by Mr.
>Holtsinger to upset "pro-choice" arguments.

Again Loomis and I agree, this time wholeheartedly.

>Perhaps, I should state my beliefs more clearly.  I believe infantcide
>for severely deformed infants is appropriate if it corresponds to the
>wishes of the parents.

Sorry, "severely deformed" does not make it in my book.  To see what
does, look at my comments on euthanasia.

>  I believe in the era before modern medicine,
>infanticide was in some cultures the safest way for women to kill an
>unwanted child. 

Absolutely, including our own culture until some point in the 19th
century.

>MIchael Loomis

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:45:04 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  <1992Sep4.153416.763@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.130926.14666@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> > even if I did my own investigation and came up with the same answer
> > reported on 60 Minutes and in the Minneapolis StarTribune,
>
> The Minneapolis StarTribune quoted the National Abortion Federation,
> which looks like a pro-abortion organization.

I don't understand how you can be discussing sources which support my
statements when you still claim that the statements are unsupported.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:05:46 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <92241.214449ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes a long and fairly
hostile response to some ideas I posted for discussion.  I clearly
stated in the original post that I personally do not support
post-viability restrictions on the right to choose abortion.  Yet Ms.
Birmingham deletes the statement of this opinion and directs hostile
questions about potential reasoning for supporting these restrictions
to me.  I wonder if her deletion of my opinion is an indication that
these matters should not even be discussed in her opinion.  I oppose
such censorship.  In addition, she misrepresents my representation of
the point-of-view that supports such restrictions, suggesting for
example, that opposing post viability abortions is the same as wanting
to punish women for sex.  I believe this is incorrect, and that one
basis for post-viability restrictions, which I do not support, could
be the reasoning, clearly stated in my original post, that the women
has entered into an implied contract by allowing the pregancy to
continue.  I think she may have a reading comprehension problem if she
thinks that a statement that continuing a pregnancy creates an
obligation is the same as a statement that consenting to sex creates
an obligation to carry to term.  They are not the same.  Her hostility
seems to suggest that these issues should not even be discussed; is
there some reason for this?

SJM
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: IT WAS ONLY A DEBATING DEVICE...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:47:37 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
-> 
->    I have been accused of bargaining with women's
-> rights.  I must explain what took place.  I had
-> suggested, mostly in jest, a swap with the
-> compulsary pregnancy pushers.  I implied that I
-> would be willing to outlaw all late term abortions
-> if any anti-abortionist types agreed to allow ALL
-> women unrestricted access to early term abortions.
-> This was nothing more than a device to see what
-> folks would say.  This is NOT a reflection of my
-> feelings about choice.  While I may unresolved
-> feelings about the financing of abortions, I am
-> consistent in my support of abortion on request for
-> each and every American woman, regardless of
-> circumstance.  It is nobody's business but hers.  To
-> force any woman to give birth, against her will, is
-> one of the most repugnant things that I can think
-> of.  I would also like to that the gentleman who
-> suggested that I should clarify my position.  I can
-> see how someone might have gotten the wrong idea.

i thought it was something along those lines. i'm glad
you posted this. it'll make it quite difficult for
someone to misrepresent your position.


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:02:33 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <BtKotw.HGH.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>[self-righteousness and included text deleted]
>
>#In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
>#Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
>#yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
>#Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
>#why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
>#a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
>#The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
>#reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
>#greater pain.
>
>Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
>to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
>from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
>differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
>woman and is affecting her health.

If I swallow your pearls, are they mine, Susie? The "inside the woman" 
argument is simplistic and ill-formed. Please reformulate.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: been In Thearpy Long?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:38:52 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

[ DearOldbill's WhineFest about possible unpleasantness... ]

It is so good to see bill Back amongst us again,
drifting around in his post....

to 'flippantly' suggest that someone see their therapist
in general parlance is to denote that said object of
flippancy is short a few cards, is firing on all six
cylinders of their V-8 engine....

That you have be come so angstladen about the possible
potential that someone somewhere might in some manner
or in some situation construe this to indicate that 
there are persons that might be denigrated by this,
suggests a hypersensitivity to the subject....

Or in Short, been off the ward long?


ciao
drieux


ps: and Yes, I understand 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest'
from a first hand tour on tripler army hospital's psych ward, 
in '67....

So Get off it Bill.

Keep the PsychoBabble Angst for your therapists, the 
card Carrying SANE don't really worry all that much....


PPS: Yes, I have been twice certified Sane to stand trial...
Any of the rest of you loonies got a CARD Verifying yours?????

PPPS: and since you asked: Yes my Dick Is Bigger....




-- 
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,alt.usage.english,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Clearing Up More Term Usage
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:32:26 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] > We Understand that BeZerkley is still behind the time ...
] 
] Heck, they never got over the Free Speech Movement!

That's What's gone wrong with this country!
they want everything to Be Free!

Why if they were Decent Folks they would buy
a media outlet, a couple of judges, a few
senators and maybe a president or two!

There are No Free Lunches! [1]


ciao
drieux

[1] void where local tax laws allow for
such expenses as acrue in the normal course
of doing business, and are hence a part of 
the process of creating jobs for those folks
who are too poor to own memberships in the club.



-- 
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: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Challenge (WAS THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:08:19 GMT


In article <0eaiZKe00Uh748UVho@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
[self-righteousness and included text deleted]

#In the meantime, I would ask anyone thinking about repling to Mr.
#Novak's post  to consider why they would oppose infanticide and would
#yet support a third trimester abortion as described in this post by Mr.
#Ron Bense with Ms. Suzanne Forgach playing the chorus.  In particular,
#why is it good to permit a newborn infant whose short life will be only
#a painful torment to live and to kill a similar third trimester fetus? 
#The fetal idolators claim that abortion is painful to the fetus as a
#reason to oppose abortion.  Yet opposition to infanticide causes yet
#greater pain.

Supporters of legal abortion usually take this opportunity
to point out the fact that a third trimester fetus differs
from an infant in a very obvious way, leaving aside developmental
differences.  A third trimester fetus is living inside a
woman and is affecting her health.

[more included text deleted]

Ron wasn't talking about infanticide per se, he was talking about
euthanasia.  There is a rather large difference between the
two.  You seem to have them confused.  This makes you look
rather ridiculous, particularly given your attempts at flaming
Steve Novak.

Susan
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Night of the Living Kidney Analogy -- the Sequel
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:38:54 GMT

In <1992Aug21.000455.15996@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> In article rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson) writes:
>>>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>>>> [paraphrase:  parent not forced to donate kidney so no forced prenancy]
>> 
>>>The key word that makes the donation analogy fail is "continue".  The
>>>support has already begun.  Can a kidney donor unilaterally decide to
>>>take kidney back?

>My husband is a probation officer and a couple of years ago he had a
>probationer, who was on for a drug offense, who had in fact destroyed
>his kidneys with his drugs.   So, his loving brother donated a kidney
>to him.   By the time he was assigned to my husband's caseload, he had
>already destroyed this donated kidney as well with his drug habit, and was
>on CAPD self-dialysis, which takes ALOT of discipline as it is a 40 minute
>sterile procedure, 4 times a day!   It's either that or die.  For the rest of
>his life.  Because his brother has no more kidneys he can spare to donate
>to him.

All of which weakens the analogy with pregnancy even further.  The mother's
resources renew themselves after most childbirths, assuming she gets 
adequate health care.

>> --Teddi

>Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 19:56:02 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.715479538@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <24500@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>
> >Maybe, Doug, you'd care to list those organizations which you will accept
> >as unbiased sources, so that the rest of us won't have to submit 20,000
> >sources to finally get one that you can't write off as "sounds like
> >a pro-abortion organization." Unfortunately, any organization that supports
> >choice is by your definition a pro-abortion organization, no matter
> >what their actual stance is. So I imagine the only sources we'll see
> >you consider unbiased are pro-lie organizations
>
> Hear that, Dougie? Don't even think of quoting from a pro-life source,

Try reading what Ron wrote, Peter.  He was asking *Doug* what source *Doug*
would accept.  *Doug* isn't quoting from *any* source.  All *Doug* is
doing is whining that he doesn't like any of the sources that have been
presented in support of my statements.  I'd *love* to see Doug present
something factual.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Life... what a horrible joke.
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:52:19 GMT

Warning:
the following cases are depressingly tragic.
They are provided as an antidote to the blind 
cheeriness of the "Life - what a wonderful choice" ads.


In the past four months there have been two major news 
stories in the Delaware area concerning children killed 
by foster parents.  The stories were reported in the 
Wilmington newspaper and were likely carried by the 
Philadelphia Inquirer (although I do not get that paper).

Why were they in foster homes?  Because the mother in each 
case was single, poor, young, and drug-addicted.  The state 
took the kids from the mothers because they had been 
abandoned.

In one foster home, the child was drowned in the bath tub 
(after having a bowel movement) by the ex-convict boyfriend 
of the foster single mother (the foster care agency was 
unaware that the boyfriend frequently stayed over).

In the other foster home, the baby was dismembered and placed 
in the freezer.  I'm not sure what reason the foster 
mother gave for her murder of this child.

Meanwhile, in Time magazine, a couple is suing a foster care 
agency for giving them a baby without checking it for AIDS 
first.

Life... What a horrible joke.

Needless to say, the state foster care agency is being revamped.

Sorry for the sad, but true, cases.  I am reminded of them 
everytime I see one of these sacharin "Life" ads.

I don't think these cases are a strong argument for or against 
abortion-rights, but they do make me worry about crack-addicts too
oblivious to make choices and also about the probable increases in 
child abandonment if the abortion option were to be outlawed.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A DIRECT QUESTION FOR HOLTSINGER...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.003340.3223@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>>> Are there any circumstances under which you would support a
>>> woman's right to choose an abortion? (Choose one)
>>>
>>> A. Yes.
>>>
>>> B. No.
>>>
>>> C. I'm not telling.

>> I don't feel obligated to answer "yes" or "no" because the 
>> pro-aborts have a habit of misrepresenting my views.  I don't 
>> believe the Constitution should grant the right to an abortion 
>> under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I would 
>> support legislation which banned abortions. 

> In other words, your answer is `C.'

No, that's not my answer.  Read the question again: 
 
   Are there any circumstances under which you would support a
   woman's RIGHT to choose an abortion? 

Now read my answer:

   I don't believe the Constitution should grant the RIGHT to an 
   abortion under any circumstances, but that does not mean that I 
   would support legislation which banned abortions. 


>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)



Doug Holtsinger