HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:41:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

Basically, my objections to abortion are based soley on my religious point
of view.  Given that I've formed this view soley on religion, I don't feel
that I can impose it on other people who do not accept the same set of
religiouns 'truths' that I do.

As a member of a society which was founded on the concepts of basic
liberty, I believe that each person is entitled to do what they think best
so long as it does not interfere with another person's rights.  When it
does, the government (legal system) is the usual arbitrator, though there are 
other methods of arbitration.

In any event, our laws protect the rights of citizens and aliens living
here.  Clearly, all born persons have a demonstrable set of rights that 
are protected.  Prior to viability, there is, as far as I can tell, little
that would give a fetus liberty interests that outweighed the woman's.
After viability, there are more questions, and the conflicts in liberty
ineterests need to be resolved.

I come down on the side of the woman to exercise her choice prior to
viability, and believe that post-viability abortions should only be
performed to save the life of the mother.  This is how I'd like to
see the law handle the sitution - no restrictions prior to viabilty, and
heavy restrictions after (ie only to save the life of the mother).

But, if the choice is between no abortions and late-term abortions, I'll
take the option of making abortions available.

I've always said that law will never, ever stop abortions, no more than 
prohibition stopped drining, or the War on Drugs(tm) drug use.  I prefer
education (sex & birth control), adoption, counselling, availability of
birth control, etc, etc.  All of these combined will reducde the number of
abortions...and isn't that what the pro-life goal should be?

What I'm trying to say is that 'pro-life' people are fighting the wrong
way.  Making abortion illegal just won't work.  You need to fight the cause
(poverty, lack of knowledge, cost, etc, etc).  Until you adress the basic
causes, you'll be fighting a losing battle.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:46:13 GMT

In <sfLaKdu00WBMM0YX1o@andrew.cmu.edu>
   Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >

>Of course, it is possible to feel immense guilt if you feel you should.
>That fact that there do exist women who so brainwashed that they would
>feel guilty about having an abortion has no implications for either the
>morality of abortion or the feelings of a normal woman who has an
>abortion.  

To imply that "normal" women shouldn't feel guilty about an 
abortion suggests that you know how women should or shouldn't 
feel.  You're shooting "choice" in the foot here.  If a woman 
decides that abortion is wrong for her, it's no one's business 
but hers, right?  If, in a desperate moment, she has an abortion 
anyway, she's likely to have some subsequent guilt.  That doesn't 
make her abnormal, that just makes her someone struggling to be
true to her ideals, i.e. human.  Let people choose their own 
values.  That's what choice is all about.

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57419 talk.politics.misc:69300 talk.religion.misc:27303 misc.legal:23131
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:25:17 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan16.163714.17827@mtu.edu>, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>> In article <90302@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>> It is NOT government's place to go around defining moral and ethical
>> issues.
>
>But it is certainly one of the functions of government to define
>what immoral and unethical actions will be prohibited.  
No.  It is up to the PEOPLE to define what things we will allow the
government to do.  We define those things that we wish enforced.

>We prohibit murder.  We prohibit kidnapping.  We prohibit fraud.  Every 
>one of these is defining a punishment for an action that most people
>consider to be immoral and unethical.  
Each of these is a violation of a persons rights.  You are punishing for
a violation of the right to life, liberty, etc, etc.

>If you buy the argument that
>an embryo is human life from conception, then abortion is murder,
>and it is therefore just as appropriate for governmental action as
>any other murder.  If you don't buy this argument, then it's not
>murder.  But governments, BY DEFINITION, are engaged in forcing
>the morals of one group on another.  
No, they are not.  Our government, by definition, is given a limited set of
rules that define its function (the Constitution).  The people established
the government to protect their rights...and limited the governemnts
ability to take more power.  Too bad it didn't work...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Will the Randall Terriers start to bite?
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:40:15 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C1AAnM.99J@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The next Big Event in the never-ending controvesy over abortion will be
>the passage of the FOCA. If (actually when) then happens, what will the
>active anti-aborts do? Will they reveal their true colors and embark on a
>compaign of bombing and burning abortion clinics? Will they begin the
>overt harassment of doctors and other medical personel who partake in
>abortions?

Some are already doing all of that.  Where have you been?--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:19:35 GMT

In <1993Jan19.063758.19883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>[Lots of idiocy from Dr Giggles deleted to save your stomache]

>Actually, many would say you'd have to do considerable climbing to
>reach the level Susan occupies, PHoney.
>Come on, you can do it. Drag yourself out of that little cesspool you
>call a mind...

Anyone can say such things about anybody.  The trick is to back them
up.

Like I do the charge that you are a fundamentally dishonest person:

{From a post made yesterday:}
 the present
state of the art in re C-sections.  Mark Cochran and you should
discuss these things.  When last I saw anything by him on this matter,
he was laboring under the serious delusion that *all* deliberate pregnancy 
terminations are by either C-section or early inducement of labor past
the 26th week, with the intent of a live birth.  

He never did specify whether 26 was from fertilization or 
LMP, but what can you expect from someone who *twice* gets
wrong the relationship between digoxin and digitalis, then accuses *me*
of being ignorant by THEN, ON THIRD TRY, hauling out a reference book
and saying something totally different from what he said on the first 
two tries!! And to top it off, what he wrote does NOT contradict anything
*I* wrote, but merely adds details to it!!

"...de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace...!"

He seems to live by this slogan of Danton even more than Lefty does.
Do you wonder why I do so much flaming, when I am the
target of such obviously dishonest tactics?

{End of excerpt}

Since I last saw Mark make the audacious "26 week" claim, I have
posted clear evidence that either a baby was aborted by Tiller no
earlier than 26 1/2 weeks after fertilization, or Susan Garvin
was mistaken (unless she was lying) about a certain woman being a
patient of Tiller.  I am still waiting for Mark and Susan to resolve
this little disagreement between them.

Tiller uses an abortion technique incompatible with using the
lungs, liver, and kidneys of the unborn child in question for
transplantation to save the lives of up to four wanted babies.

He also disposes of the remains in an incinerator.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Errors are legit!!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:13:26 GMT

The problems with my site I mentioned are for real.  I have trouble
sometimes no matter what group I'm in.  I'm not making up glitches to cover
up flaming someone.

I never meant to post that article.

The terminal I was one DID lock up, and when I said I slipped and hit 'send',
I didn't realize I had sent it until I saw it on the net that evening.

I left the lab thinking I had junked it.  And now the system has lock up
twice while I was making an attempt to find and cancel the article.

I've posted outrageous things on the net, but I swear I would never have
deliberately posted something like that.  The worst I've posted lately have
been jokes about Clinton.

From the moment I started posting the article, I fully intended on junking
it when I was done.

This is not an 'I was only kidding' after the fact message.  I thought by
expaining what happened it would be better than to simply ignore it.

Let me clarify something from the beggining of the post: I logged off
Monday morning honestly thinking I had hit abort.

Think about it:who would post something like that with their name all over
it?

I do not deny that I edited that message.  But I am saying it here and now
that it was a mistake that it ever got out.

I admit, it was a stupid mistake.  If I knew this would happen I would

I'm angry with myself that I did something like this without even trying.
That something as stupid on my part as a slipped keystroke could cause all
this trouble.
                       ,
When I saw the original, my emotions got out of hand, so to vent my fustrations
I decided to edit the message into an ultra-negative anti-abortion message,
but like I said, at the same time planned on junking it when finished.
In fact, I've done this a couple of times before, typed a flame message
only to junk it upon cooling off, never planning to send it in the
first place.

Again I say, this is not a case of 'covering one's ass', so to speak, after
getting into trouble.  In a nutshell, this is my sincere apology to
pro-life and pro-choice persons alike.  I feel pretty rotten that a
stupid mis-typed keystroke has caused so much damage.

Put simply, I f--ed up, and I freely admit it.  I'm trying to apologize,
and I hope this is taken seriously.

Like I said, I've done some outrageous things on the net, but I swear
absolutely that this is the honest truth, totally on the level.


I reget what I did, I am truly sorry.

To all reading this, please accept my apology.  I wished there was more that
I could do.

I feel like I've started the net version of a nuclear war because of human
error.
I am sorry.  If I could go back to Monday morning I would stop myself from
ever checking talk.abo
This is for real.  I would never lie about my personal feelings.

Simon

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:19:08 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

> = jj6707@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
>> = regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Well, Paul, I am a DEFINITE human life.  And no other DEFINITE human 
>> life gets to use my body against my will.  NONE.  Reconcile that.

>Adrienne,
>   It's a damn good thing no one aborted you, or you wouldn't even be able to
>have this discussion.  How about giving others the chance to be born
>and do the same things you can do?

Great idea!  Let's run with it.  Just think of all those innocent little 
sperms & eggs that never had their chance!

All together now:
  every sperm is sacred
  every sperm is great
  if a sperm gets wasted
  god gets quite irrate!

Now be fruitful and multiply!  
Ban birth control now!
Everything that could be, should be!
And, as an added bonus, the more people we get on this planet, the better
the chance that one of them will figure out how to deal with overpopulation.
Gee, this is all starting to make sense.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:06:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.071723.22079@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>>> Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] 
>>> right to bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

>> For months now, I've been trying to get a pro-choicer to explain why 
>> abortion is morally justified even when it violates the child's right 
>> to bodily autonomy.  

> Can you explain why abortion is morally proscribed even when it
> DOESN'T violate the fetus's right to bodily autonomy?  

As I told Ms. Regard, anti-abortionists generally have premises 
which lead them to oppose abortion regardless of the failings of
pro-choice premises such as 'bodily autonomy'.  I have always
felt that parents should be held responsible for the well-being
of their children.

>Ray Fischer


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:28:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172920.12113@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <C0xtt6.F3u.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
>> In article <1993Jan15.211701.5938@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> #From article by ai245@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Thomas):
>> # 
>> ## Does anyone believe there is such a disease characterized by depression,
>> ## nightmares, etc., which could last for a liftime?  This theory is being
>> ## touted on another board by Anti-choice folk.
>> ## 
>> ## Chris
>> #
>> #Yes, of course.  Why else would programs like "Project Rachel" be growing
>> #so large so quickly?
>> 
>> How large?  How quickly?
>> 
>> Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Suzanne.  She won't have any actual
>> data to back up her claims.  Never mind.
>
>What do you care.  It's mere continued existance in cities across the country
>prove the existence of Post Abortion Syndrome.
>
Oh. Then the existence of groups in cities across the country which
believe that aliens visist the earth regularly proves that it is true.
And the existance of people across the country who believe that Elvis
lives proves that it is so.
Quite an amazing display of faulty logic, Madam Mucous.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58041 talk.politics.misc:69888 talk.religion.misc:27621 misc.legal:23346
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:32:00 -0500
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <14044@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># 
># Um... Just a thought...
># 
># You're neglecting the fact that the sexual revolution took place
># during this time period, aren't you?
># 
># -- Mike
>
>What caused the sexual revolution?  The availability of birth
>control pills, and an abolition of laws restricting access to
>birth control.  So why has the number of unwanted pregnancies
>gone UP?  This is quite the opposite of what you would expect,
>isn't it?
>-- 

Well, I'm not so sure I agree with your definition of the cause.

I think it was more that women began to assert themselves, and
both birth control and the sexual revolution were offshoots of
the feminist movement, among other things going on at the time
(social upheaval, dissent over war, anti-establishmentism).

Why have they gone UP? Well, perhaps because people aren't taught
enough about their bodies, and don't understand how to use birth
control properly (or in some cases, at all).

I'm not really sure what I'd expect... My point is that legali-
zation of substances on your personal "Evil list" aren't the
only reason the unwanted pregnancy rate has gone up. You're
neglecting alot of social and cultural events that happened in
close proximity to these events.

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:53:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.023357.28403@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Between the anti-white, anti-male people like Adrienne Regard; the
>liars and racists like Patrick Humphrey; the liars and pranksters like
>Scott Roby; people like james g. keegan jr. who can't find the SHIFT,
>CAPS or CAPSLOCK keys; the irate, threat-mongering, religious fanatics
>like Mark Kaufman who hide their fanaticism behind their expressed
>dedication to the First Amendment, and who cannot help but bash
>Christians, pro-life women, Muslims, etc., all the while being unable
>to control his bladder nor his CAPS LOCK key; Theocrats like Susan
>Garvin, who says that it is not wrong for someone to be pro-choice
>because of their religion but yet it is wrong to be pro-life because
>of their religion; Catholic-bashers like Ren 'n Stimpy's Love Child
>(you know, that little pile of boogers that the netnews servers sneeze
>onto the system every now and then); Rocker, whose three pro-choice
>daughters aren't WORTH touching and whom you'd better watch your back
>around if you ever get any pro-life laws enacted near her area; Scott
>Safier, our resident Communist Bill of Rights-Buster who thinks
>outlawing guns will disarm the criminals and protect the innocent; and
>all the other neanderthals who blasted Siren because she was different
>(translation: she had a brain)....
>
>
>I have one thing to say:
>
>		    These people need a LOBOTOMY.

and a while back, Steve wrote:

In article <1993Jan5.193435.8338@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A
Chaney) writes:

>I have never raved.

Nope.  He never does...   :-)


I am honored to be at Number Three on the Chaney Hit Parade.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Blatant SAT double standards: MUST READING FOR PRO-LIFERS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:47:26 GMT

In <1993Jan16.050135.11998@samba.oit.unc.edu> Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:

>In article <nyikos.726606775@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>You know damn well that the request to post SAT scores is bait for a trap.

>Strange taste you have in bait.

>>The trap: any pro-lifer who posts his/her SAT scores is a legitimate
>>target of ridicule for the rest of his/her net.life.  

>No, Peter; any person who would boast of mediocre SAT scores decades after 
>the fact already *is* ridiculous.

Sounds like you are describing one of the people I have in mind below. 
There are several relevant ways in which the above statement of yours
does not describe me, but Brian Kendig has convinced me that it is not
worth going into detail about this any more.

>>On the other hand, I can document cases of pro-choicers posting their 
>>SAT scores and getting off scot free.  

>Please do.

Ms. Demitrio, your selective deletions have erased the last shred of doubt
in my mind that you belong on the list of people who require mountains
of evidence to even entertain seriously the possibility that Susan Garvin
has said a lie in this newsgroup, while her say-so is enough to convince
you that anyone she accuses of lying is actually lying.

If you ever wish to be taken off this list, it will *not* be enough to merely
ask to be taken off; you must post documentation to show that you do
not belong.

Peter Nyikos, a.k.a. "PHoney", a moniker due to Susan "psychotic" Garvin.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc