HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:24:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.001408.15080@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.184822.25784@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>> So why doesn't the fetus have the right to bodily autonomy? 
>
>> 1) I'm only interested in granting personhood to intelligent
>> life forms. A fetus isn't one. Personhood is what gives one the
>> right to bodily autonomy.
>
>If you use intelligence as a criteria for personhood status, then 
>the late-term fetus and the newborn infant should have the same 
>personhood status.
You'll get no argument from me there. Now see (2).
They DO have the same personhood status, but they're not full
persons.

>> 2) Even if one were to grant that a fetus were a person, it's
>> right to bodily autonomy would be symmetric with the woman's right.
>> I.e. it would be permitted to request that it be separated from
>> the woman. I don't believe that a woman's right to be separated
>> from a fetus extends to the right to kill the fetus IN PRINCIPLE.
>>
>> However, in the case of early term abortions, the fetus's death
>> is a necessary consequence of removing it, so I see nothing
>> wrong with reversing the order. [Remember that I don't
>> buy into your distinction between letting a fetus die and killing it
>> in this instance.]
>
>This is for another thread. Right now I'm just trying to understand
>why some pro-choicers believe that a late-term (viable) fetus should 
>not possess the right to bodily autonomy.


>> The case of late term abortions is more of a problem. The way I see it,
>> the woman should be permitted to terminate the life of the fetus
>> in order to separate it, provided that this significantly reduces
>> the risk involved in the abortion. It's not clear that a D+E does
>> this, however. [And I don't really want to get into a debate
>> about whether it does or not. I don't think that's productive.]
>
>If the late-term fetus and the woman are both persons, then shouldn't
>they share the risk associated with detachment? Unless the late-term
>fetus is not a person, I can't see how you can completely discount the 
>risk of death to the fetus. 
I'm not prepared to grant a late term fetus full personhood status--clearly,
as I certainly don't intend for it to be permitted to vote, drive, etc.
I'm prepared to PROTECT it as a State decision provided that that
protection doesn't infringe upon the woman's health in a significant
fashion.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@cc.uow.edu.au (peter nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:25:51 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>Kellmeyer cited Nathanson as an authority on abortion.  Someone
>pointed out that Nathanson condemns kellmeyer's favorite rant
>in the same book which Kellmeyer cited.  

>The next chapter in Nathanson's book is "Specious
>Arguments for Abortion."  I agree that some of them
>are specious, and disagree that some of them are.  I
>don't have any big problem disagreeing with Nathanson,
>though, since I don't think he's an expert on anything
>other than making money off a social issue.

The book under discussion, _Aborting America_ was written back
in 1980 when Nathanson was still performing abortions himself, and
not yet a pro-lifer.  His opinions were still in a state of flux, as
even a superficial reading of the book shows.  Prior to that, he had,
as he put it, "presided over 60,000 [fetal] deaths."  Yes, he was 
making money off a social issue, but in the exact opposite way from
the way Susan Garvin would have you believe.

>I get the idea that you think it's perfectly natural and
>not at all a problem to ignore opposing viewpoints.  I
>think that this indicates extreme close-mindedness.
>I read as much as I have time to read, regardless of
>the bias of the author.

Either Susan did not have the time to read much of _Aborting
America_ or she is suffering from close-mindedness herself.
>Susan

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 10:52:49 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Well, count me in on the poster who says "He's obviously joking.
Answer" (see a previous posting.)

In article <1992Jul29.222215.18332@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.203528.17823@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>>you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>>level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>>the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

>I guess this means that I can't buy my date dinner either,
>because she might get food poisoning from the meal,
>or the cholesterol might clog her arteries!

>You know, he may be on to something! :) :) ;)

Now, I'm hardly implying that Mike is the one who's doing this, but
I'm sure someone is going to take it seriously (as did a previous
poster who commented that we "needed a clown").

Specifically, drieux's postings can never be taken at just one level.
He and I have had "exchanges" before (and usually quite amicable)
because I've come to realise that everything he said must be taken a)
at face value and b) rejected as a joke.

Take, for example, is recurrent theme (if you follow drieux's
postings) about heterosexuality and "finding a cure" for it.  From
what I know of drieux, I'd hardly claim that he's serious about
finding a cure for it as he's straight, himself (or, at least, I
hallucinated him giving me that impression.)  So, at a deep-down
level, it's a bit of a joke.

However, that doesn't mean he has nothing to say.  There really is
something to be said, here.  Drieux merely has a very unorthodox
method of expressing those ideas.  To go to the "find a cure" thing,
it immediately brings up images of people trying to "find a cure" for
homosexuality as if there was something wrong with being homosexual in
the first place.  It should start you thinking about what sexuality is
in the first place.  Before you can even begin to assess whether a
certain expression of sexuality is morally correct or not, you have to
know what that expression really is.  For every "reason" people have
to claim that homosexuality is wrong, drieux has an equally valid
"reason" as to why heterosexuality is wrong.

So is drieux joking?  Yes.

Is drieux serious?  Yes.

His simple comment about a male having sex with a female, thus
possibly causing conception, thus causing a significant threat to her
continued existence being, essentially, attempting to kill her covers
a whole lot of ground.  On the surface and way deep down, it's a joke,
but it's all that stuff inbetween that's interesting....

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
X-To: GALEN J. HEKHUIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:20:00 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
GJH> In article <1992Jul3.234153.21850@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves
GJH> <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
GJH> }judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein) writes...
GJH> }JA> When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
GJH> }
GJH> }Hmmm... perhaps so.  But that is ALSO quite one-sided.  Now try...
GJH> }
GJH> }When a woman loves a man, she respects his feelings and doesn't destroy a
GJH> }wanted child without even letting him into the discussion process.

GJH> Nope, it doesn't fit on one line, and doesn't have quite the same ring.  Tr
GJH> "Whether or not a man loves a woman, he considers her capable of choice."
GJH> 'Course, that may not fit your agenda...

'Course, that depends on what you think my agenda is...  :-)


GJH> }P.S.: Yes, I AM thinking about starting a support group for men who have b
GJH> }through this traumatic experience, but there are too many men who still tr
GJH> }to deny their emotions and act like nothing happened.  And if THAT doesn't
GJH> }stop them, they are afraid to come out about it because they will get ridi
GJH> }by friends and perhaps even threatened by the woman involved.

GJH> If there are so many people in denial, maybe you could make it illegal not
GJH> join your organization.

Hmmm.....  I'll give it a try, Galen.  :-)


GJH> That should appeal to both your lack of membership and your notion of
GJH> the purpose of the law!

That almost sounds a lot like Woody Allen saying "I wouldn't join any club
that would have me as a member".

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                  "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * realprogrammersdontusespacespunctuationorcaps
From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:02:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Jul28.005520.17198@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.061331.19284@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> (I) wrote:
>>In another article (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> But if a newborn infant can't be transferred to another person, then
>>> the infant would not be "autonomous" by the original definition, and
>>> the infant would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. People could
>>> kill infants by placing them in situations where only one person 
>>> could care for them.  
>>
>> Ok, four simple questions:
>>
>> Pre-infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>> Infants:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>> Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>> Pregnant Women:  Bodily autonomous or not?
>
>Since you're the one who's promoting the concept of bodily autonomy,
>why don't you tell me how your questions should be answered? 

I'm not going to tell you how those questions should be answered, but I
will tell you how I'd answer them.  (Get the distinction?)

P-i:  No
I:  Yes
W:  Yes
PW:  Yes

>
>Doug Holtsinger


>>-Richard
Recycle old sigs!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is NOT crazy, just confused?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:40:24 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

yoders@wittenberg.edu writes:

>> [I had set up a hypothetical legal situation:]
>> 
>>>> Suppose -- to set the stage further -- three laws have been passed:
>>>> 
>>>> Law 1 -- a z/e/f shall be entitled to the protection granted human
>>>> beings.
>>>> 
>>>> Law 2 -- no-one shall be required to make a big effort to preserve the
>>>> life of another human being unless he has done something to make
>>>> himself responsible for the life of that other human being [ . . . ]

>> If you want, I could modify my
>> stage-setting by adding at the end of Law 2 the statement "This Law 2
>> shall override Law 1 whenever the two would otherwise be in conflict."

>Your addition to law 2 would correct things and allow her to have an
>abortion.  But then again, this would pretty much nullify law 1 in
>almost any situation and allow for unrestricted abortions.

I don't see that at all, at least if you accept my view that pregnancy
is the forseeable consequence of coitus and that people are responsible
for the forseeable consequences of their actions.

>Most pro-choicers believe that abortion IS a responsible way to deal with
>pregnancy under some circumstances.  Under what circumstances is up to the
>mother (and any other person/party she chooses to involve).

I can only repeat what I said before:

>> If the z/e/f has a value anything like that of a human
>> life, then dealing with it in a responsible way would not include
>> destroying it.

-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.161719.26070@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.230839.14412@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>
>>> Then what is the justification for abortion?
>
>> Come on, Doug. We've done this many times. Straight out right to
>> bodily autonomy.
>
>So why doesn't the fetus have the right to bodily autonomy? 
1) I'm only interested in granting personhood to intelligent
life forms. A fetus isn't one. Personhood is what gives one the
right to bodily autonomy.

2) Even if one were to grant that a fetus were a person, it's
right to bodily autonomy would be symmetric with the woman's right.
I.e. it would be permitted to request that it be separated from
the woman. I don't believe that a woman's right to be separated
from a fetus extends to the right to kill the fetus IN PRINCIPLE.

However, in the case of early term abortions, the fetus's death
is a necessary consequence of removing it, so I see nothing
wrong with reversing the order. [Remember that I don't
buy into your distinction between letting a fetus die and killing it
in this instance.]

The case of late term abortions is more of a problem. The way I see it,
the woman should be permitted to terminate the life of the fetus
in order to separate it, provided that this significantly reduces
the risk involved in the abortion. It's not clear that a D+E does
this, however. [And I don't really want to get into a debate
about whether it does or not. I don't think that's productive.]

-Ekr
















-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:01:33 GMT

> = (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> = Larry writes:

>>    Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000          [legal]
>>    Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000          [legal]
>>    Prescribed drugs  . . . . . . .  18,675          [legal]
>>    Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
>>    Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,390          [illegal]
>>    Heroin  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,147          [illegal]
>>    Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . .     986          [legal]
>>    Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . .       0          [illegal]

>  Thanks.  A little math on the illegal substances brings that death rate
>to about 1.1 per 100,000 population, assuming somwehat less than 250 million
>population for the US.  It's only approximate, but I don't have a calculator
>handy.  Since not all 200+ million people in the US use illegal drugs, I reckon
>it's safe to assume that the rate for users in considerably higher.

Not all people use tobacco.  Not all people drink alky.  Not all people use
prescribed drugs...see?  

The rate for users of legal AND illegal drugs is considerably higher.

And, the war on drugs is phony crap to divert citizens' attention from the
real problems in this country.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:41:42 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>Seen in Saturday's paper ...

>The death rate from RU-486 is 1 per 100,000 women who have used the drug.

I'd be very interested in what the sample space was for RU-486.  If
the sample space was 100,000 or less, the one death may be a statistical
anomaly.  If the number of women who have used the RU-486 treatment is
still small, the statistical results are not yet very reliable.

>US death rates from an article by Dr. Rosenberg in the American Journal of
>Public Health.  Stats on RU-486 from the Population Council of New York.

>Ray Fischer

                           -rocker
                            and were they using sx or dx?
From: smithmc@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:39:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <1992Jul23.184559.28424@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.174509.14362@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>> 
>>    As long as we're quoting the bible,  I thought I might provide
>> some biblical perspective.  This is from the Jewish Bible, what a
>> Christian calls the old testament.  It has just a teeny amount of
>> senority over this new Christian stuff, by thousands of years.  A
>> quote from Exodus XXI might prove to be of interest to you devout
>> bible thumpers out there.
>
>  Gee, I guess we forgot that the New Testament is what Christians
>are supposed to follow, since Jesus said what he said was to take
>precedence--while we're bible-thumping here.  Unless you meant this only
>for those of the Jewish faith around here.
	
	Jesus told his followers that he was not trying to dispell
the old law (ie the Old Testement) but was here to explain/amend it.

	Also, note that the New Testament has nothing in it explicitly
forbidding abortion or explicitly stating fetus=person. Jesus was
supposedly born of a virgin, which I guess would mean that he skipped
a lot of other stages, too. 

	One last thing: the Bible is a flawed reference; just because
many people think that it is the litteral word of God does not make
it so. A God which would be so explicit is an insulting God. I think
a lot of people would appreciate it if in the future, people did
*not* use the Bible as a reference. That goes for the person who
posted the original article, too.

	Happy Thumping
	Lost Boy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:57:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <22992@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil writes:

> In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> >> In <22872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense writes:
> 
> >>> You missed some of that freshman biology, I guess. 2/3 of those fertilized
> >>> eggs spontaneously abort.
> 
> >I guess you missed some too.  After implantation, isn't the statistic
> >that 80% of "fertilized eggs" will survive and come to term (ie mature
> >to the point of birth and becoming a baby)?
> 
> Ummm, no it's not. From memory, (and Dr. Len Howard could confirm this
> by reposting those figures) between 30-40% of fertilized eggs fail to
> implant, leaving 26-36% to miscarry. (This was something I *did* miss
> in my freshman biology class) And I don't believe we were talking about
> implanted zygotes, but rather about zygotes right after conception.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ron

  Nope, I said IMPLANTED, not *fertilized*.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 

* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:34:49 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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> How the hell else does a woman become a parent other than by
-> being pregnant and giving birth?

the same way a man does; adoption.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:22:07 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul23.234355.18353@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Dan Quayle can really do damage to pro-lifers when he doesn't want to, 
>can't he?  

Not any more damage than George "Flip Flop" Bush, I suspect.

>I wish we had _anyone_ but Quayle for a Vice President. The man is
>phenomenally blunder-prone. 

How about Dennis Hall?


-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: Letter in SF Chronicle
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:34:00 GMT

---
mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl) writes:
|The following is a letter to the editor in the 7/30/92 San Francisco
|Chronicle.  I'd say that my reactions to this letter range from laughter
|to feeling very sorry for the writer.

Thank you for posting this.  I was about to type it in,
but you beat me to it!

|>There are many ways, outside of sex, to express deep love for another
|>person.  How about doing some extra house cleaning and ironing for him
|>or for her?  How about washing and waxing the other person's car?  You
|>could help the other person by lightening that person's particular load.
|>You could do some special good deed for the other person's parents or
|>near ones.  Show your love and respect for that special someone by
|>going the extra mile for her/him.  You may be glad to find that refraining
|>from sexual intercourse puts the romance back into holding hands.

Amazing.  Does this person live in the same world I do?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Suzanne's Still Mad (WAS Re: Abortion and Infanticide)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:05:52 GMT

> = (Suzanne "Rag Hag" Forgach) writes:
>> = (Patrick L. Humphrey):

>> The time flies -- our second anniversary is coming up in less than three
>> weeks.  (Dale Ann won't let me forget it, either. :-)

Continuing her usual bitchy hatred, the woman known as "I forgot the smiley"
snarls:

>Much as you'd like to, I'm sure.

My.  Nerves still jangling because Dale Ann put you down so effectively...two
years ago?  Thanks for reminding me.  She DID do a hell of a job.

Sounds like you "miss" her as much as many of us "miss" DJR. :-)  :-)


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: thawley@indetech.com (Todd Hawley)
Subject: Re: Just Say NO! to it all?????
Summary: NO! I don't support that 
Keywords: can't think of any rite now
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.020801.27090@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>
>I can understand 'Just Say NO! to Hetro!' - as clearly
>they are DANGEROUS....

Just like Dangerous Dan Quayle!!! :)

>But I can see your basic point, You NEVER KNOW
>when some ClosetHetro might just pop out, and
>start corrupting the morals.....

OMIGOSH!! Is Clayton posting here again?

>But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.

And also the HandOfHomoSexuality,BiSexuality,andWorseOfAll,
NOOOOSexuality!

-th		"Burn BUSH in '92"