HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:26:37 GMT

In <1993Jan27.232029.10335@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian 
Kauffman) writes:

>> = cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>[deleted material]

>>> This is not the whole truth: taken in context, it's seems rather obvious
>>> (to most people) that no woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy
>>> and then have an abortion for some trivial reason (on account the rather
>>> large natural disincentives to do so, ask a woman for details).  
>>> o Is there any reason to restrict late-term abortions?  Ie. can you 
>>>   document any "abuse" of late-term abortions?
>>> o Assuming such "abuse" existed, would outlawing abortion end this abuse 
>>>   while preserving unhindered access for those needing (not abusing)
>>>   late-term abortions?

>>If it is obvious to most people that a woman should not (would not?) go 
through
>>nine months pregnancy and then get an abortion does that mean those people 
>>would support legislation prohibiting that?

>Probably not, because while such a law would be useless wrt it's 
>intended purpose, it would also have serious and unintended negative 
>side effects.  Abortion is legal now, and yet some women have had to
>fly from state to state in a desperate attempt to get a life saving 
>late-term abortion.  (Has anyone got that 60-minutes transcript?) 
>Even now, "abortion on demand" is not a reality, and lives have already
>been seriously threated by this lack of "abortion on demand".

>-Brian

But isn't the whole point of the pro-life, or whatever..., issue that lives 
also are threatened when there IS abortion on demand, i.e., the life of the 
fetus?  I do agree that there should be late term abortions when the life of 
the mother is clearly threatened, btw.  Does that end up arguably making my 
position inconsistent?  Again, life, human life - if it is such, is threatened
by early, middle, and late term abortions.

MAC
.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: PAS or Post Abortion Syndrome
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:33:30 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 <1993Jan22.184630.14470@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis):
>> In garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>>In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>#
>>>#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.
>>
>> And more importantly, what *is* "Project Rachel"?  I thought it was a program
>> to bring women back into the church who had been excommunicated for having
>> abortions.  If so, then if it's growing quickly that simply means that there
>> are a lot of Catholic women who have abortions but want to stay part of the
>> church, and has nothing to do with the mythical "Post Abortion Syndrome".
>> (If I'm confusing "Project Rachel" with something else, then please
>> enlighten me.)
>
>All that a woman who has had an abortion need do to return to the Church
>is to truly repent, to confess to her bishop (or in some diocese her priest),
>and to receive Christ's absolution.   Project Rachel of course includes this,
>but it is also a program of counselling to help women deal with their grief
>for their lost child.  If that grief weren't all too real, there would be no
>Project Rachel.

Sounds more like if the church wasn't anti-abortion, there would be no
Project Rachel.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: About Komrade Labach
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:54:10 GMT

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:34:00 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:
>Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir


>Ok Kampfrs,

>why is terry labach sending me toilet paper from kiev
>in the Ukraine?????

Beats me, but we got one of 'em, too -- and it's a good thing the Russian
translation of the Ukrainian is on the postcard, else I'd still be trying to
figure it out...:-)

--PLH, one Slavic language at a time, please...

--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
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: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:23:26 GMT

In article <root.727557555@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <root.727512244@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1993Jan19.033211.3923@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan19.023357.28403@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>>[Insults directed towards various t.a. regulars. Notably, airplane
>>>>>boy doesn't include me. Needless to say, I'm hurt.]
>>>>>
>>>>You know, I got left off the list too. I guess PHoney hasn't gotten
>>>>around to telling ChaneyHall that I am actually the Anti-Christ yet. I
>>>>suspect that's the next profession he'll attribute to me now that he's
>>>>tried to claim I'm a practicing abortionist.
>>>
>>>He didn't get me in this list, either.  HEY!  WAIT A MINUTE!  You can't be
>>>the Anti-Christ!  See, I read this book that says he's, nah, never mind.
>>>You wouldn't believe it if I told you...;-)  Safe to say, he's not you...;-)
>>>
>>It's easy to convince me that I'm not the Anti-Christ. It might be a
>>bit harder to convince the DODie/PHoney type of idiot though.
>>Besides, wouldn't the Anti-Christ sort of *have* to believe in a god?
>>I don't think I qualify on that one point alone....
>
>In a nutshell, the Anti-Christ is empowered by Satan and sets himself up
>as god.  There's a lot more to it, but yes, the Anti-Christ would appear
>to have to believe in some form of supernatural being...
>
See how safe I am then? :)

--
                  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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Mindless flamage (what, here?!?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:53:10 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>PHoney, _most_ of your posts are over 200 lines long.
>
>This statement is not correct. Assuming that his last 197 posts are 
>representative, _most_ of Nyikos' posts are under 75 lines long, including 
>headers. On average, in fact, they are well under 100 lines long. Only 14 of

They just _seem_ like they're all over 200 lines long.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another for Dougie
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:47:40 GMT

In article <tbl3yy+@rpi.edu> 
cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

> From the concurring opinion in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Burger.
>
>	Burger concluded: "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim
>	that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."
>
>	-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, Grosset/Putnam,
>	1992.  p. 163

Let's look at the full context:

  "I do not read the Court's holdings today as having the
   sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting
   Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that
   the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of
   their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully
   deliberated medical judgements relating to life and health.
   Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the 
   Constitution requires abortion on demand." 

   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 185 (1973)

Notice that Burger doesn't mention anything about state 
regulation of abortion in the above paragraph.  He appears 
to be defining "abortion on demand" as a situation where
physicians cannot refuse to perform abortions, and not as
a situation where the state cannot prohibit abortions.

In a later Court decision, Burger admits that his opinion
that the Court rejected abortion on demand was wrong: 

  "In short, every Member of the Roe Court rejected the idea
   of abortion on demand.  The Court's opinion today, however,
   plainly undermines that important principle, and I regret- 
   fully conclude that some of the concerns of the dissenting
   Justices in Roe, as well as the concerns I expressed in my
   separate opinion, have now been realized. 

   [...]

   Yet today the Court astonishingly goes so far as to say
   that the State may not even require that a woman contemplating
   an abortion be provided with accurate medical information
   concerning the risks inherent in the medical procedure which
   she is about to undergo and the availability of state-funded
   alternatives if she elects not to run those risks. 

   [...]

   We have apparently already passed the point at which abortion
   is available merely on demand.  If the [informed consent]
   statute at issue here is to be invalidated, the ``demand''
   will not even have to be the result of an informed choice."

   Thornburgh v. American Coll. of Obstr. & Gyn., 476 US at 782--784


So it would appear that Justice Burger was wrong in his
original Roe opinion--Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
on-demand. 

>-rocker


---
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,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:51:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.181027.21289@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.160755.6249@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1jl8beINNf5m@mirror.digex.com> adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson) writes:
>> >>In article <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>> >>(Kevin Darcy) writes...
>> >>> 
>> >>> [The biggest load of horse crap I've seen in a while]
>> >>> 
>> By my calculations, those "few" would number maybe as much as 32 million
>> taxpayers, if the proposal was implemented nationally. Given annual AFDC 
>> payouts of approximately 20 $billion, this would NOT appear to be an 
>> "unshoulderable" burden, even when the administrative overhead is added in.
>> 
>[lots deleted]
>
>I have held my tongue  (writing fingers)  for about a week now, hoping
>this subject would die the death it deserves.  In fact, I thought the
>concept was a joke or a flame to start with.
>   The tax is moronic.  It is unenforceable.  It is excessively punitive
>to the wrong people.  

Illegitimate conception is a major cause of illegitimate birth, yes?
And illegitimate children are more susceptible to social ills, are they
not? How does this Tax punish "the wrong people", then? Prevention would
seem to be a more prudent path than the half-assed "cure" for the problem
we have now, which is quite obviously a failure.

>Notwithstanding the calculation above seemingly
>to indicate the tax would be around $600-700 per parent, the actual tax
>would be in EXCESS of $10,000 per parent per conception.  What the
>author above forgot to account for is that the child support continues
>for 18-25 years where the conception occurance occurs at one point in
>time.  To  estimate that 32 million taxpayers would pay the tax in
>one year is incorrect....50 million taxpayers might pay the tax during
>an 18 year period, some once, some more than once.  Against this the
>support bill would be 18 times $20 billion.  (neglecting inflation
>and population growth)

Well, apparently you prefer stating things in bulk amounts, instead of
annual rates. I admit, an average bulk 18-year total of $10,000 sounds like 
a HUGE tax (actually, the average 18-year total would be $11,250, given my 
input numbers). But when you consider that that total is paid out over 18 
years -- at an average of $600-700 per year -- it really doesn't seem like an 
"unshoulderable burden", which was the original claim.

Actually, I made an error in my original statement. The taxpayer pool would be
32 million COUPLES, not individuals (it takes two to tango, duh!). So cut all
of my tax estimates in half to get the per-taxpayer amounts.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57848 soc.singles:37873 alt.sex:43121 alt.peeves:19572
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: On: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:44:51 -0500
Organization: CS Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

In article <1993Jan25.024016.16097@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>The Fact that some folks engage in Sex_For_Orgasm
>rather than Sex_For_Reproduction, should clearly
>show that there are GREAT FAILINGS in the current
>Sex Ed Regimine.

	Boy, I guess we have come full circle.  It was not long ago that
this sentence was the other way around and used to show "great failings in
the current Sex Ed regimine."


bsl
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              "If you know how much money you will make this year
                 within $5,000, you're broke!"  - Dave Sevren
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:52:37 GMT

Maybe this is a strange way of looking at it, but if it is not human, then what
is it?  If all humans have rights, then why does this thing NOT have the same 
rights that all other humans do?  As to the "conceive and bear a son" line not
showing humanity, what does it show?  Do women ever conceive and bear a table,
or a monkey, or an apple?  From the moment of conception the only thing that is
added is food and protection.  All of the genes and dna that are needed, color
hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  If humans deserve to be protected, AND
THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?
(Just because it can't talk back?)

MAC
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:05:11 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <lm1g5pINNegu@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
|> 
|> >A _very_ admirable position.  As I've said before, religious arguments to
|> >support U.S. code just wouldn't apply to anyone not in that religion but
|> >still a U.S. citizen.  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
|> >someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
|> >equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
|> >the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
|> >restrictive course.
|> >
|> How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
|> on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
|> have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
|> fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
|> I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
|> to peaceably assemble?

	The same thing could be said about paraplegics...
	Lack of capacity to exercize rights does not imply no rights.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:37:27 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan17.012118.16178@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
>becka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rebecca Lynn Sparling) writes:

>> Notice I said "From my experience?" 

>So what?  Are we supposed to conclude that your experience
>should be taken as representative of the entire nation?

No, it should be taken as representative of the people she has met.
The only one who is projecting that to the "entire nation" is yourself
when you complained that she was "pigeonholeing" all pro-lifers.  She
thought it was stated clearly enough that everyone would understand, but
apparently she should have held your hand a bit more on it.

>If not, then what's the point in posting unsupported 
>generalizations?   Next time, try posting some FACTS.

It *is* a fact.  In *her* experience ...[blah blah]...  It may not mean
much in terms of the whole population, but that doesn't make it an
*opinion* or *incorrect*.  (unless you know something about her experience
that we don't???)

Of course if you mean *true* facts, well maybe you should follow your
own advice.

>>becka

>Doug Holtsinger

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:24:01 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
>>>person. 
>>
>>This is a ridiculous statement. All living organisms have varying degrees of 
>>bodily autonomy. Only some of those organisms have their bodily autonomy 
>>legally protected.
>>
>Since this is talk.abortion Kebbin, it should be self evident to any
>thinking person that the bodily autonomy mentioned is specifically
>that of a person, and legally protected. But if it'll make you happy,
>here:
>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.

Which leads to the inevitable question: what is it about birth that
turns a fetus into a person?

The legal argument isn't a useful one, as it can be argued that laws
protect existing rights, and don't create rights.

The biological arguments are not relevent to the personhood issue (or
at least, haven't been shown to be).  The the fetus is inside another
person doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a person.  As far as I've
been able to tell, that alone it not enough to determine or prevent
personhood.

>Happy now Kibble?
>My language may have been 'loose' Kebin, but at least I'll correct it.
>Are you now ready to admit that you were incorrect in your usage of the
>word 'schizophrenia' instead of 'mpd'? If not, you are simply
>displaying your hypocrisy again.

Is this in any way relevent?  Or are you just resorting to a pointless
ad hominem attack?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:41:24 GMT

In article <C1Bw00.G0L@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

[deletia]

>If I were dying in agony, I would not want to
>have my family kill me.  I would not want that on their consciences for
>hte rest of their lives.  I would not want to die knowing that my
>family had killed me.

>God can and has healed people in the last stages of cancer.  Even if I
>knew for sure that God would not heal someone in my family, I could not
>kill them.

Hmmmm... eternal peace and happiness (supposedly) versus hell on earth.
Is _this_ your idea of compassion, Link?

Oh, and please provide some statistics on how many people in the last
stages of cancer G-d has cured. Thanks.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:58:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.165605.25573@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <C19I0H.6p5.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> > I wonder why it was so important to him to lie so persistently
> > in this thread.  
> 
> Garvin, you suggested that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
> in 1860 has "something to do" with the Roe v. Wade ruling in
> 1973.  Now it looks as though you're back-pedaling from that
> suggestion.  Instead of whining about me, why don't you admit
> that you were wrong to begin with.


I explained the connection in another article.  I'm not
sure if that was the connection Susan may or may not have been
referring to, but I did explain it.  I'll explain it again,
since Reverend Holtsinger may have missed it.  The unsafe
nature of abortions in the 19th century was at least partly
responsible for the passage of laws prohibiting abortions
in many cases.  This was done to protect women.  The historical
rates of death and injury among women who have had illegal
and medically unsafe abortions in turn influenced Justice
Blackmun's approach to the issue.

If you need a longer explanation than that, Reverend, let me
know.

Dean Kaflowitz

"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger