HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:29:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.083200.5334@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com
>(aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Pe
>ri) writes:
>>>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

...

>I see two key statements in there. The first is that the Smiths would have
>raised Baby Blue to be a good science student. The second is that the
>reason none of these things happen is because this singluar, specific baby
>was never born.

This story is so touching, similar to that of little Red Riding Hood.
The argument that this or that person might have the cure for cancer
but wasn't born so it would be years later before it is discovered is
a straw man of incredibly large proportions. I could just as easily
make the case (and with much higher percentages) that the aborted child
would have been a mass-murderer like the one down in Killeen, Tx, or
been another Charlie Manson, or perhaps that nice afable fellow Ted
Bundy. From recent research, it has been shown that genetics and pregnancy
incidents can have large influences on behavior, although genetics by
themselves don't really determine everything, but merely give probablities.

>science, but then this implies that these tendencies are genetic. Science
>has demonstrated that genetics play a relatively minor role in what someone
>may or may not achieve.

The role isn't as minor as that dated report would have you believe.
It appears that genetics give the fetus possibilities to become certain
things, which are amplified by occurances during pregnancies, such as
smoking, drinking, drugs, or even physical abuse.

This information came from a recent report on tv about a week ago. I
wouldn't take it as the final word, though, since it appears to have
the same fluidity as the case of whether eggs, the yolk, or the white
were good for you in whatever proportions. The research is about as
conclusive at this point.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 8
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:29:27 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

More from <1992Nov15.190305.26198@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb):
and me (>>):

>>You feel that all women should want a pregnancy more than they they
>>want malignant lung tissue; you are entitled to your opinion.
>
>Not at all.  I believe that a z/e/f has a value that doesn't depend on
>the feelings of the mother and that malignant lung tissue has no such
>value.

You say not at all and then you state that all women should be forced
to behave as if they valued a /z/e/f/ more than malignant lung tissue.
Which is it, Jim?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:20:22 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 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 <1992Nov17.205311.28467@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
>In <1992Nov07.073010.101799@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
>   (Larry Margolis) writes: >
>In <1992Nov2.195513.1120@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>>>It wouldn't have mattered if it were *free*, Eric.  This guy has
>>>two daughters who watch as he systematically destroys his life,
>>>his marriage, and his relationship with them.  He cannot keep
>>>a job, so he stays home and "watches" his two-year old while
>>>nearly catatonic.  The divorce is pending, btw.
>>
>>Then his problem is addiction, not drug use.
>
>Not according to him.  He thinks his problem is stress.

Whatever; the point is, you're not describing recreational use.

>>I know people who've done the
>>same thing due to addiction to motorcycles, computers, ...
>
>Me too.  The difference in those situations is that the
>individual *can* be available to those around him/her if
>warranted.

Actually, the drug addict can be a lot more available than the
motorcycle addict.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:47:38 GMT

<1992Nov14.054454.3283@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
...
>> Suzanne, I'm curious.  Do you have any children?
>
>Yup, I sure do!   How 'bout yerself?

Are any of them adopted?  Say, from Roxbury?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The Best of Enemies - John Dee
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:14:53 GMT

In <1992Nov23.051005.26181@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Nov20.153702.719@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

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

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

>>>> Dee was recently sentenced to a six-month jail term for violating the 12-
>>>> person limit at the Robbinsdale clinic.  He will start serving his term on
>>>> the day after Thanksgiving.

>>> What is the meaning of a "12-person limit", and why does a person
>>> deserve six months in jail for violating this limit?

>> The abortion protests at the Robbinsdale clinic got rather rowdy this 
>> summer.  In the interest of keeping the peace, a judge issued a temporary
>> restraining order saying that no more than 12 people from each side could
>> demonstrate in front of the clinic.  
>>
>> As for Mr. Dee, he has been arrested many times at abortion protests, and
>> as a repeat offender, merited the extra time.

>I still don't understand why a non-violent protester deserves
>six months in jail.  Who cares how many times he violated
>the restraining order?  That still doesn't warrant a six
>month jail sentence.  

What do you propose as an alternative? A restraining order is a legal
order directed at some person, or persons, issued in order to prevent
some specific act. If restraining orders can be ignored upon whim, then
of what value are they? Surely you have read of the great number of
such orders, usually directed against men who abuse their wives or SOs,
that have been ignored and the usual result is the death of the woman.
Suggesting that 6 months is severe is, to my mind, reducing the effect-
iveness of such orders. Personally, 5 years seems like a better way of
increasing the effectiveness of such orders (and that is just for
ignoring the order, any actual abuse commited at the same time should
be punished according to the applicable statute.)

REB

> 
>>Chris Lyman  


>Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:54:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.174419.21294@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>Perhaps some of you are rather put-off by the person asking, or
>perhaps it is the way it is asked.  It is, however, a facet
>that should not be neglected.  Why would you allow (or 
>support) any restrictions on abortion?  

I would allow some post-viability restrictions if the people clearly wanted
them. I realize that Democracy is considered passe' these days, but I still
think it has a place in our society. Another condition under which I would 
allow some post-viability restrictions, would be if, pragmatically, conceding 
them was the only way to safeguard pre-viability reproductive rights. Some 
post-viability restrictions I WOULDN'T allow, though, such as when the woman's 
life is in danger. And, prior to viability, I consider the woman's rights 
strictly off-limits to government.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49280 alt.rush-limbaugh:10290
From: hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tit for tat
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:31:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Nov23.151819.28582@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.150930.374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Why do those who pursue free sex, safe sex, abortion, etc., feel that just 
>>because they cannot keep their zippers up that no one can?
>>
> 	Why do those who pursue control of other people's lives feel that just
> because they have neurotic sexual attitudes everybody else does?
> [Total information content in this entire exchange: 0 bytes]
> 
>>Ted
>>
> The_Doge
> 
>>-- 
>>"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
>>      - some ex-Soviet leader            
> 	That was the late Nikita Khruschev.  Are all rightists that
> ignorant of history or is it just Limbaugh's groupies?

The TRUE Ignorance comes from LIBERALS like you. Rush was right,
Liberals have NO sense of humor. GET A LIFE! IT WAS JUST A JOKE!


> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Larry Margolis contacts my sysadmins
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:52:58 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] You know, the really funny thing is that you didn't
] contact me first via e-mail -- you went straight to
] the NCSU system administrators.  What does that say 
] about you Margolis? 

You know - I notice that not ONE of the subsequent
followups on this thread has mentioned this "funny
thing" again.

Could it be, Doug, that Larry didn't bother writing
to the 'dsh' account because he knew that he would
not get any answer?  I know *I* haven't gotten any
answer from the mail I sent to you off of the very
FIRST post from this week - 

Diana
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:31:36 GMT

In <1992Nov23.050110.25831@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <By0snG.3AI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
>smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>> Okay, time to describe a different but equally gruesome medical 
>> procedure...
>> Supposing I wanted to replace a leg joint with a titanium-steel implant.

>Abortion is a unique procedure because it involves killing a human 
>being.   You can't compare it to an ordinary medical procedure like
>a leg joint replacement, because they don't result in the death
>of a human being.

I'm confused.

Doug Holtsinger posts an article stating that the end result of an
abortion is a bloody mess, and that abortion is therefore a Bad
Thing.

Lost Boy posts an article stating that the end result of leg-joint
replacement is a bloody mess, and that by Mr. Holtsinger's stated
criteria, this type of surgery is a Bad Thing.

Mr. Holtsinger says that abortion isn't a Bad Thing because it
causes a bloody mess; rather, it's a bad thing because it results
in the death of a human being. The implication is that some things
that result in bloody messes are actually Not-Bad Things, and that
aesthetics is therefore not a useful tool for resolving ethical
dilemmas. That's fine. We knew that already.

This being the case, I have to wonder why Mr. Holtsinger went to
the trouble of posting his original article. If I were him, I
don't think that I'd post arguments that I considered to be specious,
even if someone had put them in a book and all I had to do was copy
them. Instead, I'd sit down and try and figure out what reasons *I* 
had for being pro-life, and then I'd type them in. I know this seems 
like a lot of work, but I've found that it saves time in the long run.

Bonus argument: If a person is about to be raped, and uses a 
shotgun to blow off the head of his/her attacker, then this 
person has: (1) Created a bloody mess, and (2) killed a
human being. Can we therefore assume that he/she has done a Bad 
Thing, or are there even more factors that need to be considered?

>>Lost Boy

>Doug Holtsinger

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:43:36 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <BxKA1t.BM6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
> 
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> 
> >In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
> >(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
> >> 
> >> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be 
> >> inside the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any 
> >> other enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body 
> >> accomodates the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are 
> >> designed to be able to be pregnant.
> 
> >Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
> >replace"...
> 
> >> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
> >> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
> >> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
> >> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
> >> able to develop cancer.
> 
> >Do we have an accurate analogy to your reasoning here, Bernard?  Should we
> >outlaw surgery removing tumors anytime soon?
> 
> Do you really think that there is anything substantive in your 'analogy'?
> And if there is, could you explain it?

In point of fact, my observation is of equal substance to your original
one.  The cases, as far as I can see are 100 per cent parallel.  If you
disagree, please feel free to explain why.

As an alternative, please consider the following: I have a good friend who
has been diagnosed as having an internal "growth" of some sort.  The cells
comprising this "growth" have different DNA than my friend; the cells,
moreover, are differentiating as it grows; it is growing at a somewhat
alarming, and potentially health-threatening rate.

Should my friend have this growth removed?  Should my friend be _permitted_
to have this growth removed?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:29:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.093407.25205@hemlock.cray.com>
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.080116.4429@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>However, I think a law (in current practice through definitions rather
>>than being passed as a law, I believe) saying "Any z/e/f delivered
>>alive whether by choice or by a botched abortion is a person; killing
>>him/her is murder and allowing him/her to die is manslaughter by
>>neglience" does not damage a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
>>(Of course, it doesn't protect *fetuses* either....)

>Elizabeth, parents are currently allowed to refuse
>treatment for a preemie whose chances are not that
>good.  If someone you loved gave birth to a child
>whose neonatal care would cost over a million dollars,
>and the child would have less than a 5% chance of survival,
>and almost infintesimal chances of surviving without
>severe handicaps, and the months of treatment required 
>would be invasive and painful, would you deny those folk
>the right to say, "Back off and let me hold him while he 
>lasts"?  Think about it.

Not only do I have no objections to the parents making that decision,
I think I would make that decision under those circumstances....  And
might well make that decision for myself as well as a newborn infant.
(It would probably depend, I suppose, on what sort of a life I/my
child would have if I/him/her survived.)

People *are* allowed to refuse medical treatment, and parents
generally are allowed to refuse invasive medical treatment for their
children.  When I spoke of "allowing him/her to die" I meant failing
to take much more routine measures.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:16:52 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <By35nM.3JK@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.023623.153981@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <BxzDx5.IMu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>>>the abortion argument is about reproductive freedom for *women*.
>>
>>If a woman got pregnant, and was unable to get an abortion, would not the
>>man be forced to become a father just as much as the woman would be forced
>>to become a mother?
>
>The woman has the legal freedom to choose in one case, but not the other.
>
>The man has no legal freedom to choose in either case.

But, assuming the couple wanted to get an abortion, the man is worse off as
well as the woman if abortion were illegal.

In <By35zD.3x3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.031905.123870@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <robert.722307483@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>>Not *just* "in a different way".  Worse in a new way, and just as bad as
>>before in the other ways.  It's not saying, "If I can't make it better for
>>me, I'll make it worse for you."  It's saying, "If I can't make it better
>>for me, I'll make it worse for *both of us*."  That's what I think is stupid.
>>You're either making idle threats, or you're prepared to "cut off your nose
>>to spite your face".
>
>Actually, the idiom isn't really appropriate:  one is prepared to
>cut off someone else's nose.

It *is* appropriate, because it will hurt many men, also.

>And I'd think the comment is, more accurately, "If you won't help
>me find a solution for everybody because you're satisfied with an
>unfair status quo in your favor, I'll remove your advantage."

I don't see it that way.  (See below.)

>>>       It's not mine, though.  I'm pro-choice; but I'm also open-eyed enough
>>>to recognize that as long as choice for women is a bad deal for men, there
>>>will be men who fight it.
>>
>>Choice for women is not a bad deal for men.  Lack of choice for men is a
>>bad deal for men.  Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.
>
>Choice for women -only- is a bad deal for men.

Taking away additional choice from everyone helps nobody.

I don't disagree that the current situation is a bad deal for men.  If you
say, "Help me make the world a better place", I'm behind you.  If you say,
"Help me make the world a better place, or I'll kill these widows and orphans",
I'll think you're pretty sick and need to be stopped regardless of whether or
not I think your cause is good.

I see taking away choice as hurting *everyone*, both men and women (although
women more).  Do you agree?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:12:12 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <1992Nov19.003915.23933@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>> 
>> So. That is a matter of national defense.  It is not a case
>> of murder, but rather self defense. Do you not know that killing
>> in self defense is not murder?

>A few brief points to show how the parallel cited was correct,
>and you are in error in disagreeing with it.

>The United States was not defending itself against Iraq or North
>Viet Nam.  There is an argument to be made that some United
>States' citizens were being defended in Granada, but there is
>some question as to whether they were truly endangered.  I agree
>that they felt they were endangered.

Good grief, has everyone forgotten Panama so soon?  And in the case
of Panama, "we" were supposedly only there to make an arrest.  If
several hundred people were killed in YOUR neighborhood when the
police came to make an arrest, don't you think you might be a tad
upset?

>Dean Kaflowitz

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion