HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Pro choice question
Keywords: choice question
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.131714.10234@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu 
(Mark McCullough) writes:

}People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
}the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
}Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
}last as a judge, if the constitution doesn't make a reference to it,
}it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
}real life.

Perhaps it escaped you Mark, but all things are legal until someone
passes a law making them illegal.  I suspect you should check out 
"real" sometime, as in "real life."

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.165609.7444@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}But you don't know that for sure. And *if* it is in fact a problem, then by 
}the time action is taken, many lives could be needlessly lost.

}If it's not happening, then why does it hurt to legislate against it?
}Doesn't this sword cut _both_ ways?

Sort of like, gee, if you're not hiding anything, why would you object
to a search?  

I guess we should make it illegal to jump into the sun.  We don't know
for sure it isn't a problem, and if in fact it is, many lives could
be needlessly lost before we take action.

If anyone else had said something like this, I would probably think
it is the stupidest thing they had said.  But coming from Kevin,
it doesn't even rank in the top 100...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:04:03 GMT

> B.A. Schnaufer
>> Ray Fischer

>>If there can be justifications for destroying life, then why can't
>>there also be justifications for abortion?

>Because human life is stands apart from plant or animal life.  Human life is
>sacred.  The legitimate purposes by which other forms of life can be taken
>do not apply to human life.  Human life is in a category entirely by itself.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

And what about those of us who do not believe anything is sacred, such as
atheists and agnostics?  Are we supposed to refrain from abortion because
YOU think human life is "sacred"?  Or are we allowed to have abortions,
because to us, human life is not "sacred"?

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Description of the Fetal Remains from an Abortion
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:08:47 GMT

> Ren and Stimpy's Love Child

>What Lost Boy was trying to impress on your feeble intellect
>via a gross-out story of a morally neutral procedure is that if you're
>counting on phlegm-flecked descriptions of gooey blood sacks to convince
>people that abortion is wrong because it's icky, you have the rhetorical
>acuity of a small soap dish.

I nominate the above as the Longest and Yet Grammatically Correct Sentence of
the Year.

I also nominate it as the Most Amusing and Yet Deadliest and Most Accurate
Flame of the Week.

<applause>

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49271 alt.rush-limbaugh:10283
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:30:42 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Boy do you have some messed up ideas!  
>You think abortions should be used as a source of birthcontrol if
>necessary?!?  And that the practice of abstinence is a ridiculous
>solution?!?!!  Wow you're confused.  

	What if a bunch of frat boys gang-raped you, ECG?

	Do you have any contingency plans of what you plan to do if
you get pregnant as a result??

>Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>only 100% certain method.  

	So is getting one's tubes tied. ECG, where did you go to school???

	And birth-control pills get pretty close, I might add.

>If a couple considers themselves adult enough to engage in sex, they
>should face the adult responsibilities that might accompany the action. 
>And making sure that the child that results from your actions is cared
>for is an obvious responsibility.  I strongly believe that killing that
>child through an abortion is not facing your responsibilities.

>Sure, sex may be fun, but be prepared to deal with all that it entails 
>No Sex is Safe Sex.  

	And no driving is safe driving. Why aren't you endorsing
_that_ as a way to prevent car accidents?

	And no electricity use is safe electricity use. You can't get
an electric shock from anything if no electricity is flowing in the
first place.

	And no cooking is safe cooking since that will _never_ produce
_any_ cooking fires.

	Etc. etc. etc.

>Everybody knows that there isn't any condom that guarantees no pregnancy
>will result.  And they don't prevent the horrible diseases that can
>result from sex, either.

	STD's are _spread_, not _caused_, by sexual contact. If one
uses condoms carefully, they are not likely to break. ECG, where did
you go to school?

	Careful selection of partners also helps.

>Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>of you?

	Sounds like you've been brainwashed by some antisex bigots...
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In which Petie competes with Jim in strange equivalencies.
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:40:45 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Petie, in his flame of Justice Blackmun, writes in the tradition of
etus fanatics making their case based on bizarre equivalences:
 
>>A more relevent question might be: do unborn children have any right
>>to steal the resources of the mother?
>
>  Are you in favor of the
>death penalty for somnambulatists who commit theft?

somnambulist == /z/e/f/

theft of property == theft of bodily resources by occupation of body
of victim against that victim's will

I reject both equivalencies as trivially false; they dont't even
qualify as analogous comparisons.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:15:00 GMT

<phil.722110508@seidel> (Philip Papadopoulos) writes:
>> ..Get as many abortions as you want.. Just don't ask me...to pay for it"

<1992Nov18.210134.1098@starbase.trincoll.edu> jay.wise@mail.trincoll.edu writes:
> First of all, the "taxpayers complaint" doesn't carry much weight.

Hmmm.  You left out your apostrophe, so I don't know whether I agree or not.
A taxpayer's complaint doesn't carry much weight, it is true.  But
the taxpayers' complaint had best be heeded, if their representatives
wish to remain in office.

The point is essentially that there are far more supporters of abortion
liberty than there are supporters of abortion.  It is one thing for
a government to guarantee freedom of choice and action regarding 
abortion.  It is quite another for the government to determine that
abortion availability is sufficiently important to the public interest
that public money should be spent to guarantee it.  The first policy
is a judgment that it is bad for government to stop desired abortions.
The second, a judgment that it is good for government to assist
desired abortions.

While "washing our hands of the matter" may not be a particularly
courageous stand, it is a widely held one.  Widely enough, IMHO,
that opposition to public abortion funding (particularly at the
federal level) is more of a taxpayers' complaint than a taxpayer's
complaint.

-- 
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: Why Do AntiAbortionists Play At GOD!
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.030835.27900@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.180112.8651@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>Besides, are you a christian?  I know you are not.  If you were you would
>>realize that true christianity has no doctrine. We just go by what we see that
>>God tells us.  There is a difference between Religious people and Christians.
>
>So, does she drop by and talk with you often? Sort of 'pop in' to the 
>local kaffee klatch, or what?

I really have to ask...how do you know what God is telling you? Is it some
voice in your head or are you dumb enough to think that the  Bible is the
only thing God ever inspired people to write?

Lost Boy

*****************************************
* I wasn't circumcised, and I'm Jewish. * 
*               -Karen Uru              *
*****************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:49133 talk.religion.misc:21804 alt.atheism:21874
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:42:09 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu (Kevin Scruggs) writes:

>	The Missouri Synod Church I attended as a child was rather conservative 
>and legalistic. The attitude and outlook of the membership resembled a 
>Catholic church than iother protestant denominations or even ELCA
>congregations that I was subjected too...
Not surprising, since the Lutheran church *IS* catholic.  Luther didn't
institute major changes in the church, he simply modified them to be more
in line with (his) biblical understanding.

Luther never intended to form a new church, he wanted to reform the Roman
church.  If the pope had given in on indulgences ("license to sin"), the
Reformation would likely have been averted, at least for that time.
Political motives were the genesis for the full split.  Certain German
politicians wanted to break with Rome and Luther was the perfect vehicle.

>	Many of the members of the last ELCA congregation I had to suffer 
>through were born-again fundie types with charasmatic inclinatio...
Interesting...I find many fewer fundie types in the ELCA...not surprising,
since the ELCA ordains women and believes in open communion.  ELCA is much
more liberal than Misouri Synod...

 -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: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:04:42 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <27528@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

[the aborted kid doesn't save the world, again]

>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.

Tell me Ron, do you wear a beard?  Otherwise I don't see how you resist
the temptation to slit your wrists each morning, with this attitude to
life.  If all of this is so bad about foetuses, what the hell is so good
about you?  Don't _you_ have as good a chance of being a Bundy or Manson
as any unborn child?  So why don't you top yourself?  

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: More of JIm's strange equivalencies.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:44:27 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32846@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>Me, adult male human being == human /z/e/f/

>Taking action to save a drowning person == months of forced pregnancy
>and childbirth

>Taking physically inept person out on a boat, apparently without a
>life jacket == Making good faith effort to avoid pregnancy using birth
>control

>I don't accept any of these.

Nor do I.  The point of the example, though, is to show that the
pro-choice view cannot be established by categorical statements about
abstract rights of autonomy.  Rather, you have to consider just what
the z/e/f is, how great a burden pregnancy is, and whether it is
appropriate to require the woman to bear that burden in accordance
with our normal concepts of responsibility.

>Nor do I hold the gender equivalence of
>a chastity belt policy of forced pregnancy that would force men and
>women to provide financial resources for the /z/e/f/ but compel only
>women to be used as incubators for it.

I don't know what you mean by gender equivalence.  If it is a rational
conception of fairness it can't require impossible things, like male
pregnancy.  Possibly men ought to bear some additional burden to
compensate for the special burdens that women bear and that only they
can bear.  I don't have any objection in principle to that, although I
don't know what the specifics would be.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!! [Start with yourself]
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.182638.3889@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

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

>> I agree, we should leave innocent female human beings alone,
>> including the ones who haven't been born yet.  

> Say Doug, why do you keep throwing in the word "innocent"?  Does it
> have any relevence?  Is it opinion?  Or is it (as I suspect) merely a
> trite emotional ploy to bolster a flimsy case?

I thought most people would understand the meaning of the
word "innocent".  It's meant as a qualifier.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Terrible. Close. Mind.
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:56:08 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>In short, the only point I am trying to make for you is this:  You haven't
>any evidence for believing a z/e/f is not a person, not even according to
>your own criteria.  That, in my book, makes your belief a religious one.
>Pointing that out is my only goal in this small part of the discussion, and
>that, in this context, is where I'm coming from.

Fog and rocks... I'm confused, I'm confused!  I think we're arguing
the same point, and I know we still have the same opinion about
abortion, so there's no need for me to get even more confused... ;)

I don't like the subject of your post, though -- sure, the set of
things I call 'persons' may be completely arbitrary with regards to
your definition of 'person', but not to _my_ definition of 'person'.
I have my own idea of 'personhood', and I've come to this idea after a
lot of thought and debate, but I'm not going to call anyone else's
idea wrong if it's been well-thought out.  What more is there I can do
to make you feel I have an open mind?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:44:15 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


ray@netcom.com writes:
|forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
|>Emil, realize that people literally _do_ mutilate their sex organs [...]
|By the way, did you have any of your kids circumcized?

10 points out of 10 for Ray Fisher.

---
c j silverio
dispenser of the points
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: J. Price's Search for the Holy Clue
Originator: jjprice@c00065-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:23:42 GMT


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

|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
|>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
|>>> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes to Lynn Alford:
|>
|>>>> She knew there was a chance and she took and messed up PAY THE PRICE !!!
|>
|>>> You seem to express a willingness to PUNISH a married woman for having sex
|>>> with her husband.  Is that the case?  Yes?  No?
|>
|>> I'm not going to punish her she punished herself by getting pregnant.
|>
|>Her husband had sex too.  What equivalent punishment should he bear?  Before
|>you get carried away, your solution of abstinence is unreasonable, unworkable
|>and unenforcable.  You may wish to rant on about this, but most of the world
|>will be unsympathetic and rightfully so, imo.
|>
Its worked for me... The only reason it doesn't work is because people can't
control their hormones. Abstinence is not the answer responsiblity is.

|>>> Either way, fie on you, you clueless wet-behind-the-ears newbie.
|>
|>> So is being new a crime?
|>
|>No, and neither is being clueless, but being clueless sometimes carries 
|>heavy consequences.  There are clues embedded in the responses you are
|>getting from other people, as well as from me.  Don't leave home without
|>them.
|>
I happen to like being cluless all the same. Besides its fun everyone should
try but be careful don't let your hormones get you carried away...
|>
|>-- 
|>Chris Lyman 
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Simon you're no ...
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:26:17 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In <1992Nov18.010714.1505@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>What can you possibly mean by saying that rape has nothing to do with
>sex?  The contrary is true as a simple matter of definition.

Is that your head in your ass or are you just constipated?  Sex and rape
have NOTHING to do with one another.  Rape is pure violence.  The fact
that it includes sex organs has nothing to do with whether it is relatd to
"sex" in general....

If you think rape and sex are the same, you're dumber than a rock....

Jack
jis@panix.com
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: 20 Nov 1992 12:29:54 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov20.135322.8688@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1eha68INNslc@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>,The life is a forseeable (even if not probable) consequence of the
>>,[sexual] activity, life is valuable, and destroying life is bad.

>>Why?

>I assume the "why" refers to the assertions that "life is valuable,
>and destroying life is bad."

Good guess, since the Why followed those assertions, yes.

>Life in general is valuable because it is the condition for the
>realization of all other values.  Particular lives are valuable
>because each is irreplaceable -- one life does not substitute for
>another.

If life is valuable in general, why do we raise cattle and then kill
them?  Why do we destroy the rainforests in Brazil?  Why do we step on
bugs that find their ways into our homes?

Now, you can look at it in one of at least three ways:

the sheer quantity of human life is valuable:  therefore everybody should
be forced to produces as many children as they physically can
or
the quality of human life is valuable: therefore those who determine quality
of life (usually the individuals involved) make determinations about how
to maximise this amount
or
the variety of human life is valuable: and no children should ever have the
same two parents, because they represent less diversity than would be possible
with greater gene selection.

And that's just HUMAN life, which you did not restrict yourself to, above.

>Possibly someone might reject all this.  If he did, what superior
>principles could he point to to guide action?


His own determination of what he wanted.  Why does he need your 'superior'
principles?

He doesn't.  He can, and many do, reject them out of hand.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc