HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:32:54 GMT

>>> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>  brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
>   jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>>Of course the fetus is alive, and of course it is human.  But that does not
>>>mean that it's "rights", if any, are more compelling than the woman's.
>
>>Prehaps we need some finer positional distinctions that
>>pro-life/choice/abortion/force. It is nice to see the humanity of the
>>fetus acknowledged by some.
>
>I don't think it's necessary.  Whatever the "humanity" of the fetus is or
>isn't, that is not the issue.
> [...]
>I don't believe that fetal rights can be more compelling than the woman's
>rights because it is the woman who is the sentient person in the picture.
>The fetus is not capable of making the kind of decisions that the woman
>is, and therefore cannot force the woman to give up her rights as an
>individual.
> [...]

IMO, the movement to outlaw abortions has two points to argue:
(1) PERSONHOOD: an n-month old fetus is sufficiently like a "person", 
    as a pre-requisite for deserving any "person"-like rights at all.
(2) COMPETING RIGHTS: this n-month old fetus should have enough rights 
    IN RELATION TO THE PREGNANT WOMAN, that the fetus' right to life 
    would supersede the woman's right to bodily autonomy.  
    (I would hope the a pregnant woman retains the right to abort *any*
    fetus if her life is threatened.)

IMO, a 1st-tri fetus fails #1, so the whole rights issue collapses.
IMO, a 3rd-tri fetus does meet #1, and quite possibly #2.  
But of course this is debatable: J. Brindle appearantly feels that 
#1 is a moot point in light of the inability to defend #2.


-Brian
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:44:25 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<92096.222445JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) said:
><1992Apr05.211805.29956@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis margoli@watson.ibm.com> says:
>
>>In  <1992Apr5.062252.704@midway.uchicago.edu>  rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora
>>gayle rivkis) writes:
>>> Well, you missed my volunteering to be another of your ex-girlfriends;
>>> I don't know if you consider *that* important enough to respond to, but
>>> (batting eyelashes) you DID ask me...
>
>What with all this business of being proud of ex-girlfriends, it is
>very important to make this distinction:  is Gordon proud of the "ex"
>part or the "girlfriend" part?  Just wondering :-)

It's sort of a split.  You see, I'm proud that I was once emotionally and
physically deeply involved with each of these women, that our souls were
once joined (at the hip, so to speak), that we shared such intimate
moments and weekends.  I'm just as proud that they have moved on to more
satisfying relationships :-(.

Basically, I'm just proud that they allowed me to use their names in my
signature file.

>>Why is everyone looking for / volunteering to be *ex*girlfriends; I
>>need a *current* girlfriend...  :-)

Who's current girlfriend do you need?

>I dunno, Larry.  Can I be your ex-girlfriend? :-)

Humph!  That's ok, my signature file is getting a little full ;-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: patrick@is.rice.edu (Pope Bruno the XVth)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Keywords: Ask me if I care.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:46:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.124354.22380@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|> In <1992Apr14.030728.21623@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> >>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
|> 
|> >If he's so perceptive, he'd surely take note of a self-described devout
|> >Catholic who spares no opportunity to tell us how loving her religion is,
|> >while simultaneously condemning anyone who might disagree with her...then
|> >again, maybe old Karol figures there's no use in trying to set you straight.
|> >(Or, to put it in my native dialect -- if the Avenging Angel was to come
|> >through here killing all the real Christians, he'd never cock his pistol at
|> >*you*...)
|> 
|>    Sheeez Pat, WHy would Sue go through all of that when I've already
|> done it. I've tried to share all of the facets of my religion with you
|> people. We do not condemn you for denying the presence of God. Perhaps
|> we pity you, but we do not condemn or patronize you. In any case,
|> we'd mind our own business with abortions too if there weren't so
|> many innocent victims in the matter (unborn child).
|>    steve

Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                "No one expects the Spanish -- oh, bugger."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:31:09 EDT

>  A desparate woman can travel to any state that she wants?  Not if she's
>  poor and her car won't make it, and she doesn't have enough for bus fare,
>  plus, who'll look after the kids she already has?  And if it's a long
>  distance, where can she safely stay the night?  With little money?
>  Or if she works and she'll risk losing her job if she takes time off
>  (maybe the doctor will give her a written note).
But a poor woman who can not afford bus fare, would not be able to
afford an abortion, even if it was next door.  How would she pay for it?
With tax money?  I do not want my taxes being used to fund something
that I have grave reservations towards. So even if abortions were legal
in all 50 states, she still could not get an abortion unless public
funds are used, or she goes to an abortion clinic which survives on
private contributions (and how many of those are there?).
> 
>  Utah has already passed a law to outlaw abortion.  The state supreme
>  court is waiting on Roe-v-Wade to determine constitutionality.
This is good inforamation that I was not aware of.  I suspect that they
are not now enforcing that law, and with a population of 700,000, and a
large Mormon population, very few abortions would be stopped in the first
week after the overturn of RvW.

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Individual Groups Of Kevin Darcy (Was: Ego That Ate The Net)
Followup-To: alt.flame 
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 19:43:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.170548.11840@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <92100.114119ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>In  <1992Apr2.054200.10383@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy writes:
>>> In article <92091.165901ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
>>
>>>>Idiot.  The net is not here to serve you, and you alone.
>>>
>>>Where did I imply that the Net existed to serve me ALONE??
>>
>>"What constructive purpose did the posting of his private email serve
>> TO ME?" Kevin Darcy <1992Mar29.182951.28031@rotag.mi.org>
>> ^^^^^^
>
>"To me" is clearly a subset of "to everyone", Linda. This quote therefore 
>does -not- imply that the Net exists to serve me ALONE. 
>
>Try again?

Today on Ophra:

Kevin Darcy:  Is he an "individual" or is he a "group"?

Unfortunatly, we'll never know the answer, as Kevin himself doesn't understand
the question, so we'll now be moving onto "Fetuses who hate the Fetus
Worshippers who use the term "Pro-Death".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:00:58 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr8.233049.28897@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Apr08.034532.4308@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >> Rape implies the use of force, which may result in the death of
> >> the potential rape victim.
>
> > Wrong.  (Non-statutory) rape implies force or coercion, but not
> > necessarily lethal force.
>
> I didn't say that rape implied lethal force, I said it implied force.

"which may result in the death of the victim".  That's lethal force.

> > The use of deadly physical force is
> > permitted by law to prevent or terminate a rape *even if the victim
> > is in no danger of being killed*.
>
> How do you know that a rapist will never kill their victim? You can't
> possibly know unless you're a mind-reader.

Read again what I said.  The use of deadly physical force is *permitted
by law* *even if the victim is in no danger of being killed*.  I said
nothing about his intent.  If you're being assaulted, you only have the
right to kill the attacker if you have reason to fear your life is in
danger.  If you're being raped, that's sufficient grounds to kill your
attacker, even if you you *don't* fear for your life.

> > So you would permit an alternative to abortion in which the fetus is
> > removed from the uterus without killing it, and placed in a petri dish?
>
> Yes. I believe there are forms of abortion in which the fetus dies from
> a lack of support (induced abortion, I think), but other forms like vacuum
> suction and saline injection generally act to kill or harm the fetus before
> it would die from a lack of support.

I have to admit that I think this is a silly distinction, but at least
you're consistent in your beliefs.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:34:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Apr11.173423.8755
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Apr6.132051.8425@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> 
>-> Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?
>
>who said that mine was (other than you)? 

The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not? If not, why did
you title your article "Kellmeyer posts private email"???

>you have heard of mailing lists haven't you?

You mean VOLUNTARY WAIVERS of email privacy? Sure, I've heard of them.
I'm even on a bunch of them. What about it?

								- Kevin
From: conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:25:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: hubcap.1992Apr8.202536.21326
Reply-To: conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department
Originator: conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu



roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
->         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall
-> posts are indeed a fraud.


If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around 
 things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,
perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it
			Conrad C Vincent
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:59:48 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <ka6tjmp@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>Mikeey, I'm deleting some of your comments because this whole thing
>is a parallel to making abortion illegal.  If abortion is legal, then
>none of this applies.  (So call me hypothetical....that's what you
>are....hypotheticalllllllllllll......er, sorry)

	Oops!  Sorry if it seems a like I got a little upset. I guess
I took things a bit too serious. Won't happen again, I hope.  #:->
I oppose this "hypothetical" plan as much as I would in laws that would
make abortions illegal. I don't like abortions, but I know it's necessary.



>>	I've stated my objections and reasons, please think about it. :->

>Oh, ok, I guess I'll wait until NEXT week to start lobbying Congress.  :-)

	I guess I'll wait to lobby against the bill. $:->

					Mikeey
			      (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

Today's Advice : Never trust anyone who has two or more faces, you never
		 know which face you're trusting.

							(unknown)


>                          -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 19:47:17 GMT

In article <31068@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>So that was why the "pro-choice" arguments advocated by Adrienne etc are
>faulty.

Scuse, please, but Tommy, if you are going to invoke my name in a posting,
as if I wrote or said something you are rebutting, don't you think it would
be useful (in a 100 postingperday group) to actually QUOTE something I 
said or wrote?

Or are you just screaming for the heck of it here, and we can all just go
on about our business?

>Well ... what of it?

>NOTE WELL:  Remember your "irrelevance stance" Adrienne.  The last sort of
>response I should expect from you is that the 1.5 million are NOT babies.
>We all *know* that.  And of course, you don't care what they are ... do you?

>tk

I don't suppose you could actually deal with POSTINGS that were made?
With STATEMENTS that persons offered to the net?  Do you suppose we all
are automatically in synch with you here?  

Let me offer this:  Tommy, if we were in synch with you, we wouldn't be
arguing.  Take that as a going assumption, OK?

You want to go rabid on us, spewing a bunch of pap, you aren't likely to
get much of a response.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: Sloppy, little to none
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 17:19:56 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Death and life

In article <QduplXu00UhWA6XkAO@andrew.cmu.edu>, ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison
Rebecca Colman) says:
>
>>>> = Joy Haftel
>>>  = Alison Rebecca Colman

>>>>I think it is better to be alive.

>>> How do you know?

>I asked Joy a question, and I am surprised no one (including Joy) has
>really answered it. I asked her, "how do you know that life is better
>than death?" I personally don't think that anybody *knows* the answer to
>this question, but it makes for interesting discussion.

My apologies; I was using the time to think about the question more
thoroughly.

I don't know that life is better than death.  I think it is better,
because life is at least a known quantity, while death remains hidden.

My perspectives come from a Christian point of view, and so do my SO's.
I discussed this question with him.  He said that for a Christian it is
better to be dead than alive on this earth--kind of along Paul's idea
that "Christ in me is to live; to die is gain," and looking forward to
the time after life when we can meet God face to face.  However, God's
work still needs to be done here on earth, so we are supposed to wait
for his time before we die.  So wherever we are, alive or dead, if we
are in God's will, that is best.  So it is better to be alive.

There is something in the human spirit which resists death.  We have laws
trying to protect our lives, we take safety measures, and if chased by
something or someone threatening we run.  Suicides occur, but the over-
whelming majority of people want to keep on living until they are very
ill in old age (at which point many want to die, feeling that they have
lived to their fullest and the pain should end).

Life is good for healthy, reasonably well-off young people with a good
family background, and I am sure that is one reason that I am glad to
be alive; to see opportunities all around, to enjoy both my work and
my other activities.  I suppose I have insufficient information to make
that generalization about life being good for everyone in society.

But, back to the religious angle, in C.S. Lewis' _The Great Divorce_,
the dead ride on a bus to heaven, where everything is so real that people
are wraiths in comparison.  The grass is so thick and sharp it cuts your
feet, and you feel like you were alive for the first time.  I could deal
with being dead if heaven is like that :-).  But in order to get to that
kind of life, you first have to go through this one.  Aborted children
seem to lack a chance at either.


Joy Haftel               "And traveller's joy beguiles in autumn
JKH107@PSUVM                   Hearts that have lost their own."
                                    --A.E. Housman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Matthew Lewis Can Lose
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.130251.1@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov>, lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov writes:
> You then imply that EVERYONE is a hypocrite, and call Dean, I believe,
> a liar for taking issue with *that* generalization.

Actually, he said to Ron that if Ron denied he was ever a hypocrite
then Matthew would assume Ron was a liar and refuse to deal with
him any further.  Matthew has said some pretty silly things to
me on the subject in email as well.  What he has missed, and
what the point really is, is that Matthew has made a positive
and unsupported assertion which he cannot prove and refuses
to support.  Neither Ron nor I have ever affirmed or denied
any hypocrisy on our own parts.  We just requested that if
Matthew wants to call us hypocrites, he should offer some
support for the statement.  The only support he offered was
another unproven and unsupported assumption.  The logic based
on the assumption is simple enough, but the assumption is not one
I can leave at face value or accept.  And so I have pursued
Matthew to see if he could support his assumption.  So far, no
support.

> I think I can speak for both Ron and Dean here (and if I can't, I'm sure
> they will notify me), but ALL WE WANT FROM YOU IS THAT YOU STATE AN
> ACTUAL OPINION, ONE THAT HAS _SOMETHING_ TO DO WITH ABORTION, AND IF 
> POSSIBLE, ACTUAL FACTS TO SUPPORT SAID OPINION.  This is a simple, serious
> request Matt Hew(?), one I think you are up for.

Oops.  You are notified.  I've a lot more problems with Matthew's
remarks than that.  It is my position that if you want to post
some opinion, you ought to back it up and, if challenged, defend
it.  Some don't do that always, but most do that sometimes.
Matthew has done that as little as possible, which leaves no
room for discussion.  And he's gotten all offended when asked to
do so.  That's ridiculous in light of his own statement about
defending one's assumptions.

And I mostly am amazed at the breadth of his remarks.  When I
criticize his opinions as the All-Knowing Wisdom of the
Inexperienced, it is because I have found that a little experience
teaches greater circumspection and less certainty.  As one grows
a bit smarter, one stops saying "All X are Y," and starts
saying "All the X that I have seen are Y" or "A good many
X are Y," and then adds examples or logic or other support for
the statement.

But I would like to see him do as you state as well.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL ABORTION.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:33:00 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr15.223605.28771@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> ><1992Apr8.223119.22140@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. K
>
> >>The law is only "outdated" because abortion is legal and nobody thought
> >>through the really nasty consequences that might have on society.
>
> >And what are those consequences?  Come on, list them.  And they better be
> >actually linked, not just coincidental.  the only consequence I can think
> >of is nosy people like you are upset that others are doing things that you
> >find distasteful.
>
> Increased rates of child abuse.
> Increased violence towards women.
> Increased rates of men abandoning women and the children they helped create.
> Increasing acceptance of misogyny in the work place.
> Decreased self-esteem for women as any failure to reach high stature in
> the male-defined business environment can now be labelled a "women's
> failure" since she wouldn't have had those kids if she REALLY wanted to
> succeed, and success, by male definition, can come ONLY from the
> boardroom, never from the kitchen or the family.

OK, now show a link.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:00:08 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) said:
>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
BTW, Ms. Forgach stated this:
>>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
>>
>>How?  Does the doctor do an abortion and then run out and kill a kid, or
>>does the woman run over them in the parking lot on her way home.
>>Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
>>child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.
>
>Hey dickhead!!!!

Yes, Shit-for-brains?

>Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.
>I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...

I have.  It made her feel better.  The truth doesn't always do that, but
in this case it did.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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