HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parenthood (was Re: Uniting Church)
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 30 Oct 92 11:40:01 +0930
Distribution: aus
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

I don't feel like rewriting a whol article again so I dredged up an
old I put in aus.religion

In article <71.2ad2decd@whyalla.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@whyalla.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child) writes:
> In article <ricko.717683303@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>> dsolly@ecr.mu.oz.au (David_James SOLLY) writes:
>> 
>>>The Synod of the Uniting Church of New South Wales has , according to
> 
>> It is also in the Herald today. I am shocked too.
> 
>> often sees the dilemma in patients who come to him, in making
>> what is too often a choice between a career (i.e. money & "standard
>> of living") and a human life. Astounding.
> 
> Astounding?? Not really.
> Why is it that the mother of the child must be the one to stay home and
> spend the rest of her life raising the child?? This is an enormous waste
> of mental talent.
> 
> For that matter, why should the direct bio-parents
> be the ones to raise the child? We are all humans, this stuff about
> genetic ties that bond is being twisted beyond belief! We are ALL genetically
> tied, and we should ALL feel bonded to each other! This thing about ones
> bio-parents is religious mumbo jumbo - we are not animals who latch
> on to the first thing we see and declare it MAMA! If so, then adoptive
> children would all be social disaster areas and the adoptive system
> would be dismantled!
> 
> At an abortion, the choice is not over inconvenience of birth but wether
> or not the mother is prepared to drop everything she has built up
> and devote her ENTIRE LIFE to someone else! Personally, I think that
> if the current system of forcing women to raise children, we would see
> a damnsight fewer abortions.
> 
> -- 
> John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
> Enic Eng Student & Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
This is old coz I'm twenty now. The sig is also ancient.
It was also posted from my home account, not this one.

--
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:23:23 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov8.172918.8572@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> I was making fun of Storga.  

Gee, I was under the impression when you made fun of another person, you
were supposed to make _them_ look stupid, not yourself.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 00:20:24 GMT

<1992Oct31.172111.12407@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
>In article <1992Oct31.135840.3509@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>>> Better yet, would you be in college today if your parents had had that
>>>> *earlier* child that they couldn't have aborted?  No, you probably wouldn't
>>>> even exist.
>
>>> Yeah, so what?  If I didn't exist, then I couldn't care 
>>> about the situation.   Take a reality check, Ms. Regard. 
>
>> If you had been aborted, you would have been killed before YOU could
>> exist -- before that which is known as Doug Holtsinger, with all your
>> hopes and dreams and individuality, had come into being.  
>
>The exact same argument applies to infanticide. 

Pardon me for butting in here.  The difference is that in the case of
abortion, the woman does not want to be pregnant.  There is no one who can
be pregnant for her once she finds out she is pregnant.  In the case of
infanticide -- there is no need to kill an infant.  If a women can't
handle her child she can take it to the authorities where someone else
can care for it.

Abortion is not something that is done out of hand for little or no
reason.  Part of the argument for abortion is inability to transfer
gestation to a willing person.  That argument does not exist for infants.
After all, Suzanne wouldn't mind it if we sent all the unwanted children
to her.  Would she?


Gordon
-- 
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.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:36:07 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <83124@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>>Of course Ray! I am all for allowing women the same opportunities as men
>> and offering men the same opportunities as women. I'd love equal rights.
>> Unfortunately nature didn't plan it like we wnat it.

That's right. And that is why women, not men, get to make the decision.
If any man ever gets pregnant, I'll support his right to make his
own decisions, too.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Effectiveness of abortion legislation (was Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:36:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.233052.18819@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> No "pro-life" type has yet provided any examples
> or statistics that legislation of any type would bring about the
> changes they seem to desire.

I doubt that anyone could demonstrate that any particular piece
of legislation would be effective for bringing about change. 
For example, I doubt that anyone could prove that child abuse
laws are effective, but most people support them, despite a
lack of evidence proving their effectiveness.  

I do recall hearing something about the birth rate dropping
after Roe v. Wade, but I could be wrong.  But even that is
not an indication that abortion legislation is effective,
since correlation does not imply causation.  

I tend to doubt that abortion legislation would bring about 
large immediate changes.  Any legislation which deals with 
values is not likely to bring about immediate changes, but 
legislation always has the potential to shape values over 
the long-term. 


>Galen Hekhuis  


Doug Holtsinger
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:19:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.083259.11133@netcom.com> 
gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

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

>> So your argument then, is that infants can be killed when a 
>> person can't immediately transfer custody of an infant to 
>> another person.  

> No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
> an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  

But a child can be removed from the womb without killing them. 

>>> Part of the argument for abortion is inability to transfer
>>> gestation to a willing person.  That argument does not exist for infants.

>> Why restrict yourself to gestation? 

> Why not?  It is the stage of a pregnancy that involves involuntary
> servitude that preceeds many abortions.

Yes, it's the involuntary servitude to a person's sex drive 
which often precedes abortion and pregnancy.  

>Gordon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Cochran's Restriction Considered Harmless (?)
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:59:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.053040.18770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.022749.22635@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.192608.20755@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.191213.14422@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>> [Cochran's restriction, criticized]
>>>>>
>>>>>Secondly, Cathi Cook has recently expressed a disdain for "feelgood" 
>>>>>legislation, which if I recall, she defined as legislation which addresses
>>>>>problems not actually known to exist at the time of enactment. 
>>>>
>>>>I _knew_ I had her exact definition quoted somewhere! Here it is, belatedly:
>>>
>>>[Re-post deleted]
>>>
>>>>What the hell is the point of passing Cochran's restriction?
>>>
>>>Kevin, please provide the evidence where I called for the passage of
>>>"Cochran's restriction"...
>>
>>Since you called it a >>LEGAL<< restriction, I just assumed you wanted it
>>embodied in law. Was I mistaken?
>
>Yes.  Maybe you should stop assuming things?

Please identify my mistake clearly and skillfully, O Great Master of 
Doubletalk, I beseech thee, so that I may achieve enlightenment. Please impart 
to my so-less-learned mind how "legal restriction" fails to translate into 
"restrictive legislation", so that I may come to know the error of my 
wicked ways.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 06:46:23 GMT

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

>What difference does it make whether opposition to a particular
>'choice' comes from a specific group of people or from societal 
>and socio-economic forces?  If 'pro-choicers' were truly interested 
>in providing choices, they wouldn't stop at providing only once
>choice.

And, of course, they don't.

Thanks for the words of support, Dougie.

>Doug Holtsinger

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.225656.2734@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Dr. Morgentaler has failed to consider the argument of probability in
>his statements.  Of course an embryo cannot be considered a baby, but
>it's potential to become a baby is far greater than an acorn has to
>become an oak, a seed a rose, or a blueprint a house.  With an embryo, 
>normally all you need to do is allow it some time, and it will develop
>into a baby.  The other examples require a series of steps to be taken
>before development may be complete.

Brian, you know better than that.

All right, I'll give you the classic talk.abortion answer to the "all
you need to do is give the baby time" / "all that she needs to do for
her baby is not kill it" argument: all right, let's detach it from the
woman, and we'll give it all the time in the world.  You don't
ordinarily forget the pregnant woman, Brian.

I'll grant you that blueprint : house :: zygote : human is a poor
analogy, but seed : rose :: zygote : human and acorn : oak :: zygote :
human are quite good ones -- the former are immature forms of the
latter.  They have the potential to *become* the latter, the two forms
share the same DNA, and all that -- the probability of this potential
being realized may be lower, but that doesn't strike me as as
important a fact as you seem to think it.

-- 
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,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:40:24 GMT

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

>In article <BxB8ov.3p7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>> Murder is not the
>>killing of a human being, it is the killing of a *sentient* being.  How do we
>>distinguish when an "existence" has ... a right to exist?  When that 
>>"existence"
>>is sentient.  The unborn do not have the complex experiences that develop
>>sentience...until they are born.
>>

>Again... WHAT?!!!

>Sentience implies a sense of "awareness".  The newborn baby has about
>an equal sense of this as he/she did just prior to the event of being
>born.

Yeah, not very much.  However, birth is the point where the learning process
really starts.  In the womb, nothing needs to be remembered to survive; you
deal with things as they come.  Suddenly you are thrust into a bright, cold,
noisy world.  *SMACK* you learn to breath right off the bat.  Something you
never forget (unless you OD on something).  Later you learn that when something
doesn't feel right, crying can make it get better.  (animals can do this stuff
too, of course)  Then you start to notice patterns in the sounds around you.
You pickout simple sylables that people around you are saying and start to
practice them.  As time goes by you assemble the language you hear spoken into
a language you use yourself.  This happens pretty young. (I'm not sure just how
early, but I know two-year-olds can certainly speak rather well.)  It will
*never* happen in the womb.  It can't even *start* in the womb.  The environment
is too "comfortable" to learn.  *That* is why I make a distinction at birth.

>If you believe that the unborn fetus has no awareness (and thus
>sentience), then you just plain don't know what you're talking about.
>Hell, I've played with an "unborn" child before.  They do respond
>to outside stimuli.

>Besides, you *keep* forgetting:  this is about valuing our own humankind.
>NOT about reproduction.

And I've played with animals (especially cats).  They respond to outside
stimuli; dogs might be even better.  We do not consider them to be sentient
because of that.

It saddens me to think of kittens being "put to sleep", but I know that 
sometimes, for whatever reason(s), it is necessary.

I "value" all life...but I'm not a vegitarian.  I especially value "human life"
--at least I'm not a cannibal--but I value sentient life even more.  There are
times where sentient individuals have to make decisions about the life of things
that are not sentient.

>Jeff Sue

-Rob
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:15:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov7.233500.17000@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <d9k1p_b@rpi.edu> 
> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> You might
> >> be interested to know that the Western ethic against infanticide
> >> gained its roots from early Judeo-Christian thought.  
> 
> >  "First of all, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" 
> >  *anything* is offensive to Jews, who consider 
> >  the two religions opposed at their most basic
> >  points, no matter what their origins may have 
> >  been [...]"
> >     rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
> 
> So what?  That's *her* opinion, not mine. 
> 

Leaving aside the quibble above, I just note that Reverend Doug
is harping on religion again.  I didn't see the previous posting,
but it looks like it was Reverend Doug who borught up religion
first here, based on the phrase "You migh tbe interested to know."

Dean Kaflowitz
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 05:26:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
            <1992Nov2.004610.8037@swbatl.sbc.com> <Bx2o2q.EIp@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <Bx2tJ1.3nt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <Bx3JFo.948@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <Bx3JFo.948@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>Hmmmm, so what you're saying is
>Conception           Pregnancy           Birth
>----------           ---------           -----
>Man-------|                             |-------
>Woman-------------------------------------------
>
>If a man helped make the baby, why does he suddenly have no say over it at
>all, and then suddenly get back responisibility after 9 months?

Well, as the name implies, child-support refers to support for the child,
so it clearly can't begin before the child is born.

>And, actually, through medical technology, a man *can* carry a baby.

In that case, *he* would have the right to abort it, since the fetus would be
in his body.  See - it's completely fair.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: "Child", again....
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:55:35 GMT

In article <nyikos.721597128@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.034942.7016@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>In article <nyikos.720807702@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>When does this happen, according to you, Beth?  Do you consider the
>>>19th century designation "unborn child" to be obsolete, for instance?

>>Mm....  I think that in standard usage the word "baby" includes or can
>>include emrbyoes and fetuses; I'd consider it a stretch to go any
>>earlier than that.  But in standard usage the word "child" doesn't
>>include fetuses; I've read exactly two usages that weren't in the
>>context of an abortion discussion.  Think of it this way: one talks
>>about a pregnant woman's "baby" but when asked how many "children" she
>>has you would expect an answer along the lines of "Three plus one on
>>its way" -- which implies that the z/e/f's not a child yet.

>Well, a 1872 Colorado State Supreme court decision used that language,
>in the context of abortion, and the term goes back many centuries.  One
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  see above
>medieval case I quoted in talk.abortion a while back used the term
>"living child" for a fetus in a woman "big with child."

<sigh>  *Please* don't cite medieval definitions to prove how modern
English is used, Peter. "Charity" used to mean "love".  "Let" used to
mean "impede, hinder, or prevent".  You yourself were just talking
about language drift in the bible thread -- English is a language
which drifts quickly.  Read Shakespeare -- a copy with footnotes.  See
how many words are footnoted because the meanings are different.

You haven't responded to my point: a pregnant woman might call her
fetus a "baby" but wouldn't include the fetus in the number of
"children" she had at this moment.  In standard, everyday usage, a
fetus is often considered a "baby", but almost never a "child".

>Now don't tell me you haven't seen the phrase "big with child" before!

I've also seen the phrase "bun in the oven" before.  I don't think
either phrase really proves anything.

-- 
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
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: OverPeck Admits that Psychological Harm is Fraud
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:47:51 GMT

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
] ---
] wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
] |ray@netcom.com  (Ray Fischer) writes: >
] |dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu  (Doug Holtsinger) writes: >> 
] |>>Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
] |>>provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
] |>>on-demand?
] |>Because it quite clearly isn't.
] |That isn't so obvious, given the current classification of
] |mental disorders.  Are you familiar with the DSM-III-R?
] 
] |>Are you proposing that women should be denied abortions regardless 
] |>of medical necessity?  
] |Is the possibility of "psychological harm" included under the
] |rubric of "medical necessity"?  
] 
] How nice to see a professional counsellor belittling
] "psychological harm" by linking it with the knee-jerk-provoker
] phrase "on demand".  Perhaps it's just that, as a professional,
] Overpeck thinks women can convince counsellors to diagnose
] "psychological harm" "on demand".


I think what he is trying to admit to here
is that he knows that all this 'psychobabble'
from the VICIOUS PsychoTherapy is a FRAUD
and that this has made him feel GUILTY about
what Wanton WICKEDNESS he has done by perpetrating
all of this EVILNESS upon others, and defrauding them
of their hard earned money.


What He really should do is learn to be responsible,
get a real job, and give up his WICKED WAYS!


Then he will not have these guilt feelings
that he needs to sublimate, and that leak
out at inappropriate times.


ciao
driuex


ps: also he is having this STRONG EMOTIONAL
response to the fact that he habitually tries
to convince folks that a habitual liar is NOT
really telling untruths, and this has weakened
his grasp on reality a little, and his subconscious
mind forces through screaming out for forgiveness!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: On colorado's #2...
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:32:29 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
] 
] They already have.  Oregon Amendment #9 was defeated, but Colorado Amendment
] #2 passed.  Unless it gets thrown out as being unconstutional, it will be
] legal in Colorado as of 01/01/93 to deny a person housing, to fire them
] from a job, and to refuse them _anything you want to_ because you think
] they might be gay.

{ i will be decent and skip over the obvious scatological gag. }

Does Colo. Am. #2 have, contained in it, a means of 
redress for Heterosexuals who have been falsely 
accused of being 'gay'????

Since, clearly, Oregon will not be Able to Appoint me as
Head of the Board of Moral Purity, will Colorado be
staffing such an organization committed to passing out
Pink Triangles to Known 'gay' persons, so as to simplify
which persons are covered by the statute so as NOT to
wrongfully ascribe 'gayness' to the "good people."

ciao
drieux

ps: Remember Triblinka, and learn to shoot straight....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, and the Other Two Called for Air Support.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion