HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:25:42 GMT

In article <44991@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
>It *is* my place, as a member of a democratic nation, to add my support to
>to whatever "restrictions" I feel like.

Sure. You have that right. But please spare us your whining when your
"support" doesn't amount to sweet FA.

>>You're entitled to your opinions, just as we're entitled to ours.
>
>Good.  My opinion is that human foetuses are valuable and should be 
>protected by law.

Good. Then lobby to your heart's content.

>>You're free to live your life as you choose and make your own choices
>>for how you're going to live it.  
>
>No I am not.  I'm not allowed to restrict women's choice to abort their
>pregnanices.  That is not freedom.  *I* am restricted by *your* views.

Tommy, this is getting very stale. You *ARE* allowed to restrict women's
choice to abort their pregnancies, but only through a Constitutional
Amendment process, since abortion, as protected by the Right to Privacy, has 
been recognized as fundamental in this country.

Why do you keep whining, Tommy? What purpose does it serve? If you really
cared about this, you'd lobby for a Constitutional Amendment, or, if you 
think RvW (and its successive clarifications) are invalid on LEGAL grounds, 
then you'd discuss the issue in LEGAL terms, instead of blubbering about your 
"right to restrict", which is questionable at best.  

>>Please accord the same respect to us.  
> 
>Do you mean I should allow you to get away with rape then - if that is what you
>choose? 
>Or murder, or robbery? 

Here's something you don't understand, Tommy -- if the State of Michigan 
decided tomorrow that murder or rape or robbery were just hunky-dorey fine, 
they could repeal all of those laws via normal legislative channels, and
in theory THERE WOULD BE NOTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABOUT IT. You are confusing
what states *WISH* to restrict, and what they are *ALLOWED* or *OBLIGATED* to 
restrict. Just because they choose to restrict rape and murder doesn't mean
they are necessarily allowed or obligated to restrict other forms of 
"killing", e.g. abortion. Hobbesian States of Nature are, in theory, 
Constitutionally valid over here. Non-restriction is almost always 
Constitutional; restriction is often un-Constitutional.

Are you getting the idea yet, Tommy? Read our Constitution. Read Constitutional
commentaries and discussion. Read the Federalist Papers and other background 
Constitutional material. Read Supreme Court decisions. Look at our legal 
history. Your perspective on our laws is WRONG. NO CITIZEN HAS AN ABSOLUTE
"RIGHT TO RESTRICT", NOR DOES ANY STATE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATION TO PREVENT PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING EACH OTHER!!!

Sorry for getting a little intense there, but you've been irritating this
point for month after month after month after month, and even my angelic 
patience is starting to wear thin...

								- Kevin
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:59:35 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

Douglas:
> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
>been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.  Surely
>they can wait a little longer while the pro-aborts continue to take the easy
>way out.

[sarcasm warning. read at your own risk.]

what a crock. if you're aunt and uncle want to adopt we can all go down
to the local ghetto of your choice. there are many children there that
were not aborted. many are sickly, malnourished and strung out. luckily
their high minded parent(s) made a choice against abortion, afterall
abortion is evil. so these lucky children live in the street and breed
more lucky children. so Douglas have you ever had a child offer to sleep
with you for a fix or food? have you ever seen children loading their noses
with white powder, on the street in broad daylight? do you know why this
happens? my opinion is that they have realized they have nothing to live
for, so they should grab a little pleasure before they die or are killed.

so why not drop round 'ye ole ghetto' and pick up a kid or two. luckily
we are, for the most, sexually illiterate... and we can become even more
lucky if abortion was made illegal. we would be lucky because more dear
children could be born.

[sarcasm off]

evertime I hear of people 'waiting' to adopt a child I wonder what these
people are really 'waiting' for. if they were truely concerned with the
care of a child they would simply adopt one out of their backyard... the
entire adoption process truely puzzles me.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Baby Machines (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:24:15 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

X-NEWS: brandonu.ca talk.abortion: 35613
From: jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)

-	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
-life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
-Well, you could say she's committed herself.

Only if you think women are baby machines.   Why not just put all women
into a big building where men can go to impregnate them whenever they
please?  The women could all sit in the building waiting to impregnated
so they could serve their God-given duty to multiply.  There's a
happy set of thoughts, eh?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.153159.12590@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.717777688@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:
>

>but instead a call for more education.  But if I remember right, Ron
>would like to see an end to that as well.

Who sets the criteria?  Whats being 'taught' now isn't working.  

>that they are safe only because they are outside their mother's bodies. 
>
>I'm confused by this last line ... are you implying that all those premies
>are there because the woman "wanted" them out of their bodies?  And that
>they would have *willingly* killed the z/e/f if it had remained?  Otherwise
>I'm mystified as to what you mean by this in the context of abortion.
>
I make a point in reference to your z/e/f usage.  Take a baby who is 26 months old.  It's a 'baby' if it's in the NCU, but a z/e/f in it's mother?  That doesn't make sense.  z/e/f/n/i/t/a/t Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, are all labels which describe a stage in the life of a human being.  Some people would call an infant a toddler, or vice-versa.  Same person, different age.  I call a z/e/f a baby; same person, different age!


>Psstt.  Don't spread it around, but you and I, we've got it made.  We
>took the easy way out and [whisper] we "chose" to be male.  I mean, look 
>we bypass that monthly "thing" and we can't get pregnant with all it's
>drawbacks (general uncomfortableness to severe sickness and potentail
>serious injury to our body and livihood).  Not to mention that we've
>structured society to favor us over those lesser humans.  Just don't let 
>those women in on our little secret -- hey, you women, stop reading I said!

We sure do have it good ... (you forgot PMS above) ...

rlg

-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:06:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.211130.8098@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>Because, IMHO, it would be murder to prevent a wanted and healthy child
>from 
>comming into the world.
>


My god, we agree!  Sort of.  I don't think I'd call it murder, but something
akin.

Now, that we're getting somewhere.  Shall we try to go a bir farther?

Put your thinking cap on, Eric, because this will take some logical reasoning.

One: if its murder (or something akin) to prevent a wanted (I'll leave out
the "and healthy" part as some unhealthy babies are wanted) fetus from
being born, but it's not murder (or anything like it) to prevent an unwanted
fetus from being born, then don't you think that the personhood status
kinda depends on something other than conception?  I mean, when you begin
to talk about murder, you do bring in legalities here.  So, this is the
really complicatedness of the abortion issue, isn't it?

There seems to be a dichotomy...if it is legal to abort a fetus because
of any reason, then it can't be legal to prosecute a person who causes
a fetus to die if the woman didn't want it to happen.  But, if the woman
didn't want the fetus to die and someone did something to cause that, in
her eyes, her "baby" has been killed and someone should be prosecuted.

So, shouldn't we not argue about personhood and start lobbying for laws
which protect the fetus is the woman herself wants it protected, and not
protecting it if the woman doesn't desire that protection?  That would be
more fair and just.  In other words, what makes a fetus a "person" legally
would rest on the woman's intentions toward it, not conception, self-awareness,
third-trimester, or birth.


>See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
>something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
>on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
>to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
>person to die?
>
>
What does this have to do with abortion?

But, to answer your question:  MORALLY, it would be difficult to do
nothing.  LEGALLY, you have the right to stand by and watch.  That's
why you have to discuss legalities when discussing abortion.


Jennifer
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:49:23 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.231045.28254@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.180147.14031@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>
>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>to life.

Hmmm... what does innocence and charges have to do with whether or not a 
fetus needs to be retained in the woman's uterus. The woman hasn't committed
any crimes, either.

>>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>>involved.  I've posted a list of some situations in which I feel a
>>woman would have a very good reason not to have a child she doesn't
>>want (she was raped,

>A rose is a rose is a rose regardless of how the rose was planted.

Oh, goody. How about "You don't plow the corn under just because it was
planted with the neighbors shovel." Are you aware that comparing women
to farmyards is sort of dehumanizing...?
 
>> or she needs to take medication that could
>>severely damage the fetus, 

>If the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child are weighed 
>properly, then there is a possibility that the life of the mother may 
>take precedence.  However, it's a tough call, but I'd much rather not see
>Direct Abortion.

It's a tough call to decide between a living person and a four cell mass?
Sorry lady, you get to die of an easily treatable kidney infection since
antibiotics are potential abortifacients and you're three days pregnant...
God, you scare me.

>More reason to have laws which prohibit abortion.  When employers find
>out that mothers care for their children and have no option to kill them,
>they will shape up.  If not, then we will find ways to make them shape up.

It didn't work before, so why will it work now. In the days before abortion
was legal, it was customary to fire pregnant women. Somehow I suspect that
outlawing abortion will lead us back to the good old days when employers
canned us so they didn't have to pay us benefits for pregnancy.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Can Granting Personhood/Banning Abortion Be Consistent?
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:18:09 GMT

This includes the following threads,
  "Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?"
  "Exporting `Abortion is Murder' into law"

and it includes several different topics:

a. Is there a consistent legal system that grants personhood to fetuses
   and permits abortions in the case of rape, forced-incest, and danger
   to the woman's health?

b. Same as (a), including the issue of fetal health (including incest).

c. Is there a way to create laws enforcing the above which follow 
   established procedures in current law (ie. are not "inconsistent" 
   in the sense of being novel and distinct)?

d. Does claiming that a position is consistent imply that one
   supports that position?
   
e. Does discussing whether such a system is consistent imply
   one must also discuss whether it should be implemented?

f. Should personhood be granted to fetuses?

g. Does restricting one's focus to a particular topic imply
   that one has ulterior motives in separating related issues?


I have sought to discuss (a).

I entered this discussion from alt.abortion.inequities, thinking
that woman-fetus conflicts of rights were a topic of "equity", and 
thinking it might make an interesting foundation for discussing 
woman-man-fetus conflicts of rights.  I don't read talk.abortion.

Unfortunately, except for a few reasonable posted responses and some
very good email responses, it seems that the majority of respondents 
prefer to flame, to make emotional appeals, to make parodies, or to 
set up straw man arguments.

I apologize for thinking it was possible to discuss (a) on the net
in a nonpartisan manner.  


In trying to keep on topic, I've found myself resorting to the 
caps-lock key to enter disclaimers avoiding (d), (e), (f), and (g),
to no avail.  I don't like that style of conversation and I don't
find it productive, so I'll drop out.

I am still interested, however, in discussing topic (a) by email,
and I'll be happy to discuss non-flamed, non-straw-man objections 
to the arguments (including those still pending on the net) I've 
tried to present for the sake of separating out the chaff.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39268 talk.politics.misc:48498 alt.sex:31266 alt.rush-limbaugh:6147 alt.politics.elections:14594 alt.politics.clinton:7702 alt.politics.bush:7096
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:15:28 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
|>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

|Try this on for size.
|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
|Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

Yeah?  So what?  If I'm brain-dead, I'd certainly want my
survivors to pull the plug.  If I'm ill with cancer, and have
one month of excruciating pain left to me, I will certainly
want the option of euthanizing myself (with some help if I
need it).

Did you have some kind of point?  You really ought to, if
you're going to broadcast your posting to this many newsgroups.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"He must be an oddity, I think," said she.  "I cannot make him out.  
There is something very pompous in his style.  Can he be a sensible 
man, sir?"  --Pride & Prejudice.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:51:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct2.193607.29902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <25817@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>be dead?)

>>Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
>>other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
>>rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
>>have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.

>No one has to grant anyone else the right to life.  People have it
>from the moment of their existence whether or not some document says so.

>Did the blacks in the early 1800s have the right to be free?  Was it written
>anywhere?  It wasn't stated anywhere in law but they did have a right not
>to be slaves.

They had the rights granted to them by their society, just and do
you and I.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Summary: Huh? 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:15:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.211859.9370@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>I will grant you that given the current state of technology there are
>serious problems with doing what I truly believe must be done...and maybe
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Um, and just how do you propose to make sure that "what you truly believe
must be done" gets done?  Legislate it?

Now, don't go all hypocritical on us now, Eric.  You've said time and time
again that you don't support any laws regulating abortion...

>the problems are to serious to be overcome any time soon.  But would
>that necessarly mean
>that we should just stop looking for the solutions that I know will exist
>so long as we don't destroy ourselves first.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.055935.27938@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep29.164645.25430@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>><1y6nqzf.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Sep19.034112.12616@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) :
>>>><1=zn4rl.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>>This little gem is from last summer about establishing her theocracy:
>>>>>=<1991Jul10.234449.29514@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>>>>>=>From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
>>>>>=>> How long will it be before America becomes a
>>>>>=>> theocracy?
>>>>>=>
>>>>>=>Heh heh heh.  As long as it takes.
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>This is supposedly the infamous quote where Suzanne endorses theocracy? 
>>>
>>>What does it look like?
>>
>>It looks like someone has taken a vague statement, interpreted it in the
>>absolutely most unfavorable way to Suzanne, insisted that it MUST mean what
>>they say it does, and now they're using all of this to try and smear her. 
>
>Do you really think that I made my statement wrt Suzanne and her theocracy
>based on ONE LINE?  

That's all the "evidence" I've seen you post so far.

>The quoted line is only the most direct evidence of her theocratic leanings.  

So that's your BEST proof? Pathetic. Don't bother with the rest of it, then, 
Gordon; it would just be a waste of bandwidth.

>>In other words, t.a. business-as-usual. Sigh.
>
>You ought to call the police on the person who is forcing you to read this
>newsgroup.

Where oh where did I imply that I was being "forced" to read t.a?

You're losing it fast.

>>>What the hell kind of logic do you use?
>>
>>Basic Aristotleian, with various refinements added over the last few
>>centuries of thought on such matters. What kind of logic do YOU use, Gordon?
>
>Mostly common sense, Kevin.  You ought to try it sometime.  

Formal logic is often necessary to separate "common sense" from "common 
NONsense", Gordon. I can certainly understand why you hate it when I apply 
it to YOUR statements...

>It might keep
>you from being the butt of so many jokes on this group and others.

Let's see, now: I'm unpopular, so obviously you must be right, eh, Gordon?

NOT!

Another ridiculous logical fallacy bites the dust...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:35:00 GMT

falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes ...
> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>| varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
>|(Bruce Varney) wrote:
>|> 
>|>Have you ever seen a film of a child being killed in his/her mother's womb?? 
>|
>|No, and neither have you.
>|Look up the word "credulous" and see what it means.
>
>Try looking it up yourself; it's not *in* the dictionary.

credulous adj. 1. Disposed to believe to readily; gullible.  2. Arising from
 or characterized by credulity.

American Heritage Dictionary - New College Edition.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion