HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:37:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <26462@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes, and writes, and writes, and writes:
>>Adrienne.  She can be a Dr. Jekyll for a long time, then turn into Ms.
>>Hyde, like she did against Martin Guerrero on the "I had an abortion
>>two days ago" thread.

>>Lots of other pro-choicers have this dual personality.  Some can be
>>raving lunatics in private e-mail, yet be reasonably civilized
>>on the net.  Others are more nearly the other way around.

>Peter, have you ever considered that we are really sane, most of us
>anyway, and that we sometimes must drop our tactics to those of the
>obtuse opposition because we find that this is the only format that
>makes any sense to them? From what I've seen, the pro-choice crowd is
>mostly well-educated, where as the same cannot be said for the pro-life
>crowd. (And you wondered why the church wanted to keep everything in
>Latin!!!)

>Ron

As one of those nasty pro-choice people I would ask you to look
in your voluminous archives and find a nasty post from this address.

You know, Peter, idealism is not a crime (and I suspect that may be
at the root of so many posters on the other side). However, this is
not an ideal world. We are getting there, albeit slowly. Sure, if
everyone has free choice there will be some badly thought out
decisions made, but the alternative in removing freedoms is not
what this country was founded upon. It is nice and comfortable
to some people *not* to have to make their own decisions
but simply to have everything legislated for them. However, some
of us are full grown adults who are perfectly comfortable with
making our own decisions and we can get just a little irritated
when some do-gooder comes along and tries to make them for us.

There was a saying in Hawaii that the missionaries came to
enlighten them, and enlightened them of everything that was
not screwed down. Or the other saying - when someone approaches
you with the intent to do you good - run for your life.

In essence, I make no claim to be perfect, but I have been making
my own decisions (legally) for 43 years now, and quite a bit
longer than that thanks to intelligent parents. I've made a few
mistakes and some of them were beauts, but I also learned in
the process. It seems that you believe that you are better
equipped than I am to make my decisions, or than women are to
make their decisions. Sorry, but that sounds unconstitutional
to me.

Chimo;
Bob.
aka REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Question for Bruce Varney
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:48:14 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Recently in an email discussion, I told Bruce Varney that I thought
his views on abortion force him to take a misogynist stance.  He replied
saying that he is not a woman hater, and various female members of
his family support him and his beliefs (I can't remember for sure,
but I think they may've agreed with him too).

So I went further and asked him something like this: "Ask the female 
members of your family if they support your desire to enslave every
woman to bring every conceived zygote to term."

He didn't respond, so I emailed another message asking him if he
had asked his family that question yet.  He didn't respond, and I
know he may just be busy, but I'm an impatient kinda guy, so I
thought I'd post it in hope of getting a speedier response.

So didja ask them yet Bruce?  Do they still like your ways?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:19:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Chaney/Hall must love this guy's .sig

In article <1992Oct12.153354.17164@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
#In article <1992Oct11.085322.89833@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
##Unique?  Yes.  Sentient?  Feeling?  Person?  No!  (At least, not in
##99.99+% of abortions.  And the less than .01% (that's about 100 *total*,
##per year, in the US) of third trimester abortions that *are* performed are
##done for serious health reasons.  The woman is *undoubtedly* a unique,
##sentient, feeling person, so if only one can be saved, she gets my vote.)
##
#
#O.K. It's time to put forth the real issue for discussion.  Larry, and 
#many other pro-choicers, have made the claim that 99% of abortions 
#occur in the first tri-mester.  

No, Krueger, Larry said that 99.99+% of abortions occur before the
third trimester.  Think about it - there are three trimesters of
pregnancy, not two.  That's why they use the term trimester.

#If that is what pro-choicers want, then 
#why do they fight so hard against any restrictions on abortion after 
#the first tri-mester?  I think what we have here (at least on the part 
#of groups like PP, NARAL and NOW) is a red herring.  They may claim 
#to be in favor of abortion "only until the point of viability," but they 
#sure scream and yell at the first sign of any restrictions on RoevWade 
#whatsoever.

Maybe you should read Roe.  Roe basically said there could be
no restrictions in the first trimesters, restrictions in the
second trimester to safeguard the health of the pregnant woman,
and restrictions in the third trimester to safeguard the health
of both the pregnant woman and the fetus.

In other words, Roe allows third trimester restrictions. 
 
#Could I have some help on this one, pro-choicers?

As I said, read the decision that you refer to above - you
obviously have not.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:04:51 GMT

In article <warren.718894220@beloved> warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>In <1992Oct11.055932.13823@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>   Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's oldest and
>>largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is dedicated
>>to the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to
>>choose when or whether to have a child.
>[...]
>>nearly 5 million Americans each year, regardless of race, age,
>>gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
>>Through its international program, Family Planning International
>>Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
>>of women and men in the developing world.

>After reading something like that one would have to feel foolish to be in
>disagreement with such a pristine organiztrion as this.

The word most suspect to me is, "individual:"

"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
when or whether to have a child."

or,

"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: spinoza@next01wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Great American Novel.......Part One
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:17:56 GMT


				Chapter One
" Does Simon realize that his rechristening as 'LeBooth' was a reference  
either to Simon Legree or else to Jean Marie LePen, both of whom he  
resembles quite a bit?," the Bonnie Laird wondered to himself as he  
fingered the bit of pottery he'd scavenged from the Forum Romanum. "Does a  
slug understand the nature of the Usenet system? Does a Borg understand  
the meaning of a logical argument, as opposed to a specious one?".  
Determined to divine the answers to these questions, he rose from his  
throne and began to ponder the karma which made some, like the creature  
called drieux, all knowing and witty to boot, and some like the Borgoid,  
eternally lost in its own ravings, or like the simonbooth, adrift in a sea  
of stupidity. Lost in thought, he wandered aimlessly as he pondered the  
great mysteries of life. Suddenly, his reverie was interrupted. The Rabbit  
called to him,  reminding him to actually do that architecture project  
he'd been putting off for nearly two weeks. He cursed softly, his toes  
curling as he contemplated the long hours he would spend that night,  
wrestling with the plain white paper that would be transformed into a  
thing of beauty.

				
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:35:14 GMT

In article <8=1zb0-@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>->>As the Net probes ever deeper into the question of Jim Keegan's private
>->>e-mail, I have another -- what business is it of yours to ask?
>->Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it public.
>you're lying, rescorla. cj accused me of asking support
>from a private mailing list. that made it public. my
>subsequent calling her a liar for lying simply
>continued that which cj had already begun.
Jim, you seem to have a somewhat itchy trigger finger in accusing
people of lying. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary.

I will agree with you, however, that CJ accusing you of asking you
for support made it public. Nevertheless, the flap had long died down.
It was your choice to bring it up again in a public forum.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Women have awareness! Do fetuses?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:19:17 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1bmkecINNc2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.230838.12816@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>I don't have to info right here in front of me, but I have read that a
>>baby being aborted feels the pain of being aborted.  Now while that may
>>not constitute sentience, this must reinforce the idea that afetus is indeed
>>alive.
>
>OK, Simon.  We can fix that.  Read the sentence below, and feel free not
>to keep the info right in front of you from now on:
>
>At 7 weeks, a fetus does not feel pain.

I once saw an exerpt of a film called "The Silent Scream" on TV a long time
ago, now the ultrasound footage that was shown does seem to contradict this.
I wasn't just making things up, although you might say the film was doctored
in some way.  How it would have been I don't know though.  Now, how is it
determined that a fetus doesn't feel pain??
>

>It may be comfortable for you to believe this, but in fact I think it is
>untrue.  We will tell you how stupid you are when you write stupid things.
>Stop writing stupid things, and see.

That was one spur-of -the moment comment I had made, the above though
is not made up.

Simon

(Look, I am editing this, deleting things too, by using an on-campus terminal)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:46:35 GMT

In article <1beugiINNi6u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.235505.18773@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

db> Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
db> those of other persons.
db> Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.
drieux>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ws> I think that you have somewhat misread Don's statement, Drieux.  I don't think
ws> that he was saying that "having sex implies that women should remain pregnant,"
ws> as a few people have said.  

[sentence deleted for clarity]

ws> In other words, he was only playing the Devil's
ws> Advocate, IMHO.

To clear this up, this part is absolutely true.  The point of making
a stipulation was to see where the argument (of consistency in a "pro-life"
position) led, and to avoid the barrage of ad hominem attacks and 
the battles among personal beliefs.

The word "Stipulate" should indicate I wasn't claiming that
women should remain pregnant, as some people have said.


[here's the deleted sentence:]

ws>When Don made that quote, he was primarily
ws>referring to the fact that for *men*, this stipulation is *already true*, while
ws>it is not true for women.  

ar>Scuse, please, but can you please tell me more about this interpretation?
ar>In what way has Don made reference to a fact that men suffer this stipulation
ar>and women do not?

To clear this up, while I +do+ believe that men suffer the stipulation
while women do not, I wasn't referring to it at the time.

But I did intentionally choose the wording of the stipulation 
so that if someone objected, then there would be some rationale 
for it beyond just simple devil's advocacy.  The rationale would
include both the inequity and the conservative moral view.

I think Will picked up on that, knowing that I do believe that
men are assumed both morally and legally to have voluntarily reduced
their rights if they have sex, while women are not -- legally, at least.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:12:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.163345.6068@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Brian writes:
>>>Think of it this way.  Would you support legislation that would
>>>require you to donate a lung or a kidney or some other part of your
>>>body that you can survive without in order to save a life?
>>>
>>Notice that abortion is ACTIVE killing.  The situation you describe
>>about saving someone else by donating involves someone who is dying
>>on his/her own without your ACTIVELY killing that person.
>
>You didn't answer the question, but I'll assume your answer, then, is
>"no, I wouldn't support legislation that would require me to donate
>parts of my body to save a life."
>
>Whether or not it's active killing is irrelevant.  The truth is that
>there's a life in the balance, and by your decision, the life has
>died.  This is obviously a bad thing, so why don't we pass laws to
>eliminate that choice?
>
The question involves gov't intervention.  Abortion is an active
means, the death of a human is a result.  In this case, gov't can
certainly intervene to prevent the means.  It is doable.  However
in your case (donating parts), the means may or may not be
active, or who knows what the means were.  Besides, the means 
(whatever way this person is in a dying state), in your case,
already done.  Gov't can help prevent death which is preventable 
(abortion, active killing).

Besides, abortion and "forcing" someone to donate pats are two
different problems.  Preventing an abortion, and solving the problem
of a dying person are two different issues.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:08:07 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct9.154351.12787@athena.mit.edu>, purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep30.050730.10253@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
|> 
|> >As I've said time and time again, sperm isn't human life!  No scientist
|> >or biologist will agree with you on that assertion.
|> 
|> I hate to be the one to cast the cold clear light of reason upon your
|> blissful ignorance, but here's one holder of advanced degrees in biology
|> who has done some original research (which ought to qualify me for the
|> title of "scientist") who agrees that human sperm and ova are human life.
|> 
|> As a matter of fact, human sperm and ova are the dominant form of
|> humanity by numbers alone.  We of the diploid generations are few and
|> far between, compared to our haploid children.
|> 
|> Lets play twenty questions:
|> 
|> Q. Are sperm and ova comprised of human protoplasm?
|> A. Yes.
|> 
|> Q. Do sperm and ova possess human chromosomes?
|> A. Yes.
|> 
|> Well, gee.  Looks like sperm and ova must be human!
|> 
|> Q. Are sperm and ova alive?
|> A. Yes, at least until they die.
|> 
|> Well, gosh.  Looks like sperm and ova are human life!  And that only
|> took three questions.
|> 
|> But wait, there's more:
|> 
|> Q. Are sperm and ova independent entities?
|> A. Yes.
|> 
|> Q. Are sperm and ova genetically unique individuals?
|> A. Yes.

	I agree with all this.  So what?  Medically, a member of a given species
will eventually develop into an adult of that species if not killed and if given
nutrition.  Neither sperm nor ova count, by that definition (which is the
standard medical definition), as human beings.  "The cold clear light of
reason," as you so poetically call it, is really just your pair of
rose-colored glasses at work again.

Steve

gore Clinton in '92
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:45:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.043831.19589@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> If you allow for unrestricted abortion,  you would be treating some human 
> beings as an underprivileged class, subject to arbitrary termination. You 
> would be discriminating against fetuses. 

You _can't_ discriminate against fetuses.  You can only discriminate
against _people_.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:15:43 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.102829.11849@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes ...
>>>From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu
>>>Subject: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
>
>>>   - I argue that pregnancy introduces the threat of suicide.
>>But my argument was that abortion increases the threat.
>>>   - How many women did not kill themselves because abortion was an option?
>>See the last line I wrote.
>>>  Those whom abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds
>>>  have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders.
>>>   - does that surprise you?
>>:-)  Actually, no.  I applaud your response to this.  I can't deny the
>>validity of that point at all.

>Well gee.  You start with a sample of people already disposed to
>mental illness, then infer that because these people have a high risk
>of post-abortion psychiatric disorders abortion is the cause?  Sorry,
>I'm not stupid enough to buy that one.

Double golly. The rate of post partum problems in this subgroup is much
greater than the rate of post abortion problems. Bipolar women are 
especially likely to have severe and refractory episodes following labor
and delivery. Don't take my word for it, check out any psychiatric textbook.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:47:20 GMT

In <26018@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >
In article <1992Oct5.163708.18721@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>> One also wonders about the intentions of those who maliciously
>>> derogate the religious convictions of others.  If only we were
>>> all Wiccans...
> 
> Maybe it has to do with those who seek to impose their irrational 
> beliefs on the rest of us through law. 

Many of us think that occurred when Roe was decided.  Who are you
to decide what constitutes "irrational beliefs"?  Your opinion may
carry as much weight as the next guy's, but that has little to do
with objective reality.  

> Bill, I though you held yourself above this low-level sniping.

Where is the sniping?  Eric is (or was) a Wiccan.  Is it a known
fact that Wicca represents the epitome of rationality?  Or could 
it also be considered so much "superstitious crap"?  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:42:48 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes ...
>In <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com 
>   (Jennifer Brindle) writes: >
>
>> I think that many 14-year-olds are capable of making good decisions, 
>> particulaly when it concerns their own lives.  And I think that if a 
>> teenager wants an abortion she should be able to get one--without 
>> _having_ to get permission, or even inform, her parents.  
>
>I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
>but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
>*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
>has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
>unilaterally?  

What makes you think that the 14-year-old will be any _less_ mature
than her parents?  What makes you think the parents are better able to
decide what the teenager can handle than the teenager herself?

>Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
>legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
>also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
>a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
>treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.

If said 14-year-old gets pregnant and keeps the child, the parent will
incur 4 years of responsibility while the 14-year-old will incur 18
years of responsibility.  The teenager will be primarily responsible
for the care of the infant.  Should she be forced under any
circumstances to care for a child she was forced into accepting?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity