HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice, what a beautiful life....!!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:45:52 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <nvk1aj-@rpi.edu>, cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> David Allen Markley <dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>>You're happy that a minority of people (< 43%) in the United States have
>>chosen an incompetent draft-dodging tax and spend extreme liberal?
> 
> Yes.

Actually, weren't most of Perot's supporters formerly Clinton supporters?
Well, at least I heard that Perot was taking more voters from Clinton
than he was from Bush.  I imagine a majority of Americans wanted
someone *other* than Bush, so y'all should be happy the best Non-Bush-
Man won.  

As for the abortion issue, I thought it would be clear that the election
would show fairly well that the majority of Americans are not pro-life
extremists (since a minority voted for Bush), but then you have to
wonder how many clued-out dudes there were who didn't know Clinton
and/or Perot were pro-choice.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Look what the NetMail brought this morning...
Summary: ...and what it didn't bring this morning. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:21:31 GMT

In article <BxIsoo.4sG@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <Bx9nGu.6wM@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <Bx9GG7.58o@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>>>Good Luck, but don't expect much.  It doesn't seem to be a net.sin to 
>>>be nasty, deceptive,  or stupid.
>
>>That could be the case, but the reply I got from Dick Smith was a forwarding
>>of the response *he* got from Dr. Anne-Louise Radimsky, who apparently is
>>sponsoring Steve's account at nextnet.csus.edu.  From her reply, it appears
>>that this is far from the first time she's had to deal with Steve's actions,
>>and she's getting tired of it -- she said if he was to continue his actions,
>>she'd withdraw the sponsorship of the account.  In any case, I think even
>>Li'l Stevie Witless will get the message, this time...
>
>I stand corrected!!
>
>Personally, I found it reprehensible and incomprehensible that an Afro-
>American would include a graphic portrait of a fictitious Klansmen in their 
>own .sig file to make a point.  I know of no self-respecting Jew who would 
>include a graphic portrait of a swastika in their own .sig file to make a 
>point.  Perhaps the key is "self-respecting"...

That would be a good start -- he doesn't even seem to respect the "pro-life"
side of this discussion, assuming he can tell one side from the other.

>It's been a week since Chaney has posted here.  His last words were: 
>"Who's Dennis?".  How ironic.

He's popped back up in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, babbling about his new channel
on IRC and bragging about how he'll deal with any liberal that dares to sign
in on that channel...in other words, he's taken the hint and found another
newsgroup to harass people in, for the time being.

--PLH (my predictions remain correct, though -- he'll do himself in)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: proposal hunting licenses for newbies
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:11:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <92305.221223ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>,
ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) wrote:
> 
> 
> I propose that the proceeds of the first newbie
> licensing bid go toward buying Mr. Holtsinger a
> sense of humour.

Why?  He'd only break it.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: compromise
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:47:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.011709.25856@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:

>>> I do not think, however, that the legal system
>>> should be used to impose morality.  The law exists for the protection of
>>> society, not as a vehicle for forcing one person's notions of right and
>>> wrong upon another.

>> But just about every law is based upon morality -- murder laws
>> are based upon on the notion that it's wrong to kill innocent
>> people.  Abortion laws would extend that concept to all innocent 
>> human beings.  

> Unless, of course, murder laws are based on self-interest.  In which
> case your notion that murder laws should apply to embryos is wrong.

But if murder laws are based on self-interest, then those people
who have no self-interest, such as newborn infants, may be killed.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-Choice CAN justify calling infanticide murder
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:13:35 +1030
Organization: Oh look, a lifeform!

Some people are saying that if you support abortion right at
the last minute then there is no difference between that and
infanticide two days after birth.

RUBBISH!

A newborn, although requiring support for the next few years
of it's life does NOT have to be a burden on anyone who doesn't
want it to be, anybody (but a lactated woman is preferable) can
look after it.

For a fetus it's a different story, it's inside a woman who,
wihtout abortion, has NO CHOICE but to support it wether she
likes it or not. "What about C-section?" yeah sure, if you don't
mind major surgery, then there's all the shame of 'abandoning'
her child (this was the point I was trying to get across in WHY,
if there was no shame, there would be a few more women prepared
to take the fetus to term).

Once a child is born, anybody can take the responsibility so
there is no need to kill it if it is unwanted (deformations
etc would probably lead to an abortion LONG before birth, 
unless the prolife weenies stuck their noses in.)
-- 
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,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:29:56 GMT

In <klj187j@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>if chaneyhall, DODie, kebbin, kellmeyer, rasmussen and
>assorted loons didn't exist, someone would have to
>invent them.

Masochist! :-)

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Eat Hot Flaming Laser Death Monkey Boy!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:59:26 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes ...
>Ok, all you have to do is write a multithreaded kernel
>using object oriented cobol for the 8088 family of chips
>to be used as a Multitasking Multiuser 
>DOS Machine.....


'tisn't THAT hard.  All you have to do is implement a Turing machine
in Cobol, then implement the SPARC architecture in the Turing machine,
port over SunOS, and viola!

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:05 GMT

I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what your position is,
Doug, and I'd like your help.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>I believe that parents should have a general obligation to care 
>for their children.  Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with it.
>I think this is the second time I've told you that.

Yes, I remember when you told me before.  But, like I answered before,
there's a leap of logic between "having a general obligation to care
for their children" and "being legally allowed to kill the fetus
inside her."  Do you feel that the "general obligation" overrides a
woman's "bodily autonomy"?

>Removing the child intact does not always pose more of a risk
>to the mother.  I recently posted an article which showed that
>killing, rather than removal, is often cheaper, faster, and
>less painful, with about the same risk after 16 weeks gestational
>age.  
>
>Even if a person has the right to perform act X, where act X
>results in the death of person Y, it does not logically
>follow that anyone should have the right to kill person Y.

Obviously you're against traditional forms of abortion that involve
the direct death of the fetus.  Tell me directly, then:

(a) Would you like to see this method of abortion legally prohibited?

(b) Would you allow removal and indirect death instead of killing and
direct death?

Note that I'm only asking because I honestly don't know.  If you've
already answered these questions, then I apologize for having lost
your previous post in the flood that comes through here each day.

>If I have the right to leave a severely wounded accident 
>victim alongside the road to die, it does not follow that
>I should have the right to kill them.  

Of course not!  The victim isn't violating your body in any way.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47522 alt.flame:14586
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: a reason to exist
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:22:03 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov10.163747.2923@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-091192131607@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov8.022830.20646@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp (Doug
> >Holtsinger) wrote:
> >> 
> >> If certain moderate pro-choicers didn't exist,
> >> what would Keegan do?  Play with himself all day?
> >
> >Doug, if you've failed to learn anything else from USENET, you should at
> >least have learned that not everybody shares your particular predilections.
> 
> Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

While I can understand how someone in your position might be actively
seeking employment in a more, let us say, _stable_ line of endeavor, I
don't have any current openings that I can see you filling, Kevin.

I _will_ let you know if I need a central tunnel support anytime soon.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual integrity post: 
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:58:28 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->Surely you wouldn't, like Garvin, make an assertion 
->can't support ("Darcy has been [...] arguing for 
->abortion restrictions"). 

susan garvin's assertion that you argued for abortion
restrictions has been proven several times in the past
two weeks. 

here is the proof again, complete, unedited.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:59:11 GMT

In article <#bjzhpb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>I discussed this with Ms. Bartley.  She used the analogy that, say,
>it was not illegal to kill your child on the child's seventh
>birthday.  She said she would be uncomfortable with that being
>legal.  My response was, ok, say that it's been legal to do that
>for the last 20 years.  Say that we have absolutely no evidence
>that large numbers of children are being killed at 7.  Actually,
>we have no evidence at all that any child had been killed at 7 just 
>because it was legal.  Now, I'm fine with it being legal, but
>not done.  She wasn't.  She seemed to want a law against it "just
>in case".
>
>In case of WHAT, I say!  IF it becomes a problem, then we make it
>illegal and deal with it.  But I'm uncomfortable with passing lots
>of laws just because they sound good or make us feel better.  I
>want to know that the law is dealing with a real situation.

You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
of our government already?

Look, the situation is quite simple:

	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
	etc. And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

	*IF*, on the other hand, there _are_ late-term abortions being performed
	for trivial reason, then this is ALREADY a problem, and well overdue for
	legislation.

Either way, I don't see why late-term restrictions should be opposed with 
nearly the same fervor as non-late-term restrictions.

>Or, to look at this from a more crass point of view - any woman
>that decides to have a 7-month abortion "on a whim" clearly has
>some responsibility problems.  If we make this abortion illegal,
>we will soon be presenting this horrible, irresponsible woman
>with a NEWBORN BABY to care for.  

If it can be proven that this woman is in fact "horrible, irresponsible", 
then she should never receive custody of the child. Period. End of sentence.

>There's the first rule of good engineering:  If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it.

I doubt that's the first rule, Cathi. How about:

	Anticipate problems _before_ they occur, instead of "putting out
	fires" afterwards

which is exactly what restrictive late-term abortion laws purport to do.

								- Kevin



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: compromise 
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:06:54 GMT
Distribution: na


dod>In article <1992Nov9.185729.25696@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov9.181001.11487@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes: 
 
dk> The Reverend does not want the decision left up to 
dk> doctors, he would rather he be allowed to make the decision who can or
dk> can not have an abortion.
 
dod>This is a lie.
 
No its not.
 
I understand why you are so reluctant to share your goals of controlling
women.  Your agenda is incredibly cruel toward women. However, your 
hiding your control urges in this supposed discussion is very 
transparent. You really are not fooling anyone.
 
dod>Doug Holtsinger
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:14:30 GMT

In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>
>>Also, why do you assume that the
>>woman is more important than the "defined" life inside her?
>
>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
>an unborn foetus.
>
>							--  Michal 
>

Does it make you wonder if Jeffery would feel the same way if he 
were a woman.  Imagine being told that you must give up your
personhood to become an incubator.  What the hell is defined life
Jeffrey???   

Caryn


--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is back and Petie's misattributions live on!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:09:24 GMT

jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

> I do still believe that the z/e/f is valuable without regard to whether
> anyone wants it, that some very good reason is needed to justify destroying
> it, and that preservation of the mother's autonomy is not a good enough
> reason when the existence of the z/e/f is a reasonably forseeable
> consequence of the mother's voluntary act.

Ovulation is voluntary?!  Amen and preach it, Jim!  It's time we set these
females straight that ovulating without intent of becoming pregnant is
IMMORAL!!!

Thank goodness there are men around who are always in the Reproductive
Mode and therefore can do what needs to be done to EXPOSE these Aimless
Ovulators for the shameless hussies that they are!!!

JUST SAY NO!!! TO OVULATION!!!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:24:15 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov7.205403.13137@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.232724.25475@cs.yale.edu> 
>> So what's your point? 
>
>If newborn infants are defined as non-persons, then a particular
>infant may be killed when society's interests aren't served by 
>protecting that infant. 
Yes, I still don't get your point. This is in practice true for persons
as well. See below.

>> This is, in practice, true for persons
>> too. Consider the draft. 
>
>The draft is not an example of society killing its own members.
Gee, they seem to end up dead, don't they.

>> If one places on infants a value just
>> short of persons, I fail to see the practical difference.
>Please define the phrase "a value just short of persons".
Value V such that !(Ef):((f has value V')&&(!f is a person)&&(V'>V))
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Saving money instead of saving lives
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:14:46 GMT

Last night, I was watching a CBS television program called 
"Street Stories".  They had a segment about a physician who
was worked as part of a HMO (Health Maintenance Organization).
In this HMO, a pool of money was set aside by a group of 
doctors for patient treatment and tests, and at the end of 
the year, these doctors would split up whatever money remained 
from the pool.  This HMO plan was criticized because it  
gave financial incentive to doctors to refuse treatment to
patients.

One doctor was accused of refusing to resucitate an elderly man
who had suffered a serious heart attack.  This elderly man
was alert and awake, but I was thinking, suppose that this
man had been unconscious.  If he had died from the heart attack, 
he wouldn't have known that a doctor had ordered that he not be 
rescuitated.  He wouldn't have known that he had died, or that 
he had suffered.  And the doctor could have saved himself some
money.  

Most people would feel that a wrong had been perpetrated by
this doctor.  We feel horrified that a person is allowed to die,
knowing that they could have been saved. And even worse, they
are allowed to die because it would save money.  Even though
the patient, had they been unconscious, wouldn't have known
about it. 


Doug Holtsinger
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 22:40:14 GMT

In <1992Nov03.001601.102693@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <nyikos.719891044@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>>Like Tweedledum, aka Larry Margolis, you have yet to demonstrate a
>>capacity for thinking deep original thoughts on abortion, or even
>>for finding primary sources that we can all benefit from.  ...
>>
>> All I see from you and Margolis are stats from
>>the Pro-Abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute,

>Make up your mind, Petie - do you or don't you want primary sources?
>The Alan Guttmacher Institute does much polling and happens to have
>lots of statistics available.

It's a primary source, all right, but it is about as unbiased as a 
cigarette company doing much polling and gathering statistics on the
effects of smoking on health.

>>or tertiary or quaternary or even further-removed sources
>>which could go back to the Alan Guttmacher institute for all the
>>documentation Larry bothered to provide.

>I've given numerous sources, which you've acknowledged seeing.  I don't
>know what further documentation you need.

Just some info on where these *other* sources get their stats.  The
Alan Guttmacher institute, perhaps?

{I really hate to repeat myself, but my last clause preceding Larry's
comment did not seem to sink in.}

>And if you don't like non-primary (or biased) sources, I suppose we
>won't be hearing anything more from you about "Aborting America", will we?

_Aborting America_ is a primary source for lots of things, such as the
early history of NARAL, one of whose co-founders was Nathanson. [Of course
Larry would prefer the account of Jerry Lader, another co-founder.]  Let's
not forget that at the time he wrote the book, Nathanson was still doing
abortions and was in neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice camp.

About as close to an unbiased source as you can get, IMHO.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47775 alt.abortion.inequity:5055