HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: A little bit of calm thinking
Summary: Question of humaness is socially decided
Keywords: abortion,human,rights
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:03:31 GMT

I have read through talk.abortion and I have seen much heat and little light.
The question of abortion rationally rests on two issues:
	1. Are fetuses/zygotes/embryos/unborn_babies human *persons*.
	2. If they are human persons do their rights have equal standing
	   with those of their mother.

Annent question 1. The assertion X's are human is *not* a fact, it is a
definition. For example, if you asked the question - Are Negroes human
persons, back in 1820, the overwhelming answer would have been NO. If you
asked the same question two years after the War Between the States the
answer would be YES. Contrast this to the following assertion: water
freezes at 0 degreea centigrade. If this assertion is possed as a question
the answer would be YES anytime. The first assertion is a definition, the
second a fact.

How do definitions come to be accepted in a society?  A combination of
muscle, indoctrination, education,  and persuasion creates the consensus.
This has very little to do with factual truth, and a great deal to do with
plausibility and applied agit-prop.

I now state as a fact: There is no consensus on the proposition that a
f/z/e/ub is a human *person*. (The question of genetic humanity is a
separate propostion. Of course a human embryo is genetically human. But is
it a person?)

Second, if an embryo were accepted as a human person, how would his/her
rights compare to that of the mother?. If the mother's life were
endangered by the child within, would it be permissable to kill the child
to save the mother? I submit, that among those who believe an unborn child
is a full fleged human person, the majority would still permit the killing
of the unborn (at least a an early stage of development) to save the life
of the mother. Even among these folks the mother life if more "equal" than
that of the infant within.

Most so-called pro abortion folks would still advocate effective birth
control as prererable to abortion. Unfortunately, the anit-aborts do not
reciprocate reasonably. Proof? Say RU-486 in their presense, then duck and
cover.  The vocal anti-aborts (I won't call them pro-life), or at least a
substantial majority, would impose their cookoo notions of ensoulment,
then invoke same to oppose the use of RU-486, because it is an
abortifaceant. This troglodites beleive that once sperm and egg are
unitited, a fully souled person exists. If they believe so, let them. They
shouldn't have abortions or use RU-486. But what about the rest of us?
These proto-Ayatolahs are not content to have an opinion, the must insert
their beliefs into the moist orifices of everyone in reach.

A pox and a plague on them.

Conan the Libertarian

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 11:45:59 GMT

gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
: Gee, maybe people should have the right to voice their opposition to black
: people living next to them, or Jews, or those icky non-Christians (we all
: know that *real* Americans are Christian Republicans).  Perhaps you don't

Aw Gee, maybe people _should_ have the right to freedom of speech, Gordon...

: like it Doug, but bodily autonomy rights should not be left up to the whim
: of the people.  

No, they should be left to the whim of a small clique instead.
--
Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 
Siemens-Nixdorf AG 	                        I will deny everything
Tel.  : +49 (89) 636-40639                      Fax.  : +49 (89) 636-45860
e-mail: Frank.ODwyer@sniap.mchp.sni.de <--Use this, reply-to is broken
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Sep14.175603.40278@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.225124.20051@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
> |> In  <Sep12.082914.20657@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colost
> |> >
> |> >      If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
> |> > children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.
> |>
> |> No, it's not.  Sensation is "the power or process of receiving conscious
> |> sense impressions through direct stimulation of the bodily organism or of
> |> the sense organs".  Consciousness is one criterion.  Of course a fetus
> |> reacts to stimuli.  So does a paramecium.  Big deal.
>
>      In your humble opinion, does a newborn have sensations?

In my opinion, yes.  A first or second trimester fetus can not.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 02:05:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article by bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean):
>> What's with the sonogram reference?  Are sonograms supposed to
>> change the way pro-choicers think?  
>
>Not at all.  They're supposed to change the way you feel.

>> I'm still pro-choice.  Does that make me evil?
>
>No.  Just unfeeling.

Now if only there was some easy way to make you THINK.

Q: What's the difference between animals & people?
A: Animals only feel.  People feel and _think_.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Good News from a Premie!
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.211646.8121@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>
>As more and more premies are saved, I think we will all have to do some
>serious thinking about acceptable cutoffs for abortions.  In the state of
>Washington, a woman can have an abortion through the 24th week.  It seems
>rather hypocritical to have a doctor in one room fighting to save a life
>while in another a doctor is ending one.
>

Only as hypocritical as me having my husband get "broken" so I don't have
children and my best friend desperately trying to conceive each month.  
Some people don't want a child right now; others will do almost anything
to get one.  That's life, Carol.  People have the right to determine when,
if at all, they have children (assuming all systems are "go").

You see, my best friend, unfortunately, is a slave to her body: she would
like very much to conceive, but for some unknown reason, is unable to do so.
TEchnology and medicine have done all they can for her, given her situation.
Would you like it if abortion services were denied me just to make it "fair"
for both of us--we both then would be slaves to our bodies?

Jennifer
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:11:56 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> As a concession, in exchange for a permanent,
-> >-> irrevocable protection of the Right to Choose in
-> >-> the first 2 trimesters? Maybe there is a need...
-> 
-> >you're quite casual about trading away women's
-> >rights, aren't you?
-> 
-> We've seen quite a bit of that lately, haven't we?

and not just from kebbin.



-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The mother of all Sonogram wars
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:43:56 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Just a slightly more complete followup:

In article <1992Sep8.160155.11315@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
> 
> In my Psychology 1 class, our professor has announced that we will be
> seeing.. you guessed it.. a SONOGRAM. Of, yup, you guessed it again... a
> human (not ape, Leo Mauler or Dan King) fetus. Or as our professor told us,
> a baby. How politically incorrect of him. We should lash him, eh, Adrienne
> the Horse Mistress?

He's a psych prof, a biology prof woulda known better ;)
 
> This reminded me of the Shari Richards problem.

I haven't heard of her, or the problem with her, please post something
or email if it's been posted and I just let it slip by.
 
> What is it that drives pro-aborts on this newsgroup to run themselves into
> telephone poles just before we get into serious discussion on Sonograms?

I haven't seen anything like that happening...  I'm not running into
telephone poles, but then, I'm pro-choice.
 
> What is the problem, folks? Are you telling us that Sonograms that show the
> human fetus is moving and has all his/her limbs visibly present, at 8
> weeks, is wrong? That there is no such picture on a Sonogram?

Who would ever say something like that?

> Well, boys and girls, let's cut the b.s. and get down to the nitty gritty.

Your lengthy posts seem to show you've been having troubles doing this
yourself (not that I'm any better for it).
 
> Someone PLEASE tell me:

(sorry wouldn't know the truth about these matters)

> No sidetracks, no "well Dan King's mother the Ape looked that way at 8
> weeks, too, nya nyaa!" or other similar b.s. Let's take those four
> challenges I put forth, and answer them directly, like gentle folks, and
> let's find out once and for all who's right about the Sonogram facts.

Well what difference does it make anyway?  You're just talking about
appearances, aren't you?  What difference does it make if the z/e/f
is ugly as sin, or cute as a button?  When you look at someone who
you find unattractive, do you consciously think that they should have
any more or any less rights than someone who you happen to find
attractive?  Imagining that appearances have any bearing whatsoever
on morality is apalling (to me, anyway).  I bet it *would* make a
difference if you showed fetal pictures to all pregnant women who
wish to abort, but that's entirely *their* business.  Besides that,
if you showed up at an abortion clinic with the sole purpose of
showing fetal pictures to prospective patients, I'm sure a few
of those pregnant women would be quite aggravated by your rude and 
condescending behaviour.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You Should Have Known I'd Do This (to Galen et. al.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:19:57 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <25017@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Is it me, or are pro-lifers all looney tunes? We have forgach claiming
>>fetuses speak to her, chaney thinking he's a borg/airplane/hall/whatever,
>>Welch claiming that starvation doens't kill you, and now Nyikos thinking
>>that an inanimate object talks.

>You deleted all the quotes I made from Hekhuis, a pro-choicer, claiming
>to speak for fetuses, the dead, fish, and various other un-named things.
>If this is your idea of fairness, you have a long way to go.

Yes, but his is a running satire that never extends more than a post
or two, whereas others of the above mentioned have continued their fantasies
for many posts, and actually appear to believe what they write. On the
one hand we have a guy who occassionally takes up a hat to speak for
whatever, in satire, on the other, we have folks who state things baldly
as if they were fact. Some of which have been along your same vein,
but continued in the posts beyond anything which could be said to be
satire, as it is relentless. We'll see if you follow suit.

>If you are this unreceptive to a bit of fictional fun about inanimate
>objects, you'll hate Walt Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_, not to mention
>_The Brave Little Toaster_.  And of course, you probably don't even know
>that The Little Engine Who Could was feminine.

Haven't seen any of these, but hey, what's the point? That I don't care
to see the 'fun' in trivializing the serious consequences by what you
call light satire? OK, guilty as charged. Will you as readily admit guilt
in the callous way you would treat the feelings of others, as indicated
by your analogy?

>Hmmm.  Maybe you do like some inanimate objects after all.

Pretty weak slam, Peter.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 23:46:40 GMT

In <lacgvmINN56h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715468090@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep1.134433.12701@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>>>	"It is about a movement that encourages women to leave their
>>>	husbands, kill their children, destroy capitalism, practice
>>>	witchcraft and become lesbians." [quoted from memory]

>>Hmmm.  Maybe I gave Robertson more credit than he deserves.  On the other
>>hand, the quote does not say which "movement" he is referring to.  From
>>the wording, I would guess that he is talking about a book, and what it
>>is about, and my one remaining question (unless the answer raises new ones)
>>is whether this movement is the whole feminist movement, or some subset
>>of it, like Wicca.

>As a third degree Wiccan priest who leads a coven of my own I rebuke
>your statement that Wicca is a subset of the feminist movement.

Are you saying that it is impossible for a male to be part of the 
feminist movement?

Anticipating a Yes answer, let me add: are men barred from 
membership in NOW?

Peter Ny.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 15 SEP 92 20:03:30 GMT

In a previous article, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
>In article <11SEP92.20504070@vax.clarku.edu>, hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> In a previous article, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:

>>>Choice?  We all have a choice before we have sex.
>>              ^^^
>> 
>> Really?  Does this mean that there is no more rape or incest in the world?  
>> This is wonderful news!
>> 
>Sure there's still rape and incest in the world.  I'll compromise with you,
>Heather.  I'll agree to allow abortions for rape and incest if you'll agree to
>prohit abortions done out of convenience.  I believe I'll save at least 10 
>babies out of every 11 now being aborted.  Deal?

No deal.  I am not interested in trading away women's rights with you.  
Besides, women are already allowed to abort for rape and incest. 

>Heather, at what day before birth do you think it is too late to allow an
>abortion, and why?  

My opinion is that a woman should be allowed to remove the fetus any time she 
wants to.  If it's possible for the fetus to survive, I would prefer that the 
physician try to save it, but it's really not my decision.

Marilyn Quayle, a total pro-lifer, had her fetus removed early so that she 
could take the bar exam.  Why shouldn't other women be allowed to do the same 
thing, for that or any other reasons they might have?

>Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
>			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:47:44 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <l0vnmvd.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> >In <k6tn!_p.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:
> >[very premature baby survives and goes home after long time in hospital]
> >
> >> And at $300/day for 4 months, it probably cost at least $40,000 (and note
> >> that I'm using _extremely_ conservative cost estimates).  How many lives
> >> were lost to save this one person?  How do you justify spending this kind
> >> of money on a regular basis to "save lives" when it means trading one 
> >> life for hundreds?
> >
> >  Ray, are you in favor then of triage for all?  "It'll cost too much to save
> >this guy.  Ditch him."  This can happen when there are too many casualties to
> >treat (say after a battle, or a major urban disaster).  Then the deciding 
> >factor is usually time and medical resources.  Time spent on saving 1 pers-
> >on could cost several others their lives.
> 
> So then, you have no qualms about letting a thousand die to save one infant?

  I have plenty of qualms -- when the choice is binary, either-or.  It is not
in this case.  The question is about money, remember?

  You have deleted my question to you:  Should we have triage for all?  Shall we
let cancer patients die because we could save more lives by spending the money
elsewhere?  And don't forget the millions spent on pure research in the area.
Should the premie have been allowed to die?  Would have saved oodles of $$.  And
how bout them artificial limbs?  Waste of money.  Shall I continue?
 
> While I agree that this is a simplistic approach to the issue, it does 
> rather discount the common assertion that the pro-life crew are trying
> to save lives, doesn't it?  Perhaps it _is_ a matter of being anti-abortion?

  Your approach is simplistic enough to be laughable and is in fact NOT answer-
ing the question I put to you.  You have discounted nothing, yet.

> Perhaps preventing abortions _won't_ save lives.
> Ray Fischer

  Not via YOUR idea of economizing, it won't.  Hell, let's just punt all re-
search into non-communicable ailments and buy some cyanide.  It's cheaper and
very quick.



semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 5 Sep 92 10:26:19 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

>Nyikos
>> Ferrari

>>>One of the third ways: use natural family planning, and in the highly 
>>>unlikely event of pregnancy, embrace the child or give it up for adoption.

>>So, in other words, YES, you feel that sinnnce the woman "failed to conntrol
>>herself," she SHOULD be enslaved to her body. 

>Not quite.  I was trying to guess what Suzanne would say and save her
>the trouble.  Seems from the context that "you" kept referring to her,
>not me.

Don't try to speak for anyone but yourself.

>My position is different.  I am against banning contraception,
>morning-after pills, IUD's (except those things in all three categories
>that are significantly more dangerous than what else is available, like
>DES and the Dalkon Shield), and even abortion prior to the end of the
>5th week.  

CONTRACEPTIONN IS BESIDE THE POINT!! Abortion "prior to the end of the 5th
week" is basically beside the point also, since paltry few women know
that they are pregnant by that time, much LESS have time to make up their
minds about it (abortion is NOT a snap decision), AND get to the abortion
clinic, when antis keep passing abortion restrictions and generally making
it extremely difficult to get to a clinic.  This 5-week abortion grace
period you so generously bestow upon us is nothinng but a mirage.  What
makes a 5-week fetus different from a 6-week onne anyway?

>> Contraceptionn is NOT ann
>>alternnative to abortion.

>It's too bad so many people literally believe this, like the teenagers
>on a recent Oprah Winfrey show who (so I'm told, correct me if I'm 
>wrong) were asked why they did not use (more?) birth control, and replied
>that it was because they knew they could always get an abortion.

Let me try this one more time, inn nice, short, sentences: Conntraception
is NNOT an alternative to abortionn.  (Pause while you look up that big
word "contraception.")  Contraception prevennts abortionn.

Got it?

Let's summarize in case you don't.

Contraception prevents pregnancy.  Contraception does not STOP a pregnancy.

-- 
"We have seen pictures, where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If 
there's water, that means there's oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can 
breathe." - Dan Quayle, talking about Mars.
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Are you REALLY this stupid, Suxanne? (Was: Out of the mouths of Babes)
Summary: The Subject line says it all, I think... 
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:  No.  Seriously.  Are you REALLY this stupid? 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 17:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.002716.19838@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Sep2.001506.19237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> 
>> Let's not forget MissBitch's comment about how Gay men "Hate women because
>> they won't have sex with them".
>
>What I said was that gay men have sex with men because they hate women.

The subject line says it all.

--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Killing in defense of possessions?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:14:12 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.131710.7009@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> 
>>: This hypothetical belief on the part of a hypothetical defendant would
>>: not be taken as a "reasonable belief" in Texas courts. 
>>
>>Since my grandmother was murdered by a burglar...
>>I have what I believe is a reasonable belief...

>It should be noted that we weren't talking about a burglary.

But, this raises a familiar question about objective versus subjective
reasonableness.  That is, would Texas courts hold Paul's belief to be
reasonable, because of his emotional context, or would it require the
"reasonable person" standard, that cared nothing about Paul's grandma?

I dislike the former, because it smacks of an insanity defense for Paul,
but I dislike the latter because it ignores personal experience.  Mike,
which one is the test?
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com