HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:45:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.224200.3715@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Sep3.151337.26405@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>><1992Sep1.203518.20259@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>><1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) :
>>>>In article <1992Aug31.220151.12113@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>>>><1992Aug31.162715.17289@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens):
>>>>>> <1992Aug27.045340.13162@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purd
>>>>And this is exactly the reason I'm here.  Because it isn't an individual
>>>>decision.  It is the decision of TWO people, father and mother.
>>>
>>>Not until fathers bear children it's not.  If you can't handle that, be more
>>>careful in choosing your mate.
>>
>>Bearing the child is only a small part of parenting.  And until you
>>realize that, you really have no chance at all of understanding my position.
>
>It's difficult to understand how you can trivialize the pain, discomfort,
>and body damage that a woman incurs during pregnancy and refer to it as
>only a "small part" of parenting.



Well, I suppose the two crescent bruises I had on my arm for
a month, after my wife sunk her teeth into me during her final
contractions, would then count as "parenting," right?   ;-)

Thank God her labor was very short, though intense.  I probably 
*would* have screamed if she had bit me twice.  But maybe I could
then have laid greater claim to parenting experience.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 1992 22:38:10 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: God bless Erik Karl Witte, the voice of reason!
	<29622@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>


Mr. Mezias writes
>Your explanation of why you support waiting periods shows real
>contempt for the ability of women to make choices about their own
>bodies.  Do you want to be forced to wait a day for your appendectomy
>so that you can think about the decision?  Do you think women only
>choose abortions on a whim?  In a PMS rage?  

A woman who would like an abortion would probably be quite happy to
experience PMS.  Mr. Mezias, please try not to confuse the pro-lifers
who know very little about this female anatomy thing.  Next thing you
know, they be'll be attacking radifeminazi stork-killers.

Michae Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 02:04:59 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote (in article <1992Sep11.222608.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>):
>In article <1992Sep10.221038.8158@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>> } What finally made it clear to me was this: 
>> 
>> He backs up, one day at a time, then:
>> 
>> } I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
>> } cells that in just 9 short months will be ...
>> 
>> Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
>> to the lustful gleams?
>> 
>Get serious.

Perhaps the suggestion was a bit facetious, but the point is clear:
when does "humanity" begin, and where is it okay to stop the process?
It seems a bit arbitrary to decide that a fertilized egg is a person
and thus should be kept alive at all costs; after all, only a little
while ago, it was a separate sperm and egg -- not a big deal,
biologically.  Why not decide that the fetus becomes a person when it
develops a brain and nervous system, or when it starts experiencing
neural activity, or when it begins reacting to stimuli?

>> }Then I decided that abortion is wrong.
>> 
>> Good for you.  You did not, however, explain why it should be illegal.
>> 
>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
>killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.

A fetus isn't an innocent human being.  For probably two months after
conception (more, or less?), it's a mass of organic tissue, incapable
of moving, breathing, sensing, or even thinking.  It's as "human" as
your appendix is, the only difference being that given enough time,
the fetus will _become_ a person.  But until then, you can't even call
it conscious, or say it has a personality, or _anything_.

And aborting such a fetus isn't torture, because there are no nerves
to feel anything with, nor any brain to register pain.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.221826.29672@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <__wnybq.bskendig@netcom.com>  bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> > a fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
> > be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
> > weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
> > begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
> > pain, and in fact has no consciousness.

So, am I correct in assuming that a human must be able to feel pain and be
recognizably conscious to be a person?

If this is not the case, then please explain your position more
clearly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:55:27 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)

In article <nyikos.715729698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#My point went in quite a different direction.  Judge Kelly
#drafted a proposal that would limit pro-lifers to what kind of picketing
#they could do and still be acceptable to him, and proposed that a neutral
#party report on "what really goes on in Tiller's clinic," to be 
#accompanied by Operation Rescue types doing "community service", like
#homophobes being made to attend sensitivity training sessions.  This was
#totally unacceptable to Tiller's lawyers.  So far as I know, they would
#never let anyone mentioned by Judge Kelly, who so zealously arranged for
#arrests and convictions, to see the inside of the clinic.  

Do you have any sort of reference for this?  

#And maybe
#not even Kelly himself.  Nor any of the marshals.

If you could leave this sort of speculation out, people
wouldn't respond as angrily to your articles.  You
have no way of knowing this.

#Of course, you can all go on believing Tiller had nothing embarrassing
#to hide.  

You've certainly not offered anything to convince me otherwise.

#But his activities, while perhaps legal under Kansas law, 
#were still of a sort that most ordinary people find repugnant.  

I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the dead bodies of
the women who would be denied abortions by people like
you.  I'd find it a lot more repugnant to see the shattered
families created when the wife and mother is permanently
physically impaired by a pregnancy that people like you
would force her to carry to term.  I'd find it a lot more
repugnant to watch an infant die in pain because you
would insist that it suffered needlessly.

I saw photographs of one of the cancerous tumors they
removed from me.  I am not comparing a fetus to the tumor,
understand that.  I am saying that the operation and the
results of that operation were disgusting to look at.
On the other hand, I would surely be dead if that operation
had not been performed.

You continue to miss that point, though.  Many life-saving
operations are hideously ugly.  

#Perhaps
#some pro-choicers here would too, if they saw them, but they never get
#the chance.

I would strongly doubt that there is a single person who reads
this group and supports legal abortion who does not know
what a late term fetus looks like, and who can't imagine
what happens when such a fetus is aborted.

The abortions done in Dr. Tiller's clinic are tragic, Nyikos.
The alternative to those abortions, though, is even more
tragic to the women who undergo them.  Why you would force
them to suffer even more is beyond me.

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36474 alt.abortion.inequity:3716
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:24:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Whew, for a minute there, I didn't know you were kidding!

In article <1992Sep3.220116.131@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
><1992Sep3.173838.8528@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep2.024720.23681@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>|> >In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
>|> >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>So, if the father is to have equal control over the mother's
>reproductive system should the woman be pregnant and considering
>termination of said pregnancy then at what point and under
>what circumstances does the mother have equal control over the
>father's reproductive system (you do believe in equal rights
>don't you)?

Yup!  Look at the concept of 'marriage' as a Judeo-Christian concept.

That should answer your question.

You ask, but what if the couple aren't married?  Well then, it seems pretty
obvious that before the woman gets pregnant, that the man has no, and should
have no, rights over the woman's body, and vice versa.  After the woman
gets pregnant, the woman is required to carry a baby to term, and the
father should be required to do equal amounts of work, support, etc.

While not 'equal' in the true meaning of the word equal, it is
equivalent.

As an example:  My wife, while pregnant, did a lot less around the house,
worked less, studied less.  I worked longer hours at my job, did a lot
more house work and A LOT of fetching, carrying, picking up, moving, etc
that she would normally do for herself.

>Also, to what lenghts must the man go to prove that he is
>the father before he is allowed to exercise his "right" to
>equal control over a woman's reproductive system?

If the couple are married, then the presumption that the child is his
should be made until challenged and proven otherwise.

If not married, then the mother must inform the father that she is
pregnant.

If an ambiguity exists as to the identity of the father, and two or
more of the men want to exercise their rights, then a challenge as
to the identity of the father is assumed, and some form of physical
proof of who the father is must be obtained before any decisions
regarding the child may be made.

>--Bruce
>bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
>Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
>---------------------------------------------------

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 14:39:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.230758.14014@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.142443.24325@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep3.030216.3111@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Sarcasm is cheap. Try looking up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 
|> >|> especially the part about not depriving citizens of life without Due Process.
|> >					   ^^^^^^^^
|> >|> Try reading some legal literature to discover that the term "Due Process"
|> >|> has both a procedural aspect (right to trial, etc.) and a substantive aspect.
|> >|> Read further to discover that substantive Due Process protects fundamental
|> >|> rights, such as the right to life, from deprivations unless the state can
|> >|> demonstrate a "compelling interest" in doing so.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >
|> >The key word is citizens, and citizens are defined as
|> >those individuals born in the US or who have been
|> >naturalized.
|> >
|> >Also, these ammendments prevent the state from
|> >taking life or other property from an individual
|> >without first showing compelling interest, they
|> >don't establish an absolute right to life, they
|> >simply require that some process be performed
|> >prior to removing life or other property from
|> >an individual.
|> 
|> Everything you say above is true, but I was addressing Dean's blanket 
|> implication that NO right to life existed in the Constitution. Obviously 
|> Dean is wrong -- there IS a right to life in the Constitution, but 7 
|> justices out of 9 didn't happen to think it applied to fetuses...
|> 

Thanks for the correction, however, the 7 justices 
were correct, it does not apply to fetuses,as fetuses
are not citizens (as you admit), and because the
"right" is not an absolute. Perhaps the problem is
due to the fact that people interpret the Constitution
rather then read it -- then again, I think the first
10 ammendments should have stopped with "Congress
shall make no law." :-)

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions"
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 04:06:25 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  <nyikos.715648645@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
(Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <8yxyyyd@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>I didn't expect you to rely on what appears to be a pro-abortion
> >>organization for your claims.
>
> >Ummmmm, you're demanding "unbiased" (according to _your_ criteria)
> >sources now?
>
> >Why don't we see these same demands when Nyikos quotes clearly
> >ANTI-abortion organizations?
>
> You see them all the time, from Larry Margolis,

When have I demanded an unbiased source?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Doug Holsinger: Anti-Semite?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:37:40 GMT

From article <lefty-310892165951@lefty.apple.com>, by lefty@apple.com (Lefty):
> In article <1992Aug30.232948.17241@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
> Holtsinger) wrote:
>> 
>>       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>>  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>>  we want to be precise)..."
>>    -- Gloria Feldt,
>>       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
>> 
>>   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>>     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
> 
> I see no evidence that, unlike you,
> Ms. Feldt is attempting to impose her point of view on anyone else.  


As with every other pro-abortionist, she is attempting to impose her
view on the unborn and newborn children of our entire country.


> Oh, and for the record, I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this
> statement, either.

And for that, you are extreme and reprehensible.


S. Forgach
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NEXT: PatricKKK Harumphrey
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:13:07 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

In article <1992Sep14.164553.5943@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <rv7yl3g@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu 
->    (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
-> In article <1992Sep11.152532.21740@acd4.acd.com>
-> 	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
-> In <1992Sep10.034228.6912@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>
-> the chaney/hall creature posting as chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu 
->    (DEVASTATOR OF PATRICK HUMPHREY to you, PatricKKK) writes to patrick: >>>>
-> >>>> it would really be luney for me to continue to heap
-> >>>> more verbal and emotional abuse on your already
-> >>>> troubled self.
-> >
-> >>> yes it would. i'm glad you admit it.
-> >>>
-> >>> i wonder how long it will be before you display that
-> >>> characteristic yet again.
-> >>>
-> >>> [watch carefully bill overpeck.]
-> > 
-> >> What characteristic is that, Jim?  
-> >
-> > did you not read the lad's own words, bill? they're
-> > still included above in the first paragraph. read it
-> > again, please. if you still have trouble, just ask me
-> > and i'll tell you the characteristic. but heck, you're
-> > in the business and i have confidence that, with a second
-> > reading, you'll detect it yourself.
-> 
-> The object of his statement seems to suggest that he doesn't
-> want to engage in "luney" behavior, which seems appropriate
-> to me.  

hey! great work! i knew my confidence in you and
your abilities would be confirmed with your second
reading.

-> >> Is it one of the 
-> >> "symptoms" that you're putting together to support 
-> >> your diagnosis? 
-> >
-> > have i made a diagnosis, bill? 
-> 
-> Not yet, 

then you look pretty silly referring to it here
and in other threads, don't you?

-> > i don't recall that i
-> > have. gee, how could i? after all, i'm not qualified
-> > to diagnose. i am, however, qualified to form and hold
-> > opinions. you wouldn't be, for whatever reason, calling
-> > my opinion a diagnosis would you?
-> 
-> No, your diagnostic impressions do not constitute a formal
-> diagnosis.  

i'm glad you finally agree that your references to
it's existence were all wrong.

it's not necessary for you to formally apologize.

-> I have been asking you to discuss the 
-> criteria you've used to form your opinion/impressions (e.g.
-> how are you able to infer any denial based on the informa-
-> tion you have?  Is your inference of denial the only data
-> upon which you base your suggestion of therapy?).  To date,
-> you've not even attempted to answer such questions.  

dishonesty doesn't become you bill. perhaps you don't
like the answers i've made to your questions; that's
one thing; it's another thing for you to lie about me.

perhaps you're letting your emotions get the best
of you.
-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 04:22:50 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  <nyikos.715895819@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> "Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do you regularly
> misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to this extent?

Presumably "the born" refers to women, which is that subset of "the born"
that "pro-life" people want to remove rights from in order to give more
rights to fetuses than are held by people.  I agree that it would be
misrepresentation if you assumed that "the born" referred to men.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:34:31 GMT

In article <Bu9KMy.72I@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
> In article <hbrng9+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >As evidence that 9/10 of women who get abortion suffer from 
> >abortion-induced traumas, this is pretty poor.  While I'm going to reserve
> >judgement on this, this "evidence" is some third party _claiming_ that PP
> >has admitted that _as_many_ as 9 out of 10 women _may_ suffer "trauma."
> >It is riddled with weasel-words and includes at least one erroneous
> >interpretation.  Hardly a sterling reference.
> 
> One would expect Planned Parenthood to weasel as much as possible.
> After all they have a buck to make, and god forbid that the truth
> get in the way.

Did you see Susan Garvin's response to that statistic?  She
explains that the quotation refers to a specific sample from
a group called Women Exploited by Abortion.  This sounds more
than a little like a biased sample, and honesty should make
you admit it.

As for the "buck to make," this has been argued here endlessly.
To repeat some of the salient points from the past, birthing
is far mor elucrative than abortion, many of the staff at
Planned Parenthood are volunteers, much of their services are
offered  on a sliding scale that reduces costs for those who
are poor, and if doctors get paid to do abortions that is
no more evil than their getting paid to do other medical
procedures.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity