HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 19:52:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan5.045159.7499@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.044419.17590@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.020450.218@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.202557.22636@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>Men have the same rights as do women regarding bodily autonomy.  Since the
>>>>fetus isn't growing in the man's body, though, this doesn't help him much.
>>>
>>>The woman who aborts, or chooses not to, also exercises an ECONOMIC right,
>>>Larry. No male-choicer is asking for men to have the same BIOLOGICAL rights
>>>as women; we're just asking for the same ECONOMIC rights that women currently
>>>have thrown in as a bonus with their biological rights.
>>
>>What economic right is that?  Are you saying that a woman has a *right* to
>>not support her child?
>
>She has a right to not support her _potential_ child, by aborting it. No child,
>no child support.

This is the assertion I'm questioning - is this a right in and of itself,
or simply a side effect of her absolute right to control the use of her body.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: James Keegan's morality
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:14:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Not on the weekends!

On Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:28:02 GMT, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

>We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>lifers. 

Possibly that's because no one in this newsgroup, save one self-appointed
morality watchdog, seems to be able to find evidence of any such remarks...

--PLH, hey Rev, fixed your .plan yet? :-)
--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:54:45 GMT

In article <adams.726592270@spssig> 
adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>> Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>> to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>> belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>> light of my Christian  belief.  

>> This argument from Steve Adams is especially confusing. 

> Only to people who can't understand that I have conflicting duties...one 
> to God, one to society.  Those duties to God are personal, and mine only.
> Those duties to society are part of the social contract.  No conflict, so
> long as the social compact doesn't force me personally to violate God's
> laws.  What others do is none of my business in this respect.  Only
> liberty and individual rights matter, and those I will fight to protect.

I guess I have a problem with your use of the term "wrong".
You seem to be saying that abortion is "wrong" from a 
religious perspective, but abortion is not "wrong" from
a secular perspective.   I am assuming that you believe
abortion is not "wrong" on secular grounds since you
appear to have no secular reasons for being opposed to 
abortion.  Is that correct? 
 
I understand that you do not wish to impose your religious
beliefs on society, but that is besides the point.  And your
duty to God is also besides the point.  Abortion may be wrong
for you personally, but that's not what I'm interested in.
I want to know whether abortion is "wrong" for others. 
Your own personal morality, which you would not impose on
others, is not morality at all.  It's your own personal
preferences.  

> -Steve


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:52:05 GMT

<1993Jan9.073858.21983@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) :
>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>She had her own identity.  Her parents even agreed with that premise enough
>>>that they named her.  She was never "Baby XYZ", "Baby 978", or even
>>>"Baby Doe".
>> 
>> I bet you forgot that even ships and planes are named.
>
>Well, if you want to be absurd, you forgot hurricanes and cartoon
>characters too.  Ah, but none of these had human parents, but Baby
>Theresa did.

I didn't argue that.  I argued your contention that she was somehow more
than just a brainless body just because her parents named her.
 
>>>She was "Baby Theresa" and she was a human being.
>> 
>> I think they missed a great opportunity to perform a human brain
>> transplant.  What a chance for research.
>
>Can we count on you to donate your brain to the next anacephalic baby
>to catch the media's attention, then?    (Surely it would fit in that
>shrunken skull.......     sorry, I just couldn't resist that one   Da
>Devil made me do it :-)  )

In all seriousness, there are babies that are born prematurely or with
birth defects so bad that it would make sense to transfer the brain to
a healthy body instead of replacing all the parts.  I realize that this
is out of our realm of medical knowledge, however, that's the point of
any medical experiment - to increase our knowledge, save lives, and
improve the quality of life.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan9.054754.18920@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>You guys are so dumb.

This, from the woman who seems intent on helping the pro-choicers by
making the moderates think of the pro-lifers as hateful fools?

You can get away with insulting Patrick without much in the way of
consequence; he's nasty to you, so it looks reasonable to insult him
back.  You look like a hateful jerk when you insert Dale Ann.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:23:36 GMT

<1993Jan6.225301.2016@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> Well then, lets look at this case...
>> From the one anencephalic baby, we could have harvested 1 heart, 2
>> lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver suitable for ressection to provide
>> transplants for as many as 3 others, bone marrow, and 2 corneas.
>> Transplant recipients had been identified with tissue matches for the
>> heart, both lungs, both kidneys, and 2 liver sections. Bone marrow had
>> not been matched yet. Neither had corneas, but they are relatively
>> easy to match.
>> 
>> Since people who call themselves Pro-Life took steps to halt any organ
>> donations until after brain death, this is the outcome:
>> The recipients for the heart, both lungs, 1 kidney and 1 liver section
>> are now dead. The other kidney, liver, and bone marrow recipients are
>> still waiting and hoping. The corneas were eventually used.
>
>Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.

You mean like a woman's womb is hers and not yours to dictate who gets to
live in it.

>Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   

You mean like a woman is still using her womb.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:27:34 GMT

In article <markp.726793936@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Deletia]

>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so 
>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.
>
Ho hum, I guess it's another week, and time to point this out again...
Consent to possibility of pregnancy != consent to remain pregnant.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54465 alt.dads-rights:3206 alt.feminism:6896 soc.men:22326 soc.women:22282
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action on Custody
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 10:56:59 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In this context, I would like to relate the story of a friend of mine.
Some years ago, his wife wanted to have a second child and he objected
that since they were not getting on too well, he did not want to be
responsible for the support of two children that he would not see much
of.  He would only agree if she signed a statement that in case of
divorce, he would have custody of at least one of the children.  She
signed such a statement, they had another child and immediately after
that she repudiated the agreement.  Luckily they are still married so
it is not clear whether the agreement was valid, but it may well not
be.  Under Indian law (I believe) the father usually receives custody of
sons  over 5 years and this seems to me much more fair.  Women may
be more attached to their children than men are, I do not know,
but I am not at all sure that they make better parents in all cases,
especially with  discipline problems that are so common during
the teen-age in the US.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:05:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.041723.25696@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1993Jan7.025534.26006@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}> A bunch of lamentable but I guess true stories about children being
}> killed.  It doesn't have much to do with abortion at all, but it 
}> rather nicely underscores that illegality doesn't offer much protection.
}> It was illegal to kill those kids, I presume...
}
}As Ms. Forgach said to you once, "the law teaches".  Have you
}thought about what she said? 

Well, now that you ask, yes I have thought about it.   I'm not
sure that what I have learned about law is quite the same as what
you and Suzanne had in mind.  Perhaps the law teaches, among other
things, but have you folks thought about what it teaches?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 14:44:21 GMT

In a previous article, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) wrote:
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes to kebbie:

Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote something 
similar in response to Kevin.

>-> You seem to think that female people are incapable 
>-> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.  
>-> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or 
>-> not they stay pregnant because you think your 
>-> views are so superior.
> 
>people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
>years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
>to as a "pro-forcer."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The same blithe, creepy arguments fester again...
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:02:54 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan7.230813.4253@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>No ofense here...but you were doing so well...when is murder "right"
>unless it is to protect yourself from bodily harm.
Yup.  That's why abortion is legal.

>(ie. A severe risk
>to the mothers life and well being...please note severe I am not talking
>about the normal wear and tear of a pregnacy I am talking life threatening
>or handicaping situation here.) 
Oh, right... listen, next time you're being raped by some big ole boy
ramming a nightstick up your butt, don't even *think* of killing that living,
sentient human being; after all, he *promised* he wouldn't kill you, and
it would be *immoral* for you to kill him for the "normal wear and tear" of
being raped... what's a little discomfort compared to a LIFE?

>So now that we can kill anyone that uses something of another persons w/o
>their permission we may kill them...I think I'll go out and kill all the
>welfare recipients because they are using my money because I don't want
>them to...
Thanks again for the insulting comparison of the pain and sweat of pregnancy
and birth to paying one's taxes.  How convenient that you'll never have to
pass the equivalent of a bowling ball through a slit in your scrotum.

And I mean that in the best *possible* way.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 05:32:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan6.024236.23896@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan1.022332.536@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>>>>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
>>>>
>>>>Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...
>>>
>>>True, but in the context of the article from which you quoted, "beneficial
>>>ways" mostly denoted natural gestational processes.
>>
>>First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>>interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
>>"interference" to detrimental effects.
>
>Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
>connotation?

[Nobody interfere now; let's let Kevin figure it out for himself.]

>>Interference is interference.
>
>Enlightening.

I forgot that you need more hand-holding than most.  I'll spell it out.

When you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
interference", that was an acceptable definition of autonomy.  When you then
attempted to restrict "interference" to detrimental effects, you no longer
had an acceptable definition.  Autonomy refers to independence; freedom
from *any* outside interference, whether beneficial or detrimental.
Giving a life-saving transfusion to someone who doesn't want one is a
violation of their bodily autonomy, even though the effect is beneficial.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:47:54 GMT

From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>>> 
>>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>>> 
>>>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
>>> 
>>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....
>>
>>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.
> 
> Please explain how being forced into giving birth (by having no
> other legal choice) is far less 'forced' than being forced to breathe.


Breathing and birth are both simply biological processes.   It is absurd
to think that anyone could legally force a biological process on anyone.
But just so's you can put it in perspective, ceasing to breath brings
extremely quick, for all practical purposes instant, death, whereas
birth in the vast majority of cases does not.   Therefore, it makes far
more sense to speak of breathing as forced, than it does to speak of
birth as such.

You guys are so dumb.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:32:50 CST

In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.205628.11758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|> In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>|> >Perhaps the problem is yours.  A fetus/embryo may be attached to the mother's
>|> >body at the placenta, but it is not a part of the mother's body by any
>|> >definition.  In fact, as a zygote, it is completely separate from the mother
>|> >and, like you, needs nothing more than adequate nutrition and a safe environment
>|> >to grow to any given level of maturity.
>|>
>|> The difference, of course, being that I am not taking my nutrition or
>|> environment from a womans body. 
>|> However, if you personally want to provide a fetus with nutrition and
>|> asafe environment, feel free.
>
>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives one's
>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>
Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
your credentials by posting your SAT scores.


muriel
standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54928 alt.flame:17812
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: A Classic Example of a Literate Flame
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:07:40 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

As one of the Continuing Problems of the Threat of
ModernSexularHumanism is the destruction of traditional
Educational Values, along with all the other good things,
I though I would repost the following as a Standard to
be Maintainted....

ciao
drieux

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] <1993Jan3.003510.10196@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
] ><1993Jan02.164252.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
] >><1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] >>><1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
] >>>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
] >>>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
] >>>
] >>>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen:
] >>
] >>That's "Gordon" (speaking of knowing who we're talking about...  :-)
] >
] >Argh! That's the second time I've done that. Sorry, Gordon, I don't really
] >MEAN to insult you like that...
] 
] I don't understand this at all.
] 
] 'Galen' 		'Gordon'
] 5 letters		6 letters
] no 'o's			2 'o's
] no 'd's			1 'd'
] no 'r's			1 'r'
] 1 'a'			no 'a's
] 1 'l'			no 'l's
] 1 'e'			no 'e's
] 2 syllables		2 syllables
] Starts with 'G'		Starts with 'G'
] Ends with 'n'		Ends with 'n'
] 
] It seems to me that there are far more differences than there are
] similarities.  I could understand it if Galen's last name was even
] remotely similar, but they're not even close.  We don't even hold the same
] abortion views.
] 
] Oh well, don't worry about it, Keegan.
] 
] 
] Gordon
] -- 
] The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
] of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
] Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright