HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:49:10 GMT

In article <XNWSB5ZC@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.234120.17189@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> 
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
>
>A lot of good that would do.  A day before birth, absolutely no woman, save
>perhaps a suicidal one, would want an abortion.  It would be simpler to carry
>the child to term and perform infanticide.

Interesting.

You say the difference between a woman that destroys a fetus one day 
before birth and a woman who gives birth and then kills her child 
is that the former is suicidal.

The legal difference is that the former will continue a free life,
while the latter will be put in jail for murder.

Unless, of course, she has other children, or she has an abusive husband.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:03:42 GMT

In article <XNWSB5ZC@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.234120.17189@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> 
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.
...
>>> Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?
>>
>>  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>>   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>>   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>>   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>>   third trimester."
...
>Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't assume what I do or do not support unless
>I specifically say so.

You specifically used the word "we" to state pro-choicers' and your own
personal feelings.

That's precisely why I questioned whether you were a spokesman
for the "pro-choice" movement.

You also specifically and explicitly used the word "your" to address
me as though I were a "pro-lifer."

Hop off your morally superior position and your sophomoric use of
latinate words, David, and take a look around.

Do you have a clue as to whether I am a "pro-choicer" or a "pro-lifer"?
Have I claimed to be one or the other?  There is, by the way, an
important reason why I use the quotation marks, for BOTH groups.

Do you have a clue as to whether there might be persons who call
themselves "pro-choice" but would be offended (to the point of
legislating) by 38th-week abortions (excepting health problems) 
as well as your attitude of "we, the pro-choicers..."?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: surrealism
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:18:23 GMT

In article <29YSBLS5@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <BxGEIG.1r9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[David Auer]
>I mistrust any attempts to hinder a woman's
>right to choose.  I am not so rigid or dogmatic as to discount the possibility
>of banning third trimester abortions.  It is not a concern of mine.

>>Why do you defend the "right" to abort a child a day before birth?
>>Do you consider it very different to kill a fetus a day before birth
>>than to kill it after a cesarean?
>
>I do not consider it very different. ...

But you'd accept a legal system that would throw a woman in prison 
for slicing up her one-day old child with a scalpel, but do nothing 
if that child were sliced up two days earlier, when it was a fetus
being aborted.


>...  Then again I see it a different matter
>for a mother to kill a week old child than a two-year old child. ...

Different?  Is either more acceptable?  I'm sickened at the
thought of either, and I couldn't make a comparison.

>...  Viability
>may be a useful delineation, but all delineations are false, and I prefer to
>stand at a more extreme delineation of birth.  That does not mean I would not
>be equally pleased to see the delineation be at around the beginning of the
>third trimester.

But this would restrict women's current rights.
Are you unequivocally pro-choice?

>These examples are getting quite repulsive.  I suppose that is the nature of
>this issue.

What's repulsive about slicing up a fetus a day before birth,
if you are in favor of women's rights?

>>Would there be anything unethical about a doctor who sliced up
>>a baby during a cesarean, by request of the woman?  Why do you
>>think a doctor would *not* be willing to do so, in reality?
>
>It does seem unethical.  A doctor would not be willing do so in reality,
>because the difference between this action and murder would be difficult to
>dissever in the conscience of the doctor.  This is quite obviously a
>legitimate reason for a doctor's refusal to do so.

But *why* would this be difficult to differentiate?  Is it possible
that the vast majority of doctors are anti-choice, because they
would personally restrict the lawful right of women to choose?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5035 talk.abortion:47679 alt.feminism:4194
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 11 Nov 1992 18:59:56 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: surrealism

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>What's repulsive about slicing up a fetus a day before birth,
>if you are in favor of women's rights?

In the name of freedom, I defend lots of things that I personally 
consider repulsive.  Remember the Nazis in Skokie (sp?) Illinoise?

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu (Angela KAY Rolling)
Subject: re:Was Clinton's victory America's message pro-choce?
Reply-To: txdv1@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:50:00 GMT

I think that you all should stop secound guesing the message. A lot of
people voted agenst Bush and the republican party for no uther reason then
because the religouse right has so much influence in it fight now.
Not because of there pockets, not because of abortion but because they saw
that there way of life might be in danger. (If you dont beleave me check
out the party on alt.pagan)

ELF-KIN
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: surrealism
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:44:45 GMT

In article <1drl7cINNfcb@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>What's repulsive about slicing up a fetus a day before birth,
>>if you are in favor of women's rights?
>
>In the name of freedom, I defend lots of things that I personally 
>consider repulsive.  Remember the Nazis in Skokie (sp?) Illinoise?

The name of freedom has been used to spread Agent Orange on
defenseless men, women, and children.

There is a purpose to allowing Nazis and anyone else to demonstrate 
peacefully.

What purpose is there to ensuring "freedom" when a 39-week old fetus
can be removed, at the same (or perhaps less) cost and risk, without 
killing it?  (That's a question, not a rhetorical statement.)

Why, exactly, would you consider slicing up a 39th-week fetus repulsive?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:28:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <BxEvM7.J2B@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <XNWSB5ZC@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.234120.17189@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>>>   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>>>   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>>>   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>>>   third trimester."
>...
>>Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't assume what I do or do not support unless
>>I specifically say so.
>
>You specifically used the word "we" to state pro-choicers' and your own
>personal feelings.

My quote above was referring to a sentence in the above excerpted paragraph.
You have, up until now, been good with proper attribution and avoiding
misrepresenting my words.

>That's precisely why I questioned whether you were a spokesman
>for the "pro-choice" movement.

I answered you in another post.  I am not a spokesman for the "pro-choice"
movement.  That statement somehow got clipped from this thread.

>You also specifically and explicitly used the word "your" to address
>me as though I were a "pro-lifer."

I slipped.  You are clearly not a "pro-lifer".

>[...]
>Do you have a clue as to whether I am a "pro-choicer" or a "pro-lifer"?

Yes, you are neither.

>Have I claimed to be one or the other?  There is, by the way, an
>important reason why I use the quotation marks, for BOTH groups.
>
>Do you have a clue as to whether there might be persons who call
>themselves "pro-choice" but would be offended (to the point of
>legislating) by 38th-week abortions (excepting health problems) 
>as well as your attitude of "we, the pro-choicers..."?

I am sure there are.  I was merely affiliating myself with the pro-choice
position.  I was lax with my usage and felt uncomfortable at the time doing
so, but I proceeded because I wanted to make a point and could not easily
arrive at better sentences.  Let me clarify where I stand.

My views represent my point of view and that of those who happen to agree with
me.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Keywords: surrealism
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:07:19 GMT

In article <29YSBLS5@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <BxGEIG.1r9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>If you want to draw a "simple" line, this is what results.
>
>I am flexible in my beliefs to a certain extent, but I know roughly where I
>stand.  I am unequivocally in favor of abortion rights.  The details can be
>settled upon by lawyers.

You forgot the smiley-face after the last sentence.

Don            ;-)
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: achobbs@eos.ncsu.edu (ASHTON CALDWELL HOBBS)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Abortion is a SIN
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: achobbs@eos.ncsu.edu (ASHTON CALDWELL HOBBS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: achobbs@c00059-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu


Abortion is a SIN no matter how you look at it.
If a woman is ready to get in bed, then she is ready
to take responsability and to give life.  I know you're
saying, "What about rape and incest."  Well, rape and incest
are horrible things, but everything happens according to
HIS will and by killing that baby you are interfering with
HIS plan.  One of the 27,000,000 babies that have been aborted
in the last 25 years could possibly have been the scientist
that discovered a cure for AIDS or for the common cold.  They 
could have been the next President of the United States, because
Clinton and Gore are against everything the Bible stands for.
The Bible also says that thou shalt not kill, and aborting a fetus
is the death of a human.  For those of you that don't attend
Church (Democrats in other words), God instructs us to take life for
life.  Therefore, for a woman aborting a fetus, why is her life
not forfeit.  Women say they have a right to choose, do they have the
right to use drugs, do they have the right to commit suicide?
All of these things are prohibited by law, so why is a woman allowed 
to kill a life inside her when she cannot even cut a limb off
without being committed by the State.  I say a woman has the right 
to choose, the right to choose whether or not to have sex.
This is not coming from some hard-core preacher, but from
a freshman and NC State University.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: compromise
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:51:20 GMT

In article <XNWSB5ZC@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.234120.17189@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <BxCtI5.8ut@cs.psu.edu> 
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>> Does David S. Auer represent the pro-choice movement?
>>
>>  "i suspect that you do sound pro-choice to some people. i would
>>   doubt "most." that is why i thought it important to point out
>>   that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
>>   legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
>>   third trimester."
>
>First of all, this paragraph is about as straightforward as a sidewinder's
>spit.

Now consider:

>... Don't insinuate that most people would be
>overly troubled about calling me pro-choice for any particular position I took
>concerning a particular portion of abortion rights legislation for most people
>are not so anal-retentive.

Intentional?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4961 talk.abortion:47224 alt.feminism:3981
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Summary: Abortion a day before birth -- does anyone care?
Keywords: surrealism
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:14:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <BxEuxz.In3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>(David S. Auer) writes:
>>(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>(Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>(David S. Auer) writes:
>>>>>(Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>> Any state in the Union can permit an abortion on the day before birth.

>>A lot of good that would do.  A day before birth, absolutely no woman, save
>>perhaps a suicidal one, would want an abortion.  It would be simpler to carry
>>the child to term and perform infanticide.

>Interesting.

>You say the difference between a woman that destroys a fetus one day 
>before birth and a woman who gives birth and then kills her child 
>is that the former is suicidal.
>[...]

No, I said it would be simpler.  The other difference is an ethical one.
It is one thing to kill an unborn child than a born one.  What I am saying,
however, is that one day before birth, there are extreme medical risks to
aborting a child.  I doubt anyone can find me sizeable counts of women who
wind up aborting their children a day before pregnancy.  That we are discussing
this instance at such length, I believe is a testament to how surreal this
conversation has become.

-dave
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Re: A society which supports male reproductive rights
Date: 3 Nov 92 17:24:16 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Given current behavior and sentiments in certain -- maybe most --
>communities, looks like a lot of guys are going to take the easy
>way out on this one.  So what I'd like you folks to do -- this
>was a point I raised in the original discussion of "choice for
>men" -- is figure out what we're going to do with all those
>single mothers.  Actually, it's not the mothers I'm worried
>about as much as the children.  What kind of system or society
>are you thinking about?  This is not a rhetorical question.

What about the kids if we give men "choice"? Here are some ideas I've had:

1.) Put the kids up for adoption. They'll have two parents instead of one.
Adoption has been the preferred solution for centuries. Adoption agencies
have many more couples willing to adopt than they have babies. 

2.) Abortion.

3.) Still have the father support the child, and have the mother pay him back,
with interest, after the child is 18.

4.) Retain child support, and limit it to what welfare would have paid. 


                           Kingsley Gates Morse Jr.

This doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of HP.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4952 talk.abortion:47160 alt.feminism:3953
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Legal Status of Fetuses (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...)
Date: 8 Nov 92 04:39:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov8.001732.25319@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <HQTSB8DR@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.223449.25865@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov3.144951.2536@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
>>>>Either the baby is a part of the woman's body and under her sole control,
>>>>or it's a separate entity, deserving of rights.
>>>Or maybe it's not that simple at all.
>>Legally, that is exactly how simple it should be.
>Why?
>Did the good fairy promise you a simple life, or something?

The law is ill-equipped to handle such complexities.  Whenever the law attempts
to handle a complicated matter by increasing its complexity it without fail
unnecessarily complicates people's lives (except for the lawyers to whom it
yields employment).

In the case of abortion rights this reality is quite obvious.  Additional
legal clauses mean either additional infringements upon a woman's right to
choose or greater ability to murder fetuses depending how you look at it.
Either way, you alienate one side and gall the other.

Given that I do not consider a fetus full human life worthy of protection
under the law, I find the slightest infringement upon the woman's abortion
rights contributing further to the societal snares that already bind her.
Further hampering of abortion rights leads only to more unsafe abortions,
harrassment of pregnant mothers seeking abortions, and the doctors who serve
them.

On most issues polarization is bad; on the issue of abortion rights it is
inevitable.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited (was: Guilty...)
X-To: DAN KING
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:13:00 GMT

>ag: Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
DK> I have strong beliefs about the feeling of men.  I am one.  However,
DK> I have difficulty in seeing a fair way to take into account their
DK> feelings when it comes to abortion legislation.  You can make things
DK> as fair as possible for the man, but he can not have any ultimate
DK> control over the woman's body.  That would be un-fair to the
DK> woman.  The best I can fight for is the woman's right to a physical
DK> abortion and the man's right to a legal abortion.

Oh!  I misunderstood you - I didn't realise that you were also "Pro-Male-Choice"
Mind you, I have found that there are *some* "Pro-Women's-Choice" who are also
Pro-Male-Choice, but they seem to be a *very* small minority.

Indeed, it seems as though the entire rest of the latter "pro-choice"
contingent, when discussing male choice, suddenly discover "family values"
and can spout out multidudes of reasons why "men should take responsibility
for their families".


DK> ag>Many men have been raised to believe that there's a great deal of worth
DK> ag>in that tiny human life inside the mother. And ignoring that; I think
DK> ag>that's wrong.

DK> I don't believe I ignore it.  I just don't see any possible way to
DK> legislate it.

I also find that it's rather difficult.  But I still say that *something*
has to happen, although we disagree on some of what is meant by that
"something".  Well...good that we agree on at least one thing, thank heavens.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * GOiD is a state of mind.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women