HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: To start, I'll need paper and pen.  Where did I put that. . .
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:57:31 GMT

In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>>> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>
>>Turn it around.  Explain (without the use of any belief system) how an
>>abortion is objectively a responsbile decision.
>
>How's about a simple cost-benefit analysis?  Suppose a woman, 18 years-old,
>just graduated from high school and about to enter college, gets pregnant.
>
>If she carries the pregnancy to term, she will certainly miss at least one
>term of college.  With less understanding parents, she will more likely be
>unable to attend college at all.  Prospects for a future marriage _and_
>career will be severely impacted.  The financial costs of carrying a child
>to term are also considerable - several thousand dollars at least.
>
>Cost: loss of future earnings, loss of social standing, loss of family support.
>Benefit: Gained maturity from being a parent earlier.
>
>If she gets an abortion during the first trimester, it will cost a few
>hundred dollars and a weekend of time.  Granted, there will probably be 
>one less person in the world, but that would be the case anyway, since
>she had no intention of having a child in the first place.
>
>Cost: The price of an abortion.  Guilt.
>Benefit: Improved odds of finding the right husband.  Job satisfaction.
>	 Improved social and family standing (assuming privacy).
>
>So then, two choices.  Stay in school, learn a profession, and contribute
>learned skills to society, or have a child and be constrained to poor paying
>jobs.  What's the responsible thing to do?  This is just one scenario, I
>can come up with more.

Sure.  And with the same reasoning, I can come up with compelling reasons
to 'elminate' other undesirables, such as the insane, the permanently
severely retarded, welfare recipients. . . 

The problem is that in establishing your objective criteria, you didn't
establish objective critieria.  You are working from the BELIEF that
a financial balance sheet is a sufficient criteria for establishing
a correct course of action.

This fallacy is the primary problem with the libertarian party.

The whole idea of asking the above question, was to attempt to illustrate
a point using the Socratic method.  The point I'm trying to get across is
that everybodies stance (and I mean EVERYBODIES) is based on a personal
belief system.

And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
country through the use of law.

>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer
>rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 06:52:56 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world 

<1992Sep2.024157.25980@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
><1992Aug25.161007.1377@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>># = Doug Holtsinger:
...
>>I'm convinced DJR is part of the Holtsinger phenomenom.
>>
>>A boycott would be fine with me.  The last one sure drove DJR into a rage, so
>>count me in :)!
>
>Oh, get lost. A boycott against YOU, Steve Novak, would be more
>likely.

Nah, it was tried.

>A boycott against James Keegan and Mark Ira Kaufman, would be highly
>more likely, than against Doug Holtsinger. 

Try it and see.  Let's have a contest.

>Lessee, now, you boycott-hungry folks first wanted to boycott me, then
>David Rasmussen, and now Doug Holtsinger. 

Nope.  Before you stick that foot of yours any farther down your throat
you might want to check the *facts*.  Rasmussin was boycotted long before
you raised your racist opinions around here.

>It is obvious that pro-aborts here cannot handle anything but their
>narrow vision of life in general, and when people wander from that
>path and screw up the various pro-choice AI programs running on USENET
>(like Dan King, Mark Kaufman and James Keegan), they scream for a
>boycott.

Sorry, but no pro-abortioner has called for a boycott here.  Please get
your *facts* straight. Ha... ha... heh  Sorry folks, I guess that was
pretty funny.


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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:49:27 GMT

In article <afxewrq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.204314.19152@pwcs.stpaul.gov>,
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
>> child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.

>Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.

"Anything"?  What if all painkillers are proven to endanger a z/e/f
and she gets daily migraines?  What if she's likely to miscarry unless
she spends the last five months of her pregnancy in bed?

You seem to be forgetting that there's a real, live person around that
fetus incubator and that forbidding her from taking certain actions
has a very real cost.

Oh, and thanks for all the help you're giving the pro-choicers....

-- 
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: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: "Abortion" on a not-pregnant woman
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Sep 92 21:57:44 GMT

In <1992Sep1.075350.7926@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> NNyikos

>>How many abortion clinics have you seen the inside of?  

>How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of?

None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
waiting for the answers.

> And how manny women
>do you know who have had abortions?  Any?

Two, for sure.  One was made pregnant as a result of rape.  And she
regrets even that abortion.  A week ago I heard her say tearfully that
if any pro-lifer had cared enough about her to talk to her outside
the clinic before she went in, she would not have had any of her three
abortions.  She was that starved for meaningful human contact, and the
clinic employees sure did not provide it.

The other is the woman who had the abortion forced on her while 
screaming "Let me go!" and "Don't kill my baby!" as described in
more detail on my COERCED ABORTION post of July.

>>Are you one of the people who
>>chooses to blind himself to all stories about that reality besides the
>>NOW-NARAL-PP-ACLU party line?  

>I am "one of those people who chooses to" make my ownn damn decisions, rather
>than leave them to people who believe Noah actually fit billions of animals
>on onne 40 cubit boat, amonng other disingenuous ideas.

>>I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of strychnine induce temporary blindness?

>I wonder: does a non-lethal dose of xtianity induce permannent stupidity?
>Actually, I don't wonder.

Ah, so you were offended by Nita's "giving her life to the Lord".  I'll
have to tell Linda about you.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug27.194956.10215@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <1992Aug23.202904.20693@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
>> In <1992Aug20.194554.9645@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>From article <hzay_hf@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
>>>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>There is never no other choice but to get an abortion.
>>>> 
>>>> True.  In some situations, the woman can choose to die instead.
>> 
>>>An admirable choice for the woman brave enough to risk it.  I had a
>>>great-aunt whom the doctors BEGGED to stop having children because they
>>>were sure that each next one would kill her.   She had 4, and when her
>>>doctor asked her "Why, why, why?", her answer was, "I can't think of a
>>>more beautiful way to go."
>> 
>>>She did die young, but not in childbirth.
>> 
>> Suzanne, is this the great-aunt who (as you posted some time ago) would
>> up dying from an illegal abortion?


>No.  The aunt who lived was my mother's aunt.  The aunt who died was my
>father's aunt.

   Huh? Didn't you post that they both died (one "young but not in
childbirth"and the other from an illegal abortion?)
   Or are you talking in spiritual terms here?

                                                         MP
>SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:38:03 GMT

In <1992Aug29.135641.19628@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

> Kathi shows her ingnorance about Roe v. Wade, Colautti, Danforth, etc.
>> Chaneyhall shows his ignorance as usual
>>> Suxie prattles on
>>>> Mark Kauffman

>>>>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>>>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  

>>>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
>>>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
>>>own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.

>>A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 
>>That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
>>trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
>>s/he can survive independently. 

>No shit, Sherlock.  THAT IS WRITTEN INTO ROE V. WADE.

No. What is written is that women may have such fetuses aborted for
reasons of health (or life).  

>>In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
>>fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

>I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you have NO IDEA that that was
>upheld by the Supreme Court NINETEEN YEARS AGO.

I haven't seen Mr. Chaney make an incorrect statement above.  It's a pity
that so few states have implemented what he thinks the law should demand,
and that the ones who tried were unsuccessful (Akron, Colautti, Danforth, 
Thornburgh--these decisions struck down law after law designed to do that.
Finally, with Webster...)

>>It is this reason that "pro-choice" has always and always will mean
>>"anti-life." 

>So, how many children have you adopted (under any of your pseudonyms)?

No need to, with so many people doing increasingly desperate things to
adopt, like going to Romania and buying children who were living with
their parents, because of the long waiting lines here in the USA, thanks
to Roe v. Wade and its progeny.

>>Any questions, folks? Didn't think so.  

>Yeah.  When are you going to get educated so you will stop embarassing
>yourself?

You should read Roe v. Wade.  These statements make you look all the
more foolish.
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:13:54 GMT

<1992Aug25.175947.13336@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>In article <1992Aug21.181204.1035@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>>In <1992Aug20.191212.8054@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>>You seem to imply that you're not making a religious argument. I
>>don't see how this can be. The basic religious argument is: "Sex
>>is for reproduction only, because God says so." You can't convert
>>this into a secular argument like: "Sex is for reproduction only,
>>because Biology says so." Biology clearly says that sex is
>>both for reproduction and for pleasure. 
>
>But biology also says that the two are inseparable in intercourse.

No it doesn't.  One can have sex without reproduction.

>>But wouldn't you agree that unfertilized eggs
>>are also potential humans? If a woman has the opportunity to get 
>>pregnant, and doesn't, then the unfertilized egg is cruelly expelled
>>from her body. Celibacy and abortion have exactly the same effect.
>
>Then instead of attempting to define absolute points, perhaps we should
>talk about degrees of potential.  And base our limits on abortion on
>potential.  If a newly fertilized egg has zero potential for life,
>and a new born has 100% potential for life, then perhaps abortion
>becomes murder when the potential for life reaches or exceeds fifty
>percent. . .

How about 100%?

>Of course, IMHO an egg is not a potential human being, as it has not
>been fertilized.

Of course, IMHO a fetus is not a person, as it has not been born yet.

>>Could you expand on your reasons why the fetus' right-to-life
>>only exists when the woman wasn't raped?
>
>Every fetus has a right-to-life.  

No it doesn't.  This is probably where you are getting confused.

>>When you make statements  
>>like this, it really looks like pregnancy is a punishment to be 
>>inflicted on women who have sex willingly.
>
>Nope.  You make the assumption that pregnancy is a punishment.

It is for a woman who does not want to be pregnant.


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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34940 talk.religion.misc:15573
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 4 Sep 1992 02:44:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Sep3.211245.26423@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <lach7lINN577@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

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

>>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:

>>>>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  

>>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>>>> rape, and theft?

>>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.

>>> If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>>> then what are they based upon? 

>> They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
>> improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
>> it is a social issue.

>So homicide, rape, and theft are acceptable in specific instances where 
>they would improve the functioning of "society"?  

I suppose that depends on who is determining the acceptablity of these
acts. Step on over to talk.religion.misc for example, and you will see
a number of people who seem to consider instances of these acts
perfectly acceptable as found in old testiment texts. And if you ask
any one of them, I think they will tell you that they try to be very 
"moral" people.

The bottom line is, the acceptability of these and other acts is somewhat
circumstantial. For example, under certain circumstances I would be willing
to accept my homicide, but not under all circumstances. 

>Doug Holtsinger

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Third party request
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:23:32 GMT

Holtsinger claims that a law currently being enforced in 
Pennsylvania cannot be enforced.  Can someone explain his
reasoning to me, please?  

In article <1992Sep1.161525.15316@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <BtwMFB.Dr0.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

[text deleted]

## No, it is correct.  The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989
## contains a section which restricts abortions of fetuses of 24 weeks
## or greater gestational age.  It requires that three physicians
## determine that the pregnant woman's life is in danger (and suicidal
## tendencies in the pregnant woman cannot be considered.)  It
## requires that a second physician be present to take "all reasonable
## steps" to save the fetus.  Finally, it requires that the abortion
## be performed "in a manner which provides the best opportnity for
## the unborn child to survive."  A physician who violates this
## law is guilty of a 1st degree felony.
#
#The states may not enforce legislation which would require the physician
#to employ the abortion technique which would most likely result in 
#a fetus aborted alive, since that type of legislation was struck
#down in Colautti v. Franklin.

The state of Pennsylvania disagrees with you, Holtsinger.  

[anti-Semitic .sig deleted]

Susan



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34709 alt.abortion.inequity:3443
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns 
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 21:02:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>In article <1992Sep1.183441.9858@wdl.loral.com> 
>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>> The patriarchal view is that women should not have the right to
>> abortion.  The reason: it gives women the power to control
>> reproduction.  
>
>The patriarchal view is that abortion should be unrestricted 
>so that men have a better chance of escaping from their 
>responsibilities towards women and children.  

OK, so both of you can come up with plausible reasons for the other's
patriarchism.  Maybe this line of arguing is a dead end?  Those who
want to control others will find ways to do so regardless of whether 
abortion is legal.  You won't resolve the abortion issue by mud-slinging.

Abortion comes down to some fairly straightforward questions.  To wit:

Do people have the right to control their own bodies? (that's a yes/no
question.  Not a "yes/no, except when ..." question).

When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?

For my part (being a pragmatist), the answers are yes, at birth, and no.
Not to say the fetus shouldn't have some protection, just that consequences
of pre-birth personhood are likely to be rather worse than the benefits.

(alternate universe: pro-choice protesters in front of delivery rooms 
 waving placards with pictures of naked & bloody women dead of childbirth,
 Widowers sending their children to block cars trying to enter the parking 
 lot.

 Too wierd.)

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 17:57:03 GMT

<1992Aug31.162308.17028@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:
><kytyfza@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> The next-of-kin of an organ donor acts in the best interests
>>> of the deceased when they give permission to transplant organs.
>
>> Ummmm, Holtsinger, the deceased HAS no "best interests".
>
>A living person may express their desire to have their organs donated
>when they die.  The best interests of the deceased are often carried
>through a will.  Although the deceased cannot verbally express any  
>interests, we still do respect them.  We would not, for example, 
>cremate the corpse if the deceased's religion called for a burial.  

This is a nit, but "we" would cremate a corpse if the person left specific
instructions to do so, REGARDLESS of their religion.  It's called *personal
choice*.  Now, I won't look for any Freudian slip here wrt religious
priority over personal choice.  I'll assume it was an honest error caused
by attempting to be concise.


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: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:35:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...
>
>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?
>
>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.

But that is precisely the issue.  If the z/e/f didn't develop inside of
a woman, then the entire abortion issue would be moot, yes?

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:36:33 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
	<1992Aug30.152711.20427@midway.uchicago.edu>
 

eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes
>Personally, I don't think the Constitution guarantees a right to birth
>control, to education, to have enough food to not starve, to abortion,
>to burn the flag, to burn leaves in your backyard, or to much of
>anything beyond which it specifically guarantees.  This doesn't mean I
>don't think people have a *moral* right to many of the above,
>especially in a society as rich as ours.  It *does* mean that I take
>the Constitution fairly literally.

I  agree with Ms. Bartley about the lack of Constitutional guarantees on
all these issues except for birth control and abortion.

The ninth amendment to the Constitution states that the enumeration of
certain rights to the people shall be construed to deny or disparge
others retained by the people.  If a right to privacy is not implied by
this amendment, I would conclude that this amendment is meaningless. 
Even a most modest conception of privacy would I believe lead to the
decision in Griswold vs. Conn.

With what part of this short analysis do you disagree, Ms. Bartley?

Michael Loomis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion