HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: More proof of the pointlessness of `debate' with DODIE.
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:18:20 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov8.200221.14268@ncsu.edu>
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 

>>  [.. Mezias deletes the entire article, since he's afraid
>>      to recognize that some pro-choicers don't recognize
>>      infants as persons ..]

I am not afraid, DODIE, and happily concede the fact that you
presented quotes that make it seem that some pro-choicers do not
recognize infants as persons.  I simply pointed out two things about
it: (a) it is irrelevant to abortion rights and (b) your quotes prove
that people should not engage in pointless debates with you about
irrelevant points.  They simply give you more fodder for your
distortion machine.

>My point is that some pro-choicers have entertained the idea
>that infants are not persons.  Are you claiming that every
>one of the quotes which I provided in this thread was taken 
>out of context?   Can you demonstrate that for me please?  

Of course, every one was taken out of context since all you did was
quote part of a post that you were interested in using to make some
point.  They are also out of context in the most important sense: They
are irrelevant to abortion rights.

>> For the record, DODIE (sic), let me make it
>> perfectly clear what my position on this irrelevant issue is: Infants
>> are persons.  
>
>Fine, but your opinion is not shared by every pro-choicer. 

Neither do all persons who voted for Ross Perot share the same opinion
about violence on television, yet they all voted for Ross Perot.  Can
you say irrelevant?

>> The law is quite clear on who qualifies as a person: any
>> born human being.  
>
>The law can be changed to make any entity a legal 'person'.
>It just so happens that today, certain human beings are
>not defined as legal persons.  

And when it does change the issue of personhood will remain irrelevant
to my position on abortion.  Whether or not it remains irrelevant to
the legal status of abortion is an empirical question.  Since I don't
believe that this will happen, I fail to see the point of speculating
about it.

>But you haven't shown any relevant difference between a 
>late-term fetus and a newborn infant.  And even if we
>accept your premise that a woman shouldn't be forced
>to support a child, it does not logically follow that
>she should have the right to kill that child. 

The mother does not have a right to kill; she has the right to choose
not to support using her bodily resources.  With an infant, she can
refuse to breast feed, donate blood, organs, or tissue.  With a
/z/e/f/, this comes down to a right to remove.  Since the vast
majority of abortions take place when the infant is not viable, its
survival is not a consideration.  

>But legal personhood is simply a definition which can be changed.  

And when it changes, which it won't any time soon, we can worry about
that.  

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: The theatre of the absurd
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:06:43 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->I don't like to keep bringing this up, Keith, but you have done _squat_ in the
->way of even acknowledging responsibility for what you did, let alone
->apologize for doing it.

i don't like to keep bringing this up, petey honey, but
you have done _squat_ in the way of even acknowledging
responsibility for lying about adrienne, let alone
apologize for doing it.

Newsgroups: nyx.misc,talk.regligion.misc,alt.aids.activism,talk.abortion,alt.flame,rec.humor,soc.christian,talk.bizzare
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <markts.721183657@mcl> 
markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:

> it all comes down to this. the unborn are not alive.

This statement is not correct.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:53:35 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
%%% What's the magic number?  What percentage of becoming a human infant
%%% makes something worthy of protection?  Can't be anything >0, that
%%% would qualify sperm.  Can't be, say, >1%, that would qualify ova.
%%% Can't be 100%, that would disqualify fetuses in the birth canal.
%%% Where do we draw the line?  What's the magic number that would
%%% prevent the deliberate abortion of fertilized eggs, but disallow
%%% sperm and ova?
>> 
>> ...and if there is an easily defined point where something goes
>> through a phase transition where its likelihood of becoming a human
>> infant significantly increases, why should we pick that point to give
>> it the rights we currently only give to actual human infants?
# 
# Compassion?

Oh dear.  I see a debate loop looming ahead.  Maybe you can steer away
from it.

Observe: we should consider zygotes to be people because it's the
compassionate thing to do -- and it's the compassionate thing to do
because zygotes are people.

Why is it the compassionate thing to do?


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
                                                  -- drieux, just drieux  

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46647 soc.women:18836 soc.men:18669
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Date: 5 Nov 1992 10:13:46 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov4.200613.25480@wdl.loral.com: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
:In article <#xg15pp@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
:# Ok, Frank, I'll play.  (I suspect that you're playing devil's advocate
:# here...)
:
:While you're at it, I want to jump in with an additional argument.
:
:# Now, you've demonstrated that it is _more_ likely that a z/e/f will
:# become an infant than any random sperm.  So...we have to write a law
:# on this.
:# 
:# What's the magic number?  What percentage of becoming a human infant
:# makes something worthy of protection?  Can't be anything >0, that
:# would qualify sperm.  Can't be, say, >1%, that would qualify ova.
:# Can't be 100%, that would disqualify fetuses in the birth canal.
:# Where do we draw the line?  What's the magic number that would
:# prevent the deliberate abortion of fertilized eggs, but disallow
:# sperm and ova?
:
:...and if there is an easily defined point where something goes
:through a phase transition where its likelihood of becoming a human
:infant significantly increases, why should we pick that point to give
:it the rights we currently only give to actual human infants?

Compassion?

Also - most people find abortion to be repugnant (yet support the right to
choose, which I think is correct).  I'd like to ask: why is that?  
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:29:12 CST
 <1992Nov1.073631.21212@muddcs.claremont.edu> <1992Nov1.191018.19419@netcom.com> <1d8f04INNee4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1d8f04INNee4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov1.191018.19419@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
>>Even supposing the embryo/fetus is a person, why should it get the
>>special priviledge of using another person's body (the mother's)
>>against her will?  In no circumstance is this presently condoned in
>>this society; why should pregnancy be the exception?
> 
> Exactly.  So why bend over backwards to call in-utero humans non-persons?

And why bend over backwards to call them persons?  Maybe you have to
bend over backwards to call them non-persons just so you have the
satisfaction of calling them potential persons instead.  Actually,
I don't think it's very far to bend in calling a z/e/f a non-person,
but I agree it's somewhat of a tedious point to labour over.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quote from Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986)
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:04:30 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

"Once impregnation has taken place it is no longer a question
of whether the persons concerned have the responsibility for
a possible parenthood, they have become parents."
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:25:53 GMT

In <1992Nov5.162936.1392@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:

>>>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>>>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>>>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>>>finally over.  Thank God.

>>Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
>>price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

>True....  But *repealing* FOCA would a) be much more difficult than
>vetoing FOCA, and b) have a much higher political cost.

Why do you think the Congress dropped FOCA after Democratic leaders
announced that they had almost enough votes to override a veto?
(My guess: 1. They did not have the votes they thought they had.
2. They were afraid the public would learn just how extreme FOCA was,
and that would have hurt Clinton's chances.)

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:47:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.004613.25272@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <92311.175856ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>In article <1992Nov2.032636.29543@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:

>>>Ever hear of second-hand quotes, Ms. Birmingham? Killfiles are FAR from a
>>>perfect mechanism.

>>Mr. Darcy are you suggesting one should base their
>>opinion of someone on "second-hand quotes"?
>
>No, of course not. But "opinions" are not at issue here, are they, Ms.
>Birmingham? Ms. Bartley's opinion of Keegan, good, bad or indifferent,
>has probably been formed long ago, based on FIRST-hand knowledge of that
>person(a)'s character, tactics, etc. from what they have directly written. 
>What we are discussing here, on the other hand, is variations in behavior 
>over time, which CAN be ascertainable via second-hand quotes, especially
>if, as Ms. Bartley has explained, one bypasses one's killfile once in a while
>as a "quality control check" on the value of those second-hand quotes.

I usually bypass my KILLfile inadvertantly; this functions as a
quality control check but isn't particularly done as one.

-- 
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,soc.motss
From: kfj@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kirk Johanning)
Subject: Re: too controversial for NBC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:27:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Response Center Atlanta

In <SCOTTS.92Nov4175042@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>CNN News reported today that NBC has banned the producer's of "A
>Different World" from developing stories on the topics of abortion and
>homophobia.  

[bandwidth deleted]

>This producer acknowledged that the network had already deemed
>show's on abortion and gay-bashing as unacceptable for this season.

>My question is, what criterion makes a topic unacceptable?  That the
>issue is multifaceted?  That the differing sides are passionate with
>their arguments?  That the religious right is involved?

Basically any topic that would cause the advertisers to pull their
spots would be considered 'unacceptable' by the network.

>Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
>Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
>        
>member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

>"I love my son and I think this shows we don't hate anybody."
>Phyllis Schlafly on homosexuality, San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 
-- 
 ____   Kirk Johanning               ____    The opinions expressed above   ____
 \  /   HP Response Center Atlanta   \  /    are mine and may not reflect   \  /
  \/    kfj@hpuerca.atl.hp.com        \/     those my employer or anybody    \/
                                             else for that matter.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arizona Anti-Abortion Amendment, & CLINTON WINS!
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

steven@jaynes.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
# What happened to Suzanne's pet project yesterday?  

Its supporters got beat with an ugly stick and were driven mercilessly
through the streets of Phoenix at the hands of a taunting jeering
crowd.  Well, actually that didn't happen -- but it made good copy.

-----

It went down in stinging defeat.  Something like 2-1 against.


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
                                                  -- drieux, just drieux  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:42 GMT

jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:

>(from "RE: Men and Abortion")
>In article <Bx5wtu.Guw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
[I am omitting my response-post, to save you from having to read through it
again.]

>Do I understand this correctly?

>1.	If the person(s) *want* the child, then there is some reason for
>	feeling a loss is the child dies (miscarriage).

>2.	If the person(s) do NOT want the child, then it is merely considered
>	a *thing* and can be disposed of without guilt.

[Parts deleted]

>             how do we distinguish when an "existence" has enough value
>for us to guarantee it's right to exist?  On what basis do we place value on
>an "existence"?  Simply that it is a living, breathing entity, able to
>exist on it's own?  By that measure even live babies don't qualify because
>they need someone to feed and protect them to survive.

I assert that living is not enough.  Animals live, but we don't call killing
a rat "murder".  I also assert that being human is not enough.  It is very
arrogant of us to assume that we are the most intelligent species on the planet
(much less in the universe) simply because we have the capacity to kill each
other (or not) in large numbers.  Certainly an unborn human is of greater value
to us than an unborn animal, *because* it is human, our species.  However, to
say that being a living human being is exactly where the line should be drawn
invites the nightmare that another, more powerful, species would draw a similar
line around themselves and proceed to wipe out humanity.  Murder is not the
killing of a human being, it is the killing of a *sentient* being.  How do we
distinguish when an "existence" has ... a right to exist?  When that "existence"
is sentient.  The unborn do not have the complex experiences that develop
sentience...until they are born.

Please direct followups to talk.abortion where this really belongs.  8-)
(and maybe alt.abortion, but I don't read there)

>Jeff Sue   

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.140706.2139@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> Justice Blackmun made it clear at the time of the PA (Casey) decision that
> he would not be able to last 4 more years on the Court.  Justice White is
> ~75, and Stevens ~72, so they may not last either.

Blackmun will likely retire.  Stevens may.  But White is a
healthy, tough old bird and he loves the game.  I imagine
White will die in harness.

Dean Kaflowitz, who can't wait to get back into a harness
himself, and tomorrow, wind being low enough maybe...

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: It's all over now, Baby Blue.
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 00:14:21 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.083200.5334@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com writes:
|In article <1dq3b1INNj56@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|>Because I am an adult woman, and I *know* I am more important than
|>an unborn foetus.
|Gosh, I wish the world was as black and white as you *know*.  Ok, you
|took a vote and you won over an unborn foetus.  Now, let's change the
|players and employ a special trait where we can speculate on what
|happens in the future and vote again.

|	Mother X                vs.            Baby X'
|In this corner, weighing 140 pounds is Matilda Mother.  [...]
|In this corner, weighing 4 ounces, is Baby Blue. [...]
|OK, can we vote on these two?  Does Matilda get her right to kill
|Chelsea or does Chelsea get to cure AIDS?

Matilda gets to do whatever it is she wishes about her pregnancy:
to continue it, or to terminate it.

Why?  Because Mathilda is an adult woman, and she is more
important than any unborn fetus.  

Followups to talk.abortion.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer
insights, in making those things plain which he had before made
ambiguous."  -- Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Keegan: Fascist Control Freak?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 05:57:00 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j 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 article <1992Oct29.135646.5840@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
sdemitri@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Lucia Demitrio) writes:

>But I've never called you pro-life; I've argued for a *third* category,
>and I've called your position a very, very bad idea with troubling im-
>plications.

I think you need something a bit shorter if you want it to catch on as a label.
:-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:46:19 GMT

ron_s@verifone.com writes:

>It is
>not the province or business of government to legislate
>morality, or to attempt to codify morality in a series of

Then why do we have laws that condemn rape, child abuse, murder, theft, and
suicide?  It is obvious that those laws are indeed legislating a morality.

			-B Schnaufer

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47378 alt.child-support:3622
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:48:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

note followup

shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes ...
>But try to support abortion alternatives (abstinence, parenthood,
>adoption), and see how much support you get from the "pro-choice"
>crowd. If you're lucky they'll ignore you -- more likely they'll try
>every legal means to shut you down, since, by supporting other choices,
>you are automatically trying to IMPOSE ideals.

I guess that means Planned-Parenthodd must be a pro-life organization,
since they provide contraceptives, pregnancy counseling, information
about parenting, and information about adoption.  And in Santa Clara
county, abortion makes up only about 15% of their business.

>And try (in the next four years, at least) to exercise a choice not to
>PAY for abortions of poor women.  President Bill has pledged to lead a
>"pro-choice" agenda where your choices end at the point where your
>wallet begins. 

You will never have to pay for abortions.  If the US government funds
abortion services, they will be _my_ tax dollars at work.  Yours will
continue to be used to build weapons and kill Iraqis (or whoever the
USA's enemy du jour happens to be).

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism