HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:53:25 GMT

In article <25820@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>>to life.

>Except for maybe injury, battery, and assault on the mother? These are
>allowable reasons for killing in self-defense, you know.

>And I did note your "we will force them [employers]" wrt to making them
>shape up their views towards women employees.  Sounds like you really
>support Clinton more than Bush, except for the abortion issue. How does
>it feel to be a one-issue, all my other principles be damned voter?

Since I haven't seen Martin show any other principles, I doubt it
concerns him. I wonder if Martin, Chaney, et al suspect that their   
mother's would have aborted them if they had had that option.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:57:39 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>yes. it was really funny when you included it to defend
->>yourself when what it did was demonstrate that you had
->>contradicted yourself.
->I don't believe that it demonstrates that I contradicted myself, Mr.
->Keegan. Perhaps you can explain how I did.

of course i can. but why would i bother. you said
that arguments stood or fell on their own merits. so
why don't you repost the exchange (as you did earlier).
it was really funny. go ahead. i suggested that you do so
in the post you replied to, but you deleted that suggestion.

go ahead. repost the "evidence."

but if you're not going to do so, repost the evidence,
don't bother repeating yourself anymore.

you see eric, i believe what you wrote: that people
for the most part can read what is posted and make
their own decisions. if you're uncomfortable with that,
then you don't believe what you posted, do you?

it's call or fold time for you sonny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Can some pro-lifer please answer this SIMPLE question?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 00:25:35 GMT

In <1992Sep22.211430.23897@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>A question to pro-lifer's (of the George Bush variety):

>Just answer the question, please refrain from wondering off or dodging.

>> & >> = MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> In the case of rape or incest, why are you willing to sentence an
>>> innocent baby to death for its father's crime?  It had no control 
>>> over the manner in which was conceived.

I am not of the George Bush variety.  I do not consider an embryo
under 5 weeks development a baby.  But don't go away yet...

>> I posted a similar question earlier in this thread, and have yet to
>> get a response from *anyone* who supports this position.  I suspect 
>> they can't justify this position on moral grounds, so they ignore it.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Utah Governor Bangerter said it best when he threatened to veto
a bill that would have required reporting of rape within five days to
be eligible; what he says applies *a fortiori* to bills making no
exceptions for rape.

"If we pass a bill that is ruled unconstitutional, we haven't 
saved one child, not one."
		--quoted in _The Village Voice_ [sorry, my photostat
				doesn't show the date.  It was either
				this year or late last year.  The article
				was titled, "Divine Retribution," by
			        C. Carr.]

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Question, especially for Religious Pro-life
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:30:45 GMT

From article <usglkrx.717539613@gsusgi1.gsu.edu>, by usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman):
> My sister asked me to post this question:
> 
> What do you think of surrogate motherhood?  Is it moral, or
> not?  Should it be legal or not?

Surrogate motherhood reduces women and babies to chattel, especially those
women who change their minds and decide _not_ to sell their babies, since
they are generally taken to court and forced to sell anyway.

If you want an inside look at surrogate motherhood, read "A Mother's Story"
by Mary Beth Whitehead.

Oh, and by the way, within the past couple of months surrogate motherhood
has been outlawed in the state of New York.   It _was_ 40% of the market
for the entire nation.


> Lori Kent Rothman

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.044726.8395@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Brian writes:
>>>Martin writes:
>>>>You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
>>>>homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.
>>>
>>>Who says?  You?  Why is it you're right and we're wrong?
>>
>>Do you seriously think that sperm/eggs a human?  I don't think so.
>
>Well, I don't know.  If they're not homo sapiens, then what are they?
>"No species"?  Then how are human sperm/eggs different from those of a pig?
>
>Besides, the sperm sure wiggle a lot and manage to successfully swim
>up a Fallopean tube; they sure seem alive to me!
>

How about specialized human cells which acts as messengers.  They are
no "species" in and of themselves.


>>>Why is it that so many pro-lifers seem to assert some kind of moral
>>>superiority and absolute righteousness?  I hate to make sweeping
>>>generalizations like this, but I've found VERY few pro-lifers willing
>>>to even really consider pro-choice arguments and respond meaningfully
>>>to the key points of the issue.
>>>
>>The contention is based on the existence of a human life at conception.
>>What's so moral about that?
>
>Nothing, until you assert that it's always wrong to kill this human
>life that exists at conception, and imply that you're going to keep us
>from doing the wrong thing because you know what's 'best' for us.
>This is your position, isn't it?

Once people realize that that which is killed during abortion is a human
life, then there is a much better chance that that person may change his/her
mind on abortion.  Of course, not everyone knows that.  Some people still
think that the unborn is just a bunch of human tissue.

>
>>And you wouldn't necessarily call scientists people with some kind of moral
>>superiority or absolute righteousness would you?
>
>Okay, you're right.  So I'll agree with whatever scientists can prove to me.
>
>So how do you get from "sperm/egg isn't human life, but anything from
>conception onwards is" to "it is never permissible to abort a z/e/f"?

Educating people about the existence of human life at conception could
be seen as a first step.  For once people know that, I am hoping that
our fellow brothers and sisters general sense of social responsibility
when it comes to the dignity of human life everywhere will realize that
more is at stake here than just the mother having a "mere medical procedure."

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:08:28 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>In <c6_pr7k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Besides, an egg exists before _and_ after fertilization, as does the
>>sperm.  Both are alive before _and_ after fertilization.
>
>What do you mean?  The genetic material of the two is combined into
>a new entity.  

Relevence?

>If I were to take what you say literally, the sperm and egg
>that combined to form you are still
>alive in you.  Or are they?  Just when do they stop being alive?

Of course they're still alive.  The point being that there is little
difference between an egg and a zygote, and that the personhood bigens
at conception reasoning is no less arbitrary than the personhood begins
at birth reasoning.  Given that they're both pretty arbitrary, and
that the conception model is really tough to manage, why not birth?

>>First Forgach, now you.  Both in the space of a week.  Pro-life my ass.
>
>Pretty sick, Ray.  And pretty damned hypocritical.

Coming from you that's a pretty worthless insult, Nyikos.  When you
stop being such an egotistical bigot about your own hallowed opinion
then maybe I'll start to care about what you have to say.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:50:42 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct2.185339.28770@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>You are still into the sperm/egg are humans (is a sperm a member of
>homo sapiens?  Com'on now) aren't you.  Well they aren't.

Who says?  You?  Why is it you're right and we're wrong?

>I have very little else to say because I am tired of arguing this point.
>You don't have to bother responding either.

You haven't argued the point; you've asserted it.  And it's not very
nice to make such an assertion that you KNOW people won't agree with,
then walk away like you're doing.

Why is it that so many pro-lifers seem to assert some kind of moral
superiority and absolute righteousness?  I have to make sweeping
generalizations like this, but I've found VERY few pro-lifers willing
to even really consider pro-choice arguments and respond meaningfully
to the key points of the issue.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Sonograms and the mother of all prejudicial pieces of crap
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:22:50 GMT

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about what I said about Brian
McBean, that he is the kind of person I am glad is involved in the
abortion debate.

This reductionism, putting everything on an esthetic plane where there
are serious moral issues, is not the kind of argument I am used to
seeing from Brian.  I wonder, is it now going to be the rule or the
exception?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:29:49 GMT

lawt@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM (Lawrence M Trout) writes:

>>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>>    Murder can be a responsible solution to an unwanted problem.
>> 
>is it just me or is it just plain dificult to underestimate the brilliance
>of this arguement. scares me to leave life and death decisions up to this
>kind of reasoning. need i say more?

Nope, I think that says it all.  We need to vote Bush out of office,
NOW!

>Larry

                      -rocker
                       or maybe those iraqi children weren't "persons"
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39205 talk.politics.misc:48479
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:30:50 GMT

In article <Bv9KE6.JF9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>
>	If a couple is having sex, even if using contraception, they
>are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Just because they use
>protection does not mean they don't face the risk.
>
This statement is not correct.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:54:52 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  <5638@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> -rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
> ->we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
> ->do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control,
> ->perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.
> -
> -Well, well, well...
> -
> -I see that YOU, TOO, are unaware that abortion, for some women, IS
> -a responsible solution.  Please try to memorize this..I know it will be
> -hard, as you seem to have trouble rationalizing it, but it is true.
> -Now, take the pencil in your little hands and write 1000 times....
> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> -  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> -
> -There.  Is it sinking in yet?
> -
> -(nod your little head.)
>
> Bare with me.

I did, then I realized you probably meant "bear"...  :-)
(Actually, you want her to bear *for* you...  :-(  )

> A hard-core pro-lifer would respond...

Are you an idiot, or do you just speak for them?

> I think I need to write this about 1.5 million times.
> [Significance (to put gasoline on the fire): that's the number of
> abortions performed in the United States every year.]
>
> Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
> rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.

What does that have to do with the fact that:
   Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 07:43:55 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  <d-pzk3@rpi.edu>  keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> ->You *had* sent a letter to the mailing list at that time, correct?
> ->It would seem to me that the only way to decide whether or not the
> ->initial allegation were true would be to examine that letter.  Then
> ->we could decide for ourselves whether the letter clearly asked for
> ->support, clearly did not, or was possibly ambiguous (in which case
> ->both sides could be arguing in good faith).
>
> mr. margolis -- it is not up to me to prove my innocence.
>
> an allegation was posted to this newsgroup about me
> and suzanne lucia. that allegation was never supported.

(What you showed was an allegation about you and a query of Suzanne Lucia.)

There are two parts to the allegation.  First, that a letter was
sent, and second, that it asked for support.  If you claim that a
letter was *not* sent, then it would certainly be up to cj to support
her claim.  However, if you *did* send a letter, then it would seem to
me that it would be improper for cj to post your letter without your
permission - in which case it does fall upon you to either post the
letter, give permission for someone else to post the letter, or call
this a draw.

That's why I asked you to clarify whether you sent anything to the
mailing list at around that time.

> while you were just a minor player in this particular
> discussion, it seems to me that, if you wish to pursue
> the matter,

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I did.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Steve vs. Patrick
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:14:07 GMT

In <1992Sep26.171520.144202@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <Bv6wHK.FnG@rice.edu>  patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>> In article <vyfzky@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> >Sorry folks, but I think a lot of you who
>> >continue these apology demands are simply looking to give yourself
>> >brownie points for "making" Patrick "do the right thing".
>> >
>> A beautiful summation of it -- though I'd be tempted to say, in the cases of
>> Peter and Suzanne, that they're going after those brown-nose points...:-)

Patrick, did you see my post where I said, "Spoken like a true redneck"?

>Well, I'm glad you didn't succumb to that temptation.  :-)

Does Larry's statement, or yours, qualify as Zen, Patrick?  All I know
about Zen, I read in Arthur Koestler's _The Lotus and the Robot_, and 
a pro-choice feminist friend of mine, who is both Jewish and a Zen 
Buddhist, says that Koestler relies too much on Suzuki, who was
"totally fucked up" about Zen.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:48:58 GMT

In article <BvBGz8.DKt@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>
>This depends on belief.  One can believe fairly reasonably that 
>participating in sex, even with contraceptives (whose unreliability
>implies that "reasonable" precaution is itself a matter of belief),
>is a voluntary decision to risk pregnancy and the ensuing [proposed] 
>obligations.  This is the hardest of the hard-line positions.
>
This belief does not apply to all persons. 
Only to _women_, within a certain age group, who have
coital sex with human males.  If it were univerally
true that all participants in sexual activities incurred
the same risks, the belief might be more reasonable.

As-is, it targets a certain segment of the population
with obligations that do not result from similar activities
for other participants.  Doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-life feminism
Summary: Hey, Peter!
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:18:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct3.030456.9739@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> Pro-life Feminism: An idea whose time has come
> The Congressional Record, June 20, 1989, E 2221
> 
> Melissa Simmons Tulin,  
> President of Feminists for Life of Pennsylvania

This is not an objective or unbiased source, and
therefore unacceptable.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.non.sequitur
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:19:47 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# I never said that sex was a crime, but if both parents excercised a
# little preparation they might not have to face the prospect of an
# unplanned pregnancy. 

Next up on Non-sequitur Theatre, she's sexy, she's hot, she's made
millions making pop music, and now... she wants a pony.  But Madonna's
feet are too big.

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Consistent with What?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:06:49 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] 
] Before you ONCE AGAIN attribute these beliefs to me, let me repeat
] that I am arguing that they are consistent, not whether they should
] form the basis for law.  Having said that again:
] 
] It is consistent to take the premise that a woman has voluntarily
] undertaken a "commitment" to the fetus, when she voluntarily participated
] in sex.  Thus it is consistent to enforce such a commitment.
] 
] WHETHER THIS PREMISE *SHOULD* BE THE LAW IS ANOTHER QUESTION.


Forgive my Lack of a psu education and all, but What Ever
is a 'premise' consistent with.... the rest of the argument?

I presume that you have taken the time to follow the
HeteroSexualityTheDeathKult, and likewise follow the
nature of that Argument....


And thus, we can now move onto the simpler matter of
whether or not outlawing HeteroSexuality, by its very
nature attacking the problem at its fountainhead, should
be the basis of the New and Improved AntiAbortion Laws,
not to mention State Security Acts for the Safety of Citizens.


ciao
drieux

ps: oh the shame of not having a good PSU education....


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:56:37 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 3-Oct-92 Re: That Responsibility Thi.. by
"Faustus"@psilink.com 
> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
> an unwanted child..

Question. Why is that your assumption? That if his girl got pregnant or
even if his wife got pregnant unexpectedly, that he wouldn't go through
doubts? Why assume that he isn't honorable. Maybe he believes that men
should marry the women they get pregnant. Did you ask him?

Just because he's a man doesn't mean that he won't go through some
turmoil if an unwanted pregnancy becomes part of his life.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:37:50 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|What makes you think that credentials have anything to do with validity,
|Mr. Keegan? Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
|of he who propounds them.

Someone should define "ad hominem" at this point.  The term is 
thrown around a lot on Usenet, but it seems that some people 
don't understand what it means, or what its implications are.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily." 
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
Newsgroups: talk.abortion