HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:22:42 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

Well, there have been a few responses [e-mail] to my last few
posts - I've been blessed and damned, but I'm a tough old
bird. However, I would like to set a few things straight.

I've been pretty hard on some of the younger posters, but
when you get here you mmight lose a little patience too.
However, it wasn't meant in a personal way, so don't take
it too hard.

Am I pro-choice? I've spent most of my life fighting labels
and trying not to hang them on others. I have to look upon
this whole affair as a matter of choices and my right to
impose my choices on others, a right I don't believe that
I, nor anyone else, has.

Many arguments have been presented regarding the rights
of the unborn. This is not an easy decision for anyone,
but on sober reflection, I must come down on the side
of the born, i.e., the ones who are here. It is not
a decision which necessarily makes me overjoyed, but the
alternative [of removing a woman's rights] is too fraught
with danger in my experience. The arab proverb about
letting the camel's nose into the tent comes to mind.

Another consideration is that this world cannot even feed
the people who are here. You will tell me that it can, and
it is only a matter of distribution. Yes, that and politics
and economics. One world government would resolve these
problems, but I'm sure not holding my breath.

I think I commented once on the doctrine of 'potentiality'
e.g., we may have lost a Schweitzer, an Einstein, etc. As
then, I would remind you that we might also have lost a
Hitler, a Stalin, a Saddam. Given that this world is not
a warm and friendly place, and that many of these potent-
ial beings would likely be raised in a harsh environment,
I think the chances of my prediction are greater. Look at
our inner cities. Any number of young people who have been
raised thinking themselves worthless and unloved, do you
wonder that they do the things they do? If we have so much
concern, take it to the ghettos and barrios and show it to
these young people.

My life is full and extremely busy with practically no spare
time in it. Caring for two households tends to do that. I
have had people remark that being with Florence and me, and
seing our love is like sitting in front of a cosy fireplace.
Well, if that's all I ever get to bring to this world, that
is something however small. Florence tells me that if I had
not come along when I did she would be dead today, from
overwork and high blood pressure. [her rather dour internist
did remark that it was under control, saying 'It must be
your new lifestyle' :-/]. So, whether or not I did save her
life, she certainly made mine worth living and maybe even
saved it as there were times when it seemed that a bridge
abutment at 90 mph would be better than another day.

So there you are. Am I celebrating the victory? Yes, quietly
and not gloating over my opponents now. In the initial euph-
oria, there was a little of that, but no longer.

Peace;

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:03:43 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>i believe the middle-of-the-roaders who would bleed
->>away women's rights, little by little, are a greater
->>threat to the pro-choice concept than any of the
->>crazies who have posted, and who do post, to this
->>newsgroup.
->But women don't have the right to third trimester abortions NOW.
->Roe v. Wade is quite clear on this issue. 

did you post this without completing your thought? if
not, what's your point?

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47665 alt.abortion.inequity:5033
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Date: 11 Nov 1992 08:03:04 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxJ5Hw.GLu@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1doq3lINN1ng@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
>>>anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
>>>"be let off the hook".  
>>
>>Well, there you are, Don.  Here's the guy you are sharing your male-choice
>>banner with.  

>Letting nobody off the hook sounds like a consistent position to me.
>It says that everybody's choice should be the same.  It's not what
>people typically call "male-choice" -- it's closer to "no-choice."
>("Choice" usually refers to *second*-chance choice.)

Ah.  So *consistency* is the important thing to you, eh?  All that
arguing about male-choice didn't have anything to do with the RIGHT 
thing to do after all, it had to do with 'getting' something to 'get
even' with someone else. 

So, now we see why you weren't interested in making a good, logical,
clear and defensible argument.  You aren't really interested in the
outcome of male-choice, you merely want to restrict women.

While you do a serious disservice to people who believe men *do* get
the short end of the stick in matters re children, I'm still glad we
got this cleared up.  Always better to know who is truly for your move-
ment, and who is merely using it for expediency....

Adrienne Regard



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Chris Lyman calls the Alan Guttmacher Institute a pack of liars
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:23:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.221717.3855@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.153105.22688@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >
> > Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
> > the term of pregnancy.
> >
> > [-- rest of post including citations from Tushnet et al. deleted--]
> 
> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
> on-demand?

Lying again, eh Reverend Doug?  Your documentation was addressed
ad nauseum in this forum.  It was shown time and again to be,
in some cases, out of context material which, when taken in
context says the opposite of what you claim, or speculation which
flies in the face of the facts and existing legislative
restrictions on abortion.

If you'd just stop lying people could stop calling you a liar.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE 5-WEEK LIMIT
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (JM)
Date: 3 Nov 92 10:20:30 +1030
Organization: Life is a dashing bold adventure!

In article <nyikos.720223561@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> Almost from the day I joined this newsgroup, I have stated that I would
> allow unrestricted abortion up to the end of the 5th week.  Many abortion
> to see abortions after the 5th week outlawed because a safer 
> alternative is available.

Yet again, a pro-choice newbie article with questions attached went
ignored. Someone wrote about this a few weeks ago. RU486 when used
as a morning after pill does the job you want done quite admirably,
so I am told.

Feh, I got mountains of abuse in 'WHY' for the SOLE reason that
crusty cochran thought I was pro-life.
I don't like off-the-nut people like JEFFERY JERK PRICE, but
at least some people took time out to read his post and respond
to it sensibly.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The life expectancy of mothers
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:43:42 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.155200.15975@ncsu.edu>
jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>I have gotten many replies stating that a child birth and the 9 months
>of strain on the body while carring a z/e/f (sounds dumb I thought she
>was carring a baby) shortens her life span.

>I was wondering how come females have a longer lifespan than males.
>This point seems irrelevant.I do realize that a pregnancy does decrease
>the life span but it seems as though nature has compensated and given
>women a longer lifespan.

Does that make it all right to shorten a woman's life span for the
sake of a one-cell human she doesn't think is morally important?

-- 
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.
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:35:44 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov5.222422.9665@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>>I agree with your basic premise that a woman's abortion right to abort
>>should not be mitigated until sometime after birth.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I could argue with equal validity that there is no question
>>about whether a child has been conceived, and that there is no _need_ to tell
>>just _when_ that occurred.
>
>There are quite a few reasons the exact moment is useful and required.
>
>In this country one may use dependents for tax deductions for the
>year.  In order to do this, one needs to know in which year personhood 
>began.  

To the nearest year = exact moment?

>Criminal cases also depnd on knowing whether a person was
>involved.  Should a woman have a late and heavy period, is that reason
>to suspect homicide or manslaughter?

If a man falls down dead in the street, is _that_ a reason to suspect
manslaughter?  People die of natural causes all the time, and the legal
system still ticks along.

>>As for birth, any definition of personhood related to birth must eventually
>>boil down to a criterion of "inside and outside the mommy".
>
>Yup.
>
>>This means that the personhood of a viable foetus/premie will depend on
>>whether it is removed from the woman's body before killing it or not.  I
>>don't think that any magical transformation occurs when the foetus is
>>removed, do you?  In this particular situation, the birth criterion seems
>>rather unreasonable and not especially useful.
>
>Agreed.  But then I don't consider the personhood of the fetus to be
>an obstacle to getting an abortion.

Me neither.  I just get worried when people get to the point where they say
that a z/e/f "isn't anything at all", and that this is objective fact.  I
think that this presumption is unwarranted, and deserves to be shaken.  On
the other hand, my own superstitous belief that a z/e/f _is_ a person,
needn't be any more dangerous than vegitarianism, and may even be correct.

You are a razor-sharp pragmatist, Ray, and I've learnt a lot from reading
your posts - but its probably true to say that as much harm occurs in the
name of pragmatism, science, logic, and economics as has ever been done in
the name of religion.  We are all guessing - but I must say you guess very
well :-)

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth

-- 
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
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Was Pitts Out of the Loop During the Persian Gulf War?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:13:16 GMT

In article <73769@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) 
writes:
}In article <1992Nov5.160559.18197@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}|Richard Pitts will kill you if you don't heed him.

}Could you give your logic on how you arrived at this conclusion?

There isn't much logic.  It's baiting, and you answered me.  
I doubt it is true.  

}|Actually that might not be true.  Richard Pitts will probably have 
}|somebody else kill for Christ, and stand by and applaud.

}Again, give support for your conclusion.

I suspect that you feel that killing during war etc. is permissible.
Not enjoyable, mind you, but justified.  Like I say, I don't 
really think that you will actually dirty your hands, but
applause is probably not beneath you.  

}|Note to Father Doug:  I didn't bring religion up again.  Richard did.

}I think it was someone else who questioned which Christ I pledged
}my allegiance and I responded.  However, I often close with "For
}Christ and His Kingdom".  One's beliefs (world view, be it theist
}or atheist or some where in between) drives their reasoning - this
}is true for me as it is for you.  I recognized my relationship
}to The Lord as the driving force of my life and my actions.

Father Doug often has problems remembering who brought up religion
in this forum.  I merely wished to remind the Most Reverend that it
was not I, lest he so assert.

}For Christ and His Kingdom,
}Richard Pitts

You, no doubt, will remember the rebuke that Christ gave Peter
at his arrest.  I think you have your notion of "Christ and His
Kingdom" mixed up with something else entirely.  Christ never
advocated any legislation, neither did he advocate any type
of killing, even in times of turmoil.  Christ did not cry out
on the cross "Forgive them Father, and vote for a Human Rights
Amendment."  Maybe you think he did...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Kevin Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: to the real peter nyikos
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:01:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Cursor Software Limited

In article <n+r1ba#@rpi.edu> some geek writes:
>
> i think you should do something about those kids who
> are posting from your account. really.
> 
> they've made you appear to be quite the fool, as well
> as a liar.
>
I think you should get a life.

Who are you talking to?  I don't see any "Reference:" field, nor is there
the merest hint of a quote.

Stand up for a while;  take the weight off your brain.

Seeya!  |/    \    /        Well, that's quite enough of that last .sig
        |\evin \/\/ALSH     Lets have this one for a bit.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: compromise
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:17:09 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>> I dislike the notion of
>> abortion-on-demand myself.  I do not think, however, that the legal system
>> should be used to impose morality.  The law exists for the protection of
>> society, not as a vehicle for forcing one person's notions of right and
>> wrong upon another.
>
>But just about every law is based upon morality -- murder laws
>are based upon on the notion that it's wrong to kill innocent
>people.  Abortion laws would extend that concept to all innocent 
>human beings.  

Unless, of course, murder laws are based on self-interest.  In which
case your notion that murder laws should apply to embryos is wrong.

And unless the embryo/fetus is _not_ killed, but just dies.  In which
case your notion that murder laws should apply to embryos is wrong.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:06:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.174836.9036@netcom.com> 
ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:

>>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>> abortions?

>> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 

> Well then, here's a question for _you_ to answer.

You haven't answered the question. 

> How many viable lives (aka, "women") would have to be terminated
> without good cause before you'd permit late-term abortions?

It's not a matter of me personally permitting late-term abortions, 
it's a matter of public policy.  But to answer your question,
I don't believe that any woman's life should be "terminated"
at the expense of saving the life of her child.  Now please 
answer Darcy's question. 

>Ray Fischer


Doug Holtsinger
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Keywords: 1-800-634-2224
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:10:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <nyikos.721340763@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted]

#Granted, for some it is a major inconvenience. That's why I prefer a 4-hour
#waiting period.  Gives the woman time to go out and have lunch, or
#whatever, and study the information on risks, etc. without clinic employees
#hurrying her along.


The sidewalk harassers here frequently urge patients entering the
clinic to go to a nearby restaurant, eat something, and think over
their decision.  I see that Petey Honey joins them in either their
ignorance or their deviousness.  The patients always point out that
they have been instructed not to eat before the procedure, and they
often ask if the harasser thinks that they're stupid enough to disobey
a doctor's instructions.  I'm not sure if Petey Honey thinks that
he could drum up business for his squad of ambulance chasing lawyers
by recommending that these women eat lunch, or if he's just too stupid
to realize that eating before any surgery, even minor surgery, is a
bad idea.

In any case, he has proved that he has no idea what happens inside
a typical clinic.  I wonder if the babbling fool realizes how many
women are refused abortions in clinics because they are not sure
of their decision.  I wonder if he realizes that some women's lives
have been saved by their visit to a clinic for an abortion.  (Many
young women don't see their doctor on a regular basis.  Countless
cases of cervical displasia are found in the pre-abortion examination.
I have a dear friend whose Hodgin's disease was discovered by the
doctor at a local clinic when he examined her before her abortion.
She wouldn't be here today if he hadn't been a competent doctor.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  9 Nov 92 23:21:02 GMT

In <1992Nov3.033639.26674@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Oct29.052604.17631@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct24.011310.1490@noao.edu>
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga):
>>
>>>> Suzanne, do you believe that gay men hate women?
>>
>>>I believe that gay men hate everybody, including themselves.
>>
>>s ~/Clueless/forgach.gay.men

>And here you thought I was being a might rough on Suzanne...

A whole LOT rougher than Beth was just now.  {BTW the spelling is 
"mite".}

Peter Ny.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47678 alt.abortion.inequity:5034 soc.women:19341 soc.men:19091
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 02:23:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.033956.9468@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <lefty-111192113534@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.160837.7443@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>>Darcy) wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>> >
>>> >So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?
>>> 
>>> What business is it of yours?
>>
>>How about _me_, Kevin.  Is it _my_ business?
>>
>>So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?
>
>I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.

Is this the same Kevin Darcy who keeps telling me to stop waffling?

To lay all my cards on the table?

To come clean?

Can't be.  That would be hypocritical...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:50:56 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov9.210359.15292@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Nov07.061227.103583@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
>   (Larry Margolis) writes: > 
>>come in contact with (at least, where you *know* that they're users) 
>>are *abusers* might have anything to do with the problems you seem to 
>>have distinguishing the two?
>I am not an addictions counselor.  I come into contact with 
>many *users* and their families.  The distinction between "use" 
>and "abuse" is quite *moot* if the impaired individual is un-
>able to function in a supportive capacity for a spouse or a
>child.  "I'm sorry, Sally, Daddy is wasted right now but I'm
>sure he'll tuck you in some other night".
Similarly, the distinction between use and non-use is moot of the
individual in question simply fails to function in the capacity you
describe. This seems to be a concept that Bill has serious trouble
grasping.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.abortion