HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:05:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.012112.2026@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to "terminate a pregnancy"
>and it created a constitutional right to kill certain members of the 
>human species. 

Dougie, you simply do NOT understand how the Supreme Court operates.  The
Supremes CANNOT create rights, they can only RECOGNIZE rights.  In Roe v. Wade,
the Supreme Court RECOGNIZED that a woman's right to privacy unconditionally
overrides the government's power to regulate abortions in the first trimester,
mostly overrides the government's power to regulate abortions in the second
trimester, and sometimes overrides the government's power to regulate
abortions in the third trimester.

>A viable fetus can often be removed alive.  But it's generally 
>faster and cheaper to kill a viable fetus during an abortion, 
>rather than to remove the fetus alive. 

Your point being?

>No state may enact legislation which requires a physician 
>to remove a viable fetus alive, because it would be unconstitutional 
>under Roe.

Hmm.  Do you have any evidence of this?  Not some posturing by a pro-life
lawyer whose opinion is suspect, but the actual striking down of such a
law by a state supreme court or by the federal supreme court.  One cannot
state uncategorically that something is unconstitiutional unless one can
find plain language in the Constitution or one can point to an ACTUAL DECISION
based upon the Constitution.

Please replace your TbBA with a real decision, if you can.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

I'm a creationist; I refuse to believe that I could have evolved from man.
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:29:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.715040868@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <17glukINN3jn@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>Who said anything about holding them to a higher standard?  I for one
>just want the information available to them.  And in case of abortion,
>which has so many complications, they should be provided without asking
>JUST AS THEY ARE FOR ANY OTHER MEDICAL TREATMENT.

Excuse me, please, but where is this information 'hidden'?  The information
*is* available to them now, today, in libraries, from their doctors, from
many clinics where abortions are or are not performed.  The only people 
who can't give this information freely are those clinics limited by Title X
funding, and they can't give the whole story on abortion because of the
whaycky president we currently have.  The standard of medical care for women
who receive abortions is the same as the standard of medical care for women
who receive delivery attendance, because (1) the only people who can perform
abortions in this country (legally) *are* doctors who passed the SAME 
standards of examination as other doctors.  Plus of course (2) the fact that
lots of doctors who perform abortions *also* perform deliveries.  They are
obstetricians, after all.  

This is what is known, Peter, as a strawman argument.

>As Suzanne said last month....Nah, I won't say it, Miss Manners wouldn't
>approve.

There are lots of folks who decide not to repeat some of the dumb things
Suzanne says.  Maybe you have more sense than we had hitherto dreamed of.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:28:43 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
: In article <1992Sep2.183409.25366@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:
: 
: #I missed out on what Mr. Nyikos said, but from this message alone, I cannot
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: #come to the same conclusion that Mr. Nyikos is either a liar or a misogynist.
: 
: [text deleted]
: 
: #Mr. Nyiko's point was not that women such as the Florida physician's wife
: #should be forced into abortion.  His arguement, whether a good one or not,
: 
: [more text deleted]
: 
: How is it that you know what Nyikos's point was, given that you
: didn't read his article?
: 
: You'll have to drop in more often, Dick.  You're amusing.
: 
: Susan

Well, Susan, perhaps I did misunderstand Mr. Nyiko's point of view and
perhaps your folks did not lie or misrepresent or misunderstand his point
of view conveniently.  Why don't we settle this and ask Mr. Nyiko himself.

If you cannot do this, then who really cares what amuses you?  Let's get
on with representing the other side correctly and get away from the stupid,
childish mockery that so thoroughly permeates the flame wars we so often see
on the net.  People have points of view that should be represented right, or
else we are not dealing with the issues at hand.

The reason I was able to comment without having seen the original text from
Mr. Nyiko was for the obvious--very clearly obvious--reason that the followup
held all the characteristics of a convenient and intentional misrepresentation--
namely the attribution of ideas that nobody could hold to an opposing side.
No reasonable person could possibly hold that women are to be abused by forced
abortion and be on the pro-life side, now, could they?  Be real.  It's not a
difficult conclusion to come to is it?  Then why was it presented in this way?

Frankly, you're not amusing at all, and I find your disrespect sickening.  I'm
not in the least convinced to follow your views or give them careful
consideration based on the mockery you give.  I much prefer reading an opposing
view that correctly addresses the opponent with respect, without mockery.

	 Dan


	Dan
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:16:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Not in a vacuum, no, it doesn't.  In the *real* *world*, however, where a
>>puritanical society has dodged simple information to young teens, and 
>>where prejudice and misinformation about 'the opposite sex' abounds, I
>>think it does.
>
>This is vintage Planned Parenthood propaganda, designed to garner public
>support for school-based sex clinics which haven't made a dime's bit
>of difference in pregnancy rates.

Then how do you explain the fact the in countries that educate kids about 
sex and that have freely available birth control also have the lowest rates
of abortions and teen pregnancies?

And that countries with oppressive attitudes towards sex have higher rates
of abortion?  As an example, Mexico, a strongly Catholic country with about
a fourth the population of the US has 1.3 times as many abortions per year.
Compare with similar stats for Sweden some time.

>>Where do you live?  In the vacuum, or the real world?
>
>The latter, and NOT the make-believe world of Planned Parenthood.

As opposed to the make-beleive world of Peter Nyikos?  Do you discredit
everything that doesn't fit into your perception of the world by labelling
it as being mere propaganda?

>More vintage Planned Parenthood Propaganda.  I wonder how long ago this
>really was an accurate reflection of our society.

>More vintage PPP.

>I already knew to be loaded with pro-abortion propaganda in the 

>source, is the most cunning piece of pro-abortion propaganda I have yet

Hmmm?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetuses?
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.200508.12731@ncsu.edu> dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
}is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
}save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
}among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
}Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedures
}are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
}she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe 
}and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve 
}the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use 
}procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do? 

I'm not the abortionist.  I'm not the doctor.  One of the reasons I 
have for not becoming a doctor are the hours.  There are times when 
I get drunk or royally out of touch.  No matter what group you're
with, you are the doctor.  It doesn't matter how screwed up you
may be, you get to be in charge.  I've seen it happen.  (Of course,
if you are among doctors, you could argue about the speciality, I
guess).  Some people can handle that -- I know I can't.  Thank
g(G)[h]od[d](ess) everyone isn't like me. 

To answer your question, first let me object that someone who 
is contemplating a third trimester abortion would probably pick
one who would perform such a procedure, and from what I understand,
the pickings are slim.

However, I would perform procedure B and tell her I did procedure A,
if, and it's a big if, if it were possible to assure that there would
be no possibility of anyone finding out, and no possibility of later
contact.  I other words, the fetus would be quite dead as far as the 
woman was concerned, but if it were possible I would do 'B.'  If, however,
there were the slightest possiblity that my duplicity would be discovered,
I would tell the woman "I'm sorry, I don't do (procedure A)"  and direct
her to someone who would.  According to you, that shouldn't be hard, 
but I would expect to have some difficulty...




--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:29:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Prove it, I dare you!

In article <24558@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>>>And when she used the Pill, a condom, and two different spermicides, she
>>>indicated her unwillingness to conceive.
>
>>And when I wear a parachute and a backup chute when I jump out of an
>>airplane, I indicate my HOPE that I will survive.  But there are no
>>guarantees, and only an immature idiot would think it unfair if gravity
>>got 'im any way.
>
>But if you happen to survive in spite of all this (and some do) you
>have the right to be treated at a medical facility, to put you back
>together again. Nothing unfair about gravity. See the point of this
>furthering of your parallel argument? Just substitute cases and see
>how it reads.

Sure, but the parachutist example is an analogy, not an equivalence.

Where the two are not equivalent, is in the fact that getting medical
treatment for injuries sustained in a jumping accident (assuming the
extremely unlikely fact of survival, is an individual choice.

Abortion is NOT an individual choice.  At least one, and possibly two
other people are involved.

>I like these parallel arguments. Even if I have seen them once or twice
>before. :)

That's good, because they will occur again and again.

>Ron

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: You be the Judge! II: The Korekt Answer
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:24:36 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

] It's 2000 AD, almost all abortions are illegal in the US.
] A woman, 1 month pregnant, seeks & finds someone who provides 
] an illegal abortion.  Unknown to anyone, the fetus was already dead.
] Had she gone to a real doctor, she would have known the fetus 
] was already dead.
] 
] Q1: Does she burn in hell?
] Q2: Does she go to prison for murder?
 
Brian,

this is Silly!

She has engaged in AntiStateTerrorism and must
be send to a ReEducationFacility where she will
learn her korekt and proper role in life. 

If she is lucky, she will be allowed to return
to society as a WholeSomeAndResponsible Citizen.

Otherwise she will be terminated as NonFixable.


ciao
drieux


ps: didn't we see this in a movie????

pps: who said: "Cafe Flesh would have been better as a Muppet Movie." ????





-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Bad,
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34813 alt.abortion.inequity:3467
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:33:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>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?
>
>If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
>IT'S own body than does the mother?

How's about the _same_ rights?

Currently no person may use the body of another person without that
person's consent.  Extending that principle to a pregnant woman, it
would seem that while she may not use the body of the fetus without
its consent, neither may it use hers.

>>For my part (being a pragmatist), the answers are yes, at birth, and no.
>
>Nope.  That is, you are not being pragmatic, you chose a set of beliefs.
>So what.  Other people have different beliefs than you.

You believe I'm being dogmatic instead of pragmatic without any evidence
either way.  Tsk, tsk.

There is little evidence that the rate of abortion would decline much
if abortion were made illegal.  Many countries where abortion is illegal
have higher abortion rates (some much higher) than the US.

Making abortion illegal would be expensive, both for enforcement and
in terms of lost lives and potential, and the added expense of caring
for many more children.

While there is certainly some validity to the argument that a society
that cares for its unborn children would be a better one, there is no
evidence that anti-abortion legislation would do anything to further
that aim.  In fact, the seemingly pervasive attitude among pro-lifers
that women must be made to suffer is apparently exactly counter to
the goal of a more caring society.  Even the perception that this is 
the case by many people would nullify any movement in that direction.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:52:53 GMT


In article <92237.200055ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
 > In article <oqnbvq8@fido.asd.sgi.com> CJ Silverio
[...]
|>The debate also reminded me that this is essentially a political
|>issue, a political fight.  Some people on my side don't seem to
|>want to play politics.  I dislike politics, but I'm willing to
|>play the game to preserve my life.  I'm willing to compromise,
|>as a purely political move, on less important issues in order to
|>preserve the rights I consider most important.

|It would appear Ms. Silverio that you and others are willing
|to compromise the rights of women less fortunate than you.
|The poor, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable.

Perhaps you could explain what this comment has to do with the
idea of restricting third trimester abortions to those which are
medically necessary, which is what the argument was all about.
You're the first person to mention funding of abortion--
what has this to do with the dispute?  Do you even know what
my position on abortion funding *is*?

And for extra credit, can you correctly state my opinion on
third trimester abortions?

Do you know the opinions of the person you are criticizing?  Or
are you just reflexively flaming, and helping Keegan play his
one-note samba?  Eric R tells me that The Obsessive Archivist
has been flaming me, despite knowing that he's well-esconced in
my killfile.  If you're going to do his dirty work for him, I
will reluctantly killfile you, too.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Sep 92 22:38:06 GMT

In my short time with talk.abortion, I have already seen how some
pro-choicers are ready to label someone a misogynist or woman-hater
simply because said person fits the "pro-life" label better than the
"pro-choice" label.  One very clear example of that came in my e-mail
yesterday, accusing me of hating women purely and simply because I 
"would keep a woman pregnant against her will" [No ifs, ands, or buts
appended, which is typical of people of this mentality.]

	These people are barking up the wrong tree.  If they would only
open their eyes a bit, they would see evidence of misogyny from some 
of the very people they defend as caring about women.  Here is a 
particularly blatant case, taken from the May, 1988 _Miami Herald_,
for which I am indebted to Charles Wysong.

	  Police have arrested a Fort Lauderdale abortion clinic
	physician after his wife reported that he handcuffed her,
	strapped her to a table in their home and performed an abortion
	against her will.

	  Dr. Theodore Lehrer, 52, was arrested at his condominium
	at 936 Intracoastal Drive late Wednesday on one count of sexual
	battery, Fort Lauderdale police spokesman Ott Cefkin said.

	  In court documents filed Thursday, Lehrer's 37-year-old wife
	told authorities that he performed the abortion on her Sunday
	night at the couple's condominium.  He was angry because she
	refused to have sex with him because of sickness caused by her
	11-to-14 week pregnancy, she told authorities.

	  She pleaded with him not to rape her, she said.  He placed
	a gauze pad over her mouth but removed it when she feared
	suffocation.

Via the pro-life grapevine, I was put in touch with a truly dedicated
pro-life feminist who said she would try to find out about subsequent
developments in the case.  [She moved to Ft. Lauderdale after the arrest
in question.]  What with Hurricane Andrew, the answers might take a 
while in coming.

Peter Ny.
From: mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Coyote P. Hall)
Subject: Menstrual Extraction
Summary: Anyone with info on this method?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:42:24 GMT

	I am looking for information on the menstrual extraction
abortion method.  I would appreciate any information folks might have.
I can be e-mailed at mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu.

	Much thanks in advance.

	-Mike

-- 
Michael Hall    mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"If you're not revolting against work, you're working
against revolt." - Bob Black

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 07:12:37 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<1992Aug31.142638.11974@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
><1992Aug26.222413.12094@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>>>In article <ovuh25g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>
>>>We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
>>>fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
>>>the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
>>>picture.
>>
>>This is a fallacy.  A fetus is not a person.  It has no legal rights.
>
>Currently true.  But IMO, that's what this discussion is all about, changing
>that.  Just because a fetus is not recognized as a person now, does not
>mean that law (or amendments to the constitution) cannot be passed to
>change it's status.

John, please stop changing the subject.  As you can see by your partial
post above the "discussion" wasn't about the legal recognition of a fetus
as a person.  It was about the "point" of sapience being used as a tool to
kill brain-damaged people.

I would rather certain animals be given "people" status over fetuses.  It
would make more sense.


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: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortifacients
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:39:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department

> Propeller Head

>Can someone tell us when the human heart starts beating? I have proof that
>it beats by 3 weeks after fertilization, which is way before 99% of all
>abortions.

Since you have gone out of your way not to limit yourself to elective
abortions, but rather "all abortions," you are VERY wrong.

About 33% of all fertilized eggs are expelled from the female body without
implanting.  Thus 33% of all abortions occur "way before" "the huma heart
starts beating."

Therefore a maximum of 67% of abortions can occur after "the human heart
starts beating," far less than your 99% figure.

See what you learn when you exercise your couch-potato neurons?

>Oh, and if the fetus does not have a brain, what makes them grow? They have
>detected brainwaves and nervous responses to stimuli by 7 weeks. 

Hey, twit!  Do you even realize the absurdity in your contention that
fetuses without brains do not grow, followed by the admission that fetuses
do not have brain waves until 7 weeks of gestation?

-- 
"A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion