HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.170948.14335@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>Followups set to talk.abortion.
>
>In article <1992Nov5.194403.26561@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
>>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>>the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
>>may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
>>to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
>>definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
>>health (see the documentation below).  Additional documentation can be 
>>provided upon request.
> 
>Could someone that supports legal restrictions on abortion during the 
>third tri-mester, please explain to me why the decision should be left
>up to people like the Reverend here and his ilk, rather than medical
>professionals.  If you try and define health reasons, legislation will
>either have to define it very loosely, or very narrowly.  If you define
>it narrowly, you will have DOD and his ilk using the narrow definitions
>to prevent as many abortions as possible with little or no consideration
>for the woman involved.  If you define it loosely, then you leave it up 
>to the medical professional anyway, so what have you accomplished?

I'm not sure if I support restrictions in the 3rd tri-mester or not, but the
Rev and his ilk do have [IMHO] a valid argument:

The fetus at some point becomes a human and deserving of human rights.
This point is not clearly at birth, as feti? have survived C-section at X mos.

If the medical profession defined it narrowly as [just example] possible for
qualified person [require certificate] could hear a heartbeat using tool Y, it
would be quite difficult for the Rev and his ilk to prevent abortions before
that.  [Harrassment at clinics notwithstanding.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: MARK IRA KAUFMAN CAUGHT LYING (was Re: JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:11:38 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->And all this time I thought Doug was pro-life!  Now it turns out
->that he is no more pro-life than Elizabeth Bartley!  Maybe less!

well peter, i think we should refer to positions rather
than persons but if your point was that you think DODie's
position is no more pro-life than ms. bartley's, and perhaps 
less pro-life than ms. bartley's, i think you're correct.
historically, most of the admitted pro-lifers who have 
posted to this newsgroup have held positions less extreme 
toward the anti-choice side of things than does ms. bartley. 
i think a lot of people are beginning to figure that out
now.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:18:36 GMT

In article <s6ougqc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>In article <1992Nov7.140743.24042@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com writes:
>|(raising my hand) Uhm, I don't get it either.  Aren't they
>|both covered under freedom of speech?
>|confused in the back row,
>|Rich Soyack

>I suggest you contact your company's human resources people &
>ask them for some information about sexual harassment in the
>workplace.

What is this about? I can assure you that I have never sexually harassed 
any men at work. Perhaps that is what is reprehensible about my attitude?

Confused, out in the lobby -
nadja

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: WHY abortion? started afresh
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:56:22 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

>>Another I was thinking of (what I wanted someone else to say) was
>>the prospect of having to give up a career etc since the mother
>>is usually the one who has most of the home duties to attend to.
>>
>>I ask that if bio-parents were not forced to raise the children,
>>then would the number of abortions decrease?

>What planet are you living on?  ;-)

>Parents are not forced to raise their children!  Parents can very
>easily put their children up for adoption.  (At least while the child
>is still a baby; I don't know the details about giving up an older
>child.)

>>However, it is usually
>>part of religion that the bio-parents have to raise them and
>>so would not be reasonable whilst lunacy still kept 4billion
>>people enthralled.

>I've never heard of religion advocating this.  I know that
>Christianity frowns on abortion, but if it also frowned on adoption,
>then I think fewer women would take it seriously.

Actually, that is not correct.  Christianity does not frown on abortion,
certain *subgroups* of Christianity frown on abortion.  (at least to the
extent of making it illegal or horribly "immoral" like murder and such)
My family's church is actually pro-choice.  Perhaps *most* subgroups do
happen to oppose abortion (the Catholic Church comes to mind) because they
consider it to be murder.  It is the interpretation by the group of what
abortion is and what Christianity means rather than Christianity itself.

I just had to mention that.

>>Allowing and not-worrying are two totally separate things. Only
>>some kind of mental case does not want the number of abortions
>>reduced but it still remains her choice.

>Agreed.

>  Brian Kendig

-Rob
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is back and Petie's misattributions live on!
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:27:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <32561@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>BTW, Jim, be careful about repeating attributions from Petie's posts.
>They are frequently wrong:

>>In <32349@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>
>>>>>BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
>>>>>rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape. 
>>>>
>>>>Well, *there's* another interesting, non-viable interpretation of the law!
>>>>A rapist has abrogated his right to live by the act of rape, huh?
>>
>>>The law is whatever Petie wants it to be or thinks it should be.

>I wrote none of the above; so, I have no idea why my name is there.

It looks like it was my fault and not Peter's.  If you'll look closely
you'll see that none of the language I quoted has the right number of
">"s to be your language; it apparently was all language you had
quoted in one of your messages.  So I should have deleted the
attribution to you but did not through an oversight.
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"Not drunk is he who from the floor
(jk@panix.com)		 can rise alone and still drink more.
			 But drunk is he who prostrate lies
			 Without the power to drink or rise." (Clough)
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:19:25 EST
From: Charles Hessenius <CH8305A@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: prolife, consistency, and the unborn

     I need to have something explained to me (maybe I'm slow, I
don't know).  There seems to be a glaring inconsistency in much of
the prolife movement that can accept abortions in certain cases.
This is incredibly illogical for a movement that professes to protect
the rights of the unborn.  First, if ALL unborn are worth protecting,
and have civil liberties, then ALL abortion MUST be illegal in ALL
cases (rape, incest, life of mother, etc).  The reasoning is simple.
If people in the prolife movement believe that abortions are "okay" in
some instances (like the above), then they are creating a caste system
among the unborn they profess to protect.  Those "unborn babies" who
are the product of rape or incest do not have the same civil liberties
as those who are the products of, say, "accidents".
     This seems to be a glaring inconsistency in the "mainstream" of the
prolife movement.  Can anyone explain it to me?  I am pro-choice myself,
largely because I cannot reconcile the only logical alternative.
     Second, if the unborn has civil liberties that must be protected,
then that means that legally, they should be entitled to the same
retribution that anyone has who is "murdered".  That is, the only
logical position for the prolife movement to make is that abortion IS
indeed murder, and the penalty for performing one should be whatever a
state deems appropriate for first degree murder (and, of course, the
pregnant woman must be tried as complicit).  Again, I need to have someone
explain to me why this would not be logical.
      Any other positions in the prolife movement, to me, constitute a
recognition of the fetus as something other than a human being, and if
we cannot define when these rights begin, other than assuming them from
conception, then how could anyone legislate the choice?
     If the answer is that abortion most in the prolife movement believe
that abortion should NOT be illegal, but merely highly regulated, then
how is this consistent with classical liberalism (true conservativism)
and maximum individual freedom?  Why regulate the bedroom, but not the
boardroom?
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Date: 11 Nov 1992 07:43:13 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov10.203304.22081@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>Is it "good" to have rights?  If so, why?   


Yes.

Because you can't really stop people from exercising them, and it would
cost far too much time, money and effort to try.

Think about how much energy and public resources go in to keeping
repressive regimes repressive.  Think about the cost in human terms 
of restrictively religious societies.


Maybe I should change my answer. 

It isn't "good" to have rights.

One simply DOES have 'em.  And the attempts by governments to seize control
fail, at high cost to both the society and the individual members within it.

Adrienne Regard
.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Telling Tales Out of School
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:00:41 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1992Nov5.043044.9474@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Nov4.185811.15530@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) :
>
>>Larry Margolis - Contrary to His Postings, Is NOT a Mature Responsible
>>              Adult with a Well Reasoned Well Balanced Personality,
>>              And a Clear Victim of his
>>              EastCoastWimpLiberalZionistComedyCabalBackGround
>>              Not To Mention, does the Rapier Replies LIVE!
>
>Ah, but he is a clean-cut respectable fellow with a rakish beard
>(my wife's opinion)

A goddess at whose feet I am not worthy to grovel (although I'd give
it a shot anyway if asked :-).

>and a dynamite looking SO (my opinion).

What can I say, you both have good taste.  :-)

>>Gordon Storga -
>BTW, I'd write OS/2 apps for
>the rest of my life if it means I "deserve" my *goddess*.

I don't know if you *deserve* her; just be thankful you're blessed.

>>                He is Married to a CutesyTootsyArtsyFartsy Type.

Is that any way to refer to a goddess?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The life expectancy of mothers => now women
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:33:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

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

>>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.


WAIT A MINUTE!!!!


Women have longer life spans naturally?  Don and Will had better get on it,
passing a law to *equalize* this natural inequity!!!

(-:       (that's a smiley, folks.  That means I'm attempting to try to
           make the effort to perhaps succeed at telling a feeble joke.
	   By definition, a joke is not an adhominem attack, nor a mis- 
	   representation of anyone's position on an issue.  Got that?)

Adrienne Regard
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: late term abortions (was "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:39:15 GMT

In <1992Nov9.021627.26932@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> 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.

i say 32,767. this way we can still compile terminated_viable_lives
as an integer. 

but seriously, speaking of variables, what do you mean 
by viable lives? abortions which end up producing a living
baby? then it is alive and breathing, and should not be
killed. 

retaining the snapple thread...snapple should support
pro-life --> more snapple drinkers. its good business.

and besides, 15 flavors can't be wrong, right?
ha.

good thing snapple is not in the loop.

mark.

mst3k forever.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46638 alt.abortion.inequity:4846 soc.men:18667 alt.dads-rights:2548
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 08:07:28 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bx8vup.5tH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1d9ad0INN32u@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <Bx7G3r.2M2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>>So you are saying there have been no cases where a judge has told a man 
>>>to pay childbirth expenses, when the man is not married to the woman?

>>Scuse me, please, but Don I think I indicated before that I was neither
>>blind nor stupid.  Of course there have been a few occasions where a judge
>>told a man he had to pay expenses.  Is that the GENERAL CASE?  No.  Were
>>those orders limited to SPECIFIC situations?  Yes.

>I'm trying to learn from your debating style.

Oh, this should be fun.  Let me return the favor.

>So, in other words, these judges were ignorant of the law and
>made mistakes?  Or they intentionally went beyond the bounds of law?

"So you are saying that no judge has ever disagreed with another judge,
and that no ruling of one court has been overturned by any other court?"

Don, why do you insist on being foolish?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Charles Don Hall -- are you paying attention?
Summary: I think he fell asleep during the Cal Worthington commercial.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.010113.19522@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>Doug says it was all a joke.
>
>Peter says he thought it was all a joke, followed closely by an
>assertion that the big, bad math prof was protecting someone.

That in itself is pretty funny, but then anyone with a 1494 SAT ought to be
funny. :-)

>Dennis^H^H^H^H^H^HSteve has not been heard from.  (Thank you, Patrick)

No problem -- but he *has* re-appeared in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, to inform
the world that he's in charge of the "#Limbaugh" channel on IRC, and what
he'll do to those who dare to doubt the truth of the Almighty Rush.  (In
other words, he's laying low until his admins are occupied with something
else.)

>Darcy is liable to look in Black's, and tell us that "joke" and
>"protection" do not mean what we think they do.

You mean he hasn't already?  He needs madical attention. :-)

>It's 8:00 pm here.  Why shouldn't I expect the sun to rise?

Well, you should, even in C'ville -- but you might wait until the morning
before expecting it.  (It works better for me, I know. :-)

>ps  one thing you can be sure of, however:  bats are better than frogs

That's kind of subjective, but around here the bats never get a chance --
the mosquitos carry the bats away...

--PLH (tired of having to fix all those holes in the window screens)


-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: BECKY BELL'S AUTOPSY AND COMMENTARY
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 18:23:10 GMT

In <1992Oct29.144657.14482@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

By the way, does @hemlock have anything to do with the Hemlock Society?

>In article <nyikos.720068973@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Oct24.031610.17549@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> 
>> >Suzanne's argument from authority, based on Nathanson
>> >and Willke's credentials, is pretty stupid considering
>> >that the doctor who performed the autopsy has better
>> >credentials regarding autopsies, neither Nathanson nor
>> >Willke examined the body, and the doctor who performed
>>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> >the autopsy contradicts them both.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Proof, please.  

>The 60 minutes episode on Becky Bell.

Oh, did the doctor who performed the autopsy contradict them on 
60 minutes?  [Free clue: the doctor's name is Jesse Giles.]

>> The coroner, and the doctor who signed the autopsy report alongside
>> the one who prepared it, may have better credentials as regards
>> autopsies in general, but you have given no reason to believe they know
>> more about septic abortion than  Drs. Bernard Nathanson, John Willke,
>> John Curry, Curtis Harris, or the four prominent medical specialists
>> whom Dr. Curtis Harris, president of the American Academy of Medical
>> Ethics, consulted.

>Did any of the people you mention even see Becky's body?

Cute.  The coroner saw the body all right, but was not present at the
autopsy.  All I know about the extent of his involvement is that his 
toe tag identified the body for the people who were present at the
autopsy.

>Dr Nathanson on 60 Minutes admitted that he did not.  The coroner,
>after restating that Becky died of an illegal abortion, said that 
>Dr Nathanson's claims are totally unfounded.

I have posted the relevant parts of the autopsy report.  Can you
find a doctor who is willing to give his name (unlike Susan Garvin's
anonymous doctors) who states that Dr. Nathanson's claims are totally
unfounded, after reading the descriptions?

Peter Nyikos



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:24:22 GMT

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.  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?

>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.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos, B******d for forced birth!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:14:40 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Just so everybody knows, I am quite fond of the term "butthead"
(asinine or not), and I was the one who originated it, calling
Tommy's ideas "butthead ideas".  Now let's all try to practice
a little restraint in using the term "butthead" so we don't wear
out one of my favourite terms.

Thanks :)

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc,news.sysadmin
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Son of Forgery Question?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.193133.27309@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>>Path: wetware!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!decwrl!concert!rock!taco!odin!dsh
>>>From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)

> Here we come up with a bit of a Problem:
>
> 1. Doug is saying he is posting from a host 'odin.uucp'
> but the data on that uucp cite indicates that it is in Norway.

Actually, I'm posting from the host 'odin.ece.ncsu.edu'.
There are two installations of 'rn' on this site: one that
I did which has the correct hostname, and another which
has an incorrect hostname 'odin.uucp'.  Right now I'm
using the correct installation of 'rn'.  

Mr. Jeffries posts from eos.ncsu.edu (actually a network of 
DECstations) and we both share the ncsu newsserver 'taco.cc.ncsu.edu'. 
I'm not sure why 'odin' appears in the pathname when I post, 
but 'eos' doesn't appear in the pathname when Jeffries
posts.  I doubt that it's a forgery because I've exchanged
e-mail with Mr. Jeffries, and he's the same person which
posts to talk.abortion.  

> 2. Doug is using an 'interesting' hostname.

Well, 'odin.uucp' is the wrong hostname for this site.  

> 4. the path line does NOT contain anything indicating that 
> this post even passed through ncsu.edu.

No, 'taco' is the ncsu newserver, which is actually  
taco.cc.ncsu.edu. 

>drieux

Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc