HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Basic English 101 (Was: Abortion on a non-pregnant woman)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 17:59:00 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  <1992Sep8.040510.1411@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> In article <nyikos.715896062@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
> >
> >Do you require references of people asking questions
>
> Peter, ... Nowhere do you indicate that you're asking a question.
>
> >And people were quite
> >positive that the anencephalic baby was NOT suffering.  If they are
> >indeed incapable of suffering, what's the point of aborting them
> >in the first place?
>
> What in the world do these two sentences mean?

They mean that Peter believes that the suffering the woman would go through
is irrelevant.  Peter thinks that as long as the holy fetus isn't suffering,
you might as well force the woman to go through with the pregnancy and
delivery, and let the anencephalic baby die on its own later.  Peter
doesn't care about the pain and trauma involved since the only one to
experience it will be a lowly woman.

(Note that these are all "Nyikos-statements"; if challenged, they will
magically turn into questions.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:14:17 CDT


In article <29505@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
> 
> >I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources 
> >which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
> >the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
> >sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
> >honesty allows you to do so).  
> 
> Easy: You haven't provided unbiased sources to support your claim.

Here's my unbiased source:

                                ROE v. WADE
            410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)
 
     Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in
     part:
[...] 
          On the basis of elements such as these,  appellants and  some
     amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is en-
     titled  to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time,  in  whatever
     way,  and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  With this we  do
     not agree.  Appellants'  arguments that Texas either has no  valid
     interest at all in regulating the abortion decision,  or no inter-
     est strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's  sole
     determination,  is unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing
     a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation  in
     areas  protected by that right is appropriate.  As noted above,  a
     State  may  properly assert important  interests  in  safeguarding
     health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting poten-
     tial life.  At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests
     become  sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the  fac-
     tors  that  govern the abortion decision.  The privacy  right  in-
     volved,  therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact,  it is
     not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has
     unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close
     relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the
     Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited
     right of this kind in the past.  Jacobson v.  Massachusetts (1905)
     (vaccination); Buck v. Bell (1927) (sterilization).
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Keywords: abortion
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:38:45 GMT


It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is really  
about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.

If everyone could know that a womb contains a living unborn child, then it  
would be obvious that abortion is a form of murder, and few would condone  
it.

On the other hand, if everyone knew that a womb contains only tissues, or  
some other matter that is not a life, then few would really care if  
someone did have an abortion, beacuse there was nothing there in the first  
place.

Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.
Can this question be adequately answered?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Organization: Rank superstition, that's all it is.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:36:28 GMT

In article <vzlnjl-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Making abortion illegal would be expensive, both for enforcement and
>in terms of lost lives and potential, and the added expense of caring
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You have this turned around.  Making abortion illegal would reduce the
number of lost lives and potential.

>for many more children.

The expense of caring for a child is a recoverable cost, it is not
money permanently lost.  Consider it an investment.  After all, you
were once a child and you are now making money, yes?

>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.

It's fascinating how the phrase 'a more caring society' always seems to
translate into giving people a way to escape their obligations and
commitments, when a more caring society is one where people try their
utmost to make and keep their commitments.

And your perception that the pro-lifers want women to be made to suffer
is wrong.  But it is a misperception that many people seem to have today.

When faced with a promise, vow, oath, commitment, what have you that is
no longer convient to keep, many people scream about how they are being
made to suffer by cruel, unfair, cold hearted fanatics.

Strange how when the tables are turned, and somebody trys to break a
promise to them, they scream just as loud.

Most pro-lifers are willing, if not eager, to make a commitment AND
KEEP that commitment at very high cost.  My perception of the pro-
female-choice types is one of a group of people who want an out from
anything they get into.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Questions about "consensus"
Organization: Don't ask me, I just work here.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:38:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.151814.16918@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
>simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 
>
>By the way, this is a trick question. 

'sall right -- that's all you've ever asked around here, anyway...

(so, brave little warrior -- I notice you sure have been quiet after that
shameless commercial for the LDS that supports one of your "pro-life"
groups...are you too busy with running away, again?)


--PLH (I'm too sexy for this .sig)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:28:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Whew! Thanks for the opening.  I've been reading this group for a couple of
>weeks now and haven't seen an appropriate place to jump in until now.

>I'm a pro-life Christian, but I did a lot of thinking about the topic before
>I took my and.  What finally made it clear to me was this:  A man and
[... about moving the days up and down the scale...]

about your accident... hell, I think probably more of us than we realize
were accidents. I was first born, and defintiely unplanned, and my little
sister was third (and last) and also unplanned. Am I happy I'm here?
Naturally. Would I be unhappy had I been aborted? Of course not, as
I never would have been here.

>Choice?  Abortion is a choice of one or two grown people--the unborn baby is
>given no choice.  That little human is literally ripped apart or burned to
>death in a horribly painful procedure.  Imagine having your head torn off!  No
>wonder abortion is a bloody procedure.  And remember, approximately 50% of
>those unborn babies killed are girls, future women.  Talk about misosyny!

It is human life. Whether it can feel pain or not is mostly conjecture,
although science tends to say no. And guess what? I have the ability
to imagine getting my head ripped off, I have one, with a brain it in
that functions reasonably well imo to have opinions and to imagine that.
As for abortion being a bloody procedure, is birth not bloody? And just
whose blood is that anyway that the baby spilt? Let's not talk about
misogyny just yet, as so far this post was fairly friendly and not flaming
anyone.

>There.  I tried to give my reasoning for being pro-life without going into the
>Biblical side of it.  If you research it with an open mind, you'll find the
>Bible (therefore God) solidly pro-life.  If you need any help, let me know.

You did fairly well, although here are a few questions for you:

1) Do you realize that the fetus draws sustenance, minerals, water, etc
from a woman and defecates into the woman, right?

2) Do you realize there are women who object to this invasion (that's the
way they see it when they are subjected to this situation against their
will) no matter how cute and cuddely the little mongrel might be?

3) Do you realize that some women don't care to let a z/e/f use their
bodies for 9 months?

4) Can you see why your vision and beliefs should not be enacted into
law to prevent others from preventing this situation to unfold against
their beliefs, which are most likely different from yours?

5) Can you see how the pro-choice position lets you enjoy your beliefs,
while allowing others to enjoy theirs? (Unless of course yours involves
making decisions for others against their will.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:38:33 GMT

From article <1992Sep11.235505.25937@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
> In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>>> 
>>> ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
>>> 
>>> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>>>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"
>>
>>I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
>>likely counselling and rehab.
> 
> Gee, Suxanne, can you say INCONSISTANT?

Can you say, "So the hell what."?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:20:31 GMT

In <1992Sep5.114243.2300@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
In article <1992Sep4.145143.16044@acd4.acd.com>
   wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Sep3.144139.24044@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
   (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >>>  

>>> you're mistaken, bill. i would be pleased if the
>>> lad got help.
> 
>> Since Doug has ostensibly demonstrated nothing that
>> would indicate the presence of any psychopathology,
>> your "concern" is misplaced (and not especially
>> compelling).
>
> i didn't express any "concern," as you put it, bill. i
> said i'd be pleased if the lad got help. i'd be pleased
> if anyone i thought was crazy got help. why do you
> think DODie is different?

Why would you be pleased if you weren't at all concerned?

>>> i hope you don't feel too badly about having made
>>> this mistake.
> 
>> Perhaps this is yet another example of your
>> "sincerity"?
>
> would you have preferred that i said "i hope you feel
> horrid about having made this mistake?" plus, that
> wouldn't have been true.
>
> anyway, i'm not all that put off by your "sincerity"
> remark. i think it demonstrates one of the underlying
> agendas in this thread quite nicely, don't you.

Definitely, despite your evasiveness about it.

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 07:25:18 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  <nyikos.715648972@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <24537@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>
> >In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >>they feel perfectly justified in quoting from the Alan Guttmacher
> >>association, etc.  Since they have us outnumbered, they feel they
> >>can go on treating us this way.
>
> >Well, if honest reporting, like Koop, who is pro-life btw, makes you
> >think it is all biased because it doesn't show what you want it to show,
> >too bad.
>
> Sorry, I've been on talk.abortion only two months and this is the
> first mention I've seen of Koop.

Have you ever heard of the Universal Almanac?  The Federal Centers for
Disease Control?  Any of the *other* sources that have been quoted?

> > As to how you
> >could ever make it stick, when there are actual facts to dispute it,
> >beats the hell out of me. That's why the Pro-life argument is so weak,
> >because there are so many holes in it you can't stop them all with your
> >fingers and toes.
>
> On the other hand, pro-choicers have been able to call lots less
> sweeping pro-life claims lies, and make them stick.

As Ron said, when there are actual facts.

> > Not that anyone except your fellow pro-lifers believe
> >you to begin with anyway, but just to indicate how hollow your integrity
> >really is. Not only are you an ignorant misogynist oaf, but a malicious
> >liar to boot. (Note, implications are as good as an outright lie, subtlety
> >does not change the fact that a lie has been made.)
>
> Whether you can make these charges stick or not, the fact is they
> are unfounded.

Didn't you just post that you believe that the fact that a single lawyer
reports seeing more rape cases than incest gave you reason to believe
that doctors who perform abortions are learning of incest and failing
to report it?  Just what the hell do you consider to be "founded"???

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:56:36 GMT

In article <nyikos.715648091@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# In <1992Sep03.171322.2864@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
# 
# >In  <nyikos.715471571@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
# >> South Carolina
# >> requires abortionists to report to police all alleged incest cases
# >> brought to them.  Anyone want to guess how often this law is enforced?
# 
# >Wild speculation is really your specialty, but I'll take a guess.
# >100% of the time.
# 
# >What do I win?  :-)
# 
# I don't think so.  I have spoken to an experienced trial lawyer who
# says he has seen many cases of rape brought to trial, but hardly ANY
# cases of incest.  Now this was a general statement, not connected with
# abortion, but it is certainly suggestive.  I intend to study this matter
# a lot in the next few months.

That's an unrelated issue.  If South Carolina law requires abortion
providers to report to police alleged incest cases brought to them,
then I suppose there's probably a penalty for failing to comply with
that law.

So, tell us if Mr. Margolis's guess is really wrong -- what percent of
abortion providers have been spared punishment under this law because
it wasn't enforced?

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 8 Sep 1992 17:36:39 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <43429@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

Well, Hello, Tommy.  Welcome back.  Not that we've missed you with a tommy-
kelly-clone running about talk.abortion in your absence. 

>So in terms of value, the only significant differences between the human
>foetus and the human baby/child/adult are:
>	
>	1. The level of value attributed
>	2. The number of voting citizens who concur.

Hmmm....  No mention of the fact of that one tiny little significant differ-
ence that a fetus lives within the body of a (possibly unwilling) human woman.
Hmmm....  How do people keep dismissing this tiny little significant differ-
ence completely?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
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, 11 Sep 92 23:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.014947.174@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child):
>> 
>> ....And Suzanne ducks AGAIN the salient question:
>> 
>> "So, you would charge the abortionist with murder and counsel the woman.
>>  What if the woman herself IS the abortionist?"
>
>I would suggest nothing worse than a fine or community service, but more
>likely counselling and rehab.

Gee, Suxanne, can you say INCONSISTANT?
--
=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???=
="When trying to choose between two evils, I like to choose the one I haven't =
= tried before" - Mae West, but I think I'm going to try it also...           =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Questions about "consensus"
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:58:25 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# I would like to know where the idea came from that laws are made
# simply because the majority decided something was wrong. 
# 
# By the way, this is a trick question. 

It came from thick-headed maroons like you who've deviated from Nature
and blasphemed against Holy Writ by denying the TRUTH of God's Laws as
handed down by God's Chozen Profits!!!

If it weren't for diabolical agents of EEE-vil like *YOU*, we wouldn't
be on the express bullet train straight to HELL that we call a Federal
Republic -- and pretend that it embodies the heresy of egalitarian
democracy, though it's actually an atheist, capitalist, fascist,
corporate feudalism -- weeping and gnashing our teeth as we bide our
time until the Great Judgement!

-----

What do I win?

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

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:47:02 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep12.005056.496@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <24887@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> 
>> 1) Do you realize that the fetus draws sustenance, minerals, water, etc
>> from a woman and defecates into the woman, right?
> 
> No, in fact, the baby does not defecate until after birth.  If the stress
> of birth itself causes him to defecate during the birth, you have teams of
> pediatritians on hand to make sure he doesn't inhale the "merconium" on
> the way out, or else to treat him for it if perchance he does inhale it.

But it does have an embryonic sac for waste (otherwise when baby's
born there'd be more than just a need for *one* diaper!), I
believe it's the allantois, isn't it?  I guess it's analogous
to defecating in a bag and inserting it into the woman's womb,
which isn't all that nice!
  
>> 3) Do you realize that some women don't care to let a z/e/f use their
>> bodies for 9 months?
> 
> Do you realize that women who abort are far less concerned about the "use
> of their bodies" by the baby than they are worried about how they're going
> to care for the baby after the birth?

Sure, if they can't care for the baby, and they don't want 9 months
of Hell so they can put the baby up for adoption, then they should
get an abortion (assuming they want to).
  
>> 4) Can you see why your vision and beliefs should not be enacted into
>> law to prevent others from preventing this situation to unfold against
>> their beliefs, which are most likely different from yours?
> 
> Can you see why your lack of vision should not be forced onto children
> who do not share your lack of vision?

Abortion doesn't effect children or babies.  Surely it effects potential
children and potential babies, but why not just group them into
"potential persons"?
  
>> 5) Can you see how the pro-choice position lets you enjoy your beliefs,
>> while allowing others to enjoy theirs?
> 
> Can you see how the pro-"choice" position allows choice for everyone BUT
> those to whom it matters most - those who die by the choice of others?

Can you see how some people don't think it matters at all to a
z/e/f as compared to the living breathing woman?
  
>> (Unless of course yours involves
>> making decisions for others against their will.)
> 
> That sure sounds like the case of abortion to me.

One can speculate that a fetus has a will, but those speculations could
be based on nothing but gut-feelings (*no* pun intended!), or religious
grounds.  Laws should not be made on the basis of gut-feelings or
religious grounds.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity