HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:03:09 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Nov21.035517.21641@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The existence of a law doesn't mean that 
>> the law can be enforced without being challenged. 

> Name one instance of a third trimester abortion performed
> contrary to the law.

Before I do that, will you admit that Roe v. Wade
is unrestricted abortion-on-demand?  If you won't
admit it, I don't see any point in providing such
an instance.  

>>> The Roe v Wade
>>> opinion states that you are wrong explicitly.  

>> No it doesn't. 

> Larry Margolis has posted the relevant section numerous times.

The section which he quotes basically says that the ability
of a woman to obtain an abortion is dependent on the
availability of a physician who's willing to perform
the abortion.  

>> Mark Tushnet didn't write an interpretation of the term ``health'',
>> he quoted a Supreme Court decision.  So did several other authors,
>> in the sources which I provided.

> He interpreted the definition of health provided by Doe v
> Bolton as being much broader than it is in practice.  Your
> allegations remain theoretical.

Mark Tushnet didn't interpret the definition of the word "health",
he quoted the definition from Doe v. Bolton.

>Dean Kaflowitz


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Silent Holocaust
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:18:44 GMT

In article <Nov.19.11.14.25.1992.12839@andromeda.rutgers.edu> hauk@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Keira E. Hauk) writes:
> For all those out there who have had an abortion or are considering it:  YOU 
>MADE THAT CHOICE BEFORE YOU GOT PREGNANT!  Ok, excluding that small percentage
>of rape victims who get pregnant.  But for the majority, don't tell me about 
>your freedoms of choice.  You made that choice the moment you had sexual 
>intercourse.  What CHOICES did that baby have? And how can you tell me when
>life begins?  Can you prove to me that life doen't begin until birth?  Can you
>define life? 
No, nor do I have to.
I'm not interested in philosophizing about "life." Fetuses don't have
any of the characteristics that IMO make people valuable, so why
whould I want to protect them.

>What about the man.  He's not always the one to push for the abortion.  Doesn't
>he have his choices also?  Or do you also want the right to control his sperm? 
Huh?

>These are just few of my many thoughts...And I must note that I wouldn't be 
>able to voice these thoughts if my birthmother had opted to have an abortion
>instead of giving me up for adoption in Bogota, Columbia!
Irrelevant appeal to emotion.

>Also, I am a woman, if that makes any difference to you.
It doesn't.
-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."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48555 soc.men:19575 alt.dads-rights:2646
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Holtsinger vs. Truth
Date: 24 Nov 92 04:13:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> Doug Holtsinger writes:
>>> Sure you have, you just sent some threatening e-mail to my
>>> system administrators today, and they sent me a copy of it.
>
>> You're lying again, Dougie - there was nothing threatening.
>
>In your opinion.

And mine.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48410 alt.flame:14892
From: mglads@catbox.cc.uni.edu (Melvin Gladstone)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: projection of the week: this week's winner!
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:14:09 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Indiana

In article <#=x1akd@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>   "Why should I dispute *any* statement for which you do not produce
>    a scrap of evidence?  I've only been disputing a lot of your statements
>    to show what a blusterer *you* are."
>       <nyikos.722018309@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>        Peter Nyikos to dean kaflowitz
>
It looks like someone has taken Kevin's special place in the Keeganator's
heart.  So there is hope for me after all.  Well here are some things
which may win your affection.

"I provide all necessary evidence to back up my claims to the extent
I deem appropriate so as to provide future deniability."

"Hey your SO beats puppies."

"I am rabidly pro-choice on everything except those things which I
don't think you should do."

"Any marginally reasonable person may not have concluded that your
article wasn't in fact a confirmation of the lack of a denial that
your SO may not have beat puppies."

"I am not paranoid, I have no delusions about the fact that you are
all out to get me."

"I will apologize for giving the impression the I did not vehemently
reject the notion that your SO might beat puppies if you apologize
for starting this thread when you should have known full well it would
get around to this puppy thing."

Melvin M. Gladstone
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quotes
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:21:57 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:

>Suzanne - The Presidency was stolen from Carter but, you'll hear
>more about that in the years ahead.  Funny, I didn't realize you
>were a psychic and funnier yet that you seem to take great glee
>imagining the destruction of this country, more Republican sour
>grapes and unwillingness to accept defeat gracefully.
God, I hate to step in and defend something Suzanne is saying, but I can't
let this go.  What you are describing is the DEMOCRATIC reaction to the
fact that Carter lost and Reagan won.  There is NO proof of any 'October
Surprise' - the Democratic Congress even said so after their investigation.
Carter lost.  And the left just can't acknowledge that.  Reagan *was*
widely popular, and still is, even though there is a concerted effort to
rewrite history.

>Now, let me make a predicition, I see the complete destruction of
>the Republican party as more and more of the truth of the dirty
>deals made by them comes to light.  I predict that never again will
>they have their dirty hands on the helm of state.

Jack Kemp will be President in 1996.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout pregnancy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.131950.7363@hemlock.cray.com> 
rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> From Roe v. Wade:
>   "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
>   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
>   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
>   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

This means that a woman's ability to obtain an abortion
is dependent on the availability of physician who's willing
to perform the abortion.  The paragraph you cite says 
absolutely *NOTHING* about the state's power to intervene.

She cannot "terminate her pregnancy" at "whatever time" she
chooses because the physician determines when the abortion  
should be performed.  

She cannot "terminate her pregnancy" in "whatever way" she 
chooses because the physician determines the abortion procedure.

She cannot "terminate her pregnancy" for "whatever reasons" she
chooses because the physician determines whether her reasons
are justified. 

The physician has the final authority over when the abortion
is performed, how it is performed, and whether it's performed 
at all.  The state can do absolutely *NOTHING* to prevent
a physician from performing any abortion, during any part 
of pregnancy. 

>Russ Anderson 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: Moderate Positions, and Why They are Unreliable
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:15:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>     The first case is that of Sumner's.  Sumner believes that if a 
>>being has sentience, or the capacity to suffer or enjoy experiences,
>>then that being has significant moral standing.  He belives abortion
>>becomes immoral only after the fetus has gained sentience (cited
>>in Feinberg, 1984).  This allows for moral contraception, but abortions
>>performed at late terms are deemed immoral.  The main problem with this
>>argument is we cannot tell when a fetus gains sentience.  There is no
>>medical test, nor is there a definite stage in development that we know
>>all fetuses gain sentience, so this is not a reasonable method to 
>>follow.
> 
> It has been posted that medical science is fairly convinced that it can *not*
> be sentient until at least the 24th week.  That sounds like a pretty good
> argument for a "moderate" position that you do not try to refute at all.

The paper was double the suggested length, I didn't think there was reason
enough to lengthen it further.

> I assert that as long as it is isolated from the "real world" in the womb that
> it can *not* be sentient.  

I assert that you may be wrong.

>>         There is some merit to it in that it would be a nearly
>>guiltless task to terminate an organsim which did not perceive
>>joy, or fear pain, but that doesn't mean it would be morally correct
>>to do so.
> 
> Your opinion.  

No.  Look at the situation:  Abortion is an issue, and its morality is
in question.  Debator A says abortion is guiltless before sentience
is developed.  How does guiltlessness imply a correct moral action?

>I consider it to be perfectly moral, if done with the consent
> of those people who might have a reasonable interest in the creature.

Your opinion.
[...] 
> I agree, this is a lousy argument, yet many pro-lifers support their position
> on the grounds that a fetus "looks like a baby".  
[...]
I assume you missed my rantings about Chaney's sonogram schtick.

> I grant the "looks" argument no more moral weight when used to call abortion
> "immoral" than I do as a reason to have an abortion.  But then, my position
> is not moderate, and you *were* dealing with moderates in here.  I am merely
> taking your argument and applying what I feel is correct about it in order to
> show that the "pro-life" position is full of hot air.

Perhaps the pro-life position is full of hot air, but I was discussing my
position.

>>NEXT POST:  Abortion and the Law
> 
> You mean there's more?  *sigh*

I made it quite easy to killfile.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:32:06 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1egokhINNghu@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>[doctor needs to kill almost born foetus to save mother]
>I don't understand this.  If a woman and infant are in a car-wreck, and there
>is only time to cut one free and save them, do you have a gut reaction to
>someone who makes a snap decision to save the infant?  I only have a gut
>reaction to the car-wreck.

Frank, in the car-wreck, does the rescuer face the fact that one (the fetus)
is the *cause* of the imminent death of the other (the woman)?  That
*might* have something to do with it.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: While we're blessing each other ...
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:27:24 GMT

> Stephen Mezias
>> bible-thumping twit

>>I pray for you all.

>I hope that the Goddess will enlighten both you and your ilk when you
>speak with her.

May random chance be in your favor.
		      - Atheist's blessing


-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Public praying - spiritually ostentatious (was: Re: The FUTURE...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:28:30 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Nov19.174407.21580@ncsu.edu> jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>|> >Yes prayer is  private thing most of the time, but sometimes
>|> >public prayer is neccessary.

>Praying is something you have to do if you are in any religion, it is your
>own decision to prove that prayer is necessary, I can't prove it to you unless
>you are a christian trying to understand its importance.

For Christians, praying is a private and heartfelt communication with their
personal Savior.  To do this in public (which is refuted in the NT by Jesus
as the actions of Pharisees and hypocrites) is akin to the obnoxious yuppie
standing on a street corner yelling into his top-of-the-line cell phone,
"HELLO?  Why yes, MR. PRESIDENT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE.  I just wanted to
ask you a few things AS A PERSONAL FRIEND."

So tell me why supposedly good Christians want to wantonly ignore the Bible?
And be spiritually haughty in the process?  Do they really think Jesus likes
that sort of puffery?

This reminds me of a "religious" person I saw outside of a clinic in San
Diego.  Mostly her protesting consisted of milling around, but when a camera
was turned on her, all of a sudden she would fall to her knees, beat her
breast, and proclaim loud epithets to heaven.  Yeah, that was a sincere
dialog with her God.  Not.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
(Recovering Fundie, too)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: My friend turns two
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:17:29 GMT

From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> about abortion, I got her the money and went to the clinic with her.  
> At the time, I was thinking about what a wonderful human being I was
> for going against my beliefs and actually accompanying her there.  But
> then I came to realize that what I was doing was not so special.  I
> was not the one that making the bigger sacrifice.  

No.  It was the sacrifice of the child who died that day.


> Despite her feelings 
> about abortion, she knew it was the only choice available to her.  

Crap.  You yourself had offered her help not to abort.


> What she was doing was much more special than my small sacrifice.  

Killing her own child was "special"?


> The abortion was difficult for her.  

I'll bet!


> Not as difficult as continuing
> the pregnancy, but difficult none the less.  

How would you or she _possibly_ know?


> Later that year, she straightened herself out.  She met a reasonably
> nice guy, and I saw her suddenly grow up.  She ended up getting 
> pregnant, and my two year old friend is the result.  
>  
> Its not to difficult to imagine how this story might have turned 
> out if legal abortions were not available.  

No it sure isn't.   Your 2 year old friend would have a 3 year old sister.


> Its possible my
> friend might have been killed or injured by an illegal abortion.

But far more likely she would have accepted the help that is out there
offered by thousands of pro-life agencies.


> Its possible that she would have felt forced to continue the 
> first pregnancy.  

Saving lives is what anti-killing laws are all about.


> I think her deciding her own fate was a big
> reason why she grew up so fast.  I don't think she would have
> faced it as well if the decision was forced on her.

Yet, above, you specifically state that her abortion decision _was_ forced
her!!  Let me refresh your memory with your own words:
 
> Despite her feelings 
> about abortion, she knew it was the only choice available to her.  

So why do you think that although (in your eyes) she handled that decision
which was forced on her so well, she could not have handled a different
decision had it been forced on her instead?   You are doing nothing but
soothing your own conscience, Dan.  Obviously her 'readiness for motherhood'
was not an issue, since she gave birth to another child only a year later.


> I do know that if abortion was illegal, there is a very good chance that 
> I would not have gone to my friends second birthday party.  

Yet obviously, every year you miss out on her older sister's birthday party.
Have you no concept of the horror of what you've participated in?


> So
> for selfish reasons in this case, I am glad abortion was safe 
> and legal. 

Dan, you make me sick.   You paid to have a small child killed.   In front
of your own eyes no less.


> Dan King

S. Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48244 soc.men:19442 alt.dads-rights:2623
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:10:42 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov17.055842.5919@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>>>everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>>>is stopped - permanently.
>>Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!
>One key (and to me, obvious) difference is that women have far greater
>say about their level of financial contribution.  A woman need not pay
>much of anything if she is so inclined. 

Obviously, by not having the baby.

However, for those women who have had the baby, either through a belief that
abortion is a moral wrong, or a desire to become a mother, this isn't true.
A mother is as obliged to support her child as a father, under the law.

And, if we split child support down the middle, 50% of the time giving sole
custody to the mom (and requiring a support payment of the dad) and 50% of
the time doing it the other way around, you would see this clearly demonstra-
ted.

Of course, some people would then have another complaint, that being that
the women ordered to pay child support generally make less, and therefore
would be paying out less, but that's a different social problem altogether.

>While it is true that women also
>contribute financially, this contribution is usually _voluntary_.

So, I say a better solution would be to strengthen men's rights to tehir
children, to reduce the incentive an unscrupulous woman might have to 
voluntarily soak a man.  If she's as likely to lose the child, and have
to pay support herself, she's not going to 'trick' anybody.

And, of course, if these women don't exist, there is no problem with
unscrupulous women, and men gain the full measure of their paternity,
EQUALIZING the parental benefit and responsibility.  What a concept.

>A more equitable situation would have custody of the child
>automatically go to the state, requiring _both_ parents to sue for
>custody, and with judgements equitably distributed between men and
>women.

What I said.

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ProChoice Question
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:39:52 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: talk.abortion
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov20.113358.2759@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1egf8iINNk3t@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.193320.20408@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>>>I have a simple question for pro-choicers:
>>>   You say you have the "Right to Choose".  Who is the
>>>   authority that grants you this right?
>>The highest authority that exists:  Ourselves.
>I take it you mean ourselves individually rather than collectively --
>you don't think your "right to choose" depends on any decision our
>society makes.  For example, you don't think it could legitimately be
>taken away by legislation.  Am I right?

Well, I don't know why you'd make that stupid assumption, unless it was
to (falsely) attempt to prove a point....

Collectively, individuals comprise a social grouping (presuming they are
cooperating together and not merely inhabiting connected turf).  Within
a social grouping, individuals collectively determine what 'rules' will
make the grouping successful along certain measures -- economic measures,
contentment measures, survival measures, etc.  

In *our* society, we got together and took a look at the nature of humans
and decided it didn't make much sense for us to collectively agree not to
think, not to speak, not to believe different things, because that's a kinda
worthless exercise, so we decided that we'd recognise the freedom of indi-
viduals to think, speak, and believe, in addition to some others, in our
form of government.

The *right* to use one's body as one chooses is a right recognised by our
government.  It is a right EXERCISED by and individual, which is where you 
got tangled up.

>Does that view even make sense?  "Authority" means something you are
>bound by.  What sense does it make to say you are bound by yourself?

"AUTHORITY", you will note, is the false paradigm you introduced into
the initial question.  And it has been pointed out that "authority grants"
is a mistaken way to look at it.

There *is* no authority beyond the will of the people.  Collective AND
individual. 

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The answer (are the unborn alive?)!!!
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:53:20 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <markts.721552522@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.170316.7679@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> it all comes down to this. the unborn are not alive.
>
>>This statement is not correct.
>
> please let me rephrase: the unborn are composed
> of living cells. but they lack the elusive soul
> needed to be alive in our little christian
> spectrum.

Substute the minority group of your choice for 'unborn'.  Now prove that the
statement is true for 'unborn', and not for the minority group of your
choice.

While you're at it, prove that the Christian (and at this point I'd like to
introduce to Mr. Shift Key, mr e.e.cummings wannabe) spectrum is 'little'.

> god loves me! (but more importantly, he *respects* me!)

Dark clouds gather over mcl.ucsb.edu.  The theme from The Omen is clearly
audible above the thunderclap that follows the lightening bolt that reduces
markts@mcl.ucsb.edu and his terminal to scorched cells, molten metal and
plastic.  A disembodied voice is heard to say "never could stand all lower
case posts".  Later that same day, a mysterious pro-choicer called
jc@heaven.org begins posting, with more flame than content, to t.a...

> mark.

-- 
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'