HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:41:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.020828.23369@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>  I don't know.  That, as a matter of fact, is just what I'm trying to find 
>out.  Quite frankly, this a near-worthless point for you.  Allow me:
>
>  What's the worst thing that can happen if you have an abortion?  You could
>die.  Not very likely, not likely at all.  But it has happened.
>
>  What's the worst thing that can happen if you keep the baby?  You could die.
>Not very likely--more likely than dieing from an abortion, but still not
>very likely.
>
>  What's the worst that can happen driving a car?  You could die.  Not likely.
>But more likely than the first two.
>
>  What's the worst that could happen by doing drugs?  You could die.  Pretty
>likely, depending on the drug.

Well, you're allowed, but your points are pretty worthless.

Let me paraphrase: What's the worst thing that can happen to you if you do
*anything* (or even do nothing)?  You could die.  And it is 100% likely,
eventually.  Only those people who are currently alive have avoided death,
and past history shows that the likelyhood of anyone avoiding death for more
than 100-odd years (maybe up to 200 years if you include species other than
homo sapiens sapiens) is nil, nada, zero.

And many people would argue with you that death is the worst that could happen
to you.  If everyone agreed with this no one would EVER commit suicide.  The
fact that a definite percentage of the population chooses suicide every year
shows that there are things worse than death, at least to some people.

And as far as consequences, some people feel that suffering an abortion is
a better fate than taking a chance on suffering a full-term pregnancy and
whatever options they feel they may have afterward.

Also, note that comparing the worst consequence of any action is a stupid
way to compare actions.  Likely consequences are much more apropo than worst
consequence, especially when the worst is very unlikely.

Consequences of first-tri abortions are few and serious consequences are rare.

Consequences of full-term pregnancies are many and serious consequences are
more common.

Any woman who believes that abortion is wrong should not have one.  Any woman
who feels that abortion is preferred to pregnancy should be allowed to make
that choice for herself (and only for herself).  Just as the woman who believes
that abortion is wrong should only be allowed to make that choice for herself.

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

Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance.

		-- Sam Brown, "The Washington Post", January 26, 1977
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Lefty Misses the OBVIOUS POINT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:07:48 GMT

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:

] In article <1992Jul21.181716.6940@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
] Forgach) wrote:
] > 
] > From article by kartik@hls.com (Kartik Chandrasekhar):
] > 
] > > 	Mary Joe an airforce helicopter pilot goes to the gulf war and
] > > is captured, tortured and sacrificed at Saddams altar i.e his bedroom.  
] > > She is then released and comes back to the US and finds herself 
] > > pregnant. Do you think she will in her right mind let the pregnancy
] > > go to term. I think not. 
] > 
] > Ya know, if she did, we would then have a loyal U.S. citizen who would
] > be heir to the Iraqi throne.
] 
] Excuse me.  I'm going to raise my voice now.
] 
] IRAQ IS NOT A _MONARCHY_, YOU INCREDIBLY ILL-INFORMED TWIT!


but You miss the very CLEAR and Obvious Point that Frau Forgach
has put forward.

Had Mary Joe become pregnant, then that
child would have grown up to become the KING of Iraq,
overthrown the Despotic Regime, and made Iraq
a GodFearingChristianNation because of her mother's Piety.

On Top of that, since the Mother was american, and had
she registered the birth, {note, that is BIRTH, not gestation}
with the American Embassy, then the Child Would have been
able to make a choice as to whether or not to maintain a
dual citizenship status, as well as the Monarchy of Iraq.

Granted, of course, that this New Dynasty would be installed
on the Thrown by the Same folks who brought us the Shah of Iran,
and all things would be bright and beautiful.

You Lefty have missed the clear SignPost to HappyHappyJoyJoyLand.

ciao
drieux

ps: "the Next Stop.... The HappyHappyJoyJoyLand."


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:56:22 GMT

<1992Jul20.180232.18740@menudo.uh.edu> (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> Unfortunately, I didn't think to look up deaths due to illegal drug use.

<1992Jul23.050807.9619@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>References:  U.S. Surgeon General's Actuarial info, 1990...
>   Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]

Whoa!  That's a shocker!  Do you have more info?  I'll be waiting
with shaking hands.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is Murder!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:52:39 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Jul23.193644.22426@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>If this country is not careful, it is going to feel the wrath of God, 
>and it will not be pretty.

So?  Let God nuke our sinful butts.  You'll be wafted to comfy safety by the
Rapture before all the shit comes down, so why should you care?  You can
sit on your cloud and eat popcorn while we do the Brimstone Bop.

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)--------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28280 alt.politics.homosexuality:5087
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: What *is* Homophobia (formerly: SLAMMING HOMOSEXUALS...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <1992Jul21.175139.29433@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
|> Those heterosexual couples would never have contracted AIDS if they had
|> remained monogamous. 

Big if, considering the divorce rate in this country.


|> Contraceptives alone won't stop AIDS.

They help a lot more than your brand of stupidity.

Idjit.


-- 
Better weapons lead to better and better weapons, until the earth is
a grenade with the fuse burning.	--- William S. Burroughs
					    _Cities of the Red Night_
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE REAL LOWDOWN ON "CLOT," "CLUMP OF CELLS," AND "FETUS"
Summary: one-handed
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:26:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul28.151803.7987@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <1992Jul27.164001.4246@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
#
###I've heard that the Schenck's fetus was actually a victim of a type
###of late term abortion called a prostoglandin abortion. This is occasionally
###used for late term fetuses. It is injected into the woman, and the
###hormone then artificially induces abortion, resulting in a stillbirth.
###If that's the case, then there is no deception. 
#
##Nyikos claimed that, since abortions can be either spontaneous
##or induced, there was no deception involved if the fetus were
##in fact stillborn rather than the result of an induced abortion,
##since the didn't say specifically that the abortion was
##induced.  I argued that the Schencks had indeed claimed that
##the abortion was induced.  You seem to be supporting my argument,
##yet you claim no deception.  Care to try again?
#
#I would argue that there is no deception if the fetus in question
#was the result of an any artificial abortion. If the child was stillborn
#due to a spontaneous abortion, unassisted by an abortionist, then I
#believe it would be deceptive to claim that the fetus was a "victim" of
#abortion. So there, I guess I agree with you after all!

I thought that you'd missed my point.

#Nevertheless, one could argue that Schenck's primary purpose was to
#impress upon people what a fetus looks like before an late term abortion.
#No matter how deceptive his language may have been, it would never change
#the fact that he was holding a real human fetus.

Maybe Schenck could argue that - I don't think that it's
at all productive to speculate about his (or, their) unspoken
motives.

(I wonder why either Schenck would feel the need to show
people what a fetus looks like before a late term abortion,
though, since no such abortions were taking place in Buffalo.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: If Men Could Get Pregnant. . .
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 05:34:23 GMT


I have heard the saying that if men could get pregnant, abortion would
be a sacrement several times.  I was wondering if you people agree with
that statement.  I believe that although many people believe abortion is
murder and would still oppose abortion, the reason the right to choose is
really in danger is because it is a women's issue.  Men control the 
government and do not care enough about women's issues.  When a couple makes
a mistake, and there is a pregnancy, it is the woman who must live with the
baby inside her for nine months.  And while the man can run away and never
be heard from again, the woman is stuck with the kid.  If abortion were a male
issue, there would be a constitutional ammendment supporting the right to choose
So all you Pro-Choicers out there, vote women into office (Pro-Choice ones)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29721 alt.birthright:196 alt.abortion.inequity:2796
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:10:50 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Jul31.000659.28271@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <adams.712421943@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>
>>>[much rational response to irrational questions deleted]
>>
>>>>>11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  
>>>>This is a tougher question, to which I don't have an answer.
>>
>>>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>>>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>>>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>>>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>>
>>My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
>>Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
>>disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
>>tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...
>
>Well, here's a few questions: 
>
>1) Why is it that we don't take tissues from the bodies of executed
>murderers, for experimentation? 

If they've signed the back of their drivers liscence like I have, then we do
take their tissues for experimentation.


>2) Dead bodies in general? 

We do.  Are you familiar with medical training on cadavors? On donated tissues?
*I* certainly have no use for my tissues if I'm dead. If someone can live 
because of direct use of my organs or from research done on my tissues, I
am very much for that.

>3) Those who die from diseases? 

Happens all the time. Pull out your California drivers liscence, or go right
to the state DOT in Sacramento, probably right next door to you, and sign
up yourself.


>After all, they, too, could hold answers to major diseases. 


Which is why I, and many others here on the net who are pro-choice, have 
chosen to donate our bodies after we die.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29700 alt.birthright:190 alt.abortion.inequity:2788
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Short Sweet and To the Point
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:11:07 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Jul30.165916.16106@ncsu.edu> cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:
>
>drieux the devious writes:
>
>..After a refreshing sixpack,
>
>>You get into your car 
>
>...which has no brakes,
>
>>for a lovely summers drive.
>
>...at around 100mph+ 
>
>>You get into an Accident....
>
>..and YOU offer to come to his aid by blasting through
>the passenger door.. and the passenger.. with a blowtorch
>
>>
>>Should I use your Logic, and say you should
>>have thought about that before you got into the car?
>>
>>Or should I excuse you from Your Most Compelling logic
>>and start first aid right away....
>
>What do you think?
>
	I think you have mastered one of the important tactics of the
propagandist: argument by questionable analogy.
	Actually, this whole interchange neatly demonstrates the dangers of
argument by analogy in any form.  Drieux's original point (made in his own
uniquely elliptical fashion) was that your premise, in general terms, was:
===>	Anyone who engages in risk-taking behavior should be prohibited by
law from seeking a remedy for the consequences of that behavior.
	The foolishness of this notion lies in the simple fact that *all*
human behavior is risk-taking behavior.  Having sex, no matter how
responsible one is about contraception, carries some risk of pregnancy.
Driving, no matter how responsibly one acts, carries the risk of an accident.
This is tthe point he was attempting to (ahem) "drive" home.
	As to the rest of you analogy: there is no passenger.  You must
surely have noticed by now that the humanity (or lack therof) of the z/e/f
is the central point of contention in this entire "debate".  Ignoring that
won't change this fact.

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is NOT crazy, just confused?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:29:03 GMT


jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

>>The main purpose of picking up china is to see if it is worthy of 
>>purchase, or to aid in identification.  You make it sound as if the 
>>purpose was to break it by way of handling.  Because it is an object 
>>which someone else owns, then you are responsible for it while in your 
>>care.  It is not because dammage is a possible consequence that the 
>>viewer is held responsible...

>My point was that even though the purpose is just as you say, if it 
>breaks the customer is held responsible.  

Look, I don't know what china shops _you_ go to, but in the ones _I_'ve
been in the customer is NOT required to pay for breakage.  

The shops have insurance to cover such situations.

So tell me, do you have any moral objection to the shops carrying
insurance, since it exempts people from the "natural consequences
of their actions"?

>    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)

                                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: And Garvin's Down! (was Re: K.O., 0: 10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:41:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world 

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>> = Susan Garvin writes:
>>>Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.

>Well, you forgot the other 99% of that Susan B. Anthony article that
>gave it to you guys on the chin. 

Who here is surprised that borg-for-brains refuses to admit his error?
Nobody?  Didn't think so.  His credo seems to be "Lie, and if caught, 
come up with another lie."

Given that he keeps shooting himself in the foot again, and again, 
and again, you'd think he'd just give it up since his credibility is 
by now worthless.

>>Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
>>of your ass like Holtsinger does?
>
>Well, we would first have to learn the skill from you and Garvin, undoubtedly
>masters at the art. The art of blowing smoke out of your ass...  

Whoops, there went the smoke alarm.  'Scuse me for a minute ...

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Parenthood 2
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:00:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul22.184355.3034@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <1992Jul21.184701.13427@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu    (M. Price) writes: >

>>Look, why don't you just stop this silly analogy. It is insulting
>>and demeaning to insinuate that women who choose or have chosen to 
>>have an abortion would just as readily euthanize their parents or 
>>children. I know of no pro-choice woman who believes that involun-
>>tary euthanasia is a logical consequence or extension of abortion. 
>>The analogy is pointless and offensive (unless offensiveness is your 
>>point). Any further use of this sort of analogy is a fruitless waste 
>>of bandwidth.

>It's a slippery slope argument of the same variety as "if we allow
>the government to restrict abortion, what liberty will they rescind
>next?".  Such trends are difficult to predict (on either side of the
>inferred slope) but I was interested to hear that Dr. Jack Kevorkian
>has explicitly expressed a desire to align himself with the pro-choice 
>movement, claiming that the same ethic applies to both issues.  Of
>course, involuntary euthanasia is a bit further down the slope than
>the voluntary type, but the analogy is no more pointless or offen-
>sive than the oft-heard "taking away the right to abortion is just
>the beginning..." argument.

     I disagree. First of all, involuntary euthanasia is a hell of a lot
further down the slope than assisted suicide. As the first involves
choice, while the second does not, it is not hard to see a similar ethic
(to that of the pro-choicer movement) involved. And secondly, DOD was not making a slippery slope argument
when he said he hoped that women who have abortions don't have parents
in nursing homes--he was saying that abortion and involuntary euthanasia
nvolve the same kind of moral decision. And that, IMNSHO, is offensive
to any woman who has agomized over her decision to abort.


>Bill

                                                           MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Mary Joe & Saddam (!)
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:31:28 GMT

From article <adams.711749711@spssig>, by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>You see, ck, every child has a purpose in the world, if you care to
>>look close enough.
> 
> Including those who starve to death in Africa???  What purpose could they
> possibly serve??


Teaching _you_ a little compassion.


>      Steve Adams

Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29237 alt.flame:11422
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:15:42 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Jul28.000846.26832@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) wrote:
> 
> In case anybody missed the beginning of this, Darcy managed to stop sucking
> the pus from his many facial zits just long enough to make a "joke" about
> the sexual molestation that Susan's SO went through as a child.
> 
> He's now thrashing around in his own shit, desperatly trying to backpedal 
> and save his ass.
> 
> It's not going to work.
> 
> [Oh, and this whole episode provides ample evidence as to why Darcy is
> a "voluntarily chaste virgin"...]

It's for roughly the same reason that he's a "voluntarily stupid
chowderhead", isn't it?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Borg Splatter)
Subject: Re: Dear Operation Rescue
Organization: Dis, definitely.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:55:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.162222.2854@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.182203.12463@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>In article <Jul.18.05.16.54.1992.24300> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>>>You'd better pray to whatever god(s) you believe in that you never
>>>run across me at an OR rally.
>>>-- 
>>>Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
>>
>>Why?  Whatcha gonna do Chris?
>
>That depends. If the rally is at the clinic, he would call the cops
>and the RESCUERS would get their asses beat. 

Let's hope it'd work that way...so tell me:  would YOU call the cops in such
a situation?

>If he's at their meetings and he tries to cause trouble, that'll be
>the last time we ever see Chris Long. 
>
>I hope. 

Keep telling us how "non-violent" you are, Dennis...

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

Do you have any documentation of this claim, or are you just foaming at the
mouth as usual?  (Next, I suppose you'll be screaming that we desperately
desire dead babies -- just what we need, a black Rasmussen...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 605 637-4576 on the farm. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???