HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:18:36 GMT

In article <mee8iB2w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>>  A desparate woman can travel to any state that she wants?  Not if she's
>>  poor and her car won't make it, and she doesn't have enough for bus fare,
>>  plus, who'll look after the kids she already has?  And if it's a long
>>  distance, where can she safely stay the night?  With little money?
>>  Or if she works and she'll risk losing her job if she takes time off
>>  (maybe the doctor will give her a written note).

>But a poor woman who can not afford bus fare, would not be able to
>afford an abortion, even if it was next door.  How would she pay for it?
>With tax money?  I do not want my taxes being used to fund something
>that I have grave reservations towards. So even if abortions were legal
>in all 50 states, she still could not get an abortion unless public
>funds are used, or she goes to an abortion clinic which survives on
>private contributions (and how many of those are there?).

 We can paint all kinds of scenarios.  She might be able to pull barely
 enough money together for the abortion - she might find a place which will
 charge on a sliding scale.  

 Your reply seems to ignore or discount the rest of the post in regards 
 to having to travel in order to obtain an abortion:  child care, 
 overnight stay, job security...
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Dear Stupid, Pro-Life, Ass-Hole... :] (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)
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, 10 Apr 92 23:23:13 GMT



Loren:

I'm pro-choice.  I have absolutly not problem believing that the fetus is

(1)Alive
(2)Human
(3)a "Human Being" (in pretty much whatever way you want to define THAT).

I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions before the 20th
week of pregnancy.  I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions
after the 20th week of pregnancy provided they have more of a reason than
"Oh, I woke up today and it was, like, you know, cloudy, so I like, decided
to go out and have an abortion".

Would you like to know why?

Because the rights of the BORN HUMAN BEING WOMAN must have more priority than
the "rights" of the UNBORN HUMAN BEING FETUS.  There are cases where these two
humans have almost equal rights, but those are few and far between.

In-my-humble-opinion, of course.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: "Action" and "Inaction" (Was: Question For Welch/Pro-lifer's)
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  7 APR 92 12:22:50    

In article <1992Apr4.174437.20243@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes...

>In article <1992Apr3.184053.8009@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>Someone writes:
>>>You are the father of a child.  This child has a rare blood
>>>disorder.  The only way this child will survive is if you are
>>>hooked up to a dialysis machine for 24 hours a day for nine
>>>months (1).  At the end of the time your child will be cured,
>>>and you can then go on your merry way.
>>>
>>>You may or may not face the loss of your job due to your
>>>absence.  You may or may not receive adequate health care
>>>because you may not have coverage.  Your health may or
>>>may not be up to the strain of the dialysis procedures.
>>
>>This hypothetical scenario is not an exact parallel to pregnancy. 
>No, it's not.  I don't think there are any exacct parallels to pregnancy.  It's
>unique, and therefor needs to be treated as a unique experience.

This hypothetical scenario reminds me of another ethical question that 
is not hypothetical.  I've been tissue typed so I can potentially 
donate bone marrow.  Every once in a while they call me into the blood 
center to see if I'm an exact match for someone.  One time they called 
me in shortly after I got married.  My wife, who was unaware until
then that I had volunteered for this, was quite upset.  She realized 
that if I was a match I'd really have to donate (though they say you 
can back out at any time) and, as with (surgical?) procedure, there's 
some risk.  

I doubt that the risk is very high.  I'd be embarrassed to press for 
exact figures.  When I asked about the risk when I went in to be 
checked for an exact match the nurse looked at me kind of accusingly 
and said that, as with any (surgical?) procedure, there's some risk.  
I definately got the impression that she thougt "If you're so worried 
about the risk what are you doing here?"

Anyway, if you think women should be compelled to carry a pregnamcy 
through term to save a fetus's life you aught at least be willing to 
donate bone marrow to save an fully formed human being.  How many of 
you pro-lifers are registered with the national tissue type database?

Do you think people should be compelled to donate bone marrow if they 
are the only exact match found?  I don't know.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
[Undecided]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:54:31 GMT

In article <17692@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.201203.28022@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Er
>>ic Rescorla) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr6.194536.26089@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
>Uh Eric,
>    Since this *desireable* :) ex-girlfriend has this reaction to DJR
>(whoever the hell he is, I missed all his threads, evidently) I vote
>him out, totally hopeless case or not...I'm not in the charity business:)
All right, all right. No more DJR.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:17:41 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<18126@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:
>Well, there was a time not so long ago when a single salary was more
>than adequate to live off of. Nowadays, at least around here (DC) it
>requires two incomes. There are your sacrifices.

I plan to comment on this sometime later.  Between the INTERMAG
Conference downtown this week, and ballooning t.a. traffic to
almost 200 articles/day, it may be awhile.

>>BTW, just how many abortions are done to married women???
>>I'm sure the number of abortions by unmarried, perhaps promiscuous
>>women is alot higher. Statistics anyone???

>I believe it was around 30%. Someone has the list, please post for Matthew.

I have.  

You know, I think we are being a bit spoiled by lightning quick
electronic communications.  I read t.a. about every day.  I know
there were no more than 30 hours between the last time I read
and this time, yet there are already FOUR requests that these
stats be posted, some of the later ones seeming a bit impatient.

Give it time folks.  The communications are like lightning.
We folks on the other end are not.

Off to the reception....  <Booming John McLaughlin voice> BYE BYE!

|   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._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:48:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:


>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Mr. Kaldis seem to be under the
impression that during sex, the penis actually enters the uterus???
It strikes me that anyone with a penis small enough to pass through the
cervix would certainly not benefit from bragging about it (although
there are some statisticians on soc.men who would certainly be
interested...)


>   Theodore A. Kaldis
>   {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>   kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu

                           MP  :)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:03:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   Sorry Ron... You're going Dooowwwwnnnnnn...

This could be interesting....

>>>of sex, Trojan Condoms makes millions while our Population growth is
>>>on the decline BIG time.

>>Good, we could probably use a billion less people on Earth. Too bad
>>it's actually *growing*. Why don't you pull your head out, get a breath

>   Heh... Ron - I said that the Population Growth is on the decline.
>Thus the rate at which our population expands is lessening. This means
>that eventually the rate of growth of the population will likely
>be 0 and then delve into the negative. 

Steve, this is the first logical series I think you've said.:)
Then you have to go and ruin it.:(

>You see, this sucks, because
>when trends as large and universal as population growth recede, it is
>pretty damn hard for them to stop. I apologize that I had to point out
>that your point sucked, but I do believe it was just a misinterpretation.

You still haven't proven this to be a bad thing. People are starving
all over the world, even in the land of supposed plenty (the US). A
billion less folks wouldn't hurt matters any, and if you think about
it, how many of those deaths are caused by starvation, terrible living
conditions, or unavailibility of adequate health care, all of which
are caused by too many people? If the population shrinks, going with
the hypothesis that more people will die in those areas that are over
populated, eventually the growth factor should even out at zero (ideally).
The reason for this is that the death rate will eventually decline in
those high death rate areas (overpopulated) because they will no longer
be overpopulated. I don't believe the human race is in any danger of
extinction, so I won't buy that argument.

As for my point sucking, that is entirely YHO, and one you're allowed
to have.

>>Only one saves lives Steve, the rest just improve the quality of life
>>or prolong it. Trojans could also be said to save lives, in those cases
>>where the woman can't have babies. In any case, they don't end lives,
>>just prevent them from being conceived. You have a problem with this?

>   Improve the quality of life for WHO? Certainly not the child.
>YOu know I'm not much of a fan of contraception Ron. WHy ask?

Yes, but I was requesting a logical reason here, since you only implied
ending something was bad in the part you deleted. No specifics, because
I don't have time to go look it up. I would think you'd be a fan of
this, since wasn't it you that stated a woman should have her tubes
tied if she didn't want anymore babies and the man should have a vasectomy?
I'm not sure if it was you, but I will ask if you are opposed to these
two forms of contraception.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: The Right to Exist 
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:55:02 GMT

The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
unless their own existence is threatened. 

The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 
and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 

The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any 
rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
equal to that of any other human being.

Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
of the fetus to exist.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <92101.125312ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Bir
>mingham) writes:

>>In article  <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:

>  Pro-life/religious are against day-care because we feel (supported by
>psychological studies) that it can have harsh retroactive effects on the
>child.
[...] rest of diatribe (including some valid points, got to gove credit
when it's due :) deleted

Steve, this may be so, but I think that living in a drug-infested neighborhood
with daily shootings can also have harsh retroactive effects on a child.

This is the result in some areas if both parents don't work.

Some sobering statistics for last year (1991):

Ten people are shot every day in the DC area.

Two people die every day from gunshot wounds in the DC area.

These incidents are no longer limited to drug neighborhoods only, but
are spreading from them. They are also not limited to those who use
or sell drugs, but innocent people who happen to be driving home on
the freeway, in one case.

To live outside the affected area, and even in the affected area, costs
a minimum (for a two bedroom condo) of $65k. Townhouses start at $150K.
Single family homes start at $220k. Medium income in this area is $55k,
with both parents working.

One person staying at home to take care of junior is not practical for
many of these people.

Ron
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pope's self-control
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:02:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

>In article <1992Apr13.200223.9427@noao.edu>
>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Listen you two clowns, the Pope does not ask anyone to do that which
>he is not willing to do himself: 

>          that is, exercise a little self-control.

Listen clown, I do not ask the Pope to do that which I am not willing 
to do myself: 

          that is, respect people's ability to make their own decisions
	for themselves.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rmgreen@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Ronald M. Green)
Subject: On the Subject of "Compromise"...
Keywords: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Everyone's a Pro - Where're the Amateurs?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:28:29 GMT


   Just a comment or two...
   Recently, someone - I didn't think to catch the name - made it clear that
some sort of "compromise" would have to be hashed out between the two visible
and established sides of the debate concerning abortion legality/availability.
Based on what we've ended up with here in Canada (home of the pinko Commie
godless socialists), I really have doubts about such a compromise ever being
reached.
   After Dr. Henry Morgentaler's constant challenges of Canada's old abortion
laws led to their being struck from the books at the behest of the Supreme
Court, the government had to put up with hounding from *all* sides to either
establish a new law or else make it clear that abortion would never be in the
criminal code again.  The end result of this was that three separate proposals
were put forth in the House of Commons - i.e., three proposed pieces of
legislation which set out different sets of guidelines for legislating 
abortion - with the intent being that whichever proposal received a majority
(not a plurality) in the House would then be tidied up, finalised and started
on the road to law.
   None of the proposals made it.  In the free vote (i.e., vote by conscience,
not by party), none of the options received a majority of votes.  The result?
Canada has no abortion laws, and hasn't for the last couple of years n.

   Up here, the abortion debate goes on, but it is fairly polite and tends to
go through established channels of media and government; overall, it shifts
here and there as time goes on - the Premier of British Columbia makes
comment openly against abortion; the Ontario Ministry of Health extends OHIP
(our universal medical plan) to cover abortions in hospitals and clinics -
and continues to this day.  The topic looks to be just too bloody hot to be
settled by a publicly agreed-upon "compromise", and will almost certainly
settled by political inertia and whoever has the big voting blocks.

   Opinions or comments?  Hey, this *is* a newsgroup...

                                                       - Ronald M. Green -

   (Pro-choice, if you must know...actually, the fact that I do a fair bit as
a Planned Parenthood volunteer might tip you off, too - but always willing to
read logical and clearly-stated arguments free of insults before I toss them
into the electronic garbage can.   Proud to be Canadian!)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: John Heim has a sense of humor!
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:28:55 GMT

heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM ) writes:

Hi, John, do you mind if I join in?

>For most people a woman's right to self-determination 
>is self evident.  I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
>I feel I have to.  You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
>truth.

You know, this sounds really good EXCEPT for that "unless I feel I have to"
phrase.  That scares the hell out of me and it should scare the hell out
of ever woman in this country. 

>I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to 
>the moment of delivery.  (I had thought that this is something most 
>people would agree with.)

Well, IMO, I don't think the numbers of 37 week abortions justify any
legal action, do you?

>It seems incredible to me that anyone might 
>think that a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby 
>becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the womb. 

I don't think you'll find many people saying the fetus isn't a human
being.  What it is or isn't is not the issue.  The issue is a woman's
right to control her life as much as possible which is weighed against
any fetal rights at all.  The concern is legal protection, not human-ness.
Clearly the woman deserves legal protection.  Does the fetus?  When?
IMO, I don't think the fetus ever deserves legal protection, although
I might be willing to support legal protection after the 36th week of
gestation (dear readers, this is a slight change from what I've posted
before).  But, I add, do the numbers of 37 week abortions justify any
legal action?

>It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society have to 
>place *some* limits on a woman's right to self-determination.

I don't think it's necessary.

>Not 
>because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but because we want 
>to protect what we believe are humans in need of protection.

First, you're going to have to prove to me that a 37 week fetus is in
danger.  I don't think the numbers of 37 week (and beyond) abortions justify
any legal action.

>So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving 
>protection?"

Well, like I stated before, I might favor banning abortions after the 36th week.
Why?  Because a 37 week fetus is "ready to be born".  It is not considered
premature, its development is complete--all it's doing is growing.  It would
require no heroic measures to sustain its life if born.

However, is the 37 week fetus in danger?  IMO, no it is not.  Therefore,
legal protection is unnecessary.  I don't believe in writing unnecessary
laws.

>PS. I think you are so used to arguing with religious fanatics that 
>you don't recognize an open mind (I hope) when you see one.

He He.  You're right about that one!  There are SOOOOOOO many religious
freaks here on this net that it is hard to find the logical ones.  



Jennifer
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:22:31 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
>One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another
>sentient being...

If you're talking about an SO, then I agree. You should definitely talk
about all that has transpired before that could affect each other's health.
Also, go get medical tests done and all that other good stuff that let's
you know (within reason of course) that you're both healthy and won't
kill each other with some dreadful disease later.

A fetus, which I'm sure you're not refering to, since it is not sentient,
shares the mother's body at the leave of the mother. As for halting
the need for abortions, I know what you mean by this (ie abstinence)
and you can forget that. It will never happen, unless some new-fangled
disease crops up like AIDS but that works only when you have sex.

BTW, anyone read where they think AIDS originated? It appears the virus
was introduced into the human blood pool in the 1920s or 30s by scientists
injecting malaria-infected chimp blood into human subjects, to see if
the malaria would take. Talk about stupid scientific endeavors (hindsight).

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion