HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: public funds. financing abortions. why not.
Keywords: abortions and public funds.
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:57:53 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov8.204931.15877@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>Here is another reason against tax-payers money going to abortions.
>I am sure we will all agree that there are deep rifts between Pro-life and
>Pro-Choice and many politicians want to do their best to keep both
>sides at bay.
>
>Now if tax money went to abortions the Pro-life crowd would be in an uproar.
>Can you image that they would be helping to pay for one of the things
>they detest the most.But none of these Pro-lifers would deny a mother
>the right to give birth.
It strikes me that a similar argument can be made against tax-
payers money going to the military. I find the idea of my money going
to kill people to be extremely objectionable.
Consider: There are ~1.5 million abortions a year in this country
and they cost about $300 ea. Therefore, each American pays something
like $2-5 even if we paid for all abortions in full.

The defense budget, but contrast, is something like 10% of the federal
budget, meaning that I pay something like $1000/yr to keep it running.
Given this data, surely your argument is even stronger that the government
should not fund the military, yes?

-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."
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: an anti-choice post
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:50:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>->Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>->>Really Ms. Bartley?  How would you know?
>->>If you had read this thread you would have discovered
>->>that the post in question referred to Darcy and had
>->>nothing to do with you.  It was Rescorla who mentioned
>->>your name.

>->I've seen enough of Keegan's stuff quoted by Doug Holtsinger

>it's not surprising that you base your judgement on the
>newsgroups most detested quote manipulator; not
>surprising at all.

>->>I think your assessment of Mr. Keegan's position is about
>->>as valid as your comments above.

>my compliments, ms. birmingham; you were one of the
>first to identify ms. bartley's hypocrisy as well as
>her extreme anti-choice stance.

Oh give us a BREAK!  My understanding of her position *from her own posts* is
that she favors legal abortions in the first 2 trimesters, and only opposes
abortions in the last trimester.  She may advocate prison terms for offenders
(what would you suggest?  a fine?  a slap on the wrist?).  That is only extreem
in punishment.  Her position is not "extreemly anit-choice" as you imply with
the way you describe it.  She is mostly "pro-choice", but considers 6 months of
pregnancy to be long enough to have made that choice.  As such she is partway
between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" philosophies--"pro-life" being "anti-
choice"--so she is not "extreem anti-choice" at all.

You say she "opposes abortions" and "favors prison terms for women who have
the abortions she opposes", but you just forget to mention that she only
"opposes" abortions in the last 3 months of pregnancy.  By neglecting that
major aspect you make it sound like she opposes *all* abortions (as the "pro-
life" do) and wants all mothers who have abortions to be thrown in prison
(which "extreem pro-life" might want).  *She* is not anti-choice; *you* are
making her *seem* anti-choice with your own misrepresentations.

If you disagree with her position then argue against it.  Don't try to paste
a misrepresentation of her position upon her and attempt to tear her apart for
it.

This is as rediculous as that "Clinton is discriminating against unborn females"
nonsense.  (In that case it was an extra word stuffed in that was inappropriate
and twisted his position to make it seem negative in a way that it wasn't.)
(I don't remember, was Keegan behind that one too?)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: What am I?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:47:20 GMT

In article <92305.222922ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
> [a self-absorbed Mein Kampf-reminiscent "manifesto"]
>
>So what am I?

A waffler. Perhaps you should clarify a few of the key terms in there, like

	"a medical decision"

		Medical professionals take an oath to, among other things,
		"do no harm". If abortion is strictly "a medical decision",
		then it is incumbent on you to prove that ALL abortions 
	   	"do no harm", or you must acknowledge that at least SOME
	 	abortions are forbidden, even by medical ethics.

	"in consultation with medical professionals"

		What about the woman-in-a-coma case? Ill-considered 
		requirements of "consultation" can be interpreted various 
		ways.

	"abortion is a moral decision, and should therefore be left to
	 the individual"

		Would you say the same about murder being left up to the
		murderer? Rape to the rapist?

	"I believe that quality of life is paramount and governments and 
	 society should ensure that all citizens are provided, not just the 
	 basic necessities for survival but, an environment that promotes 
	 physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth."

		How is this distinguishable from outright socialism?

	"I believe that all women [...] have a right to make their own 
	 choices about their bodies and their lives [...] and I will
	 oppose anyone who attempts to remove or reduce that right."

		Please delimit "their lives". Can they choose to shoplift?
		To write bad checks? To defraud? To assault? To kidnap? To 
		rape? To murder? Where do the rights of a woman "to make 
		choices about [...] their li[fe]" begin, and the the rights 
		of other people to their life, liberty, property etc. end? 
		Should women be a privileged class, in your opinion?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 14:42:42 GMT

In article <BxMw2q.Ivw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <BxI4EI.11G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> I am arguing that abortion should NEVER be paid for by the state or
|> >|> anyone else.  It should be made illegal.  Similarly, men should NEVER 
|> >|> "be let off the hook".  Any man who has sex is as responsible for the
|> >|> child conceived as the woman, and neither should be allowed to kill/abandon
|> >|> that child simply because s/he is inconvenient to their plans for the 
|> >|> future.  Children are not sacrifices to the gods of expediency, despite
|> >|> the fact that at least 3.2 million people every year think they are.
|> >|> 
|> 
|> >Since you are arguing that the parents of a fetus/child be required by
|> >the state to care for that child regardless of the expedience. Then,
|> >should the state provide for such services as adoption, social services,
|> >etc (after all these services allow for parents to abdicate some or all
|> >of their resposibility to the child)?
|> 
|> The child should not be killed, in utero or ex utero.  Period. 
|> Adoption doesn't result in the child's death, therefore it's perfectly
|> acceptable.  If the mother carries the child to term, SHE certainly hasn't
|> abdicated responsibility.  Has the father?  Depends on where he's at.
|> If he isn't helping to take care of his lover and their unborn child,
|> then, yes, he's abdicated his responsibility.  
|> 

So, your argument is that it is acceptable and permissable to abandon
the child to the gods of expediency after it is born, provided that
the action does not cause the immediate death of the child. 

Now, just to clarify things, say a child given is adopted by a radical 
religious cult. As it happens, an "time period" after the adoption, the child
is killed/dies, and this event is made public through an investigative report.
Are the biological parents still absolved from their resposibility? How
much time must pass between the time of giving the child up for adoption
and the child's death before the biological parents are freed from
responsibility to the child.

-- 
--Bruce

"Truth is ultimately a philosophical concept,...,
 and standards of truth are adequate for practical
 purposes if they are substantially more reliable 
 then the system undergoing evaluation"
				C. E. Metz
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:08:14 GMT

>   = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>  = ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>>> = frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related
>>>to sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?

>> Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
>> brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.

>Ack.  <cough>  Um, if we could define "brain function" and "intelligence"
>we could begin to dissect the first statement, which is at present
>hopelessly vague.  [...]
>       But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>fluffy stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not necessary to *completely* solve a problem (resolve an issue) in 
order to gain some benefit.  Often times *partial* solutions are very useful.

*Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?

To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:

Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
    although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>

Q2: (I'm trying to establish that we agree that "persons" actually exist)
    Do you agree that being a "normal, adult human" is sufficient, although 
    perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>  
    
Q3: Do you agree that being a "normal, human infant" is sufficient, although 
    perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>


If no one is willing to make a *clear* statement about what they think are
the broad parameters of "personhood", then this whole "personhood" debate 
is pointless, not because the issue is intractable, but because the debaters 
are intractable.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:02:17 GMT

In <1992Nov06.212456.123893@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com 
   (Larry Margolis) write: >
In <1992Nov5.215938.1617@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 
   hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes: >>

>>Now I have to ask the critical question before we go wild here talking
>>about whether it is "right" to allow the broad definition of health
>>(Doug seemed to be implying that allowing exemptions for pyschological
>>health was somehow a "bad" thing):
>
>You cut right to the heart of the issue, and pointed out the flaw in
>Dougie's lies.  The issue of mental health was brought up in Doe, which
>was about an earlier-term abortion; Jane Doe had serious psychological
>problems - so much so that she was institutionalized.  Doug is trying
>to get people to believe that this means that a woman in her ninth
>month could be bummed out because of a bad hair day and decide to
>get an abortion, and this would be allowed under the same exception.
>Unfortunately for Doug, few people are as stupid as he is; most of us
>can see the difference.

Then please explain, if you would, the difference between "serious
psychological problems" and mild psychological problems.  Are both
acceptable as "medical necessities"?  Please note that mild psycho-
logical symptoms may lend themselves to a valid diagnosis.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date:  9 Nov 92 19:43:09 GMT

In <92306.235017ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>I for one don't argue about fetal personhood,
>but then according to some I am an extremist.
>I happen to agree with the following arguments
>statements that were submitted as a brief to
>The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
>Committee by CARAL in 1990.

[article deleted]

>Not a single mention of personhood.

That is what is extremist about the article.

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: ATUI: Moderate Positions, and Why They are Unreliable
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:10:47 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Moderate Positions, and Why They are Unreliable

     There are a wide range of moderate positions which allow for
abortion in some cases, and not in others, but I will only discuss
two of them since they have a tendency to be complicated and even
self-contradictory.
     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.  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.
     The second moderate position is not as easy to be considered to
be acceptable.  J. English has considered late stage abortions to be
less moral than early stage abortions for the simple reason that a fetus 
in the late stages of development resembles a baby more than a fetus
in the early stages (cited in Feinberg, 1984).  The argument seems
preposterous.  If it were true, would it not be moral to abort a
particularily ugly fetus, even if that fetus was otherwise destined
to develop into a normal human being?  Who is the judge as to whether
a fetus appears to have a close enough likeness to that of a normal
baby?  I grant this argument no moral weight whatsoever.


NEXT POST:  Abortion and the Law

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Summary: Preventative medicine, once again
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:00:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>Preventing illness- I am a firm beiliever in preventative medicine. You
> should treat the problem before it arrises.Example- use birth control
> so you don't get pregnant.
>Avoid injury & hazards of pregnancy- See above statement concerning
> preventative medicine

Fine.  But preventative medicine isn't 100% effective either.  A man in
his 30's, who eats well, runs three miles, five times a week, and generally
does everything the American Heart Association recommends can STILL get a
heart attack.  I doubt you'd argue that we should let him die because, well,
he asked for the heart attack.

What makes abortion different, and why do you bring up the preventative
medicine argument if it IS different? (Birth control as medicine?)

>Of course Ray! I am all for allowing women the same opportunities as men
> and offering men the same opportunities as women. I'd love equal rights.
> Unfortunately nature didn't plan it like we wnat it.

Nature didn't design men and women along the same blueprint.  Women have
the ability to bear children, something men do not (as yet) have the
capability to do.  So why should men get an equal say in what happens to
the pregnancy when he doesn't bear an equal burden?

Jeff, a phrase you're likely to see bandied about in this group is "the 
right to bodily autonomy".  At its core, it paraphrases Oliver Wendell
Holmes's famous comment, "The right to swing my fist stops where the
other guy's nose begins."  In other words, what someone does with his own
body is his own business, and what someone does with HER own body is HER
own business. (Presuming, of course, that it doesn't injure other persons.)

Now, that paren up there is the crux of the argument: Is the fetus a person?
I say no, you say yes, and we both have our reasons for it.  Does this make
me a sinful heathen?  I hope not. (Well, not by itself, anyway...  ;-) )
Does it make you a women-enslaving MCP?  No -- though you might want to
think about the woman's role in all this.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODIE documentation debunked
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:31:31 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>> Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
->>> provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
->>> on-demand?

->> probably because your "documentation" has been debunked
->> repeatedly. 

->Only one person has directly challenged my documentation 

this statement is not correct.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 19:30:36 GMT


In article <1992Nov8.224523.18294@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU writes:
> Before you get your kidneys in a downpour and your bowels in an uproar
> let me point out that posting a summary of email is hardly a "clear 
> violation of nettiquette."  You may be a bit unhappy about it, but
> it is hardly a violation, much less clearly so.

Keegie and DeMitrio disagree with you, Galen.  They think the
mere mention of the existence of email is a heinous crime.

Too bad I won't get to see their ceaseless harassment of
poor McBean.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"As a giant FUCK YOU it shows integrity-- a sick, twisted, dunced-out, 
malevolent, perverted, psychopathic integrity, but integrity nevertheless."
--Lester Bangs, How to Succeed in Torture Without Really Trying
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47180 talk.religion.misc:20671 alt.atheism:20847
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Eat Hot Flaming Laser Death Monkey Boy!
Date: 8 Nov 1992 09:44:15 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
: 
: 'tisn't THAT hard.  All you have to do is implement a Turing machine
: in Cobol, then implement the SPARC architecture in the Turing machine,
: port over SunOS, and viola!
: 
Red hot blinding unix power coming right up!

	-Hal
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:38:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related to
>>>sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?
>>
>>Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
>>brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.
>
>Perhaps a brain is only necessary to communicate intellect.  Maybe the real
>thing is in some other part of our body.  Maybe it's nothing to do with our
>bodies at all.  And maybe intellect has nothing to do with personhood,
>either.  It's even possible, as a lot of the major world religions seem to
>believe that personhood has nothing to do with one's physical body at all.

Maybe so.  And maybe everyone in France really speaks English at home,
and the Earth really IS flat, and Elvis really IS alive.

Taking any bets?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
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, 6 Nov 92 01:25:27 GMT

In article <1da0gmINN1tt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>
>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>finally over.  Thank God.

They already have.  Oregon Amendment #9 was defeated, but Colorado Amendment
#2 passed.  Unless it gets thrown out as being unconstutional, it will be
legal in Colorado as of 01/01/93 to deny a person housing, to fire them
from a job, and to refuse them _anything you want to_ because you think
they might be gay.

Boycott Colorado.  Join soc.mots or alt.politics.homosexuality to find
out what _you
 can do to help, and to keep this from spreading to your state.
--
=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???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=