HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:28:38 GMT

In article <markp.726626607@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <C0KC4u.13L@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>>In article <1ifvijINNpia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>>Regard) writes:
>>>In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark
>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>>>
>>>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>>>right to life.
>>>
>
>>I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
>>intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?
>
>Nothing directly. I was responding to the "She's in my womb against my
>will, so, human or not, I can evict her" justification for abortion.
>
>>- Paul
>
>Mark Pundurs

I think you are confused on something, Mark.   Being pregnant "against my will"
does not mean I did not consent to sex.  I could have consented all night long
and still become pregnant "against my will".  Having sex "against my will" is rape.  Being pregnant "against my will" isn't the result of rape.  Consenting to
sex is NOT consenting to becoming pregnant.  Likewise, not consenting to sex is
also not consenting to becoming pregnant.  just because one action (sex) can,
bring about pregnancy, that does not mean that the consent to pregnancy is
dependent on the consent to sex.  I have consented to sex thousands of times.
I have consented to pregnancy once.  And once, I became pregnant "against my
will"--I did not consent to become pregnant at that time.  Additionally, if
a woman IS raped, she MAY consent to being pregnant. It does not follow that
if a raped woman consents to being pregnant that she wasn't "really" raped.
By equating consent to sex with consent to pregnancy you are also equating
the reverse: that consent to pregnancy is also consent to sex.  I think you
would find a great many people on either side of the abortion issue who
would corect your view on this.

Jennifer 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:21:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.060454.8546@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <72842@cup.portal.com> Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:
>>Well, Larry, if "just because a man slept with a woman does not give him the
>>right to control her body", then why does just because a man slept with a
>>woman and she chooses to HAVE the baby, she get the right to receive money
>>from him to support her baby?
>
>Gee, I don't know - maybe society doesn't like to see children starving?

Non sequitur. The child's right to support is not in question; the child's
right to receive support FROM A SPECIFIC SOURCE, i.e. an unwilling, coerced, 
misled and/or defrauded man, is, however, very much in question.

>Anyway, that's unrelated to what I said (and, in fact, unrelated to the
>purpose of this news group - see alt.child-support or alt.abortion.inequity).

The topic is abortion-related. T.a exists for all abortion-related topics.
This is the right newsgroup. Crossposts to those other groups would be a
courtesy, but is not required.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Efficiency in child support
Date: 11 Jan 1993 05:39:30 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1ijeitINNr6g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>Why thank you so much, Kevin.  After reading all that Freud I was still so
>>puzzled by what it is that women really want.  (It's hard to decipher such
>>astute masculine logic when one's puny brain suffers from estrogen-induced
>>hysteria.)  But now you've made it all so clear to me.  And just as soon
>>as I finish my PhD at Caltech I'll go back to being barefoot and pregnant
>>in the kitchen, which you've just informed me is every woman's true desire.

>I'm surprised.  I have my PhD from Harvard already, and I *love*
>being barefoot and rearing children, in and out of the kitchen.
>It's much more fun than work.

Why, Don, that almost sounds like a proposal!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:07:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

[much claptrap deleted]

>birth in the vast majority of cases does not.   Therefore, it makes far
>more sense to speak of breathing as forced, than it does to speak of
>birth as such.

Really? Suzanne, just out of pure curiosity, did you make it out of
the 5th grade? Without going into remedial reading, writing, and arithmetic
classes, that is?

A similar analogy to forced birth would be to make it criminal to cut
or break your nails (another natural biological process). You now have
no choice but to care for those poor nails, so their little souls can
go on living, even if they should hamper your own efforts at life. After
a not so very long time, you'd find that doing anything would be well
nigh impossible, and you would probably wind up dead.

>You guys are so dumb.

Frau F, you'd need gobs more common sense and intelligence before that
last statement would hold water even compared to a toddler.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:39:19 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:27:50 GMT

In <1993Jan8.223119.20486@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>[Deletions]

>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. 
>You don't consider contraceptive failure (as in, the surgery didn't
>work) to be a case in which the woman was denied her right to avoid
>being pregnant?

No; why should I?

>>As for probable death to the mother: when
>>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>>
>Excellent. I'm sure that women who choose abortions will have no
>difficulty telling you that their life is more important to them.
>*Every* pregnant woman is taking a substantial risk 

But typically nowhere near the 100% chance that abortion will kill
the z/e/f.

to her health and
>life. So it's nice to see that you have decided to join us in allowing
>her to choose to abort that fetus.

NOT!

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:42:34 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <C0CuIx.75w@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|Are you for real?  The issue is whether or not Heather has the
|right to FORCE her baby to die (ie. have it murdered).

Of course Heather doesn't have the right to kill her baby.
That would be murder.  But we're not talking about babies
here.  We're talking about abortion.

Free clue:  Some people don't think fetuses are babies, or
in general worthy of protection.  To convince these people,
you have to make a case for treating fetuses like babies.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"Perhaps my favorite moment was when a pro-lifer threatened to 
kill me.  Or maybe it was when a pro-lifer said I should have been 
aborted.  Nah, the best moment was when the one who said I 
should be killed claimed to respect all life."  --Jay Stein, in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Equal protection dead end? 3.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:32:08 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to stephen
mezias:

->>Yes, I made a typo in a discussion of equal pay for identical work
->>subsequent to our original discussion and long after it should have
->>been clear to an idiot what was meant.

->It took you two rounds of posts to admit your mistake, Stephen. If you had 
->taken the word "gibberish" seriously the FIRST time I used it, then all of
->this nastiness could have been avoided. Such are the risks you take when you
->adopt a smug "Oh, it's just Darcy" attitude...

it took you over 25 posts defending yourself before you
finally apologized for attacking susan garvin's SO. i
suppose this is one reason linda birmingham wrote:

	"Mr. Darcy you have elevated hypocrisy to an art form."
			Linda Birmingham
			<92126.142810ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
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: Wed, 13 Jan 93 01:57:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.051423.13707@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.023940.23790@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.042143.28771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <C041BC.GtD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>
>>>>"viability" is medically defined (roughly) as the point after which a
>>>>developing fetus could survive outside the womb.  It may also require that
>>>>the fetus could continue to grow "normally" although special care and treatment
>>>>may be needed.  It is generally considered to be sometime around the start of
>>>>the third trimester (I think).  It is not an exact time, it is a general range
>>>>in which it is usually found to occur in those born prematurely.  (They look at
>>>>children born prematurely at various times and compare the development at birth
>>>>to the statistical survival rates to come up with an average figure.)
>>>>
>>>In practice, 26 weeks is considered to be resonably viable.
>>
>>OK, I'll go with that then. 
>>
>>Do I hear Galen still whining?
>>
>Not as long as you accept too that 26 is just a quidline, and may well
>be totally off base in many situations. That's the real problem with
>providing a definition of viability Kevin, it's *extremely*
>situational. I *wish* we could say "all 26 week fetuses will survive"
>or even that they have a 50% chance of survival. We can't. All we can
>say is *if* this, and *if* that, *then* the 26 weeker has a pretty
>good chance at survival.
>It's just not an exact science.
>For that matter, determining the gestational age of a fetus isn't
>exact either. It is not at all uncommon to have a neonate assessed by
>2-3 different people, and get gestational age estimates that are 2-3
>weeks different. There's too many variables for it to be exact.
>Consider just one thing that is used to determine gestational age. The
>separation or fusing of the eyelids. If the eyelids are still
>completly fused, we can say it is probably no more then 26 weeks
>gestational, *if* we don't look at any other factors. And what if the
>eyelids are *partly* fused?
>Do you begin to see why it's immosible to have a truely exact
>definition?

As a "voluntarily chaste virgin", Kibbles doesn't have a clue as to why a
woman wouldn't know exactly when she conceived.
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

Have already started that in this thread. I have stated that no such
right exists. Why don't you prove there is in one short post?

:)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:43:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.015943.20104@wam.umd.edu> 
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
>> like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  [...]

Jay Stein has maliciously deleted some context, which I have restored:

-> The idea is to hurl as many insults and hurtful remarks at Ms. Forgach
-> as possible so that she'll respond in kind.  When Ms. Forgach
-> does respond with small flames, she gets accused of being
-> "hateful", "sick", etc..  

> Notice how Doug Holtsinger says "the pro-choicers" with no qualifier.

The context that you deleted indicated that I was talking about 
the pro-choicers on this newsgroup only.  Pretty damn dishonest 
of you, but then I expect it.  

> Not that I think Doug Holtsinger actually *means* ALL pro-choicers
> in the above quote, 

Of course not, you knew that I was talking about the 
pro-choicers on this newsgroup.  

> but see how he demands one standard from me, and
> another for himself.

Notice that Jay Stein has purposely deleted context 
so as to change the meaning of my post.

>> I'm actually kind of surprised that Ms. Forgach has been as polite
>> as she has been towards these people.

>Jay T Stein 

"Making a statement about a movement as a whole is not making a statement
about each member." -- Jay Stein, trying to explain why he's entitled to
stereotype the pro-life movement. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Don't ask me.  I just work here.
	<1993Jan2.230352.9739@rotag.mi.org>
	<PATRICK.93Jan3195627@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan6.065030.25517@rotag.mi.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:23:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.065030.25517@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[a whole bunch of whining, because I've brought up things he doesn't want
readers to be reminded of, leading up to this gem:]

   Disk space flames. You really ARE desperate, aren't you?

I'm not the one reposting 150+ lines to add one idiotic comment at the end,
you stupid little boy...thanks for demonstrating just how desperate YOU are.
You'll have to go back to playing with yourself on this one, kebbin.  As far
as I'm concerned, it's dead.  (Of course, I expect you to live down to your
reputation and claim victory, never mind that the only contest that existed
was in that underpopulated mind of yours...:-)

--PLH, on to more important stuff than kebbin's whine and cry hour

--

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54232 alt.flame:17624
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: now kebbie denies being a GROUP
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:31:49 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.


kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) untruthfully writes:
-> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
-> >I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
-> >now...
-> 
-> I have never referred to an individual as a group.

when you were addressed, specifically by name, you
claimed that a GROUP was being addressed.

still, watching you squirm and deny things is often
more amusing than reading the things you deny the first
time.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:25:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.000909.6396@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1ifv7vINNpea@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>> Ya just don't get it, Mark.   Those organs were not the parents' to donate.
>>> Their baby was STILL USING THEM.   They were HERS, and HERS alone, and she
>>> had every right to keep them.  For pro-"choicers" who that like to talk big
>>> about people having the right to THEIR OWN bodies, this case shows them
>>> up particularly well as the hypocrites they are.
>
>> Uh, you did say "her" didn't you?  Well, if the pro-lifers have their way,
>> Suzanne, she won't be able to claim her WOMB is 'hers and hers alone', so 
>> why should you be able to claim in her stead (especially believing as you
>> apparently do) that her organs are hers and hers alone?  If the state can
>> commandeer a woman's womb, why not her corneas?  Why not her kidneys?
>> Why not her liver?  It's to *save a life*! after all.  So why not?
>
>There's a thin line between killing and refusing to save a life
>which you seem to have ignored.  In the cases of abortion and
>organ transplant from an anencephalic infant, you're talking 
>about killing a living human being so that another may benefit.
>No matter how much you wish it to be, abortion is not "refusing
>to save a life", it is killing.  Furthermore, Baby Theresa was
>not responsible for the condition of people who could have used
>her organs, nor was she even related to them. 
>
What killing? That baby was dead. The only thing keeping her body
going (not her, just the body) was artificial life support. What you
(you being pro-"life" idiots) managed to do was to take away what the
parents saw as the one positive thing that could have come out of
their tragedy.
How do you sleep at night knowing you're responsible for the deaths of
those born, wanted, loved children?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:04:59 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>A child is still a person.  A teenager is still a person.  An adult is
>still a person.  A fetus is still a person.  Why not call a person a person?
>These are all simply labels on the life cycle of a human being.

No, we abscribe a higher meaning to "person" than simply a "human being", in
order to label those individuals that we have reason to give true moral value.

Some readers on t.a are unable to understand the distinction that not all
human beings have sentience and a personality.  (Those that are sentient are
"people".)  I see no reason to give full moral value to something that is not
sentient.  I see no realistic evidence that the unborn could be sentient in
at least the first 6 months.  The bodily-autonomy folks will say that the fact
that the fetus is or is not sentient has nothing to do with whether abortion
should be allowed.  Others of us argue that non-personity is the reason it is
not immoral while bodily-autonomy is one possible reason that it would be
desired.

>Edward Simmonds

-Rob
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:19:25 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>Frau F

>>> But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

>She said "ceasing to breath" as in "permanent cessation", not
>"temporary cessation".  It may not bring instant death, but
>it's close enough for horse-shoes and hand grenades.

Further proof that you support the rr, no matter how skewed their
view points are. I think I know Frau F well enough to know that she
meant what she said, and nothing more. Rarely, if ever, have I seen 
her delve into the deeper meanings of a debate. Why do you fly to the
defense of someone who was not even targeted for bigotry, merely her
own stupidity?

And as an aside, and I'm sure drieux will corroborate, hand-grenades
are fairly ineffective when they're "close", atom bombs, on the other
hand....

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion