HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:49:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.234727.15439@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Well, perhaps some of us would be willing to concede if, say, Susan
> Garvin conceded that Gloria Feldt's comment was purely theological and
> that if that is her reasoning, it is no better than pro-lifers whose
> activism is based on their religion. 
> 
> Then again, that IS what Gloria Feldt said: it WAS her reasoning. 

What the little feller fails to acknowledge is that Gloria
Feldt may base her personal views on abortion on her religious
perspective, but Gloria Feldt is not seeking to make her
personal religious views the law of the land.  That is one
big difference that little Dennis Hallchaney refuses to
recognize, probably due to the fact that it doesn't support
his argument, and therefore he doesn't want to ruin his
shakey position with an honest admission.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 18:08:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   I have a sound understanding of this issue, contrary to claims
made by Carol Brand.  I think that Feminists for Life is bullshit
of the highest order.  And every single woman I know who has seen
FFL's nonsense feels the same.  The idea that some women can call
themselves "feminist" and oppose choice is a joke.  Only a really
stupid person would buy that load of fertilizer.  To the majority
of sane men and women in this country, FFL is a joke!  We are not
as stupid as FFL implies.  To you 'feminists" for "Life," did you
actually think aybody with a brain would buy this crap?  All that
I can say to this joke is that if you think anybody could swallow
this shit, you're dumber that I thought.  And that's pretty dumb!
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:45:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.121955.24745@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.040617.6347@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
>> In article <lefty-030992145928@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust
>> >(John Stevens) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
>> >> fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
>> >> the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals.  Not a pretty
>> >> picture.
>> >
>> >I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, John, but does the name
>> >Carol Anne Quinlan ring a bell by any chance?
>> 
>> No?  Well how about Karen Ann Quinlan then?  :-)
>
>That's the right name Sarah, but whoever chose Karen Quinlan
>picked a poor example.  She was not executed, but rather the
>"heroic measures" that had been applied to preserve her
>life were removed.  That amounts to quite a difference in
>legal terms.  An execution being an active taking of a life
>and the withholding of life support being a passive matter
>that may or may not end a life.  

Which is *EXACTLY* the difference I keep trying to point out wrt post-
viability abortions -- the difference between removing the fetus intact
(passively "withholding life support") and strangling/poisioning/dismembering
the fetus _in utero_ (actively taking a life). This is why certain methods of
post-viability abortion make some of us pro-choicers extremely uncomfortable,
and why the label "pro-choice" can't and shouldn't be commandeered by the
"up till the moment of birth" lunatic fringe...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Epitaph: He didn't dodge the bomb... (was Re: Dodge _THIS_...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:55:41 GMT

Propellor Boy sez:

> The fetus was a person before Roe vs. Wade.

This statement is not correct.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.144941.4743@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Oh, you mean sensitive, WarmAndFuzzy, co-nurturing types like Keith
>"I can't be a homophobe 'cuz I'm gay" Cochran, perchance?
Do you perhaps mean "I can't be a mysoginist since I'm gay"?

1) I would think it somewhat bizarre to be a gay homophobe.
2) I have seen no evidence that Keith in fact is homophobic.

Gotta say, he clearly hates Forgach, though.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Poor Petesie
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:30:59 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <nyikos.715465492@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I've seen real speculation from the pro-choice side.  People
>calling me a misogynist, a liar [...]

I call you a liar because you make accusations based on hearsay alone, and
you absolutely refuse to substantiate any of these.  Then, with amazing
chutzpah, you repeat these unfounded accusations.

I'm happy for you to prove me wrong by coming up with evidence for your
diatribes.

--Teddi
----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
(But I'm not holding my breath...)
"Did I say Robertson?  I meant, ah... Buchanan!  Yeah, that's the ticket."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:07:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.142443.24325@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.030216.3111@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>|> 
>|> Sarcasm is cheap. Try looking up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 
>|> especially the part about not depriving citizens of life without Due Process.
>					   ^^^^^^^^
>|> Try reading some legal literature to discover that the term "Due Process"
>|> has both a procedural aspect (right to trial, etc.) and a substantive aspect.
>|> Read further to discover that substantive Due Process protects fundamental
>|> rights, such as the right to life, from deprivations unless the state can
>|> demonstrate a "compelling interest" in doing so.
>|> 
>
>
>The key word is citizens, and citizens are defined as
>those individuals born in the US or who have been
>naturalized.
>
>Also, these ammendments prevent the state from
>taking life or other property from an individual
>without first showing compelling interest, they
>don't establish an absolute right to life, they
>simply require that some process be performed
>prior to removing life or other property from
>an individual.

Everything you say above is true, but I was addressing Dean's blanket 
implication that NO right to life existed in the Constitution. Obviously 
Dean is wrong -- there IS a right to life in the Constitution, but 7 
justices out of 9 didn't happen to think it applied to fetuses...

								- Kevin 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy)
Subject: Re: Dalton Brooks Gehtz
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:23:43 GMT

In article <> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>So do I.  But then I have also read some rather heart-rending
>stories of women who died due to septic abortions.

I have read similar stories of women who died of legal abortions.
I have met two women who have long-lasting physical damage from
botched but entirely legal abortions.
I have read Planned Parenthood's study which shows that 91% of all
women who have abortions suffer from Post Abortive Stress Syndrome.

Legal abortion is by no means safe.

Don
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Keywords: abortion, rape, sexual battery
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:33:46 GMT

In article <nyikos.715895819@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>"Value the unborn so much more than the born"?  Do you regularly
>misrepresent the pro-life viewpoint to this extent?

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant, Mr. Nyikos. And I'll not change
this characterization until you can produce some examples where born people 
have the right to demand _direct_, _non-delegable_ biological support from 
other born people...

								- Kevin
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Personhhod not sufficient (was Re: Freedom of religion)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:30:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


fine point.

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a modera
X-To: DOUG HOLTSINGER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:36:00 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu writes...
DH> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
DH> newsgroup.

I do *not* believe that this idea will work, Doug.  If you appoint only a
small number of moderators, then there will be a large probability of many
non-flaming articles getting rejected because the message happens to arrive
in the mailbox of a moderator who just happens to disagree...

But, if there are many moderators, the disorganisation will be ridiculous!

Besides which, the question of whom to appoint, is a *major* issue.  But
even *if* the people who are picked, are objective, there will be huge
amounts of controversy because people will *always* be doubting the
objectivity of the moderators.

If the idea *can* be made to work, then I make the following suggestion -
that the moderators *not* be permitted to post in the newsgroup, and that
they be especially prudent when posting to t.a. and/or a.a.i., ie., avoiding
the temptation to flame.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Still going! Nothing outlasts Data..he keeps going and go
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Attention!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:09:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.234727.15439@csus.edu>
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.004109.9581@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Just because a pro-lifer is under attack does *not* mean they deserve
>>defense -- it depends on what caused the attack.

>Say that to the folks who defended Mark Kaufman's every racist,
>bigoted and threat-filled comment. He deserved no defense at all, yet
>he got tons of it. 

[specifics about Cinder aka Conrad Vincent and Stephen CHaney's
response to them deleted]

Two wrongs != a right

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.235009.21502@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.025116.11647@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
Strangely enough, I agree with Mr. Stevens.

>>No, I can't.  As soon as you attempt to restrict the right of free speech
>>to cover only inoffensive speech, you've basically eliminated the
>>right (or should I say, privilege) altogether.
>
>Are you against laws banning public nudity?
Yes.

> Vulgar language in public?
These are already unconstitutional.

>They're there and most of us agree that it make sense to draw the line between
>public expression and being a dick. That line has been drawn and I would
>simply be willing to draw it deeper if pressed at an abortion clinic.
I'm concerned by this. You're talking about infringing someone's right
to free speech because it offends you. I find that to be a very
dangerous precedent.

>Do I call you a muderer?
Depending on the circumstances, this might be slander.

I must say here that I think Mr. Knapp is taking an honest position here
by agreeing that if he were so rude he deserves to be socked, but
I don't think that makes it any less dangerous a position to be taking.

I tend to believe that it is precisely that speech which we
find to be offensive that deserves to be protected.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:01:52 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

What is EASY about the abortion argument?
========================================
The value which we often seem to attribute to people (particularly ourselves)
is not one based in science.  It is an *inherent* value if it exists at all.
Any attempt to say "That person is valuable BECAUSE..." will ultimately find
that the person in question is being valued because of *inherent* value 
attributed to one or more other things (probably other persons).

There is no reason - ignoring religion/morality - why we *must* value people.

The same is true for human foetuses (regardless of whether or not we attribute
"personhood" to them).

Where *value* is concerned, the human foetus is no different from any
other entity whose value is brought into question - INCLUDING people.

So in terms of value, the only significant differences between the human
foetus and the human baby/child/adult are:
	
	1. The level of value attributed
	2. The number of voting citizens who concur.

The only "choice" that is relevant is that pertaining to the above two points.
We choose what we value and how much we value it.
We choose if and when to vote on that basis.

Arguments concerning a woman's right to choose are merely examples of such
valuation.  

They should not be given status any higher than that.  They are a valid
expression of one or more *individual* statements of value AND NO MORE THAN 
THAT.

They have no basis in science.  
They are no more compelling than any other argument of value.

They stand or fall solely by point 2. above.

That is what is EASY about abortion.  We are all free to choose our values,
and to vote upon them.

And, since we are free to vote (to change Constitutions if necessary), then we
are free to impose upon others by supporting punishment of those who act upon 
their values, or ignore our values.

Such is normal - and most criminal laws will provide an example.


What is DIFFICULT about the abortion debate?
===========================================
Conflict of values, that's what.

I value human foetuses, for the same reason that I value people.
Because I just do.

But the abortion argument is one which brings those values into conflict.
(For some there is little or no value to the foetus, hence no conflict.  No
 problem - use your vote as is your right.)

I don't want women to die.
I don't want human foetuses to die.

What's tough is sometimes - sometimes - one *has* to die.

That is what is DIFFICULT about abortion.

But, for those of you who agree on the nature of the difficulty, I suggest
that we don't give up.  Pro-lifer and pro-choicer, killing any and every
foetus or demanding carrying-to-term of every mother is not the answer.

It isn't easy - if it was t.a wouldn't be here.

But - if you forgive the analogy - throwing the baby out with the bath-water
is never a good solution.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: SOUTH CAROLINA INCEST-ABORTION LAW
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 19:08:53 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.715968465@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>      We do not know whether an abortionist has ever reported a case of
> "alleged incest."
>
>      We do not know whether an abortionist has ever been charged, let
> alone disciplined in any way, for failing to report a
> case of "alleged incest".

Do you know whether an abortionist has ever *learned of* a case of
"alleged incest"?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:47:01 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.715735483@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <Bu4381.6Kt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##In article <nyikos.715652639@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
###In <1992Sep01.184825.34350@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
#
####The legislation struck down in Colautti v. Franklin was a Pennsylvania
####law; since then Pennsylvania has passed new abortion restrictions.  These
####were challenged before the Supreme Court.  Some parts were struck down,
####but the requirement that two doctors be present, one just for the fetus,
####and similar provisions also relating to fetal survival in third-trimester
####abortions were *not* struck down.
###
###They were in Thornburgh v. Coll. of OB/Gyn.  To the best of my knowledge,
###no such law was upheld until Webster v. Repro.
#
##I hate to break this to you, Nyikos, but this is 1992.  Thornburgh was
##decided in 1986.  Larry is referring to the Pennsylvania Abortion
##Control Act of 1989.  PA has passed many anti-abortion bills.
#
#But were the fetal survival parts at issue in the _Casey_ decision at
#all?  If not, I still don't understand Larry's point.  If they were,
#this is the first indication I have that _Casey_ struck down anything
#relating to post-viability fetal survival.

Larry, like you, was technically correct.  The provisions were not
struck down because the were not challenged.  (So, your memory
is not failing you in this case.)  They were not challenged because
legal experts felt that they would be upheld given the content
of the Webster decision.

##Your statements are technically correct, I'll grant you that.  They
##weren't, of course, at all relevant.
#
#Whew!  Finally I get credit from you for a correct statement!

Now, you've gotten "credit" twice.  

(The Casey decision is available online, by the way.)

Susan
  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:20:34 GMT

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
# ># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
# ># have babies without the kindness of a man.
# >
# >You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
# 
# Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)

It's been my experience that women are completely capable of giving
birth, not only in the absence of masculine kindness, but in the
presence of masculine opposition as well.  Fact is, if a healthy
pregnant woman wants to give birth, a man is probably going to have to
get physical with her to prevent it.

# >I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
# 
# A few questions:
# 
# How will you get the money to me?

Give me your checking account number and your ATM card personal I.D.
and I'll do a direct deposit.

# How can I trust you to pay up?

[fingers crossed] I swear.

# Why would I post this to talk.rape, when it has no relationship to rape
# at all?

It doesn't?  None at all?  You mean rape never results in pregnancy
and subsequent birth in the complete absence of `the kindness of a
man?'

What could I have been thinking?

Someone punish me.

# Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?

It's a gut feeling.

# And finally, I followed talk.rape for a while and posted on a semi-regular
# basis.  So what?  Why would I fear posting to talk.rape?

Never thought you would.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion