HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The irrelevance of fetal personhood.
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:41:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Fetal personhood is irrelevant to an argument that abortion is a right
of removal.  The right of an individual to avoid enforced use of
bodily resources by another entity has a violent but ultimately
glorious history in the US.  Since the Emancipation Proclamation, I
believe it is fair to characterize the American polity as being fairly
protective of at least one aspect of the boidly autonomy of
individuals: preventing enforced use of bodily resources by another
entity.  Abortion rights are a straightforward extension in the
evolution of this strongly protected right: Simply stated it protects
control over bodily resources by allowing for removal of the fetus.
Any legal person is guaranteed the right to remove any entity that
occupies her (his) body against her (his) will regardless of the
effect on that entity.  Hence, if a pig entered the body of a man, he
could have it removed, regardless of the effect on the pig.  If a
small child entered the body of a man, he could have it removed,
regardless of the effect on the child.  If a /z/e/f/ enters the body
of a woman, she may remove it, regardless of the effect on the
/z/e/f/.  The personhood of the /z/e/f/ is immaterial.

And yes, fetus fanatics, I believe that the life of a viable fetus
should be protected in the abortion procedure -- provided this
protection poses no additional risk to the mother.  Much more
fundamentally, however, it should be noted that the proportion of
abortions involving a viable fetus is miniscule and that there is no
credible [1] evidence that the medical profession does not already
protect the relatively few viable /z/e/f/s whose mothers do get
abortions.

[1] Credible in this context reviewed by professional peers (fellow
priests are not included).  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:00:13 GMT

In article <C19Fzr.7D8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
(Mike Cobb) writes:

[deletia]

>From the moment of conception the only thing that is
>added is food and protection.  All of the genes and dna that are needed,
>color hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  If humans deserve to be
>protected, AND THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?

Oh, ick. Not the saline solution again. Well... cheers, everybody!

<swishswishswishswish...gargle...ptooi>

Okay, Mark, I've got a centrifuge tube here full of saline solution,
along with a few cheek cells that got washed into the solution. Now,
I'm going to take half the cells and plate them onto a petri dish
containing rich medium, with all the nutrients cells need to survive.
Then I'll take the dish, put it in a nice warm incubator, and let 'em
grow.
As for the other half of the cells, I'm going to break them open,
extract the DNA and amplify it, and then let it sit there. So, how
long do _you_ think it will take for a human being to form, either
from the incubated cells or the DNA?

Moral of this story: Human DNA alone does not a human make.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
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, 22 Jan 93 03:31:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.021749.3583@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>   steralized to enter school."
>
>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 

Wow.  DODie's finally gotten around to taking my words out of context.

You really shouldn't include the message ID if you're going to do it, though...
--
=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... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About Komrade Labach
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:34:00 GMT


Ok Kampfrs,

why is terry labach sending me toilet paper from kiev
in the Ukraine?????


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected.....
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:36:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1993Jan22.171126.11425@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <C0xMKq.AsE.1@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):

	[C.J.Silverio: Randall Terry and the Pope agree on birth
control and abortion, and therefore the two have a lot in common.]

: I can think of a lot of other similarities between Terry and the
: pope.  Both are misogynists, both are homophobes, both delight
: in giving advice on subjects about which they know nothing, and
: both teach their folowers to hate.  
>
>You have not shown _any_ of these to be the case with either man.
>Care to try?

	They themselves would probably (1) deny all these things and
(2) present some of these things as virtues, such as "hating evil",
and "rejecting perversion" and "putting women in their proper place".
All at the same time, of course.

: (Thanks to Suzanne for illustrating
: this last similarity so well.)
>
>Please explain to me how avoiding contraception or abortion is "hateful"?
>Unless living a successful, self-determined, life without them makes
>_other_ people resentful and envious.

	It's not the rejection of abortion and contraception that seem
hateful, it's just that Suzzy looks down on both those things, and
does so in a very hostile way. And it is not only those things; she
also blasts alternative sexual activities, like masturbation, which
she has called "useless".

...I assure you, that is not _my_
>problem.   As you well know, I have posted many times where and how
>other people can learn to live successful, self-determined, lives
>without messing their bodies up with contraceptives or slaughtering
>their children with abortion.

	Exactly my point about Suzzy.

	I would like to add that I have nothing against a life of
celibacy, even celibate marriage, if one has no desire to practice any
form of sex. I don't consider asexuality a sin.

	I note in connection with this that there is the Catholic
tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which implies that
Joseph never had sex with her, and that JC's brothers, mentioned in
the Bible, were really half-brothers from another marriage. In the
Middle Ages, a celibate marriage was actually called a Josephite
marriage, as if it was some kind of ideal.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:31:10 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> cs225b26@eng-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (cs225 student) writes:

>> [--fire and brimstone sermon deleted--]

>> May I ask a question, as one God-fearing Christian to another?

>> Is God playing some kind of "gotcha"-type game?  I mean, if
>> getting or administering an abortion merited eternal damnation,
>> don't you think God would have explicitly warned us?
>> 
>> Seriously, I believe that abortion, like most actions, is morally
>> neutral.  It is the context (something many of us are guilty of
>> ignoring) that determines the rightness or wrongness of the action.

> God has warned us of many things but we still ingnore him. What makes
> you so sure that he has not warned us against abortion?(not saying that
> he has its just that I haven't read to much of the Bible yet but I feel
> that abortion is something he would not support).

There's been a lot of bible study in this newsgroup, Jeff.  There's nothing
in scripture that explicitly forbids abortion.  Numbers 5:11-31 _seems_
to show that God mandates a forced abortion if a man's wife suspects her
of being unfaithful, but not everyone agrees with that interpretation.

Anyway, I'd like to make another point about moral relativism.  In
Corinthians (I think), Paul writes that women should be silent in church,
and if something troubles them, to take it up with their husbands at
home.  Yet women are far from silent in church!  They pray, sing in the
choir, read lessons, participate in council meetings and in some churches,
serve as pastors/priests.  Are we all going to hell because we didn't
listen to Paul?

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:04:12 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
# > The incredible misogyny of deciding a person vs. a perhaps-we-aren't-sure-
# > and-anyway-it's-harming-it's-host not-person in favor of the latter 
# > boggles the mind.
# >
# > The incredible mysogyny of reducing a woman to a breeding animal because of
# > *your* *personal* values also boggles the mind.
# >
# > It isn't a simple either/or scenario.  What abortion restriction entails is
# > returning women to the status of chattel, and nothing less.
# 
# Sheesh, and to think that *I* get accused of "cheap emotionalism"
# because I use the term "child" instead of "fetus".  Ms. Regard goes
# whole hog here, using heavy emotionally-laden terms like "breeding
# animal", "misogyny", "chattel", all the while ignoring the simple 
# fact that the vast majority of women in America do not support 
# unrestricted abortion-on-demand.

Actually, Mr. Holtsinger, if you wanted to be honest, you'd write that
a majority of Americans of *both* genders don't support unrestricted
abortion on demand without apology.

Furthermore, Mr. Holtsinger, if I were you, I would dismiss charges
that I employ `cheap emotionalism' as trivial and concentrate on the
much more damaging charges of `egregious lying and distortion.'

#                                  Are the women who oppose abortion
# "misogynists", Ms. Regard?

Are the *men* and women who oppose abortion `misogynists?' -- would be
the appropriate question.

#                             Do they think of themselves as
# "breeding animals"?  Surely you must have a better opinion of
# American women than that.

Some of us have grown to harbor a certain contempt for the majority
opinion, Mr. Holtsinger -- there is no shame in that.  A majority of
Americans think miscegenation is immoral, and a truly shocking (but
not quite a majority) proportion of them think it should be illegal.
I have contempt for that majority opinion as well.

Are the majority of American women who oppose miscegenation `racist?'


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:23:57 GMT

In article <13931@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Jan.14.05.09.02.1993.11547@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>>In <1993Jan14.004714.17246@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:

># # I would like to state that women will *always* somehow find a way to
># # get an abortion, whether it is legal or not, the difference is that
># # those who have no money will do anything to get one, even if it means
># # using a coat hanger, while those with money will find a doctor who will
># # perform the abortion at a high cost.

># Another, much more glaring, difference (which you seem to have
># overlooked) would be that women will think twice about the possibility
># of getting pregnant, and illegitimacy rates would probably drop
># dramatically.  (And your real complaint is possibly grounded in the
># fact that you would find it much more difficult to get laid.)

>This assumes that rational thought is involved with those pregnancies.
>I doubt it.  You are assuming that abortion was legalized, and this
>caused the decline in public morals.  I think it's quite the opposite --
>the decline in public morals dramatically increased pressure for
>easy access to abortions.  Prohibiting it won't improve morality in
>this country -- but improving public morality by persuasion will
>dramatically reduce the demand for abortion.

>Persuasion, not laws, is the key.

Wow, I almost agree with something Clayton wrote.

Except the part about "decline in public morals."  Sex is not immoral.
It was a *change* in public morals.  Not a decline.

># # What I find so two-faced is how people like Bush and Quayle said
># # they'd support their daughter's decision *if* their daughter became
># # pregnant and decided to abort, yet these same two political people are
># # against abortion.

># Straw man.  That was a loaded question that was posed to Quayle.  You
># (and those who asked such a question) are more interested in
># discrediting those who stand up for morality than you are in the
># answer to that question,

>I think the real answer is that Bush, Quayle, and many others, share
>Mr. Kaldis' belief that making abortion illegal will cause a lot of
>people in this country to start being careful about birth control
>and self-control.  It isn't that they want coat hanger abortions to
>come back, it's that they honestly think that people are rational
>enough to stop getting pregnant if they don't want to have a child.
>I'm unpersuaded that this is the case.

Bush doesn't have any beliefs.  But other than that, yes.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57469 talk.politics.misc:69355 talk.religion.misc:27335 misc.legal:23149
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:30:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan21.021421.24486@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

> Better we should [kill an innocent unborn baby] than to have an
> innocent child beaten, starved, maimed, or killed.  But then, that's
> just my thinking.

It looks to my like your thinking is faulty.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57392 alt.politics.homosexuality:10077
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:14:24 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1993Jan22.175741.12895@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
>>>>
>>>> "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
>>>> 				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
>>>
>>>"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
>>>                                --Pope Paul VI
>>>Terry's in good company.
>> 
>>... 
>> Terry's also the venemous cretin who said that he saw the hand of
>> God in the AIDS epidemic.
>>...
>> --Frank

>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>the opportunity to set one's house in order.

>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>ignore ours at our own peril.

     Ohh, I see! It is Christian to _support_ the spread of AIDS. I'm
finally beginning to understand the Pope's attitude to condoms.

                                                                  mp
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58147 talk.politics.misc:70034 talk.religion.misc:27670 misc.legal:23400
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:34 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Jan.25.07.03.00.1993.27037@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
 kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes...
>In article <22JAN199316125435@oregon.uoregon.edu> 
>dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>> Lies?  What lies?
> 
>He claimed that he was qualified to be President of the U.S., for one.

I know I shouldn't open my mouth, but this is only Mr. Kaldis' (and, I suppose,
a majority of the voters' in 1988) opinion.  It is not dispositive.

>> Fortunately for Mr. Kaldis, if he cannot come up with substantiation,
>> Michael Dukakis is a public figure.
> 
>The above is the result of a lawyer's mindset: that the answer to
>every disagreement lies in a lawsuit. . . .

Fine.  If you want it that way, here.  I forgot to add the following:

	:-)

Satisfied?  I work under the presumption that there will be a reasonable number
of lawyers and law students reading a board entitled "misc.legal."

							Daniel Reitman
From: hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:47:16 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1993Jan26.032351.26713@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman) writes:
> 	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
> 	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
> Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
> Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
> References: <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:23:51 GMT
> Lines: 40
> 
> In article <1993Jan25.115252.2129@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@g
> vax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>According to both the Washington Post and the Washington Times, 
>>Clinton said that America should be a place where abortions are legal 
>>and safe, but rare.  
>>
>>I wonder what he meant by rare.  Does he realize that currently one of 
>>every three pregnancies are terminated by abortion?  Does he realize 
>>that over 4000 babies are aborted per day on the average in the US?
>>
>>I know of no one who thinks that the repealing of the bans on 
>>22-Jan-93 will result in fewer abortions.  How can Clinton say that he 
>>thinks aboritons should be rare when his actions will make abortions 
>>more common?
>>
>>Sue Hasselbring
>>hasselbring:guvax.georgetown.edu
> 
> 
> It would be silly to think that Clinton is not aware of the number of
> abortions being performed currently in this country.
> 
> Are you one of those people that think that the best way to make abortions
> rare is to either make abortion illegal, or put as many restrictions on
> the availability of abortion as possible?If so, it is fortunate that
> Clinton does not think along the same lines as you do.

So do you think that there would be fewer murders and robberies in 
this country if we made them legal?  I think most people in most of 
the world acknowledge that laws do help control crime.  I do agree 
that more than that needs to be done, including lots of education 
especially about the process of conception and the growth of humans in 
the womb before they are born.  

 
> By reversing Bush's and Reagan's policies wrt abortion last Friday,
> Clinton is fulfilling the "safe and legal" portion of his statement. And
> if he approves the Family Leave Act, gives more money to family planning
> clinics and government-sponsored research of contraception and the like,
> and in general creates a climate in this country which would make it both
> easier for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for women to have
> and keep their children, he is fulfilling the "rare" portion of his
> statement. In a much more humane and effective manner that would have
> positive long-term results, IMO, as opposed to Bush/Reagan's pro-"life"
> policies.

But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?  And why 
should they be legal if they are wrong?
 
Sue Hasselbring
Newsgroups: talk.abortion