HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:08:37 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec28.020955.13604@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In the case in question,
>namely abortion, you are arguing in favor of legislation regarding
>abortion

Mark, you must be confused.  Kevin keeps telling us that he is *not*
arguing in favor of legislation.  (I'm afraid that I'm confused as well,
since it sure looks to me like he's arguing for legislation, but there's
probably a fine semantic point that we're overlooking.)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: t.a. FAQ (part 3 of 3)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:34:11 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"


From
rdsunx.crd.ge.com!crdgw1!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!nic
c.umass.edu!ejones Sun Jun 14 20:41:51 EDT 1992
Article: 10306 of talk.abortion
Xref: rdsunx.crd.ge.com talk.abortion:10306 news.answers:837
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: SJM slur alert
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.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:53:54 GMT

In article <C014v8.IGp@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <34653@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. 
>Mezias) writes:
>
>> If we just keep government out of women's uteri....
>
>Here SJM raises the unfounded Orwellian fear of invasive government 
>control.  Neat trick - Totally distracts one from the truth - it is the 
>child in the uterus not the mean old government.
>
I'll type slow so you can keep up Paul...
It is a fetus, not a child.
Repeat that until you understand the difference.

>> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
>> permission.
>
>Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how 
>we use our bodies.  In fact, it does as a matter of course.
>
Here Paul raises the bogus concept that because the government
dictates some things, it should dictate all things. Guess we know why
you're from a .mil site eh Paulie?

>> I really like your analogies for the fetus FANATICS.  They do often
>> seem like CRAZED snipers to me, ... 
>
>(caps are mine - PL)
>
>Here SJM uses the ubiquitous "bogey man" innuendo.  To be pro-life one 
>must obviously be a crazed fanatic.  I hope you don't have any pro-life 
>friends or relatives lurking in you closet!
>
Here Paulie demonstrates that he is incapable of differentiating
between a pro-lifer and a fetus fanatic. 
Here's a clue Paulie.
Pro-Life != forced birth.

>
>>...the fact is that they are quite intentionally TAKING AIM AT WOMEN.
>>...
>> SJM
>Totally unsupported - but sounds great to the unsuspecting politically 
>correct.  I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic 
>of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy.  Of course, men are 
>just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping 
>abortion legal.  And of course the concept of mothers killing their 
>offspring is a good light to hold women to.  
>
Speaking of unsupported rhetoric....

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:04:48 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <C01u1B.7H9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>
>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  Would any decent
>>person bring children into this world to watch them starve?  I think not.

>Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
>financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
>afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.

This is a stupid comment on your part.  First of all, you and I both know
the truth is that this is not how these situations arise.  Generally,
poor families have more babies for one of two reasons.. 1. Stubborn insistance
on exercising some authority over their lives by having children (ignoring
the needs of the children in doing so)  or 2. Seeking to increase welfare
payments from the TAX supported state by adding another starving kid to
the litter.

They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.  

>>Abortion is murder.  It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>the baby's.  The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.

>But murder is illegal, and abortion is legal.  I guess abortion is *not*
>murder after all.

Another brainless one-liner comment with no forethought behind it.  Did
you think I was not aware that unborn baby killing is legal?  Just because
the LEGAL definition of murder has surrendered to the liberal, self-serving,
do-anything-I-want-with-no-personal-responsibility-or-repercussions wing
of society doesn't mean abortion isn't murder.  My point was that society has
always considered murder wrong, and has allowed personal liberties to be
curtailed in order to proscribe it legally.  This is the function of
government.  Instituting a government always involves sacrificing personal
liberties to ensure protection of property and other rights.  Go read
Locke and get back to me when you understand this.  The primary job of
government IS to RESTRICT actions which violate the basic rights of its
citizens, primarily the right to LIFE.


>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Edward Simmonds

- I am right, you are wrong, coo coo cah choo cah coo coo cah choo -

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Another Satanist Heard From
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:21:02 GMT

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:
] 
] In US legal terms you are correct.  But in terms of absolute justice the  
] question is far more complicated.  Stay tuned for my thesis on the  
] question of justice as it relates to abortion.
] 
] Karl

Well I guess that when you get to the bible
you will finally understand that you have two choices:

1. be on the Side of ProChoice

2. Be at war with God and In Bed with the FetalIdolators.

So which side did you say you were on?

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:55:29 GMT

<nyikos.725160159@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
><1992Dec23.053148.28798@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>>Michael P Noonan (noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>>: In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon St
>>orga) writes:
...
>>:               but I know many pro-abortionists that are Christian.  Do you
>>: really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?
>
>>Of course not, consider RCAR (Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights?) and
>>Catholics for Choice.
>
>How about posting stats on membership in these two organizations?
>
>And how about posting documentation that these people are not atheists?

On a slightly different plane...

I heard on the radio that a recent study showed that Catholics in the US
donate less than 1% of their income to charity, and that 60% of the US
Catholic households donated less than 1 dollar per year.

Note:  this was a short blurb on the radio.  they didn't qualify
"Catholic", and they didn't describe the sample size.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for FAQ (Was: Reconciling OT/NT)
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: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 01:18:22 GMT

In article <nyikos.725128086@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Dec22.063007.50924@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>

[Riiiip]

>Susan Garvin is at least a candidate for the title "pro-abortionist," 
>along with everyone else who sneers at every report of wrongdoing
>by LEGAL abortionists while choosing to blind themselves to evidence
>that certain illegal abortions never took place.
>
We have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by legal abortionists.
The crap you've posted about Dr. Tiller didn't show anything of the
sort. His medical practices as you described them are certainly
acceptable. You did post some hearsay evidence from a soruce (an
employee who had been fired) which can by no stretch of the
imagination (except yours) be considered either impartial or reliable.

[Riiip]

>[This includes opposing informed consent requirements, requirements that
>abortionists carry a realistic amount of malpractice insurance,
>requirements that abortions be done in EITHER a hospital OR licensed
>clinic, requirements that SO's be ALLOWED to witness the abortion,
>requirements that women be tested for pregnancy before D&C etc. are 
>performed, etc.  It also includes those spreading disinformation about 
>these requirements already being in place, while knowing it to be false.]
>
You mean, like the disinformation you're spreading all the time Petey?

[Riiip]

>As you can see, I make distinctions as above.  It is possible to be any
>subset of the set {pro-choice, pro-abort, pro-abortionist}, including
>(as in my case) the empty set.
>
Here's something we agree on Petey. You certainly qualify as an empty
set...

[Riiip]


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Idiocy
Organization: Down two, *then* right.
	<nyikos.725144278@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1136@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:27:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
Summary: DODie *knows* idiocy.


In article <1992Dec24.005024.12577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> I predict that you'll learn about some of these points of law > some
> day, though.  Not everyone is as forgiving of libel and > slander as I
> am.

   Gee, you know there's a certain someone who had often complained about
   libel and slander... I guess some people are more alike than we realize.
   :-)

I'll say -- one of those "someone"s came down here to visit me last May 27.
Are you going to follow his pattern?  (Thought I'd ask. :-)

--PLH, needing to know if he should call RUPD now, or later

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Organization: Not around here, at least not until the 11th.
	<nyikos.725151713@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
	<PATRICK.92Dec23180930@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> <1142@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.023729.15109@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   > Patrick, those pro-forcers sure like to threaten you.  

   Nobody threatened Humphrey, Ms. Garvin.  Humphrey is a
   big boy now, I'm sure he can handle Mr. Nyikos' humorous
   suggestions.  Humphrey sure isn't afraid to threaten other
   posters, so if he does feels threatened, I'm sure he'll
   lash out incoherently like he's done on other occasions. 

I hope you have a few examples of my threats.  (Since they don't exist,
here's a chance to let your imagination run wild.)

   > Of course, if he follows through on his threat, you already have
   > the evidence that his only intention is to harass you.  

   Oh, so now we're collecting evidence?  Gee, that kind of
   reminds me of someone we used to know.... The similarities
   keep growing...

Between you and Rasmussen?  Yeah, I'd say it's getting a bit uncanny how
you're starting to act like his clone...

--PLH, been there, done that, didn't even get the *&^%$#@! t-shirt

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Fetal Tissue Research (was Re: A question for Suzanne.)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:24:12 GMT

I have mentioned before and will mention again that a lot of the research
in question involves certifying that fetal tissue is not involved, rather
than making sure tissue is not supplied.  A lot of times the actual
tissue or whatever has no clear trail of origin, so it is impossible to
certify that fetal tissue is not involved, although that may be exactly
the case.  The effect is that whole area of research may be avoided, not
a specific source of supply for one avenue of investigation.   I know this 
to be a fact in whole areas of brain and nerve research.  Cutting off funding
for fetal tissue research may indeed sound good to some people, but the
actual effect is a far cry from what might be expected or imagined.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:43:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.025734.24975@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec30.000254.18927@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
|> 
|> }You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a small man cannot
|> }enslave a bigger man, or a minority cannot enslave a majority.
|> 
|> }You are saying here that in a natural state (no law), a developed
|> }person can stop the beating heart of a lesser developed person.
|> 
|> Umh, without law there is no slavery.
|>      without law there is abortion.

You oversimplified.  Your example pointed out that without law, the
weak cannot enslave the strong.  I was trying to stress that without
law, the strong can and will enslave the weak.

So without law, there is slavery of the weak.
You stated there was no slavery of the strong and concluded that
there is no slavery, period.

|> In some cultures, the term "law" is not law as we know it.  It sometimes
|> is little more than peer pressure, in others it is far more like what we
|> are used too.
|> 
|> }What's the difference?  In both cases, the stronger can impose will
|> }upon the weaker or underrepresented?
|> 
|> In some cases, the stronger can indeed impose its will on the weaker.

Without a law to protect the weak, this would be most of the cases.
I think this is proven throughout history.

|> Sometimes the weaker impose their will on the stronger.  This is done
|> usually with the help of legislation or some kind of enticement to 
|> enlist the aid of some strength, often refered to as the "teeth" behind
|> the provision.

I guess my point was that you need law in order for the weaker to
impose it's will on the stronger.  In the example you gave, the weaker
parties were (1) the "small" or "minority" and thus potential slaves,
and (2) the "lesser developed person" and thus potential aborted fetuses.
Law is necessary to protect both parties, if they are to be protected at
all.

|> I'm sure there are other explanations about law and the like which would
|> be much more satisfying and correct than I can provide.  If you
|> find it difficult to differentiate between slavery and abortion I
|> doubt that I could do much to explain strength and the law...

I am not trying to say that slavery and abortion are equal.  I am
merely trying to point out that there is precedent for law to protect
underrepresented parties.

|> --
|>        hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
|>      Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
|>                   Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:36:54 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician 
>>alone have the right to terminate the life of the child. 
>>The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
>>be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
>>life).
>>
>So, if a few women more women lose their lives, or
>their 'quality of life' would that be more 'balanced'?

An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.

>>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>>evaluate the situation.

>This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
>have her best interests at heart.

If there is a procedure to make this operate while
preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
entertain it because it would be more likely that
people would support it.
Could the woman be given the option of remaining
anonymous?

>>Because there may be some urgency in the medical condition,
>>these procedures should procede fairly rapidly.

>What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
>dies?  

That is a medical emergency.
When there is time to consider everyone's rights,
it is our responsibility to do so.

>What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
>Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
>or self-induced abortion?

If this state tribunal ensures that women are
treated with a compassionate attitude (regardless
of whether they receive an abortion or not),
I believe they would participate in the process.

Moreover, those women capable of delivering healthy
children need the reassurance that they and their
children will have some security in their futures.

I would hope that when women see legitimacy in the
process they wouldn't feel the need to go outside of
society's institutions.

A IDLER
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:10:52 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <C01Mxq.1I5@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.194313.8277@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian 
>Kendig) writes:

>> I am NOT pro-abortion.  I believe that abortion should only be used as
>> a last resort; it's something I wouldn't want anyone to go through.

>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its 
>availability.

Nonsense.  Anyone with even a minimal grasp of English can see that the
term "pro-abortion" means "for abortion".  It carries the clear implication
that the person so labelled advocates abortion *over and above* other
choices.  Were this not the case, pro-choice advocates could just as
easily be labelled pro-life, as they advocate the availability of the
choice to keep a child, or put it up for adoption, as much as they do
the availability of abortion.

Applying the term "pro-abortion" is an attempt to cast your opponents
as advocating abortion as *the choice of preference*.  It's a lie,
and it's perpetrated only for cheap grandstanding.  You seem very
intelligent, so I can only conclude that you know this, and are
choosing to lie anyway.

Joe

>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is 
>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use 
>certain words in certain situations.

Woops!  Guess you don't know why it was invented after all.  It was
invented for the same reason the term "pro-life" was invented, as a
PR tactic to emphasize the positive aspects of one side of the reproductive
rights argument.  It is, however, more accurate than "pro-life" as the
linking aspect of the pro-choice side of the controversy is that all 
choices, including abortion, should be available to a woman, whereas the
linking aspect of the pro-life side is that abortion should be illegal.
But pro-life sounds nicer than "anti-abortion" so that's what they
went with.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:33:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.213658.790@ncar.ucar.edu> 
kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

> Are you really unable to identify any significant distinguishing
> factors between a late-term fetus and an infant?!

There are factual differences between a late-term fetus
and an infant.   And there are factual differences between
a fertilized egg and a non-fertilized egg.  The question
is whether these factual differences imply moral differences.

Merely asserting facts, without providing any underlying
moral argument based on those facts, is not a very convincing
argument.  You need to show a moral difference between
killing a newborn infant and killing a late-term fetus.
 
 
>-Brian


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity