HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:44:32 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) wrote (in article <lcf2hvINN4s5@spim.mti.sgi.com>):
>Pro-choice persons probably object to the term Pro-Abortion, for the same
>reasons Pro-life persons object to the term Anti-Abortion.  Abortion is
>an event, but Choice and Life are the belief structures that drive
>the two sides.

Not quite.

'Pro-choice' means keeping all options open and allowing a woman to
freely choose among them.  'Pro-abortion' means advocating abortion
over other choices such as bearing a child, and is a position actually
held by some people for reasons such as a desire to stop
overpopulation (which, in my opinion, is a poor reason).  These two
views are quite different, and very few pro-choicers are pro-abortion.

'Pro-life' means upholding life over all else.  'Anti-abortion' means
being against abortion at all times.  These two positions are largely
identical.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39414 alt.abortion.inequity:4131
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:46:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <Sep29.235338.66102@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> 
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

}	The woman is responsible for her child just as a military recruit is
}responsible to obey the orders of superior officers.  He or she signed a 
}contract agreeing to do so and is bound by it.  

Doggone.  I try to keep up too.  When did this happen?  Why wasn't I
informed?  I hope someone is working on a post explaining
Why Pregnancy is like Military Service and will post it real soon.


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:26:28 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: >gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) wrote (in article <1992Sep22.022532.20340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>):
: >>You gotta give her credit though.  She can sit and say that if she
: >>were raped the father would be at fault, not the child.
: 
: I don't get it.  What is this *respect* for a woman who would bear a 
: child she didn't want and didn't plan, and conceivably cannot raise?
: (I dunno, maybe she can, but certainly at a cost to her other children.
: I doubt Suzannes resources are infinite.)  What is this great mysterious
: worship of fecundity that has you two in thrall?
: 
: Because women *can*, you admire that they *do*?  As long as it's bearing
: children.  The other things women *can* do somehow doesn't merit the same
: levels of respect or admiration.  Womb envy at it's finest.

What we admire, respect, and even envy is not the woman's womb, Adrienne, 
but the woman's selflessness.  I hate to spoil a good story, but although
the production of a human child from a woman's womb is quite a trick, especially
in these enlightened times, we have seen it done before.  We are not amazed that 
the woman can, nor are we amazed that the woman does.  What does amaze us, what 
makes us stop and stare, the same thing that prompted Galen to Say "hey, did _you_ 
see that?" is a woman's _selflessness_.   

Selflessness, like the Dodo,  we are amazed to see because we thought it was 
extinct.   That you cannot see what Galen and I see, is perhaps not too surprising, 
since you respect only the politics of self-interest.  Self-interest is not amazing, 
though, it abounds.  That you do not "get it" is nothing but the same old story, I'm 
afraid to say.  Hats off to Suzanne.  (Nice womb, too, where can I get one? :-)

: 
: Adrienne Regard
: 
--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "There are no unborn people, there are fetuses,
                                 or people not yet born (and hence not real)." 
				   - Ron Bense '92
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:08:47 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Sep29.004310.110764@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> >> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> >
>> >  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
>>
>> An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.

>But definitely not a person, which is what the question was.

I think there is a strong case for saying that it is a person.  Of
course if you define "person" as "someone currently protected
by the 14th amendment" there is nothing to discuss.

>> BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.

>Just a small correction.  It can respond to stimuli, but "feel"
>implies consciousness or awareness, which is lacking at that point.
>Neuroscientists say not before 7 *months*.

Still repeating their unwarranted conclusions, Larry?  I wish you
would find some reference more profound than the grade-school-talk
mixed with pure *ipse dixits* that you posted a while back.

Bernstine gave evidence that there *could* be consciousness at 7 *weeks*.
Nobody has given me reason to believe that your neuroscientists have
any greater insight into these matters than Bernstine did.

>> There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
>> and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
>> be terminated.

>Does this mean you'll stop referring to the fetus as an "unborn child"?
>:-)

Could you please explain this apparent *non sequitur* of yours, Larry?

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:46:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1a9smmINN59v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com 
(Adrienne Regard) writes:
> MAYBE you shouldn't make such statements, Will.
> 
> 
> MAYBE you shouldn't even think things like that, Will.
> 
> 
> MAYBE you should come to the realization that women are separate individuals
> from you and actually do have thoughts, feelings, and wills of their own.
> And are not answerable to *you*.
> 
> 
> Adrienne Regard

For the sake of someone coming in late, what did Will say, and under what
circumstances?
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:27:38 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: For Rich Lee and other similarily ignorant people (if there are any)
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:35:41 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <brandonu.ca mcbeanb.mail.abortion:19>, bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
> From rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu Mon Sep 21 00:54:22 1992
>  
> A 1 year old is also not part of society.  

Since when?  Who told you that?  My son is 1 year old, and you're telling
me he's not a part of society?  Fuck off.

> So should I be able to kill it?

I'm not sure if you are able to kill an innocent one year old, but I'd
be damn sure to try my best to stop you.

> If you not give a 1 year old food it will die.  Just like a baby in the womb.

The "baby" in the womb get food regardless of whether or not you choose to
feed it.  What's your point?

> Why should the rights of that baby be denied because the mother was 
> irresponsible?  

Irresponsible?  Fuck off (again).  Because her contraception failed?
Because adequate education was not available?  Because she was raped?
Because she had safe sex at a time when she couldn't afford to
feed an extra mouth?
 
> 	DO NOT EMAIL ME.   WRITE THESE RESPONSES IN THE NEWSGRROUP!!!

Thanks ever so much for the inconvenience.  Are you happy that your
ignorant remarks have been shown to the world, rather than kept in
private discussion?

>  |   Rich Lee     |   Richard Lee               |                         |

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Summary: Another OD on Tegretol, looks like... 
Organization: Beats me.  This is my weekend. 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:21:16 GMT

In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:

[no idea who he was ranting at -- leave the attributions *in* next time,
will you?] 

>>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>>  Abortion is not a crime.
>>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>>
>>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>>Are you getting it yet?
>>
>Let's see if I can get this into your little head.
>	ABORTION IS MURDER

Quite a few folks don't see it that way.

>	FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN

They *will be*.  There's a difference there that eludes you.

>	JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
>		THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.

I can't see my 17-year-old stepdaughter inside me -- does that mean she
lives there?  (Just how many cans short a six-pack did you say you were?)

>	THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
>		IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.

I should hope not -- and none of the men I've ever known don't, either.

>	A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
>		THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.

Back to Biology 101, it looks like...

>and
>	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>		BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
>		DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
>		LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

Are you saying that you've experienced it?  That'd explain this caps-lock
spasm...

>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
>FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!
>
Not that you ever bothered listening, but who said they were pro-abortion?
There's only one of us in this newsgroup that fits that description, and he's
been giving thought to it for longer than you've been alive...


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                                 Power corrupts.
                          Absolute power is kind of neat.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.070324.149832@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Sep30.185401.4741@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1acr4vINNr0q@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne R
>> >
>> >You just don't get it, do you.  Having a child, bearing a child, carrying
>> >a child, isn't about a child.  It is about the person who is having, bearing
>> >and carrying.  Until the child is there, it's about the WOMAN.
>>
>> Dehumanizing the child.  Yes, the woman's considerations have to be looked
>> at but so does the right of the unborn child to live.
>
>I think you're a little confused.  Nothing's being "dehumanized".  We all
>know that it's a human fetus.  The point is, it's not a *child* until it's
>*born*.
>

Which allows us to say that abortion, does indeed, destroy and kill
human life.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.203349.5669@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>"I think EVERY WOMAN should have an ABORTION!  Yeah, let's pass a law
>requiring women to REPORT their PREGNANCIES, then make them all have
>an ABORTION no matter WHAT the circumstances!"
>
>That's 'pro-abortion'.  I've never heard anybody advocating it.
Actually, pro-abortions eems to mean that you think that women should
have abortions if they are not sure. This is the definition chosen
by the pro-abortionists I know, specifically Gordon Storga.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:59:21 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Sep29.173840.9672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

> Besides, you are proposing enacting a law.  It is up to you to 
> demonstrate that such a law would be effective (generally that 
> involves examples or statistics) not up to me to demonstrate that
> other laws don't have "some effect."  I'm not saying that you can't
> get an ineffective law passed, merely that your embrace of legislation
> should be based on some personal conviction (besides faith) that such
> an action would be effective.

What do you mean by an "effective" abortion law?  Obviously, no 
abortion law would be 100% effective for stopping abortion.  People 
are going to get abortions despite the law.  But people will also 
commit homicide, robbery, and rape despite the law too.  

Or are you saying that abortion laws would be ineffective
for reducing the number of abortions?  I think that would be 
difficult to prove or disprove.  But similar observations
would apply to many other laws. 

But if the issue is merely a question of formulating an abortion
policy which would reduce the number of abortions, then doesn't it 
follow that abortion could no longer be considered an unrestricted
right?  If we're already talking about "effective" abortion policy,
then it seems to me that we've completely ignored the issue of 
abortion rights. 


>     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:44:42 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) wrote (in article <1992Sep25.114325.7194@hemlock.cray.com>):
>>In article <f39n2lj.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>2. Would there be any other exceptions besides imminent death?
>>   (Say, gross fetal deformity, prospect of permanent health
>>   damage for the woman?)

>Hmm.  Okay, these sound like good reasons to allow third-trimester
>abortions -- medical concerns.  But wouldn't these have been at least
>anticipated before the third trimester?  Hmmmm.

Maybe, maybe not.  If something happened to the woman in the third
trimester, such as a car accident, stroke, whatever, it could cause
problems that there would have been no wa to anticipate.

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:48:47 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 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: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct1.194327.22359@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.163418.12330@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <1992Sep23.113706.20405@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
> [..]
>
> >> The fetus, be it person or be it fish,
> >> has not 'broken into' anywhere, including the padlocked womb.
> >
> >Of course not; the sperm did.
>
> If you knew a woman who has successfully sued a sperm for child support, then
> I'd have to agree.  But you don't, and I don't.

The sperm, and not the fetus, entered the woman without permission.
I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with child support,
since neither of us know of a fetus that has successfully been sued
for child support, either.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39308 talk.religion.misc:17388
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: YOU should explain the dangers of THEOCRACY to ME????
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:09:19 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>: Religious morals and politics gotta be separate, or you end up with a
>: theocracy...just look at the fun times in Iran, or during the Inquisition.
>
>However, if there is one thing I am sure about it is this:  Abortion is not 
>about religous morals, nor is it about sexual morals, but it is about human 
>rights.  And I believe that holds no matter which side of the issue you may 
>find yourself, Steve.  It does not matter which _conclusion_ you come to, 
>pro- or anti-, we are still talking _human rights_.  Which encompasses more 
>than does the American constitution, in fact.

If the question is raised in terms of human rights, then you still must
decide whose rights are overriding....the mother's "right" to not be force to
carry to term if she choses not to vs. the fetus "right" to be born.  

Being as I'm in the US, the US Constitution is the relevent piece of
documentation that defines the basic social contract.  I erred in referring
to it in a global discussion.  Mea culpa.

But the point remains, in the US, the issue comes down to one of rights.
To this point, the US Courts (and generally, the people) have judged that
abortion should be available and legal in at least some circumstances, and
that the rights of the prgnant woman outweigh any potential rights that the
fetus may have.

>That the pro-choice people choose sometimes to portray this issue as one of 
>religious or sexual morals, rather than one of human rights, may fit their 
>political agenda occasionally, but I'm afraid to say that it is simply a 
>con.  Still, you buy it I see, so it's not in vain, is it?   About this much 
>at least you have been conned, Steve, can't you see that?

I don't think I've been conned.  My particular objections to abortion are
based on religious convictions.  But I am pro choice as I don't feel it's
my place to impose that set of convictions on a woman, when I may well be
denying her her 'rights' by forcing her to carry a fetus to term to protect
the fetus' 'rights'.

As a human rights issue, abortion as an option still wins.

  -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Rendering the Question of Abortion Moot
Summary: It'd beat what we have now. 
Keywords: RU-486,Abortion,Birth-Control
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.211044.7156@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <BuqFDu.IyK@rice.edu>
>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>
>>It may already be here -- all we've heard of so far is the case of the one 
>>woman who got nabbed by the SS, er, Customs people at JFK.  How many more have
>>slipped through undetected, I wonder?  (Not many -- yet.  Once RU-486 becomes
>
>I believe that the woman who was caught declared the RU-486 she was
>carrying....

True, which means that there will be a few now who won't declare it and
still wind up sneaking it in.  

>>available in Canada, though, look for that to change -- there are a LOT of
>>border crossings, and Customs can't handle anything of *that* magnitude.
>>All it takes is a look at their success in keeping other illegal substances 
>>out of the U.S. to put that notion to bed...:-)
>
>Anyway, I've got my doubts about vast quantities of RU-486 being
>smuggled over the border.  It would happen if abortion was illegal,
>certainly....  But remember that it *does* very often have side
>effects, and you *are* supposed to be under some kind of doctor's
>supervision.  By and large, I think it will usually make more sense to
>go ahead and take the RU-486 where it's legal.

I don't think it's going to involve "vast quantities", either, and I'd hope
it's for the reason you specify -- it's only supposed to be used under a
doctor's supervision.  Necessity knows no such considerations, though, and
there *will* be the cases where women unaware of the side effects, or of the
possible reactions with other medication they may be taking, will get
themselves into an even bigger bind than before by using RU-486.  The way to
prevent that isn't the state's way of instituting even more Draconian
regulations, but of getting the information about what RU-486 is, and what
it can do, spread as widely as possible...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Newsgroups: talk.abortion