HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:48:17 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>Ronald Bense writes:
>>Martin writes:
>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.
>>
>>Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere?
>
>No one has to grant anyone else the right to life.  People have it
>from the moment of their existence whether or not some document says so.

Oh, really?  I think living in twentieth-century America has spoiled
you.  Anybody got a time machine so we can let Martin see how much of
a privilege life was in centuries past?  :)

>Did the blacks in the early 1800s have the right to be free?  Was it written
>anywhere?  It wasn't stated anywhere in law but they did have a right not
>to be slaves.

In your opinion, maybe not.  But ask a slave owner of the time: he
probably would have told you, very emphatically, that he bought his
slaves and they were his property, and hence they had no right to be free.

Where do you see this supposed right of theirs to be free?  A desire,
perhaps, and a feeling they should be allowed to be free -- but, no,
it wasn't a right.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:54:08 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Sep25.190023.22508@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.215536.14662@nosc.mil> reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:
>>You people miss the point on the abortion controversy.....WHAT RIGHT DOES
>>ANYONE HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ELSE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY OR LIFE? UNTIL
>>A BABY IS ACTUALLY BORN, THAT BABY IS A PRODUCT OF TWO PEOPLE; NOT THE
>>STATE. SPERM AND AN UNFERTILIZED EGG ARE ALIVE TOO. 
>>THIS IS REAL LIFE, FOLKS; PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES; LIFE IS ROUGH; CHILDREN
>>ARE ABUSED!
>
>[More shouting deleted...]
>
>Please.  This is an emotional subject, but net.shouting your entire post
>accomplishes nothing.
>
>Use your "shift" key.  Thanks muchly.

Strange how those who capitalize excessively regularly get "schoolmarm"ed to 
death, but nary a word of criticism is heard of those whose posts suffer from 
a chronic LACK of capitalization...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de ()
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 21:53:37 GMT

In article <x98n8hc.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

[...]

>Birth is the first point at which a human is autonomous and clearly
>not part of, nor wholly dependent upon, another person.  It is also
>the first point at which a person begins to breath, to vocalize, to
>eat, and is the first time people actually see the new person.
>It is also an unambiguous moment and has the advantage of being a
>reasonable compromise of conflicting rights.

Damn you, Ray, I was on my way home when this came in :-)

Birth is not unambiguous.  It takes a while.

When only the head is born, how many people are in the room?

May I use the face of this half-born human child to test cosmetics?

If I get the woman's prior consent by paying her $250K, then may I?

If I do all of this the name of science, possibly to find a cure for Aids, 
then may I subject the face of this human child to an acid treatment?

What happens when the legs are born first?  Are these the legs of a 
person but the head of a non-person is still inside the woman?

May I inject this child's head with a lethal chemical in the name of
science, in order to develop a fool-proof contraceptive, since the head
of the baby is still inside the woman?  Always assuming that I don't 
harm the woman, that I have her prior written consent, and that I pay
her handsomely, of course.

I'd just like to be sure that you've thought this through, and that you
are not one of those misguided people who think that they alone know what 
is best.

[...]


>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
>ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Dr. Mildred Hanson Wins Lawsuit
Keywords: Pride = Power
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.230631.8368@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
#In article <6737@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##Thanks for following up on that, Chris.
##
##I'll remind people who don't know which case this is - this
##is the one in which the woman alleged that Dr. Hanson had
##four staff members hold her down on the table, gave her
##no anesthesia, threatened to have her committed, and 
##refused to stop the abortion.  It made a nice story for
##Nyikos - too bad it wasn't true.
##
##I'll be waiting for Nyikos' reaction.
#
#If I can play Cassandra for a moment...
#
#He'll claim that we just don't understand, that I'm violent, and that we're
#all sexually harassing him...

I think that you're right.  

The real question is, will he pull a DOD and continue to post
the story?

Got that Oprah date yet, Nyikos?

Susan

#=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:24:03 GMT

In article <850nlnk.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Abortion doesn't kill people.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Keep this in mind for a while.
>>
>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>
>>  This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>right?  
>
>Well duh.  So's my finger.  Relevence?

Cut off your finger and tell me that that part is indeed a member of homo
sapiens.  Most people would probably say no.  Sure it is part of a being
which probably was a human, but is your finger a human life?

Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  Now
look to the mother.  Is that human life?  I'm sure you'll say yes.  Now
ask, are they one and the same thing?  That the unborn baby is merely an
object similar to a finger is to a human being?  

People of good will will have to say that the unborn child is a complete
member of homo sapiens and because of our general sense of rights and
privileges, that unborn child must be afforded the same protections as us.


Now some of you keen enough will notice some slight problem with born/unborn.

Now I ask/discuss/talk about:

Side comments/A question to ponder:

   What exactly do we mean by being born?  Does being born mean that the
unborn baby becomes separated with his/her mother, and tries to live a life
outside the mother's womb?  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:39:47 GMT

<1992Sep29.202254.27444@col.hp.com> pml@col.hp.com (Patrick M Landry) said:
>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> In  <5638@news.duke.edu>  eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>> > Okay, to make it "fair," take 93% of 1.5M, removing the instances of
>> > rape, incest, mother's health, or even fetal health.
>> 
>> What does that have to do with the fact that:
>>    Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>Simple.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the above 'fact' is true,
>it means that even if it CAN be a responsible solution, it rarely is.
>
>93% of the time it is an irresponsible 'solution' to irresponsible
>behaviour.

That's kind of silly.  Abortion solves the problem for the only person
involved: the woman.  Since it solves the problem, and it only effects the
person choosing to use this solution, it appears to be very responsible.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:27:02 GMT
	    <1992Sep27.000031.6368@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Sep26.014811.9069@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>Abortion is not murder now.

>BUT IT WILL BE!!!

Which brings up Lori's point:

When and if abortion become murder, a woman obtaining one would be
guilty of contract murder.

Since the penalty for contract murder involves incarceration, and you
believe the woman should not be incarcerated, what do you propose be
changed?

Your opinion of adequate punishment for the women, or the penalty for
contract murder? Or an exception made solely for abortions?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:26:15 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep25.194211.17216@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>
>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 

>   This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>right?  

Only if you consider a malignant tumor a member of homo sapiens.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 22:25:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>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.

"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.

Big Al.  My pencil's broke, can I use the sharpener?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 19:16:39 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  <1992Oct1.230209.25750@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> In article <BvGICD.89@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Redneckus) writes:
> >>In article <1992Sep27.055745.31323@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com (Borg blaster) writes:
>
> >The only "proof" that exists is in that diseased skull of yours, Bore Boy.
> >Point out to me *exactly* where Larry said he'd "just sit there" if someone
> >tried to 86 his kid's life support.  You can't -- because you made it up
> >yourself.
>
> The article was made in response to his lack of RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE
> FORGACH WOULD PROTECT HER CHILDREN.

I recognized it, and I'd expect no less.

> >>>I wonder if the kid with the propeller beanie is going to complain about
> >>>Suzanne threatening the life of Andy and Ray?
>
> DO YOU SEE LARRY MARGOLIS RECOGNIZING THAT SUZANNE WAS TALKING ABOUT
> PROTECTING HER CHILDREN'S LIVES ?!

DO YOU SEE STEVE CHANEY RECOGNIZING THAT MARK WAS TALKING ABOUT
PROTECTING HIS FEMALE RELATIVES ?!

> How many times must I prove myself right in debates with you

Well, if you did it *once* it would be a miracle.  I doubt it will ever
happen, though.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:01:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.184027.3858@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>Disrupts the normal biological process of that organism?  Do you really
>mean to say that women were never biologically designed to carry on
>the human race?  I mean, the wider hips.  Were they just accidental?  Or
>were they widened to allow births?  I don't want to get into detail, but
>it seems to me that our babies are designed to be biologically compatible
>with their mothers.
>

Don't you mean to say that women were designed to be biologically compatible
with bearing young?  Babies aren't designed to be compatible, but women.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:35:46 GMT

In article <hxpzhrb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>You're
>>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
>
>I'm glad to see that you've finally dropped the charade of being
>"pro-choice", Darcy.  

Ah, context-cutting games. Is Keegan giving you lessons? For the potentially-
confused: the sentence above is part of a hypothetical situation I presented 
in which significant numbers of women are having late-term abortions for 
trivial reasons. Cathi chose to misrepresent the question, rather than answer
it. The sentence did NOT imply that restrictive abortion legislation was 
"overdue" HERE AND NOW -- only that they would be "overdue" within the 
hypothetical I presented.

Here is the same central question again, in a more generic, and hopefully 
less vulnerable format:

	How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
	before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
	abortions?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:04:55 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

[discussion about the meaning of "person" deleted]

: Then you're assuming that a baby is a likely consequence of fertilization.
: The "natural" thing, or the thing _you_ expect to happen?  Is it
: interference if a poppy seed lands in a stream and fails to take
: root and bloom?  It is interference if one seed from a pine cone
: falls in fertile soil and another falls among the rocks?

A zygote may fail to implant or miscarry.  That is to say, a human being may 
die of natural causes.  Fine, Ray, but that's not abortion.  You may die of a 
heart attack, but that's not a shooting.  

What is being said is very simple: a given human being (with a small 'h') has
an equal right to life as any other human being (with a small 'h').  

There is no need to further subdivide the class 'human being' into grade A
human beings and grade B human beings, unless you have some sort of agenda
which makes you wish to deny some particular kinds of humans the right to 
life.  Do you, Ray?  Why?  And isn't that what human rights are for?  To defend
weak human beings from the destructive actions of self-interest?

When does a new human being (with a small 'h') start, would you say Ray?  It's 
conception, isn't it?  And you have posted that that's not a "useful" definition for
anything, because it's hard to know the moment of conception.  Here your pragmatism 
fails you - why do you _need_ to know?  If the baby miscarries on its own, that's sad, 
but there's nothing to discuss.  And if a zygote fails to implant, through no fault 
of anybody, who even knows?  i.e. if a tree falls in the forest...  If none of 
the above apply, we will soon reach a point where the woman notices that she is 
pregnant.  It's reasonable to now infer that the pregancy resulted from conception, 
is it not, and that we therefore have a new human being on our hands?

: -- 
: Ray Fischer
: ray@netcom.com
--
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
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 23:10:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.180147.14031@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct1.070033.29228@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>be dead?)
>
>There are two weaknesses to your argument.
>
>One is that your 'right' to life can be waived by other people.
>Otherwise, how could we ever justify executing a criminal?  And how
>could we go to war and give guns to our infantry if we felt that every
>person's right to life overrides every other right we have?

Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
to life.

>
>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>involved.  I've posted a list of some situations in which I feel a
>woman would have a very good reason not to have a child she doesn't
>want (she was raped,

A rose is a rose is a rose regardless of how the rose was planted.

> or she needs to take medication that could
>severely damage the fetus, 

If the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child are weighed 
properly, then there is a possibility that the life of the mother may 
take precedence.  However, it's a tough call, but I'd much rather not see
Direct Abortion.

>or she would be required to quit her job
>and go onto welfare,

More reason to have laws which prohibit abortion.  When employers find
out that mothers care for their children and have no option to kill them,
they will shape up.  If not, then we will find ways to make them shape up.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:49:25 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <mcbzh9q@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
>   (rocker) writes: >
>wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>> I've actually been interested to see how far Keegan would go with 
>>> this.  Someone warned me (not Darcy :-)) privately that he would 
>>> "never, ever stop", so I thought I'd see how it played out.  That 
>>> person was apparently right.  Jim kinda reminds me of the little 
>>> Energizer bunny.
>>
>>_My_ clinical diagnosis: It takes two to tango.

>Of course it does.  But will the dance ever end? 

You can answer that one for yourself, Rngduus.  It's easy.
Just walk off the dance floor.  Are you now hinting that
keegan controls your ability to do so?

>I suspect (and this is consistent with the advice
>I received) it will end only when Keegan is allowed
>to have the last word, however non-substantive that 
>is.  

Perhaps this is true, perhaps not.  It seems evident that if the
discussion ends, then one of you must, of necessity, have the
last word.  You are posting from different places, or I assume
you are, as I've never seen you in keegan's office.

Hence, when one of you has the last word, then the discussion
ends.  This is trivially obvious.

Do you continue the discussion out of a desire to have the last
word for your very own self?

>> Are _you_ now diagnosing keegan as "a bunny"? 

>I'm simply noting that someone else successfully
>predicted his behavior.

Could you please point out the behaviors that you have noted which
are common to both keegan and the bunny?   Could you give evidence
that these behaviors constitute a significant pattern, a pattern
whose significance is high enough to warrant the comparison between
keegan and the bunny?  

After all, we can't have people expressing opinions here without
producing clinically significant evidence for them. 

>Bill

                         -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:24:47 GMT

rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:

>In article <8tlzdzq@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>
>>>There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at the hospital.  

>It is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be kept alive!  

Of course it's not uncommon for six month old babies to be kept
alive, or we'd have few adults.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean babies born at six months gestation,
did you?  If you mean "not uncommon" as "it has happened in
recorded history at least once", then I'd ask you to cite a
case.


>What's all the skepticism for?  

I know the odds for a 24-week gestation preemie.

>I was there, I saw it!  There!  You have proof.  

Silly me.

>(Want me to get signatures from the kids too?)  BTW, Strong 
>Memorial Hospital has one of the best Neo-natal Units in Upstate NY.

Upstate NY!  NOW we're getting somewhere!

I happen to live in upstate NY Ron, wanna give me a city on that
hospital?  Maybe I'll just stop by this bitchin preemie ward.

>rlg

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion