HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 12 Sep 1992 15:47:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
Keywords: abortion

In article <1992Sep12.133845.13714@cs.rose-hulman.edu> luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:

>It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is really  
>about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
>living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.

>If everyone could know that a womb contains a living unborn child, then it  
>would be obvious that abortion is a form of murder, and few would condone  
>it.

>On the other hand, if everyone knew that a womb contains only tissues, or  
>some other matter that is not a life, then few would really care if  
>someone did have an abortion, beacuse there was nothing there in the first  
>place.

>Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.
>Can this question be adequately answered?

The scientific evidence is available for all to see. The real matter
at hand is how one interprets the data. I've been debating this issue
for several years now and during this time I have managed to examine all
the salient issues and put together a coherant framework that 
is pro-choice. When debating this issue with pro-lifers, I have
never seen any arguments put forth that are consistant with the
scientific facts that support the concept of a z/e/f having the attributes
we value (and generally label as "personhood") sufficiently to bestow
"rights." 

In the final analysis, the evidence is there for anyone to examine.
The real issue is, how well does a given philosophical system deal with
this, and other evidence? I think that if we all tried to examine
the questions involved logically, there would be a great many less
pro-lifers out there. The problem is, most pro-lifers base their
beliefs on religious systems that are in turn inconsistant with the
scientific evidence pointing to the nature of the universe. Given
that these people ultimatly do not have a philosophical system based
on reality, the evidence, in turn, ultimatly matters little.

So what do we have here? When you boil it all down, we have a group
of people that are trying to remove the rights of people based on
a set of beliefs that do not square with reality.

Its very human of them, you know?

Eric
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:30:16 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep8.212031.6149@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep5.114243.2300@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
-> > i didn't express any "concern," as you put it,
-> > bill. i said i'd be pleased if the lad got help.
-> > i'd be pleased if anyone i thought was crazy got
-> > help. why do you think DODie is different?
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-> Why would you be pleased if you weren't at all
-> concerned?

why do you think DODie is different?

now, to answer your question even though you avoided
mine, concern does not generate pleasure nor does all
pleasure result from concern. the two are not
necessarily related. why would you think they were?


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 06:42:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: usa

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>># The best I can hope for is that you will someday realize that no woman can
>># have babies without the kindness of a man.
>>
>>You didn't really mean to write this, did you?
>
>Yes, I did.  What do you think, my fingers slipped? :-)
>
>>I'll pay you $5.00 if you post it to talk.rape.
>
>Why do you think this would offend anybody, as it is the literal truth?

Many women (and men) would (and do) find deeply offensive your apparent 
belief that rape could in any way be considered "the kindness of a man."

Were you to post such a viewpoint on talk.rape, I don't doubt for a moment 
that your would hear from many who disagreed rather strongly with your 
claim.  And yes, this is a fairly massive understatement.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion techniques and fetal survival
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:33:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.144017.27996@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bu19GB.5vG.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
###  "Unlike the plurality, I do not understand these viability
###   testing requirements to conflict with any of the Court's
###   past decisions concerning state regulation of abortion."
###
###   Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 525 (1989) 
#
## Further, it in no way contradicts the fact that restrictions
## that were not allowed under Colautti are allowed under Webster.
#
#
#Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disagrees with you.

It's unfortunate for you that you can't support this claim.

Susan

#      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
# that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
# we want to be precise)..."
#   -- Gloria Feldt,
#      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona
#
#  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
#    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu#
      -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here
      -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)
      -- chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) <Insert header info here
      -- cookc@rpi.edu (rocker)
      -- steven@jaynes.uswest.com (Steve Novak)
      -- smccabe@mn.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah McCabe)
      -- lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
"Neither do I" -- ray@netcom.com Ray Fischer  <2ymn8gh.ray@netcom.com>

What is it about Judaism that bothers you so, Holtsinger?

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:23:16 GMT

In article <43922@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}                                              But I believe that a law 
}restricting abortions is necessary.

You keep saying this.  But you never give anything beyond your own
"faith" or belief.  Just because you can get a lot of people to 
vote for your silly idea doesn't make it any less silly, it just
makes it popular.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
From: ab980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Carwil James)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Date: 5 Sep 1992 18:40:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ab980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Carwil James)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) says:
>In article <1992Sep2.221028.11532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <la9sq7INNp3p@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
>>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
>>>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  
>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
>>>> rape, and theft?
>
>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.
This is true. Laws in the areas of homicide, rape and theft are
based on the governmental responsibility to protect the rights of
its citizens. ("That to secure these rights governments are created..."
-Declaration of Independence. I'm not sure about the exact wording.)

>>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
>>then what are they based upon? 
>
>They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
>improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
>it is a social issue.
>
>>Doug Holtsinger
>
>Eric
>
Not quite. It is the responsibility of the government to protect cer-
tain rights of its citizens. In the cases mentioned above these
rights are personal self-determination, sexual self-determination, and
the right to property.

Note that laws which are based on morality but not on securing rights
are not within this definition. Thus, for example a law against adultery
is government overstepping its bounds/responsibilities.

Carwil James
-- 
|Carwil James-FreeNet BBS List Editor |InterNet: ab980@Cleveland.FreeNet.Edu|
|    / / Only Amiga  /-\ / /-\  Chan  |Phone: (216)371-5729                 |
|\ \/ / Makes It    <o  X  |-/   ben  |"Life's a beach and the tide just    |
| \/\/ Possible.     \-/ \ \-- bplah! | came in." -Osadczuk                 |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:20:15 GMT


keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> 
>-> As a concession, in exchange for a permanent,
>-> irrevocable protection of the Right to Choose in the
>-> first 2 trimesters? Maybe there is a need...

>you're quite casual about trading away women's
>rights, aren't you?

We've seen quite a bit of that lately, haven't we?

              -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:55:14 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.173437.4843@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Sep2.143250.2206@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> 
>> In article <1992Sep1.164017.18711@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>> >  
>> >   Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
>> > course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
>> > this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
>> > do they get together?
>> 
>> Consider this:  Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta don't want to conceive.
>> Dr. Everythingbealright says "Not a problem!  Just abstain from
>> intercourse!"
>> 
>> How long will abstainence work for Horny Harry and Hot Henrietta?
>
>   No need to be snippy.

Sorry, no snippiness was intended, just wanted to make a point.
Even if you want to abstain (yeah right!), chances are you will
find your ummm breaking point (sooner or later).
 
>   Besides, it IS possible to get your rocks off and not have vaginal inter-
> course.  Oral sex, for example.

Well sure!  Whaddya suppose virgins do before the big day?
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:10:23 GMT

In article <43640@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

}If one supports the prevention of a certain type of legislation (e.g aspects
}of the US constitution) - then one is effectively supporting a form of 
}legislation.

Did you just make this up by yourself, or did you have help?  I heartly 
disagree.

}          But I believe that some laws restricting abortion could work.

Do you have examples?  Projections?  Estimates?  Or is your belief
based on faith?

}Such laws exist already to protect neo-nates and babies.  They could be
}extended to protect foetuses.

That law "protects" by inhibiting action is hardly a commonly accepted
outcome.   What is rather clear is that the law provides an avenue
for vengence and sometimes incarceration of a perpetrator.  Except
in some few cases, you cannot break the law by intending to do so,
you actually have to be involved in the activity.  I would think it
is fear of retribution, rather than the law, that inhibits some
activity.  

}>You, on the other hand, would base your judgement on whether or not
}>the candidate supported legislation, regardless of their principles.

}Not regardless of their principles.  I said "all else being equal".

'Scuse me, let me rephrase that.  Given two equally unprincipled
candidates, you would rather vote for the one who might enact
legislation over the one who wouldn't consider it.  You'd rather
a bad law than no law at all, all else being equal.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Errors in the Astro_Boy AI Program (was Re: Inturdgent whines about
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:01:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.232425.4995@coopsol.com>  gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> <1992Sep3.152649.10072@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) sa
> >
> >Oh, yeah, and we're practically falling out of our asses when one of
> >Gloria Steinem's burning bra's causes her carpet to catch on fire.
>
> Huh?  How often do you "fall out of [your] ass"?

Seems like a fitting image for Chaney - sort of a scatalogical version
of Ourberos - the turd that shat itself.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 19:09:56 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep11.151619.21451@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>Demonstrate that Chaney is "convinced", please.  If we were
>going to evaluate individuals based on their network personas,
>we could have a field day with "drieux".  

Go for it.  Have your field day.  I know drieux and he has no
network persona. 

>Bill

Dan King
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: WILL THE REAL MISOGYNISTS PLEASE STAND UP? Case 1.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:23:43 GMT


nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <181fotINNse@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

      [comments about the forced abortion story]

>And you were one of the very people who goaded me into posting it,

Oh dear.  We have another person who believes that his actions are
controlled by people he's never met, who may be thousands of miles
away.

>as I explained along another thread.  You refused to believe that
>I had evidence of forced abortions.

Do you really know what Mark believes?

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

>Have you told that to the human being whom Chaney so endearingly
>calls PatricKKK?

Have you told that to Chaney, who announced that someone is a member
of the KKK (repeatedly asserted, and repeatedly denied) because he
used the word "black" in a post?  Exactly when did "black" become a
racist term?

>Peter Ny.

                        -rocker
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:34:27 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Sep3.194041.11683@acd4.acd.com>
	wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
-> In <1992Sep2.114515.10758@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
->    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
[me and bill, back and forth]
-> > this is beneath you, bill, at least i think it is.
-> > suggestions that crazies (chaney, DOD, darcy,
-> > franklin, etc.) seek help are made daily,
-> > sometimes more often than that.
-> 
-> If these people are "crazy", I'm unaware of it.  

my apologies. i hadn't realized you were so far removed
from what had been posted to t.a. over the past several
months. nonetheless, just the comments of others over
the past few days should have given you some idea. i do
find it kind of odd that you'd post like this without
knowing what you were talking about. 

-> Chaney (for example) is outrageous but certainly no
-> more so than Novak, who is never characterized as
-> disordered.

does it strike you that there is a reason for that,
bill? btw, do you really think that "outrageous" is the
proper term for chaney or for novak? do you see their
net.conduct as similar?

-> I have to believe that armchair Usenet diag-
-> nosticians simply have too little information to
-> label other participants as mentally disordered.

that's ok. i have no problem with your believing that.
i don't share your belief. i think i have exactly the
right information to make the labels that i make.
surely, you wouldn't want to impose your belief on me?
that would be so, well, anti-choice.

[lots of deletions]

you know bill, you seem a bit overly-sensitive in this
thread, almost paranoid. whatever you thought your
original point was, it didn't come out.




-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:22:02 CST
 <1992Sep10.221038.8158@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Sep11.222608.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> <99wnntc.bskendig@netcom.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <99wnntc.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote (in article <1992Sep11.222608.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>):
>> 
>>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
>>killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.

Dontcha know there is no such thing as an "innocent human being"?
Adam and Eve fucked that one up for us a few thousand years ago.
:)  Or aren't you Christian like everybody else in America?
Does your God need revenge?

Brian McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36573 alt.abortion.inequity:3758
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:35:32 GMT
 <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com> <1992Sep10.034942.12697@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.205322.9187@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>The government recognizes rights.  It doesn't grant them.
>
>I'm AMAZED that you know so little about this.  Please go read the
>constitution.

The Constitution limits the powers of government.  It specifies exactly
what the government may do.  With the help of the courts and ignorance of
the masses, the goverment has expanded its powers far beyond what was
inteded by the founders.

The Bill of Rights addressed the fears of some people that if basic rights
weren't listed, they wouldn't be protected.  Just to make sure that the
government wasn't going to read the first 8 as a fixed, maximum list, the
9th and 10th Amendments were added.

Because people are convinced that the ONLY rights available are those
listed in the Constitution, they think backwards.  Exactly what was feared
by the authors who didn't include a list of rights for fear that it would be
taken as a finite list.  The correct sentence, in my opinion should be:

  The Government doesn't grant rights, it enforces them.  And all rights
  not SPECIFICALLY ceded to the government are retained by the people.

Which of course means that Griswold (the basic privacy decision from which Roe
springs) didn't grant some 'new' right, it simply enforced the right of the 
citizens NOT to have the government interfere in something that was a private 
decision.

Since the people have not ceded the right to privacy to the government
(read the search and seizure & self-incrimination rights amendments), the
government is severely limited in the restrictions it can place on us.

The limitations to privacy are generall things that would be illegal if
done in public, also.  Beating your spouse or child, incest, etc.   Many
people think the government still goes to far...sodomy laws, marijuana use,
prostitution, gambling...

 -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: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:08:58 GMT

In article <adams.716150535@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> 
> Even the pill is only 99.9% effective.  That means 1/1000 risk.
> 

Actually, the pill is only about 98% effective, in the sense that out
of 100 women who use the pill *correctly* for a year, one or two will
get pregnant.  (In other words, the percentage is not the effectiveness
for a single sex act, but for a year.)  Because some women forget to 
take it one day, or neglect to use backup contraception when taking 
certain medications that interfere with the pill's contraceptive effect, 
in practice the pregnancy rate is higher.

(Source:  Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Fact Book)

-- 
/\                Ilana Stern DoD#009  ilana@ncar.ucar.edu 
  \_][ <--NCAR       Colorado...is totally rectangular.
      \_Boulder______________________________________________________Kansas__
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Out of the Mouths of Babes
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:56:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep11.013353.10741@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
#In article <1992Sep11.004200.28459@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu 
#(Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#
#}                                                                    ... a case
#}can be made that generally as a group, they [gays] do hate women.   
#
#How?  The only case that I can make, generally, as a group, about gays,
#is their sexual orientation.  If a case can be made, then make the case.

I have a feeling that this is one of those Suzanne "proofs" that
require you to make some pretty bizarre assumptions and confuse
"some" with "all."

#As far as non-woman-hating gays being the exception, I am associated
#with a number of folk who consider themselves "gay."  I must be blessed
#with associating with a number of exceptional people.

Gee, Galen, me, too.  What do you think the odds are of both you and
I being associated with a number of exceptional people?  Do you
think that Suzanne believes that there is a group of non-women
hating gay men who travel around the world befriending people
just to fool us into thinking that there are more of them than
there really are?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion