HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Summary: STR, STC
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:53:55 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <C0JzLq.LL8@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>to have control over their own bodies.  As a man, the reason I am against
>abortion is not because I don't want women to have control over their
>own bodies- its because I don't want women to destroy their children's
>bodies.  

That, after all, is traditionally the right of the _paterfamilias_ who,
in horror of the potential of "spoiling" the child will spare no rod.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 14:00:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.055207.16469@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.060029.1868@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>And physicians do *not* determine that an abortion is necessary.
>>The patients condition is explained to them, and their options are
>>outlined. The risks and benefit of each option are detailed, and the
>>patient then makes their own choice as to treatment. I would like to
>>see you produce an example of a physician performing an abortion based
>>on his decision, and not the patients. A physician may suggest that
>>abortion is the safest option, but not determine what is best for the
>>patient. That decision is left to the patient.
>
>Which is precisely *WHY* abortion cannot be treated as "strictly a medical
>issue": there's a whole host of other factors besides medicine which go into
>each and every abortion decision -- economics, sociology, religion, ethics,
>psychology, etc.
>
Oh Kebbin, you're so funny. I've always said an aboriton should be
treated as a medical and personal issue. I have never maintained that
it was "strictly a medical issue". There's no such thing. The patient
is always involved, and has the right to make their own choices about
treatment.
And the patient is the only one who is in a position to make
judgements about the economic, social, religious ethical and
psychological factors. They are *her* economic, social, religious,
ethical and psychological factors, not yours. Wht can you know about
them?

>Now that we've dispensed with the naive, dangerous "treat abortion strictly
>as a medical issue" chestnut, shall we get on to some constructive dialog on 
>how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?
>
That depends. Are you ready to stop pretending to be pro-choice when
you are arguing for restrictions?

>								- Kevin
>
>UNRETRACTED LIE
>---------------
>
>"Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
> himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
>				    Susie Garvin
>				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
>				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Kebbie, we've gone through this in justthe last couple weeks. This is
*not* a lie. Whether you agree with the critizisms or not, you *have*
been consistently criticized in exactly this manner.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:39:41 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <C0Cv0I.7BG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|>Then vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|>|By your definition, perhaps.  I'm sure you consider it cold-hearted to
s|>|irresponsible, uncaring desires of their parents.
|
|>This is a spectacular case of Blame the Victim.  
|
|Since when am I blaming those kids (the victims) ?

You're still not grasping that the parents are victims, too,
that not all people in poverty are there because they're
worthless scum.  (A remarkably Puritanical notion, in the
historical sense.)  Some people are there because the US economy
is in a bad way.  Some people are there because of badly timed
ill health.  Some people are there because of accidents.

Sometimes people need temporary help to get out of bad spots,
whether that help be food stamps, welfare, unemployment, or job
retraining.  Sometimes people get stuck in a cycle of poverty,
and need different kinds of help.  Sometimes people who might
seem lazy are really chronically depressed, or suffering some
other kind of mental illness, and need medical care.  And yeah,
sometimes people are just lazy.  But I don't assume that poverty
is evidence of laziness.

My first reaction is to help needy parents, and not just
uncaringly rip their children away.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com    C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I would not wish to be hasty in censuring any one; but I always
speak what I think."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:22:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.000056.9355@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> The Freedom of Choice Act, [..] contains no conscience clause 
>> which would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for
>> refusing to assist in an abortion procedure.  

> No such clause is needed. If you don't want to assist in abortions,
> don't work in an abortion clinic. 

I mentioned *hospital* employees, not abortion clinic employees.

> Further, this issue is
> addressed by both medical ethics and hopsital policy. 

Medical ethics is an oxymoron with regards to abortion.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Porphyria & Forgach (An argument for better sex ed)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:54:21 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Suzanne Forgach writes:
>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
and...
>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Thank you for that marvelous display of Christian sensibility.  It's sorta
reminiscent of a trailer park Alexis Carrington.  I haven't seen that kind
of vitriol in living form since my husband showed me a cottonmouth
down in a Mississippi zoo.

Had a Sacrament of Reconciliation lately, honey?  I think you ought.
And I've heard that there are decaf brands that are *just* *as* *good*
as regular.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:56:51 GMT

In <ueff8ho@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) snipes:
>|>>|> >You are a bitter person Muriel.  

Paul, to my recollection you haven't been posting here for very
long. Of course, you may have been lurking in the shadows for
some time, but there is no way to tell.

However, if you work at it really hard, you might achieve the
level of humanity that Muriel has shown, so it might behove you
to cease making snap judgements. Just a thought.

>nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>|Sorry Paul. We women in this group are used to being called bitter.
>|Say what you mean. What you mean is Muriel doesn't agree with you and
>|doesn't know her place. [...]

>I like to use this particular quote in these cases.

>---
>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>"People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that
>differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West

I'd tell you some of the things I've been called, but I normally
don't use such language.

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:06:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.183842.26144@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>I'm sure you believe that only "anti-choicers" post offensive
>material.  Not that I care what you think, James, but I'm more
>than willing to criticize other pro-lifers, and I've done it
>on several occasions.  The next time I see something offensive
>written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
>After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?

Yeah, don't you just love their double-standard, Stephen? When I criticize 
various pro-choicers' specious arguments and undeserved flames, I get 
essentially branded a traitor to pro-choice, but when a pro-lifer posts 
undeserved flames, those same hypocrites are asking why other pro-lifers don't 
criticize him. What, are they ENCOURAGING pro-lifers to commit exactly the
same species of "treason" of which I'm supposedly guilty??? Or is it just that 
criticism of pro-lifers is -always- OK, no matter who does it, whereas 
criticism of pro-choicers (only the ones on the "approved" pro-choicer list, 
understand; not me, not Elizabeth Bartley, not Nora Rivkis, not CJ, not Siren, 
not Ray Fischer, not Eric Rescorla, nor any else who has more-or-less parted 
ways with the "in" clique) is -always- verboten, no matter who does it? Yeah, 
that must be it...

And where were the criticisms from these same folks when all sorts of
disinformation was being posted to this newsgroup about my father having
supposedly "abandoned" me? And where were the criticisms from those same
folks when t.a broke out in snickering fits over my alleged "virginity"? Not 
a peep of criticism. In fact, the same folks whining and complaining now about 
the lack of criticism of Chaney's flames were leading the marching band when 
it was details of MY personal life (or what was BELIEVED to be my personal 
life) that were being paraded around the newsgroup. Hypocrites, damned 
hypocrites. You got *that* right...

								- Kevin
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A brief apology and retraction...
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:10:29 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

i wonder if your apology will give PHoney any ideas?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55145 alt.abortion.inequity:6397
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:23:35 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan9.002950.11702@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

...so if the woman, given a State of
...Nature, doesn't wish to support the child after birth, she just walks away
...from it. *POOF*! No child support.
>>Followed shortly thereafter by the death of the child.
>>I don't consider that progress.
>Oh, but the death happened *BY CHOICE* of the parents.  So I ask, what
>difference does one hour *before* birth and one hour *after* birth really
>matter in terms of whether the child should be respected?

The difference is that one hour before birth, the fetus resided within the
body of the woman, and one hour after birth it existed independently in the
world.

This is why people keep pointing out to you that the woman has a right of
REMOVAL, but not a right simply to do away with it by 'choice'.  As long as
you continue to make the mistake of equating her right of REMOVAL with some
non-existant right to kill feti, you will not get it.




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:27:19 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.151835.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>>> in a way that women aren't?   

>> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
>> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
>> custodial parents.

>Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
>burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.

The comparison isn't even close.  NO man has ever had to continue
carrying a fetus within his body because he was denied an abortion.
There ARE women who have been forced to pay child support and been
refused visitation rights.

Rape laws don't violate equal protection simply because the majority
of rapists are men.

>If I'm not mistaken, you stated that a law which has the effect
>of burdening one segment of society is not necessarily unconstitutional.

One segment _exclusively_, I would guess.  Neither child support nor
rape laws burden one gender exclusively.

>Doug Holtsinger

                     -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:52:43 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.726855166@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>I have no valid claim to other taxpayers' money. 

But other taxpayers' bodies is fair game....

>If we're talking my
>money (or my insurance company's money), then maybe I should give it
>up for the good of others -- but it's not government's place to 
>mandate such charity.

But it *is* the government's place to mandate child birth?  No this 
governments....


Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:17:13 GMT

In article <C0LvEu.3Ls@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>Giving a life-saving transfusion to someone who doesn't want one is a
>>>violation of their bodily autonomy, even though the effect is beneficial.
>
>>It's not beneficial if they don't CONSIDER it beneficial. There are more
>>levels of "beneficiality" than just basic life-preservation, Larry. For some,
>>"beneficiality" is conditioned by a religious outlook. It is up to the 
>>recipient/victim of an invasive medical procedure or the experiencer of an
>>internal biological condition to decide whether it's "beneficial" or not. 
>>Pro-CHOICE, remember? In the case of a mentally-competent adult, I would 
>>say that any invasive medical procedure, or any internal biological condition 
>>which is reasonably felt to be "detrimental", is to be considered a violation 
>>of Bodily Autonomy. But the same doesn't apply to "beneficial" invasions.
>>Someone who takes recreational drugs or a woman who has consensual sex does 
>>NOT have their Bodily Autonomy violated, because, FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW,
>>the drug or the penis does not "interfere" with their body, rather, it is 
>>considered "beneficial", albeit in a hedonistic kind of way.
>
>I think the "real" reason that it does not violate their BA is that they
>*chose* to do it, as opposed to someone else chosing it for them.  There are
>cases where the choice over BA must fall to someone else--you mentioned
>mental incompetence.  It would still be reasonably considered a "violation"
>to do something "truly" beneficial if that designated "someone else" did not
>agree to it.  I would like to point out that even a viable fetus can not be
>considered "mentally competent", and thus can not make its own choices on BA.

You raise a good point, but consider what choices we as a society DO make,
when there is a doubt raised, because the subject is not an adult, or is not
mentally-competent, as to the right course of medical action -- we uniformly 
decide in favor of life-preservation. The forced-transfusion example 
illustrates this. I know of no instance where society ASSUMES that the "best" 
thing for a non-mentally-competent or non-adult person is physically 
destructive to that individual. Yet there is no denying that abortion is
physically destructive to the fetus. So how does the transfusion analogy 
(or any of the others) demonstrate that a fetus lacks BA rights? If anything,
the transfusion analogy suggests to me that society cares MORE about the
physical welfare of the child, than the morals of the parents, and therefore,
in anything, it's an argument FOR, rather than AGAINST, a strengthening of the 
viable fetus'es BA rights versus the mother's right to choose the method of 
its removal regardless of the consequences to the fetus.

								- Kevin
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:45:23 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Dec30.172217.5850@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Even those that do not support exceptions for rape, health threat,
>etcetera usually do not support punishments for illegal abortion
>similar to current penalties for premeditated murder.  My experience
>is that those who actually *do* support such penalties and would
>refuse to allow exceptions are typically Operation Rescue types with
>bad attitudes.

This is an excellent point.  Gregg, if you feel that you would be uncomfortable
prosecuting a woman who obtained an abortion with the same fervor as 
prosecuting someone who hired a contract killer, you must ask yourself
honestly why.

--Teddi
------------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- nietS T yaJ)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:30:47 GMT

What: <1993Jan8.193931.189@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>> = Stephen Matheson to James Keegan

>> The next time I see something offensive
>> written by a pro-choicer I'll be looking for your critical response.
>> After all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?
>
>There was that incident when some pro-choicer said that he 
>wished that pro-life females would get raped so that
>they could get pregnant from a rapist.  You wouldn't believe 
>the number of pro-choicers who *politely* explained to him why 
>his remarks were inappropriate.

You wouldn't believe the number of pro-choicers who soudly toasted him
either.  As one of the ones who was *very* critical, I take exception
to your one-sided recollection of that incident.

'Sides, Stephen Matheson has been polite in his responses to inappropriate
comments from pro-lifers.  Would you criticize him as well?

(FWIW, Mr. Matheson, I respect your views and style here very much.)

>Steve Chaney [...] saved that low-life's remarks.

As did I, along with my responses.  And I will gladly repost them if you
continue to insist that we treated him with kid gloves.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:52:11 GMT

In article <5948@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>Give me just one example of a slave in the deep South who occupied the 
>slaveowner's belly for nine months of pain and sweat and I'll concede
>your point.

Sure, if you give me an example of a fetus that picked cotton for years...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:02:37 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>In article <bob1.726512379@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>>And what this young puppy can't seem to get into his head that even
>>some former fetus' would have approved abortion. In my own case,
>>had I been sentient and had I been consulted it would have been a
>>simple choice. My Mother's health was poor, there were three siblings
>>to care for, and there was my Father who would have been bereft.

>The desire to kill oneself is quite different than the desire to kill another.

And he was not referring to either desire.

>- Paul

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:33:59 GMT

<1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity, 
>
>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Your basic description doesn't sound that much different from most gyn
exams.  How does it compare with being "strapped" to a table on your
back with your feet up in the air and a doctor playing Johnny Bench
between your legs about 6 inches from your privates while everyone
watches you scream and froth in pain and agony for several hours?

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>
>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

You mean there's a law that requires you to breathe?  Or, rather, there's
a law that requires that you do not stop breathing?  You better get down
to the morgue and start executing a citizen's arrest on all those
"people".


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