HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Bernard, could you answer the question please?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:53:39 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <BxKA1t.BM6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
(Bernard A Schnaufer) writes to Lefty (>>):

>>Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
>>replace"...
>
>>> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
>>> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
>>> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
>>> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
>>> able to develop cancer.
>
>>Do we have an accurate analogy to your reasoning here, Bernard?  Should we
>>outlaw surgery removing tumors anytime soon?
>
>Do you really think that there is anything substantive in your 'analogy'?
>And if there is, could you explain it?			-B Schnaufer

I'm not Lefty, but the answers are obvious.  Yes, she believes there
is something substantive.  The explanation is by simply removing
references to the gender of the host and the nature of the parasite
she was able to create a policy that she presumes you oppose.

Why don't you answer her question and explain your answer?  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:29:15 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>There are quite a few reasons the exact moment is useful and required.
>>
>>In this country one may use dependents for tax deductions for the
>>year.  In order to do this, one needs to know in which year personhood 
>>began.  
>
>To the nearest year = exact moment?

Yes.  I matters, presently, whether a child is born 31/12/92 23:59:50 
or 1/1/93 00:00:20.  In one case you get to claim the deduction for
another whole year.  (dates are in European format)

>>Criminal cases also depnd on knowing whether a person was
>>involved.  Should a woman have a late and heavy period, is that reason
>>to suspect homicide or manslaughter?
>
>If a man falls down dead in the street, is _that_ a reason to suspect
>manslaughter?  People die of natural causes all the time, and the legal
>system still ticks along.

It is easy to tell if a man falls down dead of a bullet hole.  Since
an embryo dies because of it removal, whether it was a natural or
induced miscarry it difficult to determine from the expelled tissue
(assuming it's even available).  In order to establish a crime you'd
have to prove that 1) the woman was pregnant, 2) the miscarry was
induced rather than natural, 3) the embryo was still alive at the time
of the miscarry.  To prove murder you'd also have to show that 4) she
knew she was pregnant (or suspected it) and 5) took the drug to end
the pregnancy.

>You are a razor-sharp pragmatist, Ray, and I've learnt a lot from reading
>your posts - but its probably true to say that as much harm occurs in the
>name of pragmatism, science, logic, and economics as has ever been done in
>the name of religion.  We are all guessing - but I must say you guess very
>well :-)

Thanks.

The greatest danger of pragmatism is failing to consider ALL of the
issues.  While it may be true that women have a right to their own
bodies, one cannot discount the social effect and attitudes fostered by
an opinion that a fetus is worthless.  For that reason I do not
generally argue for that view.

In my _opinion_ one _must_ recognize that both the woman and the 
fetus have great value.  But the priciple of liberty may have more 
value than a fetus.  Many people have died to preserve our freedoms;
I am rather stringly disinclined to forgo those freedoms without 
compelling reasons.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:08:35 GMT

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

>Right, pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
>aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  

Dougie, Dougie, surely you've seen one of the many posts I've made
about the fact that when _I_ faced a problem pregnancy, _all_ the
support I received was from pro-choicers.  The pro-"life"rs simply
turned their backs and walked away.

Tsk tsk Dougie, is that old memory going?  And I hear there's a
shortage of SIMMs, too.......drag.

>Doug Holtsinger

                           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:24:56 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k 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 <1992Nov5.215938.1617@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>Now I have to ask the critical question before we go wild here talking
>about whether it is "right" to allow the broad definition of health
>(Doug seemed to be implying that allowing exemptions for pyschological
>health was somehow a "bad" thing):

You cut right to the heart of the issue, and pointed out the flaw in
Dougie's lies.  The issue of mental health was brought up in Doe, which
was about an earlier-term abortion; Jane Doe had serious psychological
problems - so much so that she was institutionalized.  Doug is trying
to get people to believe that this means that a woman in her ninth
month could be bummed out because of a bad hair day and decide to
get an abortion, and this would be allowed under the same exception.
Unfortunately for Doug, few people are as stupid as he is; most of us
can see the difference.

>  Could someone please cite some statistics on the frequency and/or
>  absolute number of cases where a post-viable abortion is granted
>  for (1) any reason (2) reasons outside strict physical health?

There's about 100 third-trimester abortions performed *per year* in
the US, and these are *only* done for serious health reasons.

The number is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the reason is
from the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sat Oct 26, 1991, p5B:
[...]
        Only three or four doctors perform late-stage abortions,
        said Patricia Anderson with the National Abortion Federation.
        "There are a handful of third-trimester abortions that are
        done in instances of serious fetal anomalies or in the case
        of a pregnancy threatening a woman's life.  And only under
        those conditions," she said.

>If there aren't any (or many) cases then PLEASE let's not have some
>great big debate.

There's no "great big debate"; Doug knows what the truth is, but he
still tries to scare people with his lies.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:42:41 GMT
Distribution: na


In article <1992Nov8.064722.10308@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
 
>I've recently made it clear that I support requiring medical approval,
>not judicial approval.... 
 
You mentioned this before, and I asked you about it, but either I missed
your reply or you missed my question.  How is this suppose to work?  
Currently the medical profession has no such ability to make or 
enforce legislation.  If you allow legislation to determine when
abortions are allowed, you are taking it out of the hands of the
medical profession.  This would leave it up to the judiciary to
enforce.  So would you ellaborate on how you would write legislation
that would keep the judiciary out of the equation?

>   - E. Elizabeth Bartley, a distant Shadow of
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: Re: Holtsinger destroys trees (was Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution:  world
Date:  6 NOV 92 14:17:07    

In article <1992Nov5.160124.18027@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>In article <1992Nov5.031221.27218@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) 
>writes:
> 
>}I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
>}the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 
> 
>But more seriously, Reverend Father, trees may be protected because
>of their own worth, or because of their value to others.  While
>you may be physically capable of destroying such a tree, it might
>be quite illegal to do so.  You may not receive any compenstation,
>depending on the circumstances.

Some homeowners in the Miami area found this out after Andrew.  They used 
storm damage as a reason to cut mangroves down.  They are required to 
replant those trees, because that was illegal.  Mangroves are very 
important to the ecology of the area for fish and shellfish breeding.  So 
beware when you cut down that tree Doug.  It might not be legal for you to 
destroy the tree.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/     \
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47472 talk.politics.misc:59342
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Manifest Destiny is NOT dead.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:35:05 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov7.214241.24357@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> ] In article <1992Nov3.195041.2701@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> [ too many canuks speaking to each other... ]

HEY!  I'm not exactly sure of the spelling of Canuck, but I *know*
it isn't "canuk".  Not even capitilized???

> ] > Reminds me about Drieux's "everybody's a potential American" argument...
> 
> 2. Need We discuss the fact that the Canadians are
> considering Joining, at long last, God's One True Country,
> given the fiasco of their SocialistCommunistReferendum.

Nah, no need to discuss the absurd.  The referendum may have proven that
Mulroney is not very well liked (and there's really no cause for discussion
there (maybe I could refer to you the ever popular hit single
"Mulroney Must Die" by that jammin' Canadian power trio, Pariah)).
As for joining America, I'm actually going through quite a lot of trouble
to work and live there, but I fully intend to return to the Beloved
Great White North, and I plan on bringing my American born wife and
child with me.  And we'll LIKE it! :-P

> 3. It is Clear that When the FerrisWheelOfKharma Stops,
> Everyone will BE American! 

Nah, when I'm reincarnated, I'm gonna be a Commie Chicken living
in the Darkest Depths of Afrika, and after that wonderous existence,
there will not be the slightest need for me to reincarnate ever again.

> This is Intuitively, Self Evidently, Intrinsically Obvious:
> 
> A. America is the Best of All Possible Places, 
> because this is the Best of all possible world,
> and God Put Forth America to be a Bright Beacon
> Of the OneTrueLight unto the heathens!

What if the heathens are afraid of the Light?
 
> B. As all persons can Potentially Become Americans,

Nononononono!  If you plan to participate in genocide whilst you are
stateside, they won't letcha in in the first place.
 
> ps: Well, they have been nice enough to prepare
> every four years for a major migration of the
> BleedingHeartWimpLiberalScum of the USA....

Yup.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 04:52:41 GMT

In article <SCHOUTEN.92Nov5165148@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu> schouten@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.193846.26138@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> Right, pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
>> aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  
>
>That doesn't sound like any of the `pro-choicers' I've met.
>
>Dale Schouten
>schouten@uiuc.edu

Hell, don't confuse him with facts! :-)

Caryn

--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Teddi: baby killer
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:51:47 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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

>In article <5838@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> 
>tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>
>> the lovely German folks who are pumping air and nutrients
>> into a dead pregnant woman so the fetus can keep on keepin' on.  
>
>How does this case justify the annual slaughter of 1.5 million
>human beings? 
>
>Doug Holtsinger

Does the UN Commission on Genocide know about this?  How about Amnesty
International?  1.5 Million people killed every year????

 -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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:05:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.171415.8182@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.033559.13432@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> But a child is killed during an abortion, the child is not 
>>> just 'left to die'.  You can't escape the fact that during
>>> the vast majority of abortions, the child is intentionally
>>> killed by the abortionist. 
>
>> ... instead of being left to die a slow death of oxygen deprivation.
>> Is this more 'humane' to you?
>
>I'm simply pointing out that an unrestricted abortion right does not
>follow from the right to bodily autonomy.  

Does not follow from the right to bodily autonomy ALONE, Doug. But it
still follows.

>That says nothing about a 'humane' death.  

Correct. But Utilitarianism, or just simple compassion, dictates that
it makes no sense for a woman to suffer unnecessary hardship, just for
the purpose of making the "symbolic gesture" of removing the non-viable
fetus intact, only to have it die shortly thereafter.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:25:30 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Nov4.184000.2710@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>>  ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> |>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>>> |>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
>>> to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
>>                    ************************
>>> between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
>>> to save her life
> 
>>Why don't you like your decision to grant the mother her life rather than the
>>fetus'?  Would you prefer the mother died?  And why is it up to you to decide
>>who is "granted" an abortion, and who is not?  Do you plan to one day run
>>for office of some sort?
> 
> Scoot off, Brian. 
> [Brian used a much less nice word than "Scoot" with me, with less provocation.]

Was I provoking you, Peter?  And "fuck" is a very nice word.  It's a great way
to break the ice at parties! 

>>> You are missing my point! Yes that is true but you are not dening life
>>> if that egg is not fertilized 
> 
> "denying" [to correct the spelling] is not appropriate, as Brian now 
> points out. "destroying" is better, although I would append "human" before
> "life".  And, knowing the quirks of the people in this newsgroup, I would
> write "destroying a human" instead of "denying life".

Sounds a little better, but it would be more appropriate to say "destroying
a human life" so you don't get into the deal about zygotes being people.
 
>>No babies can be aborted.  This is not talk.infanticide.
> 
> A viable fetus has a perfectly legitimate claim to be called an "unborn
> baby."

Viability is a nasty argument that gets you nowhere.  It's ever-changing
and not exactly determinable.  Late term abortions are rare, and only
done to save the mother's life, right?
 
>>> I didn't steal it she gave the fetus permission when she had sex.
> 
>>Why?  What makes you think that?  The woman *may* have given the man permission
>>to ejaculate inside of her vagina, but there is no fetus at that point 
>>in existance, therefore no permission could possibly be granted.
> 
> A man can give permission to children not yet conceived to inherit a piece
> of his property.  

PROPERTY???  What are you meaning to say here, Peter?

>It's stretching the word "permission", granted, but

Stretching it further than the realm of my imagination, and considering
my dream about the buffalo and old men submitting pailfuls of their
own personal PMU samples, that's quite a ways.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting words(about Thans for life)
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:04:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>Even clinton said himself that he thinks abortion is a very bad thing and
>>should be avoided if possible.  I wonder why he said that.
>
>All kidding aside, if that is the way he feels, why is he so gung-ho
>on FOCA, federal financing of abortions, federal funding of fetal 
>harvesting, etc.?

Maybe because he realizes there's a difference between an
"undesirable" choice, and a "prohibited" choice?


-- 
_/_/_/  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.
      Nolite te bastardes    Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
        carborundorum.                                           -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 19:12:36 GMT


In article <73995@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU writes:
> The term "pro-choice" is totally meaningless to me - "pro-choice" on
> what?  Since most "pro-choice" people never mention the choice of
> prostitution, drugs, working for $1.00 per hour, maybe "pro-abortion
> rights" or "pro-choice on abortion" would be more accurate.

Clearly you haven't been reading talk.abortion, where such
topics are often discussed.

It's also clear that you have no concept of "context" in
language.  "Pro-choice", in the context of the abortion debate,
is understood by nearly all speakers of the English language
(excepting you) to mean "pro-abortion-choice".

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Most people are [idiots]," said Wimsey, gravely, "but it isn't kind to 
tell them so.  I expect you do tell them so."
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:51:13 GMT

I am not going to repost the whole article, but I stand by my point that the
suggestion was essentially Roe v. Wade.  Doug has a point though, an exception
to the proposed compromise should be inserted when the woman's health or life
is at risk.

-dave
From: schouten@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:51:48 GMT
	<Bx20sw.JEt@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov1.220127.9405@ncsu.edu>
	<1992Nov05.051626.18683@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Nov5.193846.26138@ncsu.edu>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Supercomputing R & D

In article <1992Nov5.193846.26138@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> Right, pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
> aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  

That doesn't sound like any of the `pro-choicers' I've met.

Dale Schouten
schouten@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: The theatre of the absurd
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:48:06 GMT

In article <nyikos.721360658@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.005245.12388@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct30.195615.18284@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
>The potential for exploitation of this group is tremendous.  Already
>some tribes in which old people who no longer contribute leave,
>voluntarily, to die
>of starvation, are held up to us as admirable by some writers.

So? What makes you think that the world is Eurocentric? Not only that,
but in some Native American groups severely handicapped infants are
still left out to become spirits and play with the other spirits and
be happy. What gives you the right to interfere in their religion?



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Centrist position on abortion?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:01:17 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14j by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <BwzzCJ.4I1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>(or are you calling pro-life the "left" side?)

Well, since pro-choice is the *right* side...  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:12:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.200525.8182@advtech.uswest.com> 
steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (rocker) writes:
>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>No, because I can destroy trees on private property, 

>> Again, this is not correct.  
>[...]
>> If you are going to base your argument on some legal principle, do
>> make sure that there actually IS such a legal principle.

> Um, rocker: nice try, but...

I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 

>Steve Novak 


Doug Holtsinger