HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:08:58 CST
 <adams.717858738@spssig> <1992Oct1.121158.28098@spectrum.xerox.com>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.121158.28098@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
> In article <adams.717858738@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>
>>Ron, please word-wrap your stuff at 75 or so characters....makes life a LOT
>>easier...thanx.
>>
>>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.717777688@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <adams.717438740@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <syl.717230669@bcserv> syl@bcserv.wustl.edu (Syl the Wallydraigle) writes:
>>>>>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Official Astro Boy Virus expert)  writes:
> 
> That exception has ALWAYS been there, long before 1973 Roe v. Wade came about!
> It will (and should) always be there.  The problem that arises is when 
>'mental health of the mother' is included as life-threatening. 
> That opens the door to anyone who wants an abortion, and has 
>a doctor willing to say she is at risk.

[yknow, the "return" key is NOT all that hard to press]
So you are willing to force emotionally unstable women to go through
the rigours of pregnancy and possibly kill themselves during the
ordeal?  "It's ok if your pain is physical, but if you're *just*
gonna go crazy, well that's your problem."
 
> ... shouldn't be.  It takes better than 8 hours for the 
>sperm to travel to the egg.  In the case of rape/incest, 
>the woman can get to her doctor who will clean her out, 
>and she won't become pregnant from that incident.

Yeah every rape victim is just gonna hop right off the ground and
race to their doctors and say "hey doc some guy forcibly knocked
me up, can I like get one of those pills?  Thanks, seeya later".
You're *so* flexible!
  
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Credit where credit is due...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:53:01 GMT

In <19nvaqINNqm1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <+t7nbf.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) wrote (in article <19ng5cINNe5v@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>):
>>>I don't get it.  What is this *respect* for a woman who would bear a 
>>>child she didn't want and didn't plan, and conceivably cannot raise?
>>
>>I meant that I'd respect her an awful lot if, even though she were
>>assaulted and raped, she could still find it within herself to love
>>the fetus inside her completely and raise it in a loving environment
>>without ever paying attention to the fact that the father was the
>>rapist.  I think that'd take some uncommmon self-respect and maternal
>>devotion.

I agree, and I'm sure Suzanne does.  Not that I would make every woman
go these whole nine yards (or months: I have no legal problem with
abortions in the first month, and for rape victims I hope I can stretch
it to two in good conscience.)

><N.B., this really isn't about Suzanne:  I'm looking at Brian and Galen's
>reaction not Suzanne's offer.  I'm taking that as a given.>

>Why?  This is the part I really want to know about.

>Do you figure women love their children *because* of whom the father is?

Not only, nor even mainly, but it is a special factor.
> 
>There's just something that smacks a little
>of pedestals about all this, that I'm trying to get to the root of.

Speaking of roots, one of the ancestors of Alex Haley, author
of _Roots_, was "Chicken George," the result of a rape of his
mother by his&her owner (I'm loath to use the word "master", although
as became clear in the TV series, the rat wasn't ALL bad).

>Adrienne Regard

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Personhood and interference
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:21:31 GMT

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <#w+p++#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>A woman who can not get an abortion is forced to carry the child herself.
>>She cannot surrender the pregnancy to someone else.  Pregnancy is involuntary.
>>People caring for a person in a coma are doing so of their free wills.  They
>>are even getting paid for it.  If any one of them gets tired of doing it,
>>they can just quit.
>
>Bascially, the problem here is that you are denying the medical advances
>that would eliminate the problem for the women. 

I've thought of something else since the my first reply to this post.
Since you've been invoking likely future medicine in this discussion, 
I'm going to do the same.

You define personhood to begin at conception.  What happens when
medical technology is able to clone people?  When it is possible to
take one cell from a person (not necessarily an egg/sperm cell) and
develop it into an adult?  No conception, no person?  Would a
thinking, feeling, talking adult not be a person merely because they
had never been concieved?  If any cell can become an adult, is any
cell a person?  If no conception, when does personhood begin?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:42:25 GMT

In article <drjzwlj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> ->sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> ->|I'd suggest that you seek some real help instead of confessing
> ->|your shortcomings in talk.abortion, Overpeck.  I'm really
> ->|not qualified to tell you why the "jokes" you feel compelled
> ->|to repeat in this newsgroup all have sexist overtones.  I
> ->|think you should see your therapist, and ask *him*.
> 
> ->You know, I've often felt Overpeck to be a twit.  But I'm 
> ->suprised to find he's the only major participant in this 
> ->thread who doesn't look like a twittering fool.
> 
> unless you lied about putting me in your killfile, you
> must be calling susan garvin, cathi cook, and dean
> twittering fools.  apparently, your judgement has
> continued to fail.

Tsk, tsk.  I don't think so.  She refered to the "major
participant[s]," whereas I am just dropping a line in now
and again and watching the whole silliness with something
like amazement at the stamina of the major participants.
I am the most minor participant of those you named, and
hence not included in CJ's description.

And CJ is welcome to call me a twittering fool if she so
desires.  While I must say the "twittering" part is a
first, I have been called a fool and worse before.  Some day
I will care about that, perhaps.  Then again, maybe not.
At least none of the Herd have called me a fool yet.

Dean Kaflowitz




Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:33:33 GMT

In article <Duo3RB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> /dev/nul writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>
>> I have been politiely asked in email to 'dumb down'
>> my posts for the folks in alt.fan.dan-qualye
>> and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh....
>>
>
>I have a better idea.  Why don't you try something intelligent, like editing
>your follow-up line and removing a.f.d-q from the list, sparing those of us who
>don't really care what you think from having to read it.
>
	Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

	<*SLAP*>

	You messin with the wrong crazy...  drieux, just drieux liable to
	FUCK yo' ass up boy, put the hurtin' on you good.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:42:12 GMT

In article <4jkz=t+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>->And agreeing with Keegan is utterly immaterial to me-- after 
>->all, I agree with him on many issues, though I find him 
>->utterly unworthy of my respect.
>
>why would anyone care if a person like you, who has
>lied about people who considered you a friend, respected
>someone or not? you've demonstrated that your respect is
>as worthless as your word.
I care who CJ respects, Jim.

BTW, would you mind proving that CJ has lied about people who considered
her a friend?

BTW2: Followups to misc.test? Pretty low.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Question for Eric Gorr
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:39:34 GMT


The protesters at the local women's clinics spend a good
part of their time praying at the top of their voices for
various things - an end to all abortions, conversion for
all who are not supporting them, etc.  Do you think that
there is Biblical support for this activity?

Susan
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39593 talk.religion.misc:17474 alt.atheism:18247
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:46:14 GMT

In article <1047@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.220609.5948@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
> >I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
> >in a big way.
> 
> If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
> get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
> "Pro-Abortion"?  Why is this distinction so important?  It seems to be more
> than just a legitimate concern over getting the issues straight.  I can't
> think of any other issue where people react this way.

How sweetly disingenuous.  And what a lovely load of baloney.
Why, if the distinction is clear to you and you understand
the issue, do you use the term "pro-abortion" instead of the
preferred term?  Hmmm?  Could it be that you just wish to be
insulting and innacurate to make political hay in the label
game?  What does it seem to you in this instance?

> I think the answer is obvious: most people do find something wrong with
> abortion, but they aren't willing to impose that on others.

I think the answer is obvious also.  It's not the same
answer as you provide, however.

> >I don't think *anyone* is "Pro-Abortion."
> 
> Well, you are wrong here.  Some people use as an argument for legal
> abortions that there are too many people in the world.  My neighbor is this

This is a spurious argument which is not a pro-choice argument,
since an inadequate population could easily turn that argument
into an insistance on pregnancy where it is not wanted, or to
justify forcing people to have abortions.  Most people who are
pro-choice are pro-choice, that is, in case this hasn't been
clear to you, they believe it is a personal decision and should
not be mandated by the government one way or the other.

> way.  You could say that birth control would be better for this purpose,
> but he and many like him are in fact *for* abortion as a way to reduce
> population growth.  That is not to say that they would force women to have
> them, but it is fair to say that they are for them.

No, if they don't want women to be forced to have them the fair
thing to say, if you are indeed concerned with fairness, is that
they recognize a benefit from abortion but believe that it is
a personal decision that shouldnot be mandated by the government
one way or the other.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Question for Eric Gorr
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:08:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.003502.719@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article <Bv7u1z.LEp.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## 
## The protesters at the local women's clinics spend a good
## part of their time praying at the top of their voices for
## various things - an end to all abortions, conversion for
## all who are not supporting them, etc.  Do you think that
## there is Biblical support for this activity?
#
#
#Of course.   It's called "praying for one's enemies".

     "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites
are:  for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and
in the corners of the street, that they may be seen of men.
Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward.
      But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and
when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in
secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward
the openly."
         -Matthew 6: 5-6 KJV

I knew these verses in grade school.  You really should
read the Bible sometime, Suzanne.

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38951 talk.politics.misc:48279 alt.sex:31090 alt.rush-limbaugh:6048 alt.politics.elections:14470 alt.politics.clinton:7538 alt.politics.bush:6959 soc.women:17115
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.women
Subject: Novelty and News To Me...
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:07:49 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
] 
] we have a bit more control over our own sex drives than we
] do over hurricanes or rapists. where we have control, 
] perhaps we should accept the responsibility of our actions.

So in Mister Roger's Neighborhood his women
say: "Ovulate" 

and it is So.

They say: "Emplant"

and it is So.

Welcome to Mister Roger's Neighborhood.


Now what was that you were saying about having
control over things.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: a glimpse of chaney hall's veracity
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:33:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.162422.7479@crd.ge.com> Rejectus, who calls itself
<keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>the chaneyhall thing posting as
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>-> PatricKKK, we know you are a major liar around town.
>
>if this were true, it should be simple to demonstrate.
>first, of course, you'll have to define "we" and "major
>liar." but it's not true, is it?

Here are a few instances:
1) "I have DOCUMENTATION."
2) "Chaney poses as Conrad Vincent."
3) "I never said Chaney posts as Conrad Vincent."
4) "Chaney is not at Nextnet." 
5) "Steve Chaney likes Randall Terry." 
6) "I am not a Klansman." 

At least six lies right there have come out of PatricKKK Humphrey's
mouth. 

Now that I've demonstrated it, Rejectus, care to take your head out of
your ass? 

=============================================================================
                   /\
                  /  \
                 /    \
                /      \ 
               /  KKK   \ 
              /          \ 
             / ---   ---  \
            /  [ ]   [ ]   \ 
           /                \ 
          /                  \
         /      --------      \  
        /       |      |       \ 
       /        --------        \ 
      /                          \ 
     /                            \ 
/--------------------------------------\ 
|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
|      |  - PatricKKK Humphrey  |      | 

=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:54:11 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>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. 

Context-cutting, Darcy?  When someone tells me I will have "blood on
my hands" if I don't support THEIR version of abortion legislation, I
don't think one needs a lot of context to figure out where the accuser
is coming from.  Or will you now claim that this was said as some sort
of parody of the anti-abortion position?

>Is Keegan giving you lessons? 

The belief that women are not capable of acting on their own, or
making their own decisions without the guidance of a man is
another characteristic of those who are anti-choice.

>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. 

Well, now that you've come out of the closet on your anti-choice
stance, I'll debate with you as I would with any other idiot pro-"life"r
on the group.  The answer is that I believe a woman has the right to
end her pregnancy at any time, for any reason.  Since the only
reasonable abortion methods available in the third trimester are
induced labor and C-section, I have absolutely no problem with a
woman ending her pregnancy a month early.  If what you wax so
hysterical about is a higher fetal death rate from these procedures
than from full-term labor, then you are prefectly free to try and
convince me that you have an excellent reason for overriding the
medical judgement of doctors and legislating that some certain
technique MUST, IN ALL CASES be used.  

>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.

And so I reiterate - I have no use for "feelgood" legislation.

>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?

Darcy, now you're on another subject entirely.  (Don't bother 
dragging out Black's for the 9683rd time.)  My position is that
a woman has the right to end her pregnancy at any time, for any
reason.  I don't think you are in a particularly good position
to mandate that the pregnancy must be ended in a certain WAY
to save these hypothetical "viable lives", but you're certainly
free to try and get YOUR medical judgement written into law.

                        -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40601 talk.politics.misc:49581 alt.politics.bush:7746
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:45:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct4.220259.4315@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <BvCvIK.LqL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>	What a stupid analogy. Preventing, or correcting injuries
>>recieved in a car wreck does NOT necessitate the taking of another
>>human being's life. 

>In other words, the "consent to sex == consent to pregnancy" argument has 
>substance IF AND *ONLY* IF we consider the z/e/f "a human being", right?

>Why not just apply Occam's Razor, and deal with the issue purely in terms of 
>the (alleged) personhood of the z/e/f, Bruce? Why wrap it up in all of this 
>"consent to ..." stuff?

	I am not the one who brought up the "consent to" arguement. The
pro-abortionists declare that the woman has a right to have her child removed
if she does not want it because it is a "parasite" which she has not consented
to carry. I then responded to that defense of their murderous "right". 

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Does Nyikos Hold that Abortion is Murder?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:47:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.222022.19449@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>
>>The "responsibility" of the fetus is irrelevant.  It is not being
>>punished or killed for any action of its own.  Its right to life via 
>>life support from the woman, however, may depend on whether the woman 
>>entered into any obligation to the fetus voluntarily, and whether such 
>>an obligation threatens her life or her other rights.
>
>>AGAIN:  I am arguing whether this is *consistent* or not.
>>Please avoid "you are advocating" responses, thanks.
>
>It isn't consistent. Given this argument, you would have to make the
>same decision in any case of contraceptive failure. (Since the people
>involved were obviously not voluntarily accepting a pregnancy since they
>had made clear and reasonable plans to avoid one.)

This depends on belief.  One can believe fairly reasonably that 
participating in sex, even with contraceptives (whose unreliability
implies that "reasonable" precaution is itself a matter of belief),
is a voluntary decision to risk pregnancy and the ensuing [proposed] 
obligations.  This is the hardest of the hard-line positions.

If that is your belief, then using contraceptives does not mitigate one's
voluntary undertaking of a risky act that has binding consequences.
There is no inherent need to treat contraceptive failure differently.

Thanks for attacking the argument, not me!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity