HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:11:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia State University

In <_3rz62j@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>>In America an unborn child can inherit property, be named an executor, have a
>>guardian appointed, sue for injury, file for an injunction, receive Social
>>Security benefits, sue for a blood transfusion, obtain "equal protection" by
>>law, and yet be denied the right to save its own life from death by abortion.

>This is not correct.  The "unborn child" may do none of these things
>until it has been born alive.  It was ever thus.

True, but maybe he's stretching it based upon the fact that you can write
any unborn, or unconcieved offspring into your will.  My sister and her
husband have done this...

-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

a computer is nothing but an autistic savant...
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: let's keep DOD in line instead
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:25:01 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <BvDIE1.6oq.2@cs.cmu.edu>, garvin+@cs.cmu.edu writes:
|Shall we return to posting substantive articles about abortion, 
|then?  (and flames and inane comments and whatever else we
|feel like....)

Let's do it.

---
c j silverio
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38856 alt.consciousness:527
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 28 Sep 1992 08:40:17 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep28.051014.10293@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean) writes:
>>>I question your sincerity here.  I invite readers to ask themselves 
>>>whether they'd ever seen a fetal pig, or a picture of one
>I have !  I have!  And I've seen a rat embryo (lots of em too)
>and a fish embryo and a buncha others that I just can't remember!
>Do I get a prize, Peter?  (sorry I don't know what the point is here)


Brian, have you seen a human fetus?  

Comparisons don't work if people haven't two things to compare.  I notice
that Mr. Nyikos asks how many people have seen fetal pigs, but not how many
people have seen fetal humans....

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39324 talk.politics.misc:48529 alt.sex:31284 alt.rush-limbaugh:6164 alt.politics.elections:14610 alt.politics.clinton:7725 alt.politics.bush:7121
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 1992 20:44:06 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <9364@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1992Sep28.215858.18233@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
|> 
|> >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
|> >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
|> >  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
|> 
|> Try this on for size.
|> Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
|> Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
|> Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
|> 
Under some circumstances, mercy killing can be a responsibility
solution, particularly if the unwanted burden is uncontrollable
pain associated with a terminal disease.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:29:12 GMT

In article <Yen_7EW00WB=9_y4sB@andrew.cmu.edu> 
"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Author       Cuomo, Mario M
>Title        Reducing Casualties in the Abortion Battle
>Source       New York Times,  Aug 5, 1992,  A, 23:2

 "Whatever else the abortion adversaries believe, most of them would also
  agree that there are entirely too many abortions in this country." 

 "Of the 6 million pregnancies in the United States every year, more
  than half are unplanned; more than a quarter--1.5 million--end in
  abortion. That's a rate higher than for any other industrialized
  Western nation."

    --- New York Governor Mario M. Cuomo

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Shlafly/Benshoof abortion debate, September 15th.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.012632.20444@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <nyikos.717901326@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>
>> I think pro-choicers are MORE likely not to trust women to make decisions
>> than pro-lifers.  Why are they so afraid of laws that give women the
>> OPTION to view information on fetal development.
>
>What woman doesn't have the option *now* to view any information
>regarding fetal development that she wants?  Why is a law needed?
In fact, how could a law take away from women the option to view
information on fetal development without infringing upon the
First Amendment? Clearly it does not meet any of the criteria for
which speech can be restricted. After all, it is not obscenity,
fighting words, or a threat to national security. I think you
would have a pretty tough argument to make that it was child
pornography.

If you're thinking of requiring that clinics offer the option,
I'd say that's something entirely different, and not clearly part
of informed consent at all.
-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."
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Threats?
Keywords: poor DOD
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:20:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.222040.2600@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <6734@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
## Okay, DOD, you just said that you "don't normally" do it.

#Thanks for correcting yourself.  One nitpick though: I said 
#nothing about criticism, only "substantial disagreement".  

Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?

## Since you would prefer to have the exact quote re-posted,
## here it is.

#I'm kind of flattered that you would save my posts, Ms. Garvin.
#Just how many posts have you saved?

What makes you think that I have any of your articles saved, DOD?
You mean, if you needed a quote to support something, you wouldn't
know who to ask?  You mean, people don't mail you such things?

No friends, huh?

Susan

##"I am not "pro-life", and I don't normally express substantial disagreement 
##with pro-lifers in my posts because I know pro-aborts like you will gloat 
##over it.  I do sometimes send e-mail to pro-lifers when I disagree with 
##their views."
##-dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) in <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sarah Weddington
From: Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 10:16:57 -0400 
Organization: Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?

Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
the deaths of millions?!
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Face it: the pro-lifers have won the flamewar.
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:27:32 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct5.174509.11188@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

  [lots of stuff about how bad pro-choicers are deleted]

Steve, when you say in the title of your article that "pro-lifers 
have won the flame war", do you mean that pro-lifers flame 
more often than others and have therefore won?  Are you aware that 
flaming is not necessarily something to be proud of?  Are you sure 
you want to malign some of the good people in the pro-life camp
by calling them flamers?  Or are you just talking about yourself 
again and pretending that everyone else is right behind you, 
saying "You tell 'em, Steve!"?


[Steve writes]
>To all the pro-lifers: I really think we need to ignore the flame mongers
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                              Oh, poo!  We "lost the flamewar", so clearly 
                              we are the flame wimps (also known as 
                              quiet and respectable types); you must be 
                              the flame monger -- you won the flamewar!

>of the Pat Ira Roby Gang, and set them apart from people who really seek
>intelligent debate. Seriously, we need to just turn up our noses at these
       ^  
      ^^^    Slowly, but surely, Steve 
     ^^^^^   is learning to spell!

>Neanderthals, log it when they pull one of their Neanderthal acts (we've
>gotta have something to hang over their heads, right?), use it in our
>.sig's, and otherwise ignore them.

So which is it?  Are you going to hang things over our heads or are 
you going to ignore us?  Make up your mind.  

With you for a General, who needs Benedict Arnold?



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos scores 749 and 745 on SATS!
Summary: Chaney scores in the square roots of negative numbers: imaginary.
Organization: Whatever it is, I'm against it.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:40:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.181026.10388@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (The
*official* Usenet virus) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.033225.22205@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>
>>Speaking of SAT's and pro-force idiots, though, Patrick,
>>should we tell the A.B. that the Franciscan University
>>of Steubenville (home of the "Pro-life Activities" minor)
>>gives academic scholarships to people who score a big
>>1000?   That might give him something to shoot for when
>>he finally gets out of high school.
>
>Aw, that's scary. You'd never get out of high school, then. 

Poor ol' Chaney -- never stopped to think Susan might have gotten out of
high school before he was born.  Actually, make that never stopped to think,
period... 

>Perhaps you'll get into Steubenville. As a test chimp, that is. 

Not until you finish up *your* contract there, at least.  See you in
2003...:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 

            * Hit any key to continue, or any other key to quit. *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:18:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.154347.17433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.022619.21355@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>writes:
>
>}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
>}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
>}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
>}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
>}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
>}pro-lifers seem to like doing.
>
>Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
>women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
>discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
>women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  
>

Just a side comment: The idea that women can figure it out for themselves
(abortion, and the unborn being human)...  For some reason, this reminds
me of reasons for ALLOWING abortion.  Some mentioned that those
who have sex or use contraceptives don't really know much about the
consequences or something like that.  Since they don't know much
about the consequences of sex or else some of the consequences of even
"safe sex," these people should not have to go through the birthing
process.  Then in this post, it is suggested that women can figure it
out for themselves.  What's the deal?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:43:48 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>At least you are consistent in recognizing that black slaves don't
>necessarily have the right to be free and human beings don't necessarily
>have the right to life.  So, in a sense, both slavery and abortion can
>easily be justifiable with that position.

And so can forced pregnancy.  So?  What makes your _opinion_ the right
one?  No, don't bother responding.  I'm sure I can come up with the
pro-life propagnda myself.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: oexmann@convex.com (Carla Oexmann)
Subject: Re: For Adrienne and Kathi
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:35:45 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <nyikos.717640402@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Adrienne, by the way, did not use a smiley when she came up
>with that story about hearing women screaming at doctors to
>stop delivering their children.  Part of her prerogative as
>Lady High Everything Else, you see, is to leave them off.

I assumed that she did not use a smiley because she had seen something 
like that happen.  I have : I was once in the emergency room waiting
and heard a woman in labor screaming at the doctor ( and the nurses
and her husband and anyone in earshot ) that she'd kill them all if they
didn't stop this, right now !  

( don't blame the company : this is mine and mine alone.  )
Carla Oexmann        {allegra, sun, harvard, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!oexmann
Convex Computer Corp.  3000 Waterview Parkway P.O. Box 833851 Richardson, TX
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: This is pretty damned funny (Re: Biblical support for abortion...?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:05:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Sep29.163954.3582@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>Not that I'm disagreeing with Mr. Rescorla or anything, but quantum
>mechanics also explicitly permits live bullfrogs to shoot out
>spontaneously from my nostrils -- and I'll bet it's more likely to
>happen.
That's true but irrelevant. Mr. Gorr claimed that it was certain
that he would die. It is not.
-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: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:06:20 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->>to avoid posting a statement and then contradicting
->>->>it in your next post on the same thread.
->>->Please show how my statements contradict each other, Mr. Keegan.
->>you already did.
->In what way did I "show how my statements contradict each other", Mr.
->Keegan?

->> at least this time you were smart
->>enough to delete them. a generation ago in this thread,
->>they were just inches apart on my screen.
->I repeat them for your comment, sir:

->->>->>->Arguments stand and fall on their own, whatever the credentials
->->>->>->of he who propounds them.
->->>->>that being the case, there was absolutely no
->->>->>reason for you to blatently assert that my answer
->->>->>was not an answer, ws there?
->->>->Sure. To point out the vacuity of your argument.
->->>
->->>then you're withdrawing your statement above, "Arguments
->->>stand and fall ...." i take it?
->->Nope. Why would I be?

->And I ask you once again to SHOW how my statements contradict each
->other. I note, as I have before, that merely maintaining that they
->do does nothing to establish the proposition that I have in fact
->contradicted myself in this instance. If you believe that they do,
->please show that this is in fact the case. So far, you have merely
->made an unsubstantiated assertion.

this was so funny that i thought it called for a repost,
unedited.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities: Frank?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:42:09 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
-gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
-: 	Making murder illegal is also a form of self-protection.  Banning
-: abortion is simply legalizing a set of morals.
-
-This statement is not correct.

How do you figure that?  Abortion could only be self-protection if you
were a fetus/zygote/embryo/"unborn child"/whatever...  Correct me
if I'm wrong, but none of those humans have any say whatsoever
about legalizing anything.  Maybe they don't even have an opinion,
since it's impossible for them to think about such things.  Then
again, I guess we ought to let them have a say in the legal matters
of our society.  So what do all you unborn humans have to say about
pornography, anyway?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40307 alt.abortion.inequity:4226 alt.birthright:516
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:49:42 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

#  chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>> Yes, and let's not forget the forced-abortions policies of China.
# 
# Policies which are just a repugnant to pro-choicers as forced
# pregnancy.  Forced-abortion and forced-pregnancy both take away
# from women control of their bodies.

Which reminds me--

I read a news article not long ago that stated that China does not,
nor did it ever have, a policy of forced abortion.  I have read about
China's `coerced abortion' policy which amounts to strong government
incentives for abortion as a population control measure, but searching
my memory, I can't remember ever reading about China's `forced
abortion' policy.

I don't know what to believe.  It seems to be common knowledge that
China has a `forced abortion' policy, but a source of information I
usually trust is telling me that it isn't so.  Now, I'm wondering if
this `forced abortion' policy is really a myth, or if my source is
deliberately lying.

Would someone please post a description of China's forced abortion
policy?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:09:25 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.718168127@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep29.004310.110764@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>
> >In  <1992Sep28.223941.23600@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> >> In article <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> >> >> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> >> >
> >> >  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?
> >>
> >> An "8-week embryo" is definitely human.
>
> >But definitely not a person, which is what the question was.
>
> I think there is a strong case for saying that it is a person.

And I think there's not; we disagree.

> >> BTW, just a small tidbit: the unborn feels pain at 9 weeks.
>
> >Just a small correction.  It can respond to stimuli, but "feel"
> >implies consciousness or awareness, which is lacking at that point.
> >Neuroscientists say not before 7 *months*.
>
> Still repeating their unwarranted conclusions, Larry?

You showed nothing that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that
their conclusions are unwarranted.  I still choose to believe neuroscientists
over philosophers as to the capabilities of the brain at various points of
development.

> >> There is a difference between that which exists and has been terminated
> >> and that which has never existed and as a result, can never
> >> be terminated.
>
> >Does this mean you'll stop referring to the fetus as an "unborn child"?
> >:-)
>
> Could you please explain this apparent *non sequitur* of yours, Larry?

Since "child", to me, implies "born", the "unborn child" has never
existed.  The fetus was terminated, but, according to Martin's logic,
the "unborn child" can never be terminated.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)