HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:34:07 CST

In article <1992Nov21.080116.4429@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>However, I think a law (in current practice through definitions rather
>than being passed as a law, I believe) saying "Any z/e/f delivered
>alive whether by choice or by a botched abortion is a person; killing
>him/her is murder and allowing him/her to die is manslaughter by
>neglience" does not damage a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
>(Of course, it doesn't protect *fetuses* either....)

Elizabeth, parents are currently allowed to refuse
treatment for a preemie whose chances are not that
good.  If someone you loved gave birth to a child
whose neonatal care would cost over a million dollars,
and the child would have less than a 5% chance of survival,
and almost infintesimal chances of surviving without
severe handicaps, and the months of treatment required 
would be invasive and painful, would you deny those folk
the right to say, "Back off and let me hold him while he 
lasts"?  Think about it.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Let's Play Attributions, Take 2
Keywords: campus joke, little bit, lying, false accusations, empty threats
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:41:23 GMT

In article <nyikos.722180424@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In the first post of this title (minus the `Take 2', of course) I was
>relying on my (inaccurate, as it turns out) memory of a post by Susan
>Garvin.  The attribution about which I was complaining was one to 
>bard@cutter rather than one to barnejd@wkuvx1.  My apologies to all
>				  ^^^  ^^^^^^
>concerned, especially Mr. Woodyatt and banrnejd, whoever he is.

Well, it's good to know that we're both imperfect.
Can we drop this boring discussion of attribute allegations now?

>But the cause of my complaint still stands.  Susan Garvin did indeed 
>omit a # (or> as the case may be) in front of the bard@cutter attribution, 
  [...     104 more lines deleted]

I guess not.  Sigh.
Have we wasted enough time, yet?  :-)


-- 
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*
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48776 alt.rush-limbaugh:10070
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Survivors of Abortion
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:06:22 GMT

diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

> I found this lovely bit in alt.romance.chat - where it
> does NOT belong.

[--deletions--]

> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (big tree) writes:

DearOldDoug???  My, my, he must be trying to recruit more support for his
candidacy as most characterless pro-life poster.

Aside to Diana:  Thanks for your email; did you get my reply?  Everything
I send to wetware.com bounces but this time I tried path-aliasing.  Let me
know, ok?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "One of the HORRIBLE things of trying to defend a FREE REPUBLIC is
 that I get to support your RIGHT to say STOOPID THINGS." -- drieux
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: restrictions
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:00:57 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1ebb5tINN3cm@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.004440.19764@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>>Before invasive surgery became
>>commonplace, before antibiotics and sterile technique,
>>when C sections were very rare because they were very
>>dangerous, this was not just a rhetorical question.  A
>>fetus whose head was too large to pass through the
>>vagina represented a very real threat to the life of
>>the woman.  The medically indicated procedure was to behead
>>the fetus and save the woman's life.  Some doctors refused
>>to do it, based on their belief that the fetus was more
>>valuable than the woman.  If someone who lived in an isolated
>>area took this action today, believing it to be safer than
>>performing major surgery undernon-sterile condition, I wouldn't want
>>that person to be prosecuted for manslaughter.  I wonder
>>if Fischer would.

>I think to call a mature baby in the birth canal a foetus is stretching the
>term.  This is a baby being born.  It is certainly offensive to say that the
>baby is more important than the woman - but is it any less offensive to say
>the woman is more important than the baby?  I, for one, am prepared to say
>that they are equally important.

Do you really think so?

I, for one, have a gut reaction against any doctor who would *not*
sacrifice a baby being born for the mother.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Quotes
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:54:22 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Chris A Lyman):

>> Hiya, Suzanne.  You've been awfully quiet 

>Not on this end of the wire.  I've been up to my neck in writing a large
>piece code!   Some people actually work for a living :-)

Sure, Suzanne; whatever you say.

>>since GHWB took it on the chin

>Hey, BC has his fingers in so many, er, pies, I'll stick around for the
>impeachment in a year or two.  :-)

They don't impeach presidents for sticking fingers in, er, _pies_, dearie.

>> and your state referendum on abortion was voted down by almost 2 to 1.

>Didja ever notice, Chris, that I have never once posted that I supported
>that referendum? 

You lie.  How can you embarrass yourself like this?  Are you denying you
posted that this amendment would "do an end run around Roe v. Wade"?

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

>Ya know why?   It allowed for the killing of the children
>of rape and incest.  

Proving that you and Pope Gay-Hater are so out of step that Catholicism's
demise is significantly nearer.

>_ALOT_ of pro-lifers actually voted against that
>referendum, for precisely that reason.

Gads, Suzanne - you're gonna stick in the ground like a dart with that
lengthening nose of yours.

>Since Arizona law _already_ outlaws
>all abortions except to save the life of the mother, what incentive would
>any pro-lifer have had to vote for it?   The day that Roe v Wade falls,
>one or the other of those laws would be reinstated.   So why the hell should
>we have settled for the lesser one?

You know, I hope you far-right Republican boneheads keep on deluding
yourselves.  Face it, Exorcism Queen: the anti-abortionist , anti-women
crowd and the religious fanatics with pencil-thin minds have just been
issued a wakeup clang.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Pro-life...conclusions?
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:28:30 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <3169@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays):
> In article <1992Nov20.032352.9297@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>From article <3159@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
>>(Joseph F. Mays):
>>> Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
>>> abortion is wrong.
>>> 
>>> Sometimes contraceptives fail and children get born.  This shows that
>>> contraceptives are wrong.
>>> 
>>> Sometimes people fail at abstinence and children get born.  This shows
>>> that abstinence is wrong.
> 
>>Sometimes people fail at using twisted logic to make a point.  This 
>>shows that the quality of the original assertion has everything to
>>do with the success of the argument.  It might not be wrong, but it
>>sure does make the poster look silly...
> 
> And sometimes people fail to use logic at all.  I have seen the first
> statement presented as an attempt to dissuade people from getting
> an abortion.  I see no logical difference between the first,
> second and third statement.  What difference do you perceive between
> these statements?

OK, so at best you have illustrated the potential logical fallacies
resulting from asserting:
"Sometimes abortions fail and children get born.  This shows that
abortion is wrong."
The paper tiger is dead.  My mistake was assuming that you were
attempting to make a point with general relevance.

But it was fun, so here's another one:

Sometimes children, who could have been aborted as fetuses, are
	abused or neglected.  This shows that abortion is right.
	Maybe it even shows that sometimes abortion should be
	mandated.

Sometimes children, who could have been quietly killed at age
	6 weeks, are abused or neglected.  This shows that killing
	6-week-olds is right.  Maybe it even shows that sometimes
	this killing should be mandated.

Sometimes children, who could have been used in lethality testing
	of potential pharmaceutical products, are abused or neglected.
	This shows that using children as experimental toxicity
	subjects is right.  Maybe it even shows that sometimes such
	use of children should be mandated.

I've heard the first statement used as justification for abortion
in general.  I've never heard your first statement, but I admit
you have a case against it.

> Perhaps I am being silly.  I would suggest that you show how I am
> being silly, rather than simply assert it.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
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.
Keywords: Things that make you go 'hmm.....' 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 01:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.012733.8794@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.131803.12465@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov11.184430.8657@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>>  1)
>>> Things like life of the mother, incest (which would cause death of the infant,
>>> and rape would still be allowed after laws were passed.  It is because many see
>>> these as 'abortions' that the issue has dragged on.
>> 
>> The above stuff from you is garbled and fairly incoherent, but I'll
>> try to decipher it and respond.  First of all, why would incest
>> cause the death of an infant?  Second, when is an abortion not
>> an abortion?  That is, you seem to be saying that an abortion
>> for reasons of the woman's health, incest, or rape is not an
>> abortion.  That is simply playing with words.  It is what it is.
>
>Seeeing that aparently there are those on here that do not know this subject as
>with you, I will say it more clearly.  Many say that abortion is right because
>a baby concieved with incest might die so it should be aborted.  That will not
>change, because the life of the mother is always seperate from abortions. 
>Also, those raped can still go and remove the sperms before they form with the
>egg or shortly thereafter.

I have to wonder just what Ken's definition of "abortion" is...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=***************DON'T SHOOT!! I'M REALLY A BLACK BEAR!!!**********************=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:51:04 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1ejhs2INNldl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>If life is valuable in general, why do we raise cattle and then kill
>them?  Why do we destroy the rainforests in Brazil?  Why do we step on
>bugs that find their ways into our homes?

I suppose all life has some value and should not be wantonly
destroyed, but there can be justifications for destroying life.  Food,
shelter and sanitation for human beings come to mind in connection
with your particular examples.

>Now, you can look at it in one of at least three ways:

>the sheer quantity of human life is valuable:  therefore everybody should
>be forced to produces as many children as they physically can
>or
>the quality of human life is valuable: therefore those who determine quality
>of life (usually the individuals involved) make determinations about how
>to maximise this amount
>or
>the variety of human life is valuable: and no children should ever have the
>same two parents, because they represent less diversity than would be possible
>with greater gene selection.

I suppose all three are good things and are things to be promoted.
I'm not sure why you think that saying they are good things that
should be promoted means that they must override all other
considerations.

Another way of looking at it is to treat the preservation and
enhancement of the particular human lives that actually exist as
important.

>>Possibly someone might reject all this.  If he did, what superior
>>principles could he point to to guide action?  [That is, superior to
>>the recognition of the value of life.]

>His own determination of what he wanted.  Why does he need your 'superior'
>principles?

>He doesn't.  He can, and many do, reject them out of hand.

And what should people do if their principles differ and lead them
into conflict?  It seems to me the outcome is the war of all against
all unless they can find some principles to agree on.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48321 soc.men:19470 alt.dads-rights:2627
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:30:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.044209.688@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <phil.722110508@seidel> (Philip Papadopoulos) writes:
> >> Get as many abortions as you want.. Just don't ask me... to pay for it"
> 
> <1992Nov18.212720.21716@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> > Do your tax dollars go to pay for abortions?
> > ...Could you clarify why you believe your tax dollars pay for abortions?
> ...I'm not sure that Philip Papadopoulos was complaining about a current
> policy.  He may have been pleading that no new policy of public
> support for abortion be enacted.  His concern is a valid one, IMHO.
> Our new president has promised a national health care plan of
> some sort in the next year...

It is an interesting argument.  I first of all would like to say
that I do not necessarily believe that taxpayer money should be used
to pay for abortion.  But I do wonder what happens if we stop
paying for medical procedures that arise out of lifestyle
choices.  Should people who are fat and eat too much salt
receive no medical coverage if they have a heart problem. Do
we not pay for treatments for lung cancer for smokers or
ex-smokers?  Suppose you choose to live in the vicinity of
Three-Mile Island and come down with a cancer traceable,
arguably, to radioactive emissions?  are you covered?  Or
suppose we find that a lot of people are growing tumors as
a result of sitting in front of CRTs?  Those are, to
a certain extent, lifetsyle choices.  Maybe they would have been
safe if they had only been in front of the monitor during working
hours, but also chose to go home and access the net.

It seems to me that any basis for a national health care program
is one of compassion.  While I definitely oppose abuse of a
national health care system, because it becomes untenable
if abused, I do not oppose a system that has a big enough
umbrella to protect people shose lifestyles I do not personally
live and would not choose to live.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Jim, the chastity belt theory, and me, Part 1
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:05:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.165104.10764@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

}And what should people do if their principles differ and lead them
}into conflict?  It seems to me the outcome is the war of all against
}all unless they can find some principles to agree on.

It only takes one side to say "we won't kill" to pretty much not
have a "war" as we know it.  That is a principle they need not
agree on that doesn't lead to war, it can (and probably will) be
in conflict with the other side.  It doesn't matter what other
principles conflict.

Sorry to preach, but he started it.  He mentioned "war."


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:19:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.194234.14911@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.015024.17310@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <By0uut.F7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov20.011111.3228@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>In article <BxzGIs.KtH@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>In article <1e8urpINNkjl@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>>Yah know, Will, you may believe this, but I don't.  We've just seen Steve
>>>>>>Kellmeyer and Don Beaver come out of the closet on this issue:  they don't
>>>>>>want women to have the right to abort.  THAT's what they are after, and too
>>>>>>hell with the reason you mention, above.
>>>>>Short and sweet:  Adrienne, you are a liar.
>>>>>No flame intended.  Just fact.
>>>>In what way is Adrienne a liar, Don? Can you support this?
>>>I posted Adrienne's paragraph (above) for that reason.
>>>Adrienne made an explicit claim about me that is untrue.
>>>That's something I call a lie.
>>It's not what I call a lie. I'm prepared to grant that it is not descriptive
>>of you, but you need to show that she knew it to be untrue for it
>>to be a lie.
>Are you saying that all lies must be deliberate, Eric? You have a narrower
>definition than I do -- I'd count something as a non-deliberate lie if it
>evidenced a reckless disregard for the truth.
Yes, well I would suggest that we have different standards, then.


>Even if we disregard Don's views for a moment here,
>it's a well-known fact that Kellmeyer doesn't support any child support 
>reforms.
I agree.

>Surely Adrienne remembers all of his alarmist crap about people
>wanting to "weaken" child support? Does that sound progressive? Does he sound 
>like a reformer to you?
Too much of this thread is gone for me to track exactly what you're
referring to. What do you think Adrienne said about Kellmeyer that
shows a reckless disregard for truth?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a woman'right, not a common good..
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:10 GMT

In article <adams.721328207@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct31.130332.4612@verifone.com> 
>>ron_s@verifone.com writes:
>>
>>> It is not the province or business of government to legislate
>>> morality, 
>>
>>So I take it you're an anarchist.  Say goodbye to murder, rape,
>>and robbery laws.   
>>
>Sorry, but you missed the issue, I think.  Murder, rape and robbery all
>infringe upon my rights (life, bodily autonomy, property).  There are NOT
>moral issues.  

Are you saying there is nothing immoral about murdering, raping or robbing?

>They are situations where a right is removed by force.

Rights are, however, just encapsulations or manifestations of prior moral 
decisions. Without the moral goals of minimizing murder, rape and robbery, 
respectively, rights to protection against those transgressions would never 
have been established.

>Consensual actions between two adults ARE not the same.

That, too, is a moral pronouncement. Many reasonable people would disagree 
with your statement above, on grounds of ethics.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Subject: Re: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:29:12 GMT

> O'Dwyer
>> Ferrari
>>> Ray Fischer
>>>> DOD

>>If DODie is an x-tian, he must believe that there is no such thing as an
>>"innocent unborn child," since, according to x-tians, all humans are born
>>with original sin which cannot be wiped away until one prostrates onself
>>to their chosen deity.

>Here's an interesting piece of religious bigotry.  

Religious bigotry?  I was just stating a widely-held belief among x-tians.

>I note that the Christian religions seem to offer salvation as a remedy for
>original sin, and the penalty for original sin is not particularly severe.

NOT PARTICULARLY SEVERE?!  <choke> Endless torture in hell is NOT PARTICULARLY
SEVERE?  Then postulate some punishment *worse* that never-ending fiery
torture.

>The Church of Reason, on the other hand, offers a new kind of original sin -
>a z/e/f is guilty of the crime of non-sentience, a crime for which it is
>guilty until proven innocent.  And the techno-nihilists are not nearly so
>forgiving...

Very melodramatic, pinhead.  Have you ever stepped on a bug?  GASP!  That
creature was guilty of non-sentience and you punished it!  Point: a fetus
is about as sentient as a common cockroach during most of the time that
it is legal to have abortion on demand under Roe v. Wade.

So unless you are an utter pacifist and have never killed anything, even
a fly, in your life, you are as guilty of discriminating against non-
sentient beings as you claim the women who have abortions are.

>While I'm in the neighborhood, what is the motive for bastardising the name
>of Christianity in the above manner?

You people (at least the ones who believe in original sin) bastardize your
own name quite effectively.  I was merely observing the fact.

-- 
Ferrari (mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism