HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Abortion rights donations--any suggestions?
Summary: Decisions, decisions...
Keywords: tax refunds, but which cause?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:16:18 GMT

Howdy, all.

My wife and I are getting a little bit (alas, not much) of money back from Ye 
Olde Tax Demons this year, and for now we're solvent enough that we can let
a little of it go to a worthy cause or two.

I've given money in the past to both PP and NARAL, but have slipped away from
both of them over the last couple years owing to a lack of finances.  Given
the current situation (particularly the Supreme Court makeup), is there any
obvious reason to choose one group over the other?

Email is fine, and probably better for the group.  Flames about me being
pro-choice will be summarily ignored.

Thanks!

Tim Lynch 
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Preganancy from the male side
Summary: What if....
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:11:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

Hahahahahahahahaha.  Cathi, I love it!

The most common comment I ever hear in my OB practice from the women
is "If my husband had to have every other baby we would CERTAINLY
never have more that three....cause HE would never go thru this
again!"

And there is an appliance that a male can wear to see what pregnancy
feels like.  It weighs about 20#, straps onto the front of the abdomen
down low, and is tight enough to push in on the bladder.  If a male
wears this for 24 hours a day, he <begins> to get the idea of how it
feels to be pregnant.

I think you have come up with the psychological equivalent of that
appliance, Cathi.  Of COURSE it could never happen....that is not the
point.   You have illustrated the dichotomy between males and females
regarding pregnancy and pregnancy related topics.

When males KNOW they will never face any physical risk, it is another
matter to make comments on the abortion issue than if they speak from
the point of view of a woman, to whom it is a personal thing.  This is
not to say men should never speak, for I think it is a social issue
and we need to hear all sides.  And there are obviously women who are
speaking from both points of view.

In my practice I see women who are extatic about a long-awaited
pregnancy, and I see others who are devestated when their birth
control method fails and they have their sixth pregnancy.

But I compliment Cathi for a different sort of post.....trying to
point out to us males the equivalent of risking health and life for
another person, a baby.  It is an awesome responsibility.

No greater love can a person show than to lay down thier life for
another" is not just a figure of speech for a pregnant woman.  I doubt
that any of you have been with a pregnant woman who died from a
pregnancy related complication, but it is a devistating event.

Much of the rhetoric on both sides of this abortion issue is just
that....rhetoric.  We have MANY excellent debators on the topic.  But
underneath it all is a matter of life and death.  I think Cathi came
close to letting us men think about that for a few moments......

Shalom,                         Len Howard
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:09:19 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <olson.702848197@acf9> olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson) writes:

>bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>>   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
>>the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
>>that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
>>a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
>>against choice?

>Well, we could compromise on when an abortion would be allowed, such
>as the current compromise of first six months, or any other number we
>wished to pick out.  We could compromise by forbidding abortions for sex 
>selection, by requiring teens to speak their parents, by agreeing not to 
>fund abortions using tax money, or by any of a number of other ways.

     Sorry David, but absolutely not. 
1) Although abortion for sex selection seems morally dubious at best, I
see no way of legislating abortion for this reason without legislating
abortion per se. Preventing ultrasound would mean eliminating the
abortion option for mothers of genetically damaged or otherwise
profoundly handicapped fetuses. I see abortion for sex selection as an
unfortunate side effect of giving women control over their bodies.
2) Similarly, while the idea of teens consulting their parents seems a
good one, it is again impossible to legislate without risking young
women and girls dying from illegal abortions. Becky Bell's brother spoke
at the march on Sunday. He was very moving. I don't want what happened
to Becky to happen to any other teenage girl. Check out yuour local
Planned Parenthood for a copy of a video called _A Mother's Tear_. Watch
it. Bring Kleenex.
3)Not funding abortions using tax money is simply a way of establishing
a two-tier health system--safe, legal abortion for the rich, hangers for
the poor. Imagine a state where,like in Wisconsin, I understand, women
on welfare will actually have their support CUT if they have more
children, combined with a refusal to fund abortion. There could be a lot
of funerals.

     It seems to be that middle ground is allowing women to choose
whether or not they need an abortion. If you or your SO don't want one,
believe me, we won't make you.

>But the continued focus on abortion in isolation misses the boat:
>The abortion debate is not just about abortion, but the role of women
>in society and, to a lessor extent, on whether "non-traditional" 
>lifestyles receive governmental "sanction" by not being illegal
>(e.g. homosexuality).

 Yes. Good point.
>david

                              MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:27:26 GMT

In article <tzwts8p@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>Darcy, please discontinue this tedious refrain.  You appear to be
>the only person in this group who perceives two wrongs here.

And if truth could ALWAYS be decided by concensus, you'd have a relevant 
point.

And pigs might fly, too...

								- Kevin
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:58:47 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

>>> = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>  = rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>   = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [the nation's going to hell in a bucket (eg. abortions exist) because 
>>> you-all stopped following my god's laws]

>>So basically you're saying that it is so because you believe it to be
>>so and because the church says so.

>   No... I'm saying that you haven't given the unborn fetus a chance
>to decide. Forget the church's say, forget my say, but listen to the fetus.
>You know what? You can't... So, I say it is not our position to judge the
>status of the fetus. The fact that the population is so divided on the
>status of the fetus should be sufficient to show us we cannot end it's 
>existence. Until a unanimous decision arises that the unborn fetus
>is not a sentient being with rights, then we cannot afford to abort the
>fetus. Otherwise, as long as the decision is split, there are many out
>there that see it as murder.

Consider a one-month-old fetus, according to your own argument (above) 
you have 3 choices:
1) concede that this argument doesn't apply a to one-month-old fetus'.
2) state & defend that a one-month-old fetus *might* be sentient (good luck),
   and therefore abortion is wrong.
3) concede that a one-month-old fetus is clearly non-sentient,
   and therefore abortion is OK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   [on the history & dubious reputation of "the church"]
>>1) Wholesale murder (the Crusades)
>>2) Torture (the Inquisition)
>>3) Belief in a Heliocentric universe (re: Galileo)
>>4) Illiteracy (during the Middle Ages being caught with a Bible could
>>   get you in serious trouble if you weren't affiliated with the Church)
>>5) Bribery (buying permission to sin was once common)

>   So, if I could show you all of the corruptible evidence within
>the American government, would that prove to you that democracy is
>not any good, and should be done away with in the American society 
>as we know it? Let good ol' anarchy reign? [...]

So your defense of the laws the xiantiy consists of finding fault with
other systems of laws?  That's a pretty sad defense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                    {...]  My friend, judging a 
>message by the people who carry it, (even 500 years ago for crying out
>loud!) is pathetic. Just pathetic. I'm embarassed for you but will 
>assume you don't make such flaws in logic often...

Good point, I certainly wouldn't want confuse god's word with the things 
you say.  Now if you listen to your own advice, you might figure out why
we dismiss your "word of god" argument.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:30:20 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy if the sky is blue would you say it was pink
Distribution: na
 <1992Mar30.020016.29847@rotag.mi.org> <92092.153523ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
 <1992Apr4.034432.16551@rotag.mi.org>

In article <1992Apr4.034432.16551@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy says:
>
>In article <92092.153523ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
><ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>>>I think the deterrent works just as well when the objectionable mail is
>>>described in GENERAL terms, which it was, days before the confidence-breach.
>>
>>Nonsense.  Did describing the mail in general terms achieve
>>anything but Welch's repeated denials?
>
>I saw none of these alleged "denials". Can you produce even one?

Just as you saw none of the requests for Ms. Garvin to post
the mail.  The net, nor I, dear Kevin are here to serve you.



Linda
--
T.S.A.K.C.
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:50:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.185052.13869
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
>> scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
>> pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
>> on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
>> for the library and do some reading.

> "...far exceeding anything any of us could imagine."  Abortion has taken the
> lives of 30,000,000+ children.  So abortionists actually have to their
> credit more deaths toll than the holocaust.  Appears your first statement
> was wrong.

When you talk about children, Kevin, you are talking about born persons.  I
don't think 30,000,000 born persons have died because of abortionists.  The
Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 born Jews plus the deaths
of millions of Gypsy, Slavic and other 'undesirable' born persons.

> You second statement is opinion and nothing more.  I think murdering humans 
> is a tragedy regardless of race, creed, color and age.

But using the Nazi analogy in a pro-choice argument to illustrate the 
coerciveness of the pro-life argument isn't appropriate because the Nazis
did coerciveness on a scale no _rational_ pro-lifer would ever dream of.

And using the Nazi analogy in a pro-life argument doesn't hold water logically
because fetuses do not and never had the value that born people do.

So the Nazi analogy is OUT, ok?

[--deletions--]

>> There, that's for my Jewish ex-girlfriend Laura, whom Nora reminds me of
>> in many ways.

> Oh.  So you, speak for your girlfriend, who speaks for the Jewish people
> as a whole?  Wowee.

Ex-girlfriend.  I don't speak _for_ her, but on her behalf.
She has feelings, you know.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:47:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr14.172205.11087@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu UUCP (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1992Apr14.020953.1304@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
#            mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
#
##In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
##
### Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
### modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
### Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
### pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?
#
## not pro-life.....sorry
#
#Well CJ, do you like the methods of your fellow pro-choicer?


(I'm not C.J., of course, but I can answer this one.)

I haven't seen anything to indicate that "Matthew A. Lewis"
is pro-choice on abortion.  I've seen a lot that indicates
that he is anti-women, and pro-violence, and pro-idiocy.

Personally, I think he's about as pro-choice as "Dennis
Hall."  (And possibly as real.)

Try again, Davey, Jr.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Organization: State Penn
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 08:41:56 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.

In article <1992Apr10.023015.14742@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> says:

>In  <92100.151254JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:

>> Is your sixth finger or toe likely to grow into a "sentient being"?

>Is an aborted fetus likely to grow into a sentient being?
>Don't confuse the potential with the actual.

An unaborted fetus is likely to grow into a "sentient being".
A toe is NEVER going to grow into a complete human.
A big toe does not have that potential.  A fetus does.
Ergo...

>> Human is the adjective.  Being is the noun.  Sentient is a different
>> adjective.  While a fetus is not "sentient" in the sense of "having
>> finely tuned sensory responses", and may or may not (depending on the
>> stage of development be "aware" of its own existence (although not
>> "aware" in the psychological sense), it is a human being "something
>> that actually exists". (Definitions from Webster's).

>A fetus is a being that is human, but a "human being" is a term with
>specific connotations; equivalent to "person".

No.  If I meant person I would have said it.
A meant a human entity.  Being.

Joy Haftel               "Prais'd be the fathomless universe,
JKH107@PSUVM              For life and joy, and for objects
                            and knowledge curious."--Whitman
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: Lev and Drieux do history part I
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.201715.11618@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis  
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Apr12.202331.10558@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux,  
just drieux) writes:
> >
> > 4. The flip side of this whole discussion is the matter of the Spanish
> > Civil War,
> 
> This just in...  Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...
> 
........but the Republic lives on!

sorry, couldn't resist................



shalom, 

lev



"Lo yisa goy el goy cherev, lo yilmedu od milchama........but until then,  
keep the  Galil oiled and loaded............"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:15:26 GMT

In article <16710@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>In article <oeR4iB4w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>>travel to any state that still allowed them.
>>
>>What is the problem with that?
>
>The problem is that constitutional rights and civil liberties do not become
>null and void by crosing a state line.  The right to control one own body
>and make reproductive decisions is more fundamental and important than the
>right to play blackjack.

And I support *HEARTEDLY* the right to play balckjack.

>
>-- 
>Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
>compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
>Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
>University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:20:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr15.190216.23098@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
(KB's by-his-own-admission "Bonehead Logic" deleted)

>profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
>animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
>prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
>schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty

   Thank you for raising the specter of the -prounborn
babies/prolife/promeating/proanimalresearch/prohunting anti-abortionist.
I realise your .sig is deliberately illogical flamebait, but it does
raise an interesting series of questions I've been meaning to get to
sooner or later, and I apologise if you guys have been over and over
this. But, as a matter of interest, how do pro-lifers square meat-eating
hunting, animal research etc. with their stance on abortion without
bringing in a religious element, i.e. humans are better than animals
because they have something called a soul? Today is Good Friday--how can
we tuck into fish knowing that. alive, it was more sentient and further
developed than a first trimester human fetus? Would abortion be more
acceptable if it was done not out of desperation, but because women
liked the taste of the meat? This is not meant to be outrageous, but a
logical progression of the promeateating/antiabortion mentality.

So, how many prolifers on this .net are vegetarian?
How many prochoicers?

    MP             Far too logical for my own good... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:17:54 GMT
 <92099.172424JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu><1992Apr09.153722.11293@sdd.hp.com>
	<92100.153835JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

> Joy Haftel writes:

>The question I am asking myself and all of you, is this:  Is it better to
>be alive or dead, and why?

How can anyone answer this when they have no way of knowing? In order to
compare life and death, I would have had to experience both, which I
obviously haven't. I have no idea what death is like, therefore I can't
say. I get the impression that people think death is "bad", based solely
on their fear of the unknown.

>I think it is better to be alive.

How do you know?


Alison C.
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr6.185821.7399@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
|In <1992Mar30.203505.1@amherst.edu> dlcraft@amherst.edu (deb, just deb) writes:
|>Okay, I know that this posting has been already flamed to death, but there
|>was one comment made that I really *had* to respond to:

|Don't flatter yourself or your colleagues dear... [...]

|>I'm very glad to hear that you have a personal "in" to your religion.  I'm 
|>sure that you know better than anybody else exactly what it means to be a
|>Catholic.  Or, for that matter, any Christian.
|I don't get your point... tsk tsk, we're off to a bad start here
|Debbie...Oh, I mean deb, just deb.

Stop being an asshole, Franklin, unless you *want*
people to flame you righteously.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." --Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:33:52 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>smccabe@franklin.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>>to answer:
>>>
>>>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?
A>>>

              [sniping about names deleted]

>>Well, Kevin, maybe if you had spent a leeetle time reading this newsgroup
>>you would have seen some of the common issues that certain people
>>consistently bring up.  One of Cathi's favorite is basically that pro-lifers
>>often argue that a woman has a physical responsibility to the z/e/f
>>(that's zygote/embryo/fetus) which she has helped to concieve.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ add child/baby/infant also 

>  If
>>you support this argument, what equivalent physical responsibility does 
>>the male who was involved in this conception carry?

>Responsibility cannot be "equal" due to the nature of pregnancy.  

So can we extrapolate that you're willing to force women to damage
their health and possibly risk death because "that's just the way it
is"?  That it's too bad but, well, women were just made that way and
they just have to accept it?  Many conditions that were "just made
that way" are quite amenable to modern medical treatment, do you
wish to deny that treatment for pregnancy but for nothing else?

>Hence the
>male responsiblity has to come in the form of financial and emotional
>support.  

So exactly what responsibilities are you in favor of for the male?
Assume that no legal obligations currently exist for the man, what
would you propose?

>BTW this is NOT the issue and that has been my main point all 
>along.  

Indeed, and I find that very telling.  It's not YOUR issue what the
responsibilities of men are, and yet you feel it IS your issue what
the responsibilities of women are.  What if laws were proposed that
mandated castration for every male who failed to meet child support
payments?  Would it be your issue then?

>The only way you can fight the issue is to NOT fight the issue.

Indeed, a very accurate description of EXACTLY what you are doing here.

>>Sarah McCabe
>>"Stop the slaughter of skin-children.  Stamp out scratching."

>Kevin Brawley

                              -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion