HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:51:00 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

The reason I am personally opposed to abortion is that it is a sad day
when a potential is destroyed.  In the case of abortion, that potential
has progressed quite a long way indeed, so I myself would be loathe to
deny it.  However, this does not give me the right to assign a risk of 
death and injury and pain to another person in forcing them to carry a
pregnancy against their will, this aversion to destroying
potential.  

There have been a few sad days for me lately, because my husband and I have
recently destroyed a big potential-- he had a vasectomy.  That I am sad
(Post Vasectomy Syndrome anyone?  :-S) does not means that he has killed
about 3 babies, although the virtual effect is the same as if I
had 3 abortions.  The babies will not come into being.

We did this because my husband has several congenital diseases which he does
not wish to pass on to anyone else.

The thing is, life is made up of decisions that destroy potential so that
another, perhaps more wonderful, potential may be realized.  We are now free
to adopt children that would otherwise languish unloved in orphanages.
In addition to not wanting to arbitrarily assign pain, death, and injury
to a woman whose life I know nothing about, I also question the state's
ability to decide the most intimate, life-wrenching decisions a woman
may make in her entire existence.  I just don't think it would do a humane
job of that if it forced every pregnant woman to give birth.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57982 talk.politics.misc:69807 talk.religion.misc:27570 misc.legal:23304
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:03:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan22.184035.3071@tessi.com>, allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >These are clear violations of state laws, and are subject to trial
> >in state courts.  Why bring in the federal government?
> 
> And I believe this is exactly what the Supreme Court decision pertains
> to: that the States should handle these matters, not the federal government.
> 
> allen

I was in AGREEMENT with the Supreme Court's decision, not in opposition.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:16:29 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan27.114716.2152@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.032351.26713@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman) writes:
>>
>> Are you one of those people that think that the best way to make abortions
>> rare is to either make abortion illegal, or put as many restrictions on
>> the availability of abortion as possible?If so, it is fortunate that
>> Clinton does not think along the same lines as you do.
>
>I think most people in most of
>the world acknowledge that laws do help control crime.

But abortion is not a crime, so what's your point?

>> By reversing Bush's and Reagan's policies wrt abortion last Friday,
>> Clinton is fulfilling the "safe and legal" portion of his statement. And
>> if he approves the Family Leave Act, gives more money to family planning
>> clinics and government-sponsored research of contraception and the like,
>> and in general creates a climate in this country which would make it both
>> easier for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for women to have
>> and keep their children, he is fulfilling the "rare" portion of his
>> statement. In a much more humane and effective manner that would have
>> positive long-term results, IMO, as opposed to Bush/Reagan's pro-"life"
>> policies.
>
>But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?

Like any other form of surgery, it's preferable to avoid it if possible.
That doesn't make it wrong.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:41:15 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C1D6qo.8rv@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>>
>>>Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
>>>(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?
>>
>>Because man B has a child that he is obliged to support.  Man A does not.
>
>You've restated the problem, not answered it.

In case A there is no child.
In case B there is a child.

If there is no child to support, there can be no child support.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57576 talk.religion.misc:27396 talk.politics.misc:69459
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:45:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>will be taken as men.
>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>the natural differences between them.

Explain to me how a penis makes a person capable of being a spiritual
leader, and how the absence of one renders a person unfit for such a
position.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:37:19 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Not sure I understand, but are you arguing that people won't do something in 
large numbers if they know it is wrong?  (comment was that abortions should be
rare if it is wrong).

MAC
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57445 talk.religion.misc:27326 alt.atheism:26869
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:19:19 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu


Boy, this is cool.  People actually responding to my posts, reacting to
my hot air.  Just think, in no time they'll be insulting me.  :)
Anyway....


In article <1993Jan19.050539.6745@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) (Hey, that's me!) writes:
>
>>If she mainly doesn't want the physical difficulty of the pregnancy
>>process, how about an incubator that could support the fetus until
>>its original projected birthdate?  Anyone happen know what state
>>research is in concerning this?
>>
>No state at all, really. Look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Are
>*you* going to pay for this incubator? Please keep in mind that
>current technology can easily run over $5000 a day for an NICU stay.
>What you are describing would be vastly more complex, and
>correspondingly more expensive.
>It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't fit the realities of life. We
>can't even save all the ones people *do* want, let alone the ones they
>don't want.

Well I didn't say it would be easy.  Heck, it might even become
ridiculously cheap once we get the details worked out, though.
Technology on its own nearly always seems to get cheaper.

But you're right, it would be costly, and I realized that before I
even posted the above.  But let's not give up on this road yet.  Every
time I wrestle with the abortion issue, I always end up concluding
that a unilateral decision one way or the other isn't ever gonna be
final.  If pro-life and pro-choice can't agree, we can at least come
up with a third option that would make abortion completely unnecessary.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:52:30 GMT

In <CORWIN+.93Jan19102546@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>In article <nyikos.727394857@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>   On the same basis on which Susan Garvin referred to Holtsinger as 

>   Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger,

>   I could call you  "You are an idiot" rocker.

You have some misleading software there.  Why don't you learn from your
fellow CMU student Susan how to put # in the margin?  Better yet, why
don't you take three extra keystrokes to put another > in the margin?

>Of course, Susan Garvin never called Reverend Holtsinger 
>Doug "yer fat black ass" Holtsinger, so you would be
>basing your idiocy on nothing.

Did Susan put you up to this?

She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation
on request.  [Make requests by e-mail, please. I cannot guarantee that
I will see the request if you merely post it.]

[The irony was not lost on me.  What was lost on me was the implicit claim
that people like you would know that Susan Garvin was being merely ironic, 
rather than accusing Doug with having made a racial slur of an
Afro-American with those words.]

>We still wonder if PHoney is capable of originality in his
>work, since he has yet to post an original flame.

You mean like your thread title, "Chaney needs a lobotomy"?  I can tell
you right now, I will never be guilty of that kind of original flame.

Peter Nyikos
From: hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:31:13 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1993Jan27.231629.28755@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <1993Jan27.114716.2152@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.032351.26713@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman) writes:
>>>
>>> Are you one of those people that think that the best way to make abortions
>>> rare is to either make abortion illegal, or put as many restrictions on
>>> the availability of abortion as possible?If so, it is fortunate that
>>> Clinton does not think along the same lines as you do.
>>
>>I think most people in most of
>>the world acknowledge that laws do help control crime.
> 
> But abortion is not a crime, so what's your point?

Abortion is crime if it is murder, which it is since it kills a human 
being.  Just because many judges refuse to acknowledge that doesn't 
make it right.
 
>>> By reversing Bush's and Reagan's policies wrt abortion last Friday,
>>> Clinton is fulfilling the "safe and legal" portion of his statement. And
>>> if he approves the Family Leave Act, gives more money to family planning
>>> clinics and government-sponsored research of contraception and the like,
>>> and in general creates a climate in this country which would make it both
>>> easier for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for women to have
>>> and keep their children, he is fulfilling the "rare" portion of his
>>> statement. In a much more humane and effective manner that would have
>>> positive long-term results, IMO, as opposed to Bush/Reagan's pro-"life"
>>> policies.
>>
>>But why should abortions be made rare if they are not wrong?
> 
> Like any other form of surgery, it's preferable to avoid it if possible.
> That doesn't make it wrong.

But how do we avoid other forms of surgery?  By avoiding the things 
that cause the disease which makes them necessary.  It seems that some 
people consider pregnancy a disease - something that is wrong with 
someone's body, something that is not working the way it should.  But 
pregnancy is actually the way the body is supposed to work.  So, since 
abortion does not serve to stop or remove disease as surgeries do, 
your argument does not stand.  

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

Sue Hasselbring
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:15:14 GMT

<1993Jan22.173524.12311@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> -> by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> -> > So what would Jesus do with a woman who didn't want to be pregnant?
>> -> 
>> -> Offer to provide her with what both she and her baby needs, so that they
>> -> both "may have life and have it more abundantly".
>> 
>> i just relayed your offer to a couple of young,
>> pregnant women at the local planned parenthood
>> center. they asked that you, or another of jesus'
>> spokespersons draw up an agreement guaranteeing them
>> their needs. 
...
>> how long will it take jesus, or his spokesperson, to
>> begin negotiations on these contracts?
>
>You relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to me, and
>I will relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to friends
>of Jesus.

Does this imply that you are not a friend of Jesus?  Called Roxbury yet?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:32:55 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan06.180144.30378@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>[Note that I've dropped alt.flame, since I'm only addressing the facts.]
>
>In <1993Jan6.064302.25323@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.020223.1283@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec26.232007.13372@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec25.195604.13432@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>>>This is turning into your "it's not legal in every state to use lethal force
>>>>>to stop a rape" thing, isn't it?  Why don't you stop waffling, and just
>>>>>give us a situation (hypothetical or not) where ending a pregnancy is more
>>>>>dangerous to the woman than continuing it?
>>>>
>>>>A 28-week pregnant woman, without any discernible medical complications,
>>>>announces her wish to end her pregnancy by having her fetus sucked out through
>>>>her spine, heart and cerebellum. Should she be allowed to abort in this
>>>>manner?
>>>
>>>Kindly provide the name of any medical doctor qualified to perform abortions
>>>who would perform an abortion in this manner under any circumstance, and I'll
>>>get back to you...
>>
>>You are adding stipulations that weren't contained in the original question,
>>Keith.
>
>Well, you did it first, Kevin.  Keith asked you to give a situation where
>ending a pregnancy is more dangerous to the woman than continuing it.  You
>did not - you gave a situation where ending the pregnancy *in the manner
>you specified* is more dangerous, but gave no reason to believe that
>simply ending the pregnancy in the normal manner would be more dangerous.

The "normal manner" stipulation did not exist in the original question,
Larry. It is a recent innovation. I have met my part of this challenge.
I'm still waiting for an answer from Keith.

							- Kevin
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Is it ever wrong?
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:29:23 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) wrote:
>In article <19JAN93.20185693@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, 00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>But how is a woman ever to know if carrying the fetus to full term will be of
>>>any kind of hardship to herself until after she's had the baby, aside from
>>>medical hardships....?
>>
>>Why aside from medical hardships?  A woman carrying to term is facing a risk 
>>of death.  She is also facing risks of pain, discomfort, and serious threats 
>>to her health.  Does this mean nothing to you?
>>
>So women should never have children, because there might be
>discomfort or complications?  

Women who are willing to take such risks and want to have children should be 
allowed to do so.  Women who do not want children and feel that the risks 
involved are too great should be allowed to have abortions.

				.... Heather.
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 04:37:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

I mark few (to none) deletions.

In article <lmdph0INNati@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>In article <1k6i6gINNebf@shelley.u.washington.edu> lenox@shelley.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:

AR> = Adrienne Regard in a previous article

AR>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
AR>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  

AR>The answer, Paul, is "no".

[the one marked deletion of the threat conversation]

>>I only ask that you address her point.
>
>Understood.  I only felt it necessary to make clear that I do not wish to
>offend.

Great, I think you were clear enough about the "threat" stuff.
I cannot find your addressing of the point however.
Do you intend to include it?  Where in our legal system is another
entity allowed to use the body of a person against that person's will?

I think it is an important point to be made.  Some would argue that
the woman gives implicit permission, but I don't think that one has
successfully argued such, yet.  Perhaps I have missed it.  If you
argue that, you must be careful to avoid numerous assumptions on
what others would think.

Amy Lenox
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:12:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.235912.1721@Princeton.EDU> 
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>>> According to the Washington post, Scalia stated that since the OR
>>> people would also be blocking any men who were seeking abortions, the
>>> attacks were not aimed at women.

> Not really.  Close, but not quite that silly.  He said that since OR
> only is interfering with "women who want abortions" rather than "all women," 
> the KKK law does not apply.  He says the former group does not
> constitute a protected class under the law.

The Court rejected both arguments -- that the protesters had discriminated
against "women in general" and "women who sought abortions".  Scalia
said that at the bare minimum, the protesters would have had to focus
upon women "by reason of their sex" in order for the Klan act to apply.
He said that the protesters' purpose was "physical intervention"
between "abortionists and innocent victims", and their purpose was
not "directed specifically at women as a class". 


>David M. Nieporent  


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-forced pregnancy and software problems.
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:11:17 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

As the examples of PHoney and Frau Forgach illustrate, our friends in
the forced pregnancy camp seem to have no deeper an understanding of
software than they have of human compassion or nature.  The latest
illustration of this comes from our own sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
(Simon E. Booth) in article
<1993Jan27.100113.11618@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>:

>The problems with my site I mentioned are for real.  I have trouble
>sometimes no matter what group I'm in.  I'm making up glitched to cover
>up flaming someone.
>
>I never meant to post that article.
>
>The terminal I was one DID lock up, and when I said I slipped and hit 'send',
>I didn't realize I had sent it until I saw it on the net that evening.
>
>I left the lab thinking I had junked it.  And now the system has lock up
>twice while I was making an attempt to find and cancel the article.

This has such a familiar flavor to it.  Are people in the forced
pregnancy camp all required to attend the same school of twisted
English expression?

>I've posted outrageous things on the net, but I swear I would never have
>deliberately posted something like that.  The worst I've posted lately have
>been jokes about Clinton.
>
>From the moment I started posting the article, I fully intended on junking
>it when I was done.

Hmmm.  Then why bother typing it in?

>This is not an 'I was only kidding' after the fact message.  I thought by
>expaining what happened it would be better than to simply ignore it.

Another pro-forced pregnancy favorite: I was only kidding.

>Let me clarify something from the beggining of the post: I logged off
>Monday morning honestly thinking I had hit abort.

Oh that darn software.

>Think about it:who would post something like that with their name all over
>it?

You.  PHoney.  Frau Forgach.  DODIE.  Steve Kellmeyer.  The list goes
on.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion