HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: So Bush does not hold that abortion is murder?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:53:13 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
] 
] >	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
] > ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
] > tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
] > dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
] > plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
] > platforms.
] 
] Bush does not want to ban "all" abortions.  He supports exceptions for rape
] and incest, and for the life of the mother.   
] 


The subject line says it all...


ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: L. L. Bean allows anti-choice candidate to use company property
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:36:48 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Linda Loraine Bean, a candidate for Congress from the First District
in Maine, was allowed to use the premises of L. L. Bean, the boot
stitching factory to be precise, to film a television commercial for
her campaign.  She is adamantly anti-choice, as well as anti-gay
rights legislation and anti-gun control.  I verified all of this by
calling L. L. Bean, (800) 341-4341, myself.  I also informed them that
I would not longer purchase their products.  I urge all pro-choice
persons to do the same.

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:50:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug12.190547.2113@brandonu.ca>  mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>
> Alright, lemme try this again...  In reference to the line above,
> "Birth isn't arbitrary, Just wrong," Brendan (as far as I can figure)
> is pointing out that it is wrong to abort a fetus late in the third
> trimester

Gee, Brian, I think you meant that Brendon is *claiming* that, because
"pointing out" implies that it's true.  :-)

> For further support of this, why would a woman endure nearly 9 months
> of pregnancy, and then decide to abort?

Maybe it's threatening her life?  That is, after all, the only reason
that late third trimester abortions are performed in this country.

> The fetus is viable and essentially the same as a newborn.

A newborn isn't inside another person.

> It isn't nice to kill things like that
> unless you have a damn good reason,

Like, to save the life of the woman?

As you said above, why would a woman endure nearly 9 months of pregnancy,
and then decide to abort?  She must have a damn good reason.  So if she
does have a damn good reason, why would you try to prevent her?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:55:55 GMT

In article <lefty-170892182532@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.195147.7565@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu
>(Stephen A Chaney) advises Steve Novak:
>> 
>> But I admit; if I keep sinking down to your mentality, I'll be
>> irrelevant to intellegent discussion here, too. Excuse me while I pull
>> myself up from your level...  
>
>First, you couldn't "sink" to Mr. Novak's level if you were tied to the
>Goodyear blimp.
>
I think that you are probably correct here.
However, experimental verification could be interesting.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Keywords: From: decay@
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:43:43 GMT

I just wanted to step in and say I support E. Elizabeth Bartley's position
and agree with it.  I have no problem with allowing governments to restrict
third-trimester abortions as long as the pregnant woman's health is not at
risk.  I think abortions after viability should be treated more as premature
births, not as abortions.

From what Ms. Bartley has posted, I agree with her that she is pro-choice.
I am pro-choice to exactly the same degree.

I am sorry if I offend some pro-choicers with my stance, but so be it.  I
KNOW I offend "pro-lifers" with my stance.

Where I will REALLY offend "pro-lifers" is my belief that if a woman isn't
absolutely sure she wants a baby during the first trimester of pregnancy,
she should be counseled to abort.  She can always try again when she *is*
sure.  I'd rather counsel a first-tri abortion than have to deal with a
woman in the third trimester who has finally decided she DOESN'T want the
baby.  I think a woman in such a situation should be counseled to continue
the pregnancy through birth and give up the child for adoption.  Third
trimester abortions are not trivial operations and are quite dangerous
to the pregnant woman.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

What the hell, go ahead and put all your eggs in one basket.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:48:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.022417.15272@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.190754.27375@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.115640.6837@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:

More nagging from the Keegan/Kaufman person posting as keegan@crd.ge.com... 

===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Minutes of ba.t.a committee meeting
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:30:27 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug13.171459.12470@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>> = (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>Rule 2) Novak + Cochran WILL be made to come out to California for
>>>a visit, under penalty of being sued by DJR.

>>Where's Cupertino in relation to LA?

	Cupertino is in the Bay Area, more specifically, in Sillycon,
oops, Silicon Valley. It is to the SW of San Jose, which is at the
south end of the Gay Bay, I mean San Francisco Bay.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:03:12 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <d93mq9.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com writes:

> <1992Aug11.151252.25274@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY ) :
> ><1992Aug10.224355.22522@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com writes:
> >> <1992Aug10.131839.16625@mcs.gvsu.edu> orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr) said:
> ...
> >> Should a mindless fetus, for the sake of it's 'bodily autonomy', be able
> >> to ruin a person's life, damaging them physically, mentally, and 
> >> financially?
> >
> >  Just to be nit-picky, none of these awful things are certain or even 
> >likely, Gordon, as you well know.  
> 
> Well Jim, we are talking about a woman who has *decided* to have an
> abortion.  She has already come to the conclusion that remaining pregnant
> will be either physically, emotionally, or financially hazardous to
> herself.  Who are you to say otherwise?

  Depends on the situation.  If it was a good friend, I might try to talk her
out of it, but I'd shut up if she asked.  I use a Four Frameworks[tm] method
(term first coined by Ms. A. Regard):

1.  Public forums, like the net.
2.  When it comes up in conversation and the topic is "fair game"
3.  Good friends, with whom I can say anything--and vice versa.
4.  When asked by anyone.

  But these (general) "pregnancy is gonna ruin yer life" quotes are just as 
bad as the equally ridiculous "oh, it's nothing, women give birth everyday" 
attitude I sometimes see over on my side of the fence.  And to clear up some-
thing I just noticed, Gordon's first post seems to imply a "forcing the woman" 
viewpoint on the part of the original poster.  I do not support "forcing" 
positions, I was taking issue with the consequences he raised.  Women should 
not be forced to carry to term.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Putting out the fire, sort of
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:50:18 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article by steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak):
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Patrick L Humphrey):
> 
> [re: Humphrey's non-apology to Chaney...]
> 
>>Patrick, an apology for an insult to everyone BUT the one whom you've actually
>>insulted, does not count as a real apology in my book.
> 
> Suzanne, how can you post this crap with a straight face?  

I am not asking Patrick to do anything I have not been willing to do for him.


> Have you EVER
> taken Steve Chaney to task for his innumerable lies, his "Jews in New
> York" tripe, his weak attempts to post as "Dennis Hall"?
> 
> Where's your consistency?  Where's your honesty?

My honesty is that Steve Chaney posts too voluminously for me to read alot
of what he posts.  He and I have a very congenial e-mail correspondence,
but I have not witnessed ANY of things you accuse him of.    It was the
exact same situation when people were after me to lecture DJR.  I simply
hadn't witnessed his "offenses".

If Steve's ever called Patrick some uncalled for ethnic slur, I would expect
him to apologize as well.   As it was, Patrick would have been better off not
to post his "apology" at all than to post that NON-apology he did post.

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:19:37 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug11.131646.23015@mcs.gvsu.edu>
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing}) writes:

>You see, Larry, it seems clear that a fetus, as a human life, is a person.

Hm.....  

You see, Wes, it seems clear that an embryo, as a human life, is a person.
You see, Wes, it seems clear that a zygote, as a human life, is a person.
You see, Wes, it seems clear that a human egg, as a human life, is a person.
You see, Wes, it seems clear that a human spermatoza, as a human life, is a
person.
You see, Wes, it seems clear that an anecopholica (sp?), as a human life,
is a person.
You see, Wes, it seems clear that a man with his brain surgically 
removed but with the brain stem intact and on a heart-lung life support
machine, is a person.

But it actually *doesn't* seem that clear to me.

>When we are talking about two persons it is necessary to conclude that
>one should not have the right to kill the other based upon its location.

Then you do support removing from women the right to kill when
defending themselves from rape?

>If we were just talking about removing the fetus (person) from the mother
>and there were no physically deleterious consequences for either then it 
>wouldn't be a problem for me.

Well, I'll rate you as better than DJR, then; he had a problem with
z/e/fs being transplanted to an artificial womb even if it was just as
healthy medically for the z/e/f (and easier than pregnancy/birth for
the woman, but of course DJR wouldn't care about here).

>Maybe we should legalize RU486 and remove the right of abortion past the
>period of its effectiveness.  I heard somewhere that it is no longer safe
>or effective after eight weeks.  This is the time period where it seems
>evident that abortion shouldn't be allowed (after eight weeks).  Of course
>this is my opinion.

And rather self-contradictory, too.  Didn't you just say that a human
fetus is a person *because it is human*?  A human embryo is equally
human.  Why do you object to abortions after eight weeks and not
before?

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

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Why do they call themselves "pro-life"?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:09:40 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> The Republican platform on abortion is a minority-held position within 
> the Republican party.  The executive branch of the federal government
> has no authority to amend the Constitution.

I have heard mixed messages about how Bush feels about the platform.  He
may have reaffirmed his support for abortions in cases of rape, incest
or mother's health.  On the other hand, I've heard it said that he
explicitly endorses the _entire_ platform as written; including the call
for a fence along the Mexican border.  

> Let me ask you this question:  do you support the Democratic platform
> of unrestricted abortion on demand throughout the term of pregnancy,
> and government funding of abortion?

The Democrats do not endorse unrestricted abortion on demand throughout
the term of pregnancy; they endorse the tenets of Roe vs. Wade, and
support the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.

You are lying again, Doug.  It has been shown over and over again that
Roe vs. Wade does not affirm the right to unrestricted abortion on demand
throughout the term of pregnancy.

The more you lie, the more impotent your arguments become.

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: McBean wasn't here, please help
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:32:28 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada


     It seems Brandon U's router is screwed and is waiting for
a part, so I haven't had any contact to internet in 4 days or so...
today there was a minimal bit of articles, but my guess is that
I missed the past few days of articles, so if you want me to
see anything, then please repost or mail it to me (I guess mail
would be the better of the two).
     Also, if no one saw my post to the questions for Forgach or
other pro-life parents then please ask me to repost it because
I didn't want to write it for a non-existant audience.
Thanks

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.145252.19168@menudo.uh.edu> 
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
>
>> I was wondering if there would be any interest in a moderated abortion
>> newsgroup.  
>> 
>> What do people think of the idea?

> Two problems.  1) moderated groups tend to be jerky in output.  Many of us
> are used to seeing an answer in a day, sometimes within the hour, of our 
> post. This will likely no longer be the case.  

Possible solution: don't post to talk.abortion.moderated if you expect
to see answers quickly. :-)

> 2) the massive BW of talk.abortion
> would place a major strain on the moderator.  

I think there are ways around that.  We could limit each person to 
submitting "X" number of posts per day.  

A streamlined approval process could help.  Flames, insults, etc.
would cause automatic rejection, other posts would be accepted
unconditionally.  Most other moderated groups don't have that kind
of streamlined approval process.   

>Jammer Jim Miller 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:41:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug19.202158.42208@watson.ibm.com>  Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> In  <1992Aug19.170543.18257@ncsu.edu>  dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu
> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> > And where's the proof for this "three doctors" claim?
>
> Perhaps you missed the post saying it was on 60 Minutes recently.
> Write them for a transcript.

Actually, you didn't miss it - in fact you pointed it out to me.  In
article <1992Aug18.134606.16685@ncsu.edu> you wrote:
> Oh hey Mr. Margolis, look here at the original post.
..
>>]> Given that there are only 3 doctors in the US perform 3rd trimester (post-
>>]> viability) abortions in the US, and then only for medical reasons (source:
>>]> 60 Minutes), I doubt your claim that "what we end up with is virtual
>>]> abortion-on-demand from conception to birth".

-------------------------

I guess you were too busy making up things to take note of what you
told me to "look here at".

> > I'm illustrating the realities of the situation,
>
> The reality of the situation is that if Bush is re-elected, women will
> become second-class citizens.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Clearing up things for Doug  (was Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand")
Keywords: Why me, lord?
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:47:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Aug14.151939.28848@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your accusation Ms. Garvin. 
}In case you forgot, here it is again:
}
}------------------
}In article <1992Aug09.021608.58582@cs.cmu.edu> 
}garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
}
}>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}
}>> I have more sources which I shall post shortly. 
}
}> (As soon as he makes them up.)
}
}Substantiate this accusation or retract it.

Doug Holtsinger makes up his sources.

There.

Now you have someone else to yell at.  I will neither substantiate it or
retract it.  So there.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW    (personhood)
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:08:48 GMT

>> = emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>  = dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
>> (often using the label "personhood") is sentient beings. 
>
>But then sentient animals would deserve protection from being killed, 
>just like sentient humans. 

Yes.  (although the constitution may or may not provide such protection)
Perhaps not because the sentient animal is a "person", but because
it has one of the main qualities of "personhood" and thus is similar
to a "person".

My current working definition of "person" is:
Defn. PERSON (1): anyone or anything that is in essence like a normal, 
      born human, ie. anything who is essentially the same as a normal, 
      born human.

o A human infant is a person (1) by definition.
o A late term fetus may very well be a person (1), unless you feel
  independance from the mother is an essential quality of normal, born humans.
o I'd be willing to consider a zygote to be a person (1) if someone could
  provide a convincing argument that a zygote "is essentially the same as 
  a normal, born human"
o I'd be willing to consider an alien (eg. a character from Star Trek 
  - the Next Generation :) to be a person (1) if it seems that they 
  "are essentially the same as a normal, born human".

Now, about the morality of killing "people" and playing games with semantics:

* It seems to me that the moral codes that apply to normal, born humans 
  would automatically and/or naturally extend to anything that is 
  essentially the same as a normal, born human.  
* Or, using my definition of person (1), the moral codes that apply to 
  normal, born humans would automatically and/or naturally extend to 
  all persons (1).
* But it's not true that the moral codes that apply to normal, born humans 
  automatically and/or naturally extend to anything any fruitcake simply 
  defines as a "person".
* The moral code against killing persons (1) may also apply to non-persons 
  (zygotes?) and non-humans, but it may not be immediately clear that this 
  extension applies.  
  In other words: (personhood)   => (in most cases, killing is wrong)
  DOES NOT imply: (not a person) => (in most cases, killing is OK)

Of course, even if we agree that killing a zygote is wrong (regardless of
it's personhood), we must (should) consider abortion in context, ie. it may 
also wrong to force childbirth on a woman, leading to a choice of evils.  

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion