HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Nyikos Goes Under (WAS Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:28:24 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  <nyikos.715613094@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> When I posted the original article along this thread, it was before I
> realized that talk.rape had the sign "Cross-posting not allowed."  If I
> violated any USENET rules thereby, I apologize.

But you did it again, nevertheless.  (I deleted talk.rape from the
newsgroups line.)

> >>  You mean it
> >>is simply a baseless speculation?  Gee, I wonder where I
> >>learned how to do that?
>
> >Maybe you read _A Handmaid's Tale_?
>
> An off-the-wall novel set in the future USA, in which women
> are enslaved, RAPED, made to bear children, and if they procure
> an abortion, they are executed.

(Note that you're responding to yourself here.)  Dean wasn't referring
to the anti-choicer's utopia presented in A Handmaid's Tale; he was
referring to the example of baseless speculation that you've shown
with just about everything you've posted.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Extremism
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.233517.17136@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
}In article <1992Aug31.114058.4973@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug31.034140.24681@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
}>(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}>}Triplespeak. Quadruplespeak. Thanks for explanation, Galen. It's all clear
}>}as mud now.

}>At least I can speak.  If there were anyone else in the entire world that
}>had expressed confusion about this, perhaps I could take you comments a
}>bit more seriously.  

}Do you doubt that there at least two people "in the entire world" that would
}find your words capable of multiple, conflicting meanings? 

On the contrary, Kevin.  I suggested that you were unique, rather than that
anyone might misunderstand me.

}Hyperbole is a dangerous thing, Galen. Use it wisely, or not at all...

Thanks, but I'll continue to do/use "dangerous" things, your caution
notwithstanding...

}								- Kevin


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Should abortionists be allowed to purposely kill viable fetuses?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:59:52 GMT

dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> Consider the following scenario.  A woman who got pregnant from a rape
> is seeking an abortion.  She had to wait until the third trimester to
> save up enough money to pay for the abortion.  The woman can choose
> among two abortion procedures.  Procedure A kills the viable fetus.
> Procedure B has a good chance of producing a live fetus.  Both procedures
> are equally safe for the woman.  The woman wants procedure A because
> she doesn't want the rapist's child to haunt her memory.  Under Roe 
> and Doe, this type of abortion is legal, because it would preserve 
> the woman's emotional health.  The woman asks the abortionist to use 
> procedure A.  If you were the abortionist, what would you do?

The woman is the patient, not the fetus.  I would perform
procedure A.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 25 Aug 1992 22:44:07 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WHO OWNS WHO?...or is it whom?...or what?
 <nyikos.713891006@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <23872@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
 <1992Aug21.121610.2140@brandonu.ca>

In article <1992Aug21.121610.2140@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca says:
>
>In article <23872@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Ron Bense writes:
>> In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>In <92225.110850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham writes:

>>>>Every pregnancy will cause some physical damage.
>>
>>>So does every vaccination.  The question is, do the benefits
>>>outweigh the damages?

Missed this.  It is not for you to decide.  Parents
have the right not to vaccinate their children.

>> What benefits occur to the woman, Nyikos? [remember, we're talking about
>> those who don't want a baby]
>
>Well I don't mean to sound idealistic or mushy or anything silly like that,
>but Lisa (my fiancee if ya didn't know) never ever wanted to have a baby,
>but she had one anyway (yknow was an accident then she didn't abort
>(but had considered it)), and she gained quite a few benefits.
>She has found a lot of love and security in Zachary.  Zachary also
>was the person who brought us together, so without her baby, she wouldn't
>have her newly found family (family to be kinda since I'm not there yet),
>she wouldn't have found new direction in life, and she would have lost
>her identity (it was kinda disappearing, but then she found it again
>(it was under the couch, eh?))....  Also she got a much bigger tax return...
>Are those good benefits?

As did I and the reason your friend and I love our
children is because we wanted them.  They are not
viewed as burdens because we made a decision,
weighed the risks - financial, physical and emotional -
and decided the risks were worth taking.  For another
woman these risks are not worth taking and I don't think
anyone, not you or I or anyone, has the right to judge
that woman because she makes choices we would not.

Ask your fiance Mr. McBean how she would have felt
if she had been forced, against her free will, to
carry the fetus to term.

>> Also, I noticed you never responded to
>> rocker's post about various unkindly things that pregnancy does to the
>> body. I also wish, at this point, that it was possible for you to get
>> pregnant, and that you had this occur last week, as I'm fairly sure
>> that when faced with the actuality of the postition, your colors would
>> change faster than a chameleon's.
>
>But no one can be 100% sure until it actually happens.

That is why the woman should have the right to
decide for herself.



Linda
--
The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is
essentially a moral decision and in a free and democractic
society the conscience of the individual must be paramount
to that of the state.  Justic B. Wilson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: re: Sex Sacrifice, and the USA
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:56:17 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Sep3.173437.4843@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
 
>  I was NOT preaching the wonders of abstinence (I have remarked on the fool-
>ishness of same many times), I was just wondering what Dan was talking about.
>I have not seen Dan's reply, though several others have provided reasonable
>explanations with varying degrees of politeness.
 

In article <1992Sep1.203020.21366@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

jm>In article <1992Sep1.164017.18711@menudo.uh.edu>  HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
dk>In <1992Sep1.142942.10219@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:

dk>>And the only 100% reliable way to ensure this is with the option of abortion.
dk>Sure there are precautions that she can take to reduce the chance of 
dk>pregnancy, but not a single one of them, including abstinence, is 100%
jm>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
dk>reliable.   

jm>  Ahhhhh, Dan?  Could you maybe elaborate on this?  If abstinence = no inter-
jm>course, and there's no technological or religious miracles involved, how is
jm>this possible?  I mean, if the sperm and the egg don't get together...how
jm>do they get together?
 
I guess if we accept the bible as non-fiction, then even completely avoiding
coitus sex is less that 100% reliable.  However, that is not what I'm referring
to.  When you mentioned "abstinence = no intercourse", I began to think about
my apology for using the term abstinence.  But then much to my pleasure, I
look up abstinence in the dictionary (Actually used xwebster) and there in
the first definition is "voluntary forbearance".  So even with practicing
100% abstinence, a woman can still end up pregnant by someone who ignored
her wishes not to participate in coitus sex.  
 
Dan King


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34330 alt.abortion.inequity:3378
From: sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:14:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
> >Currently true.  But IMO, that's what this discussion is all about, changing
> >that.  Just because a fetus is not recognized as a person now, does not
> >mean that law (or amendments to the constitution) cannot be passed to
> >change it's status.
> 
> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
> 
> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?
> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer
> ray@netcom.com

That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
- and my wife has said the same thing...


-- 
=========================================================================
Sean P. Curley						Unify Corporation
Engineering Manager					Sacramento, CA.
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: NO SUBJECT           (1)
X-To: ROSS RIDGE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:20:00 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes...
RF> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
RF> >since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
RF> >got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
RF> >child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
RF> >it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're
RF> >pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
RF> >end of discussion :-)

RF> You're a sexist because you would punish women for having
RF> sex while avoiding any consequence for yourself.

Actually, I disagree that he is sexist.  Why?  To say that he is sexist, would
imply that he desires different treatment for men and women...  He does not
*just* want to force women to "take responsibility," but indeed, men as well.


RF> You're a hypocrite because you expect other people to live to
RF> standards you are unwilling to adopt for yourself.

Well...I don't know whether that is true or not, but I didn't see any quotes
from him, which indicated that he was unwilling to take responsibility, if he
were to be in that situation himself.


RF> And you're a coward because you're unwilling to support and
RF> defend your comments.

Wait for his reply first, sheesh!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * What did you say she had? * Kirk / Cramps. * McCoy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Not today, thanks.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.213222.19792@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.165041.11734@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>|> 
>|> The beliefs that would be legislated (and enforced on others) would be the
>|> belief that abortion is not murder.  In other words, it would enforce a
>|> belief about when a child becomes a human being.
>|>
>
>The legislation (Freedom of Choice Act) says nothing about the status of
>the fetus or what abortion is/is not. It simply prevents the state from
>restricting adult females from aborting a pre-viable fetuses.

Which, obviously, DOES say something about the status of the fetus.

>It does not prevent the state from restricting/denying abortion funding,
>passing parental consent laws for minors, restricting the abortion of
>post-viable fetuses. As it does not require individuals to have an
>abortion, nor to approve of abortion, it does not legislate a belief,
>nor is any belief enforced on an other.

You seem to have missed my other posts.  If it allows the mother to make
a unilateral choice, then the decision to have an abortion is forced on
the father.

>--Bruce

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About Party Platforms....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:38:22 GMT

pburch@bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
] In article <1992Aug19.220051.12200@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes: [well, I guess clari-net wrote the first part]
] |> 
] |> The Republican platform contains a plank that calls for a ban on ALL
] |> abortions through an amendment to the US Constitution.
] 
] It looks like the Republican party really is calling for a ban on all
] abortions. If this passed (which is surely impossible), women with
] ectopic pregnancies would be doomed to a painful death. About 1% of
] pregnancies in this country are ectopic, and survival of untreated
] (read unaborted) ectopic pregnancies is extremely rare.
] 
] I still can't believe that even the most extreme fanatic could intend
] this particular result, though. What could possibly be wrong, in ANYBODY's 
] book, with saving the life of the mother in cases where the loss of the 
] embryo's life is inevitable? 
] 
] Is there anybody out there who honestly believes that even ectopic
] pregnancies should not be aborted?

1. If as has been argued 'abortion is murder' then
even in the case of ectopic pregnancies abortion
would still be murder.

2. This is the same party platform plank that has been
there since the start of the 'Reagan Revolution.' And has
been one of the Many Great Success Stories of the Reagan Bush Legacy.

3. Need we discuss the general 'Fiscal Conservative' planks
that have likewise lead this country to its Ever Expanding
Ever Victorious Economy......

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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34754 alt.abortion.inequity:3457
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:16:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hah!  That's what you think!

In article <_3kn9!-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>In article <1992Sep1.183441.9858@wdl.loral.com> 
>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>
>Abortion comes down to some fairly straightforward questions.  To wit:
>
>Do people have the right to control their own bodies? (that's a yes/no
>question.  Not a "yes/no, except when ..." question).

Wrong.  It is NOT a yes/no question.

>When should legal personhood begin?  And if it's before birth, does the
>z/e/f have more rights to the mother's body than does the mother?

If it's before birth, does the z/e/f have more, equal or less rights to
IT'S own body than does the mother?

>For my part (being a pragmatist), the answers are yes, at birth, and no.

Nope.  That is, you are not being pragmatic, you chose a set of beliefs.
So what.  Other people have different beliefs than you.

>Not to say the fetus shouldn't have some protection, just that consequences
>of pre-birth personhood are likely to be rather worse than the benefits.

Not necesarily.  Pre-birth personhood could drastically decrease the number
of children born with problems due to maternal neglect.

>(alternate universe: pro-choice protesters in front of delivery rooms 
> waving placards with pictures of naked & bloody women dead of childbirth,
> Widowers sending their children to block cars trying to enter the parking 
> lot.
>
> Too wierd.)

And way off base.  The maternal death rate is very low.  The fetal death
rate in abortions is almost (but not quite) 100%.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: DOES THE NUMBER THIRTEEN RING A BELL?
Keywords: You knew I'd do this
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:35:02 GMT

In article <nyikos.714171851@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
(Peter Nyikos) writes:

}Is there a condition of slavery worse than that of a fetus, who had
}no say-so in where he/she is, like a condemned prisoner awaiting 
}execution for the crime of being where he/she is not wanted?

Yes, there are several.  The "unborn" have asked me to tell you that
they don't like your posting about how they may or may not feel in the 
womb.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           I speak for the unborn (and others upon request)...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: We gotta do what we gotta do...  
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:28:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144346.15174@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
> Why didn't we all get immediate wind of Domino's efforts and start buying
> their pizza?

If you ever got wind of a Domino's pizza, you'd understand why
nobody was buying.  It wasn't politics.  They make (or at least
made - haven't had one in years) the worst pies going.  Personally,
I like to patronize the local stores when I get a yen for the
round and cheesey.  Much better stuff than those big, impersonal
chains with their frozen pies shipped to a zillion locations.
TJ's in Long Branch just lost my trade for various reasons, so
I'll be trying Freddie's when I want a pepperoni and onion
delivered.

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.185819.29967@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Sep1.022621.15823@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com 
>    (James G Keegan Jr) writes: >
> >i wonder if he'll think the same here.
> 
> Why would I think any differently about Dean's comments?

You may think the same of them, but you didn't say it.

I think that's because you're grateful for all those great
dating tips I gave you.  How have they been working out?

Hugs and kisses,

Dean Kaflowitz

I said "Lord what would you do
if you were me and I was you
Take a chance and save my pants
or save my soul?"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Maury Povich and the brainwashing child abusers
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:42:14 GMT

mcbeanb@brandonu.ca (Brian McBean) writes about children
used in abortion clinic protests:

> I'm not sure if it's good parental practice to allow your
> 13 year-old daughter to be arrested 42 times, and say "it's
> ok, she wanted to do it, I didn't put her up to it."

This reminds me of what I read about the "Children's Crusade."
Children all over Europe were recruited to go liberate the
Holy Land from the infidels.  Most of them wound up being sold
into slavery or prostitution.

I'm not accusing these parents of such heinous motivations, but
I think that using your own children as a buffer between you and
the police is cowardly, hypocritical and downright abusive.  And
shouldn't these parents be charged with contributing to the
delinquency of a minor?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: NYTimes article on Robertson letter
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:04:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.163756.1258@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Here's the AP wire report on the Pat Robertson letter.
>
>NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92
>
>ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS
>
>-----
>Says Effort in Iowa Supports Witches and Child Killers
>-----
>
>DES MOINES, Aug 25 (AP) -- A fund-raising letter written by the
>evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights
>amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women
>to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>
>The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a
>broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.
>
>But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
>of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
>proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
>rights for women."
>
>Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
>political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
>kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
>become lesbians."
>
	Perhaps Mr. Robertson's thorazine dosage should be increased; his
hallucinations seem to be getting out of control.
	Seriously, though.  If Robertson really believes this swill, I think
he must be quite mad.  And if he doesn't, he's a lying dirtbag and a disgrace
to the religion he claims to belong to.  Either way, I think that if I were
a Christian I would find people like this a major embarrassment.
[..]
>-- 
>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
>they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80