HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alz@nestor.uucp (80122-zoble)
Subject: Who Says?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 20:12:00 GMT

I cannot understand how the abortion issue has gotten so out of hand.

Not everyone shares the same beliefs. Many different religious, moral
and ethical beliefs exist and ALL ARE VALID for that person. No one
has the right to question the beliefs for another as it relates to that
person. Each person can only be expected to correctly judge for
themselves.

So why is it that there are so many people trying to decide what so
many other people should do with a life for which, I believe, only
that person and their partner are responsible? Why should a child
that is not wanted be forced into this world? The people who are
fighting are not responsible for its upbringing, so why should they
have any say about it?

Pro-choice does not equal abortion-all-the-time. What pro-choice does
is place the responsibility for the decision with the person/couple
responsible for the life. There are many unfortunate situations where
many pro-lifers would even agree an abortion might be appropriate,
such as with a rape. I don't believe anyone can properly evaluate
another person's situation to determine where to draw the line. This
choice should be up to the individual, the one that conceived the
life and will be responsible for it from that moment on. I feel that
for anyone to remove that responsibility/choice from that individual
is tantamount to "playing G-d". No one has that right, except for
themselves.

Note that I have not challenged the issue of whether or not abortion
is murder. I don't think that matters. Whether or not that is an
issue is going to be part of the individual's moral/ethical beliefs,
the one responsible for the decision.

Allison
NOTE that this opinion is my own. Additional disclaimer just in case.

Allison Zoble                         "Things are getting worse ...
nestor.cc.bellcore.com!alz             please send chocolate!"- Boynton
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer - thank goodness!
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mammalian Offspring Killing
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:20:37 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

I received this e-mail message:
=====================================================================
I don't like to post to this group. Guess I'm a wimp. But you are welcome
to post any of this and just leave my name out.

When my cat had kittens one was stillborn and another one looked very
premature. It didn't look healthy. It was tiny. And it didn't seem to
breathe right. The two others were healthy. Grendel (the mother) took
care of the two healthy ones very well. But she ignored the "preemie".
We suspect that she laid down on it (purposefully?) smothering it. Of
course, it didn't survive.  You could say that Grendel killed it, at
least through neglect.

And I don't think it is unique to felines. I think it happens with many
mammalian species. They will "sacrifice" the weak to better take of
the strong offspring.

Of course, everything I said here is merely anecdote.
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:57:20 GMT

In <q5pm8g.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes ...
>> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

>What you have failed to support is why anyone else should be 
>constrained to follow _your_ preferred course of action.  Like
>it or not, getting an abortion can be a responsible way of
>handling a pregnancy.

if you consider an abortion to be simply a medical procedure,
like removing a tumor.  No matter how pro-choice someone is,
they've got to realize there's a little more to it than that.
If you don't think so, I'm sure I'll find out.  Be honest.  

>Example: Mother, married, three kids already.  Her doctor told her 
>after her last pregancy that another would leave her permanently 
>disabled, possibly dead.

>What's the responsible thing to do?  Avoid having sex with her
>husband?  Get an abortion if the contraception fails?  Or end 
>up unable to care for her children by having a fourth baby?

answer:  vasectomy and/or tubal ligation

-TG
still amazed at how little people value life.





-- 
Todd Greenfield
tgreen@iastate.edu
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Well, I lost that article...
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:16:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Jul23.211640.6496
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

> A good, well-rounded sex ed program, IMHO, should attempt 
> to impart some understanding of the emotional vulnerability 
> that often accompanies sexual intimacy.  I don't think 
> it would violate most folks' values to point out that it's a 
> good idea to be cautious of the feelings involved in sexual 
> situations.  In that context, I have no problem with sex ed 
> presenting abstinence as an emotionally healthy response to 
> the problems of pubescent sexuality.

Well worth repeating!

The best I can do to amplify this paragraph is to type in the
refrain of a CSN song that just popped into my head, addressed
first to parents and later to children:

	Don't you ever ask them why,
	If they told you, you would cry,
	So just look at them and sigh,
	And know they love you.
	
Great post, Muriel.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Pregnancy, and Health (was re: Who is this ref.)
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:37:57 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul23.220133.7657@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes writes:

> > = (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >> = Larry writes:
> 
> >>    Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,000          [legal]
> >>    Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000          [legal]
> >>    Prescribed drugs  . . . . . . .  18,675          [legal]
> >>    Caffeine  . . . . . . . . . . .   5,800          [legal]
> >>    Cocaine . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,390          [illegal]
> >>    Heroin  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2,147          [illegal]
> >>    Aspirin . . . . . . . . . . . .     986          [legal]
> >>    Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . .       0          [illegal]
> 
> >  Thanks.  A little math on the illegal substances brings that death rate
> >to about 1.1 per 100,000 population, assuming somwehat less than 250 million
> >population for the US.  It's only approximate, but I don't have a calculator
> >handy.  Since not all 200+ million people in the US use illegal drugs, I reckon
> >it's safe to assume that the rate for users in considerably higher.
> 
> Not all people use tobacco.  Not all people drink alky.  Not all people use
> prescribed drugs...see?  
> 
> The rate for users of legal AND illegal drugs is considerably higher.

  Uhh, just to clear things up, I made a comment to Muriel once about how
you were more likely to die by doing illegal drugs than by driving or abortion
or pregnancy, but I had forgotten to look up the drug data when she asked.

  I was certainly not implying that illegal drugs kill more than legal ones.
Sorry about that.

semper fi,

Jim Miller
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:56:23 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <64213@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.215927.28391@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>In article <64097@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul22.141018.3802@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>>>>In article <64007@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>>>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.
> 
>>>definition: (from The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary)
>>>fear n 1. emotion characterized by dread or expectation of harm, 2. REVERENCE
>>>     FOR A SUPREME POWER, ...
>>>
>>>This is the only dictionary I have handy.  If you have one, you may want to
>>>check the definition yourself.
> 
>>Please explain why we should consider those who have reverence for
>>imaginary beings any different than those who are afraid of them,
>>or black cats, ladders, breaking mirrors and so forth?  Is it
>>merely your distaste at being thought of as superstitiously
>>fearful that prompts you to offer this alternate definition of
>>"fear"?  If so, it isn't any better to be superstitiously
>>reverent than superstitiously fearful.
> 
> You pose your thoughts on my understanding of the word 'fear' without
> looking it up in a dictionary, didn't you?  WORDS HAVE MORE THAN
> ONE MEANING - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY.  

How did that defintion appear in the dictionary in the first place I wonder?
 
>>>Do not be decieved - God is not mocked.
> 
>>Oh, this is just too clever!  I have so many responses to choose from,
>>including:
>>
>>1. Of course it can't be mocked!  Its an imaginary being cooked up by
>>greedy lowlives to scare insecure pinheads into supporting the
>>greedy lowlives' slothful life styles.
> 
> Why don't you use the pronoun He, instead of 'it'?

Who says God is truly male?  I've always thought that maybe that part of
the Bible was garbled into place due to male-chauvanists doing the
translations.  ya never know.  I remember reading at least one story
in which astronauts from NASA were able to meet God, and they came back
to Earth and said "First off...  She's black."
 
> Yes, some do use the gospel as a means to gain, but we are warned that
> the true gospel is not a means to great gain, but godliness with contentment
> is great gain.
> 
>>2. "Worship me puny humans, or I will cast you into the pit of flame
>>forever!"  Pretty good huh?  You should see it when I put on the fake
>>beard - I can almost hear god crying, "Mommy, Jimmy's mocking me!"
> 
> Laugh, if you want - have your good time, for there is a time coming...

Yeah, supper time (I'm not laughing I'm starved)
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29235 alt.birthright:125
From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)
Subject: CHILD PORNOGRAPHY !!!!!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 12:53:38 GMT


	According to the "Right-to-Strifers"......

	Fetus=child

	According to "60 min.".......

	Picture of naked "kid"= kiddie porn=evil

	According to Pat "my-dad-got-me-out-of-combat-duty" Robertson...

	All Porno=evil works of satan

	I see "Right-to-Strifers" carrying pictured of NAKED Fetuses...

	Naked Fetus=Naked kid=Kiddie Porn=Work of Satan

	Right-to-Strifes hands out leaflets with Naked kid...


	RIGHT TO STRIFE DISTRIBUTES KIDDIE PORN !!!!!!!!!!!



	[and they get pissed when I kiss and do the "wild thing"
	 with Transvestites and other cross-gender types ! ]

-- 
"Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one.
 Let me see your sacred mysteries, reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C.
A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
alias: White Rook     |   NWROC E-mail:aphillip@heartland.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:33:34 GMT

rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:

>Why is it one is said to 'flip-flop' when they change their
>mind?????????????

I have pointed out several times here that for most people, it's
a "flip-flop" or "political expediency" when an _ally_ embraces
the _opponent's_ position.  When an opponent switches to your
side, most call it "seeing the truth".

Frankly, I don't trust any of 'em.

Particularly not the flood of formerly anti-abortion politicians who
are now tripping over themselves to add "...but I don't think it
should be legislated".

>Richard Pitts

                        -rocker
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion is a SIN against God!
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:43:52 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Jul23.184559.28424@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.174509.14362@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>> <Exodus 21 quote deleted>

>  Gee, I guess we forgot that the New Testament is what Christians
>are supposed to follow, since Jesus said what he said was to take
>precedence--while we're bible-thumping here.

Okay... what did He say to take precedence over it?  Quote to me, baby. :-)

>  Laws change.  Once upon a time, it was legal in many countries (let alone the
>southern US) to own slaves.  Olde laws and customs are not NECESSARILY valid
>today.  Try another tack.

Actually, Paul of Tarsus thought slavery was OK to the point that he said
slaves should obey their masters in order to be good Christians.  But, thank
Goddess you don't take all of the Bible as Gospel (double :-) )!


--Teddi
--------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)---------------
From: jmw@angelo.amd.com (jmw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Killing is killing... Isn't it?
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:29:07 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Jul13.012711.17989@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) in a
completely misguided attempt to pigeonhole people he doesn't agree 
with writes:
>
>More generally, one difference in outlook between many pro-lifers and
>many pro-choicers is that comparatively speaking pro-choicers tend to
>dislike what they see as the harsher consequences of letting people be
>responsible for the consequences of their actions.  

Nice try, Jim, but no, people who favor freedom of choice have no 
confusion over what actually constitutes a *full*measure* of being 
"responsible for the consequences of their actions".  Those of us
in that group recognize that full responsibility must include the 
option of discontinuing pregnancy at any time.  After all, freedom of 
choice implies an option to choose among all options that are available
and not just that set of options which Jim Kalb approves.

But, of course, you are going to argue that there is no option to 
terminate a pregnancy.  And you will do so despite the fact that your
personal views on morality and existence will have little or no affect
on those who possess a free will and the determination to live as they
see fit.  

Your interpretation has more to do with imposing your own view of 
morality on everyone else than any rational or respectable kind of
existence.   

>So if one sees
>severe punishment as the natural consequence of crime and the
>responsibility for bearing (if one is a woman) and looking after a
>child as a natural consequence of sexual intercourse, a pro-choicer is
>likely to want to soften each one.

But to do so is to accept the myopic point of view that there is only 
one consequence of sexual intercourse and only a "Jim Kalb Approved" set 
of options, when in fact Jim Kalb's view of the way the world should be 
has no bearing on the way anyone else chooses to run their own life.

Unless, Jim Kalb, you believe that you were recently appointed the post 
of god.  Not that it would matter much, but rather that we would all
have to keep a close watch on you.   

--
John M. Wincn 	jmw@angelo.amd.com  
(408) YUP-BEER  EXCLAIMER:  double whoopee 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Sexism by Susan Garvin?
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:57:03 GMT

From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> 
> Who knows?  I've never paid that much attention to Marilyn
> Quayle (or Barbara Bush, for that matter), so I don't
> know if she has a mind of her own or not.  I don't
> think that the mere fact that one married someone who 
> accomplished something makes one important.


Oh for Pete's sake.   Everyone on the face of the planet is BORN with
a mind of their own.  (That is of course, unless they die before birth.)
To suggest that any woman could POSSIBLY give up her mind on her wedding
day, much less that she may have in fact done so, is utterly ridiculous,
and completely counterproductive to the advancement of respect for women
in this world.

Ms. Garvin, not even LAWS could take away a woman's mind.   All laws can
possibly do is protect human beings from harm by other human beings.


> Susan

Suzanne Forgach
From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: CNN CENSORS PRO-LIFE AD
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:50:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Eric, I really appreciated your subtle humor below, but I think you 
overestimated the caliber of your audience.  So forgive me for ruining your
joke by over explaining it, but I just couldn't resist sharing it with 
those who may have missed it the first time.

In article <l6hh0nINNgsj@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.215548.15099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>
>>Prostoglandin abortions, which is a technique that is sometimes used
>>today, will result in the abortion of a stillborn fetus. That is the
>>fetus Rev. Shenck was carrying.
>
>Not necessairly. Even Scenck has admitted (on Rich Bueler's "Table Talk"
>program) that the only evidence he has to that effect is heresay.
>
>Eric

heresay: a combination of heresy and hearsay

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
Organization: .
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:10:18 GMT

In article <64007@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Fear (reverence) of the Lord is the begining of wisdom.

We do not, generally, consider those who are afraid to walk under
ladders or break mirrors or cross the paths of black cats, on a path
to wisdom.  Why should we consider those who are afraid of imaginary
beings any differently?  

And why should anyone revere an imaginary being that behaves like an
asshole?
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Frankly admits opressive stance (was: IS COMPROMISE POSSIBLE... YES?)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:09:35 GMT


franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:

>From Susan's interpretation, I am oppressive and dictatorial, solely
>because I request the removal of her right to abortion.

Little Stevie, here's a teeny tiny clue.  Susan is not very likely
to be upset by your threats to remove _her_ right to abortion.

Lots of us think you are pompous and overbearing because of your
hopes to remove _everyone's_ right to abortion.

>steve

                  -rocker
                   as if you could
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:44:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <3689@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>The changes that Mr. Heath proposes are good ones.  I would hope,
>though, that he considers the plight of poor women who are
>not basing their decision to terminate a pregnancy on their
>financial status as well.  

As I stated in the article I posted (which may run in a local
newspaper, as an editorial column), I am absolutlely pro-choice, so I
do indeed consider the plight of poor women who wish to terminate a
pregnancy for reasons other than financial. In my article, was simply
pointing out certain issues that would make it easier for women to
decide to have and keep their children.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Some useful statistics
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 05:41:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: From: decay@


Ooh, look, Kellmeyer tried to flame me and he didn't even
post it to misc.test first.  I'm impressed.  

I'll get to the library at my leisure, Kellmeyer.  I'm not
going to pretend to remember every detail of every book that
I've ever read - I'll leave the bragging to you.  You're
the one with the inadequacy problem.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:08:36 CDT

In article <nlqce2g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>| Notice that Doug apologized to C J but not to Susan.
>| Tell us, Doug.  What color is C J's tongue?
>
>I am going to count to 10 before flaming you for this remark.
>I'm sure you meant it as an insult of Holtsinger, and not me.
>Yes?
>
Thank you for sparing me.  Actually, I was just testing to
see if Doug is Really Someone Else who used to refer to you
as 'silver-tongued'.  

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:23:53 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  <adams.712421943@spssig>  adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
> >Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
> >testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
> >dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
> >the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>
> My problem with deciding how I feel on this is the possible ramifications.
> Assume for a moment that fetal tissue is found to cure some horrendous
> disease.  Do you then support conception soley for provision of fetal
> tissue?  This creates lots of issues that I don't have any answers for...

Assume for a moment that it's possible to remove organs from dead people
and transplant them into living people.  Do you then support killing
people soley for provision of organ transplants?  Perhaps we'd better
not perform any organ transplants until we consider the possible
ramifications...

I realize this is not an exact analogy, but the point is that there's
a potential for saving people's lives and you'd rather waste the
currently available tissue while you worry about what might happen
should the demand some day exceed the supply.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion