HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:56:34 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct7.184949.5694@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>
>Okay here goes.  I am not saying anything about where I stand on this
>"personhood thing." But would you say that a "person" begins at birht
>or after birth?  Would you be willing to protect "persons" from being
>killed?  Would you be willing to protect non-persons who are humans?
>(i.e.  the time from conception to the time you perceive to be the
>age when a human life becomes a person.)

Gee Martin, he's already said that he isn't interested in protecting
z/e/f from conception to personhood. He's already said he'd protect
'persons' from death, and that he doesn't see the z/e/f as a person.
Get a clue and stop flogging that dead horse. It's really starting
to stink.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:30:13 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Self-defense is only appropriate when a person faces an imminent and
>immediate threat from an attacker.  

Excuse me, but shouldn't that be "a person has a _reasonable belief_
that they face an imminent and immediate threat"?

>Doug Holtsinger

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Adoption vs. Abortion (was Re: Please let Marrou debate!)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:14:42 GMT

fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan) writes:

> At the risk of starting a major flame war, allow me to state that it's
> been my experience through observation that pro-abortion individuals are
> the ones who are only willing to adopt white, blond-haired, blue-eyed
> children.  I see minority and disadvantaged children who are adopted,
> but I only see them adopted by pro-life individuals.  However, maybe
> someone can show to me that circumstances are different in other places
> and/or with other people.

Nice try, Sean.  I like to see the facts on which you base your observation.
If it's purely anecdotal, you should know that Governor Clinton speaks often
about a pro-choice woman who adopted a racially mixed HIV+ baby.

If you have statistics, let's see 'em.

As for starting a major flame war, what do you think you just stepped into?

:-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:42:48 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <Bw5A2s.HxF.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>    (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
>In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>
>>>Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
>>>easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?
>>
>>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
>>
>>When abortion is illegal, women die.
>
>When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.
>
>Shall we legalize them, Susan?  
>
I'm not Susan, but yes, we should.  The current 'War on (some) Drugs' is a
reply of Prohibition.  Remember Prohibition?  Gangs imported illegal drugs,
used force (murder, arson, etc) to control distribution rights and got
rich.  Does it sound familiar?

And, notice please, that alchohol, nicotine and caffeine are legal...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41497 talk.politics.misc:50437 alt.sex:32389 alt.rush-limbaugh:6922 alt.politics.elections:15739 alt.politics.clinton:9221 alt.politics.bush:8290
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A hypothetical case: Assault or murder.
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:09:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

dennis@Lise.Unit.NO (Dennis G Landsem) writes ...
> In light of the discussion on what rights apply to a fetus I'd like you to 
>consider the following scenario:
>
>    A women is, lets say, 2 months pregnant. She has every intention 
>    of carrying the child to term. One evening as she is walking in 
>    the park, she is assaulted by a robber. As a direct result of this 
>    (a kick in the stomach) she has a spontaneous abortion. 
>
> What I'd like you to answer is this; would you consider this an assault 
> or would you consider it to be murder ?

Excellent question!  One that nicely illustrates one of the problems
of assigning personhood to fetuses/embryos.

Did the actual kick kill the fetus?  Or did it start a miscarry which
then killed the fetus?  Or were the two events merely coincidental?
Was the fetus actually alive when the robber kicked the woman?  How
was the robber supposed to know that she was 2 months pregnant?

There are lots of legal problems that turn up here.  Murder almost
certainly doesn't apply since generally it's not possible to tell that
a woman is two months pregnant by observation.  Thus the robber
clearly did not intend to kill the fetus.

A similar problem arises with manslaughter charges.  Kicking a person
does not, with very few exceptions, cause a different person to die.
The man kicked the woman; she didn't die.  And it is not reasonable to
assume that every woman is pregnant since pregnant woman make up a
very small portion of the population.

And then there is the problem of determining that the kick actually
caused the miscarry.  While it may be considered a possible
consequence, legal standards are considerably more rigorous.  One must
show beyond reasonable doubt that the kick killed the fetus, that it
was alive before the kick, and that the miscarry was a direct
consequence of the kick and not because of something else.

Embryonic & fetal personhood is one of those things that sounds nice
in principle, but is wholly infeasable in actual practice.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:59:11 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: response to a lame response
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <Bw4vnw.L1t@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>I can therefore assume that you admit the existence of a child but
>still support its destruction?  Unusual honesty.

	I neither admit nor deny the "existence of a child" ... my
	position is based on dislike of government intrusion into women's
	privacy and governmental regulation of childbirth.

>>	By the by, have you found the quotation from the Koop
>>	letter you cited?  If there is much more delay, people

>I gave you the reference where I heard the information.  You are free to
>contact the founder of Project Rachel for further information.  You are
>free to [library] ...  You are even free to [Reagan papers]. ...
>I am not your grad student, and I do not go 
>hunting down further references than those that were provided to me
>simply because you demand it.  You have more than enough information to
>find this letter, if you care to.  If you do not, your laziness is not
>my concern.

	Beg pardon, but you cited the information in the letter
	as though you were speaking of first-hand information. The
	original post made it sound like you knew what you were
	talking about.
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:35:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:

>In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>> And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
>> and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
>> I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.

>This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. Allow me to give
>y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
>genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
>characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
>cetera. Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with
>millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of
>blueprints are floating in their respective ovaries and vesicles. When
>the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a

Hmm, William must be taking English Poetry 101. This sounds too much
like 'Trailing clouds of glory do we come ....'. Consider if you will
that 'that baby' might equally become a mad dictator, a mass murderer,
physically deformed [save your flames, I know whereof I speak], or...
Why are all these unborn always heroic genii?

>dumpster outside an abortion clinic. No, excuse me... following in the
>words of others on the net, that PARASITE is in the dumpster. Sorry.
>Excuse me.

>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!

>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.

Could it be because some of us do not have simple minds?

>---------------------------------------------
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan

About the level of intellect I would expect from that source. Unless
there is record of advocacy from the unborn?

REB
Usual.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:49:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Over-Generalization.  I haven't used the Bible to say human life begins at
>conception.  Many others don't.  Some even don't believe in the Bible
>yet they know Human Life begins at conception.

And not one has been able to provide any logical explanation for this
stance. Their reasoning always seems to fall back on some religious
point of view.

>Careful now.

You should heed that advice.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Choice for life 
Summary: One more time, for the thinking-impaired 
Organization: Patrick for himself, Dale Ann, and the two &^%$#@! cats. 
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:14:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.051757.29571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <Bvt2tH.H4G@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.082415.1797@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>In response to Garrett's comment's that my info on abstinence was
>>>perhaps flawed:
>>>
>>>I'm not personally trying to tell people what to do.
>>
>>Sure you're not.  You're just advocating enactment of statutes that'll
>>accomplish the same thing, while you say "but *I'm* not forcing anything on
>>anyone!".  It don't play in Peoria, kid.
>>
>>>What I was trying to say is that sex is serious business (and highly enjoyable,
>>>based on what I have been told), and that both parties involved should know
>>>what they're doing, but I never said to outlaw it.  But I do think it ought to
>>>be a part of a good relationship.  ok folks, fire aay.
>>
>>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
>>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
>>share that view by law.
>>
>>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
>>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
>>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
>>
>Now since when did I attack ANYONE'S personal life???

Every time you open your mouth to preach about the evils of sex in any form
YOU don't approve of, you're guaranteed to be taking a pot shot at someone.
You're advocating using the force of law to make sure everyone else should
follow YOUR views -- so, while you didn't direct it at me and my wife
specifically, we happen to be two of the group of people your little tirade
is directed towards.  You don't like my response?  Then don't listen -- but
keep in mind we'll be listening to you.  After all, the price of freedom is
eternal vigilance...

--PLH, advising anyone who doesn't like my style to turn the page

-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: And now, Deep Thoughts by Jim Keegan...
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:34:49 GMT

In <k-2z4=r@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <0r1zvnj@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >>>
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>
In <1992Oct10.024526.16500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>>>

>>>>>First, I don't think Susan does see misogyny 'round every corner,
>>>>>but she certainly does see it enough on talk.abortion, as do I
>>>>>and quite a few others.  
>
>>>>I think invoking "misogyny" is a convenient attempt to undermine
>>>>the credibility of any substantive arguments.  
>
>>>can you list the criteria you evaluated to reach this
>>>conclusion. 
>
>>Yes, Jim, I can, and have done so in other places.  
>
>then it should be little problem for you to reproduce
>it here, yes?

please provide some substantive reason for this unusual
request for data that you've already seen.  

>>However, 
>>I'm unlikely to provide *you* with much of anything substantive
>
>yes, i've noticed, nor anyone else for that matter.

Feelings still hurt?

>>>from what i've read, i think invoking misogyny happens when 
>>>misogyny is evident. a good example of what i'm talking about 
>>>is when someone replies to one of your posts and sees misogyny 
>>>in it.
>
>>Oh yes, that's ever so substantive an example. 
>
>that's true, particularly when you can't seem to give
>any at all.

Heh heh...

>it's ok bill, if you can't answer the questions, just
>say so.

As you know, (probably better than anyone in this newsgroup)
being evasive requires far less effort than actually adding 
to the content of the discussion.  Seems like our previous 
conversation left you with a new agenda.  Heh heh. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:35:04 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->In <yp1zglh@rpi.edu>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
->> Isn't it wonderful to be able to post by computer so that you
->> can be as nasty and condescending to women as you want without 
->> running the risk of being slapped?  

->How would you characterize it when I argue with Jim Keegan or 
->Steve Novak?

since you mentioned me, i'll be happy to comment. you
are usually less "nasty and condescending" to me and
novak than you are to women, imo, and more "nasty and
condescending" to me and novak than you are to other
males.

my observations are based on a reading of your posts to
me, to novak, nadja, adrienne, cj, linda birmingham,
susan, rocker, dean, bense.

but you probably can't help yourself.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41177 alt.pagan:10776 alt.sex:32234 soc.singles:27182
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Well someone has to ask it...
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:38:54 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans) writes:
] 
] >] This is one of the things I hate about net.arguments. Sometimes I just want
] >] to scream, "Please -- cut to the chase!!!"
] 
] >Marty,
] 
] >ok, so are you a 'Goer - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, Know what I mean?'
] 
] >ps: or do we still have to be coy for half a dozen more
] >posts before you decide if we can go out on a date....
] 
] Goodness, what turned you on so much about that???
] 
] (and besides, I *like* being coy. :-> )


well it was the word 'chase' up there....

If there is anything that gets me Going,
its Big Financial Institutions, he said coyly.



ciao
drieux

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: IN DEFENSE OF STEVE CHANEY...
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:32:35 GMT

> = (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:-)  Mark's on a roll lately.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:19:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct15.215356.25446@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
Overpeck) wrote:
> 
> In <Bw5A2s.HxF.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
>     (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
> In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>    (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
> 
> >>Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
> >>easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?
> >
> >You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
> >
> >When abortion is illegal, women die.
> 
> When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.

Hold on just a second here.  Before you go completely awry with this
equation you're setting up, you might enjoy researching a) how many people
die in an average year as a direct cause of illegal drug use, and b) how
many women died as a direct result of illegal abortion in the year prior to
the Roe v. Wade decision.

> Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

I think we _should_, Bill.

(Note follow-ups to talk.politics.drugs)

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:03:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.004852.26991@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

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

>> I recently posted an article about an abortion doctor who was convicted
>> of federal income tax evasion. This doctor allegedly over-billed 
>> insurance companies, over-estimated the gestational ages of fetuses 
>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I've been laughing at this line ever since DOD first posted it.  What
> was he expecting?  That the "sedated" women would just run over to their
> purses and pull out wads of cash?  That a sedated person is actually
> coherent enough to write a check?  Maybe DOD thinks these women just
> gave the doctor their credit cards, along with a signed note saying that
> he was authorized to use them?

A person who laughs when women are placed in such horrible circumstances
might be accused of being a misogynist.  


>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 06:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <Bvpu00.M1E@acsu.buffalo.edu>  v106qjh9@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE HAT) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.155623.11239@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Nov
> >
> >Um, that's *murder*, Dougie, plain and simple - like you.  Especially
> >stupid in the above statement is, "...and dumped your body parts..." - I
> >mean, ANYthing that dies doesn't give a damn what happens to its "body
> >parts".
>
> If that's true what's the point of having cemetaries?  Look when I'm dead I
> want to be remembered, not dumped in a dumpster and forgotten.
> Alas, that's just me...

Thankfully, yes.  When *I'm* dead I want all my usable parts to be recycled.
I want to be remembered, too, but for what I accomplished - not because
of some worm-food planted under a headstone.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:31:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.013649.6601@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

[text deleted]

## However, if you would try to justify your pro-life stand even in cases
## where the child isn't 'beautiful' or the mother doesn't love it, then
## perhaps you could discuss your reasoning with us and persuade some of
## us to agree with you.
#
#Are you a parent, Brian?  If you were you would know that EVERY child IS
#beautiful.  If the mother doesn't happen to think so, there are millions
#of people the world over who do, and would love to love it and raise it.
#It is a very sick society that kills the child rather than give it to
#the people who DO want to love it and care for it..

[text deleted]

Does this make sense to anyone?

Suzanne seems to be claiming that the only thing that keeps
Brian from realizing that "EVERY child is beautiful" is
the fact that he's not a parent.  (I have no idea if he is
or isn't.)  Then she says that some parents may not believe
this.

Maybe her official spokesperson can explain the logic here.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh