HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:03:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>> In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> >But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>> >In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>> >of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. I think  
>> >it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily autonomy 
>> >must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  
>> 
>> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
>> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
>> it was autonomous.[deletion]
>
>  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
>someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
>sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.

The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other person,
an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; care can
(and often is) transferred to other people.  This is not possible before
birth.

Try carrying a newborn everywhere you go for nine months.  _Everywhere_,
_all_ the time.  No breaks.  You, and you alone, are responsible for
the care of the infant.  You sleep together, you go to work together, 
you eat together, you live together.

Now, let's consider making this required by law.  From birth until nine
months of age the father _must_ be exclusive care giver for the infant.

Have any problems with this?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:49:42 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  <1992Jul23.040407.24647@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.021544.249982@cs.cmu.edu>
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
> >>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> >>>> Please provide a rational justification for killing a late-term
> >>>> fetus that would not also justify killing a newborn infant.
>
> >>> It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
> >>> remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
> >>> kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
> >>> woman.
>
> >> ...  Try again.
>
> > Why should I?  I answered your question.
>
> OK, then define "necessary".

Why not assume the same definition you used when you wrote (in article
<1992Jul22.225042.15548@ncsu.edu>) the following:
+> It is sometimes necessary to kill a late term fetus during a medically
+> indicated abortion.

[It is *so* terribly amusing to watch Doug assert "A", then assert "not A",
and then squirm as he attempts to reconcile the two conflicting claims.]

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Well, I lost that article...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 23:01:41 GMT

In article <4bmmq2c.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
>>Stating that abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed way of preventing pregnancy
>>is value neutral.  If says that if you don't want to become pregnant, don't
>>have sex.  If you want to become pregnant, then you'd better have sex.  If
>>you don't want to become pregnant, but have sex, you're taking some risk.
>
>It is value neutral only to the degree it is accurate.  Since abstinance
>is obviously not the only 100% certain way of preventing pregnancy, one 
>might easily conclude that you're pushing your own agenda by making this
>statement.
>
>What other ways work?
>Sterilization
>Homosexual sex
>Masturbation
>Death
>And most versions that don't involve inserting a penis into a vagina.

(Sigh.  I need some way to keeping all the context without having to spout
off 500 lines of quoted text...)

I was talking about ways guaranteed 100% to avoid pregnancy and STD's.
Abstinance is one.  Masturbation _by yourself_ is another.  I'm sure pretty
much everybody can think of others.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Survey...
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:33:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Originator: rpitts@emperor

After reading t.o off and on for a while, I thought I'd try
to better understand how people (especially non-pro-lifers) 
look at the issues.  I'd like to conduct a poll - one can
post to t.o or mail to myself - I haven't planned to summarize
the results.  I just want to get a feel for things. 

If you will allow me, I'll pose my thoughts on why I'm perplexed.
I have heard some infer that the unborn is life and they don't
care, some say that the joy of being pregant and the desire to
abort is dependent on whether the mother wanted a baby, etc.

I guess where I'm puzzled it that if one believes that the unborn
is a life, then it should be beyond them to say abortion is OK.

Please leave the header alone for responses to the poll and change 
it to something else if you want to discuss or dispute anything.
If there are other questions you'd like asked or think I should
have used, email me at rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu - thanks.

Note: part 'a' of the question deals with the unborn and part 'b' 
is related, but applies regardless of the answer to part 'a'.

------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, so here are my questions:

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

1) a)Do you believe the unborn entity constitutes a life? (y/n/?)
   b)At what point does life begin?
                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

2) a)Do you believe the unborn entity has any rights? (y/n/?)
   b)At what point do rights begin?
                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

3) a)Is the unborn a person (similar, but for a better understanding)? (y/n/?)
   b)At what point does personhood begin?
                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth)etc.)

4) a)Should abortions be restricted based solely on the amount of 
     time since conception? (y/n/?)
   b)At what point should abortions be restricted? 
                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

5) Should viability (as provided by advanced technology) be the basis
   of whether an abortion is morally ok?  (y/n/?)

6) Is it morally wrong to abort 
   a) a life? (y/n/?)
   b) a person? (y/n/?)
   c) a viable life? (y/n/?)
   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?)

7) Should it be legally wrong to abort 
   a) a life? (y/n/?)
   b) a person? (y/n/?)
   c) a viable life? (y/n/?)
   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?)

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:13:08 GMT

Hi, Stephen.  I haven't seen you in t.a before.  If you are new,
welcome.  Some of your answers interested me.  I hope you don't
mind discussing them.

<1992Jul28.004856.13701@csus.edu> ( Steve Chaney ) writes:
>> Why is it that the typical pro-choicer: 
>> 5) Wants to save the dolphins? 
>> 9) But then tries to justify abortion even though it is killing? 
>> 10) Opposes animal testing? 
>> 11) Would rather have human fetal testing?  

<1992Jul29.152325.6495@jet.uk> (Stephen R Cooper) writes:
> 3,5,6 & 7) If I opposed these because of killing then i'd be a vegitarian
>    and I'm not. I oppose these because I believe we need a diversity of
>    species and spotted owls, dolphins, whales and eagles are in danger.
                               ^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this true?  I thought that the dolphin population was pretty
stable, and that the "Save the Dolphin" and "Dolphin-safe Tuna"
movements were spurred on because dolphins are "cute" and "friendly" 
and "intelligent" and "noble creatures" and remind baby boomers of
one of their favorite childhood TV shows.  If I'm wrong about
this, it would help me understand the issue better.

> 9) I don't believe abortion is kiiling.

I'm curious what strange definitions of "abortion" and "killing"
you use to support this belief.  If an organism is alive, and
I perform some action, and as a direct result of that action
the organism is now dead, isn't it accurate to say that I have
killed (not "murdered" or "butchered" or "slaughtered", simply
"killed") that organism?  Isn't a human fetus (living organism)
nearly always killed during an abortion?

It takes another step of argument to then claim that the killing
of a fetus during an abortion is morally impermissible, but
the fact that abortion involves killing should not be controversial.

> 10) I oppose animal testing because it dose not work, animals are not
>    people, what's o.k for a beagle probably is not for a human

You may be far more informed than I on this matter, but this statement
doesn't ring true with me.  If animal testing does not work, then
what are all of these medical advances, etc. that have been developed
with the aid of animal testing?  Granted it's not perfect, but
it is certainly useful.

> 11) Opposite of above, fetal tissue is very like human tissue. What
>    dose not harm it will almost certainly not harm human tissue

Human fetal tissue *is* human tissue.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:16:21 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <adams.712206042@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>In my humble opinion, a woman 'creates' nothing.  God creates.  Sure, there
>>is a certain biological/physiological happenstance.  But since I believe
>>that the soul enters the body at conception, that life is only for God to
>>take, if He so choses.  But you miss my point, too.  I am pro-choice.  I
>>object to abortion on religious grounds, yet refuse to impose my religion
>>on anyone else.  
>>
>Steve, I applaud your justification for remaining pro-choice
>despite your moral stance on abortion.  But tell me, when do
>identical twins get 'ensouled'?  Do they share a soul, or is one
>of them soulless?  If a second soul is introduced at the moment
>of division, which one gets the original soul?  This could be
>the stuff of which dreadful arguments are made between twin
>siblings.

  no flame intended, but speculating on the mechanics of the second soul
sounds to me like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
in other words...not crucial to the real issue of faith in god.

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

---
       Stephen Buckley    
       sbuckley@sfu.ca   
     TrueNorthStrong&Free  
        1-800-REALITY
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal RTL defense, Part 2
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:53:54 GMT
Organization: .

In article <1992Jul25.002236.14084@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon):
>> 
>> I notice your postings are alot like David Rasmussen's postings. 
>> Do you know him?  
>
>
>I think it sweet that so many people miss our dear David so much :-) :-)

You misunderstand my concern.  If you weren't a member of the "my side
can do no wrong" school of pro-life, you might have half a clue as to
why I might be concerned.
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:51:22 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>Which leads me to wonder if George, in his second term, will 
>do another flip-flop on abortion.  He won't have to worry
>about keeping the right wing happy.  He'll be free to do
>what he really believes.

>What do you think?

I've been saying this for the past month or so to anyone who says that they
are voting for Bush because of his 'pro-life' stance...I agree Russ...if
he gets reelected, he'll change this stance...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:24:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.181910.20491@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
> 
> The fact that a human fetus is a member of the human species is of little
> relevance to the scientific validity of abortion.
> 
> Scientifically, the validity of abortion should be determined by the
> effect abortion would have on a species' evolutionary survival. If
> abortion is an invalid practice, then it would have a significatly
> decrease the evolutionary success of a species (i.e.: the species
> would become extinct).

This is not science, but more value judgements.  Up to this point,
I was in agreement with your article.  But science is not there
to ensure or assist the survival of the species.  The scientific
method is simply a technique for systematically observing the
world aroun dus in order to draw conclusions and make predictions
about how it operates.  I am not sure at all what your last
sentence above means.  Abortion can neither be valid or invalid,
in scientific terms as I understand them.  I take your remarks
about validity to mean "If abortion decreases the evolutionary
success of a species (what evolution has to do with it is beyond
me), then abortion is not a good thing."

Evolution refers to a change in the gene pool over time.
Such changes can result in a failure of the species as well
as its survival.  One would have to use abortion far more
selectively than it is now being used to produce that.  Those
of us who are pro-choice would not support such a directed
attempt.  We prefer that women who want to have children do
so as they wish, and that women who want to have abortions do
so as they wish.

Gee, I'm starting to sound like Dan Quayle, except I don't
think he could define science.

I don't think he could spell science, and evolution is right out.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: K.O., 0:10 of 1st Round (WAS Re: Would Susan B. Anthony be pro-life?)
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:48:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul22.165113.24546@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
## = Susan "Lies Exposed for Free" Garvin writes:
### = Stephen A Chaney steps into a four foot cowpie:
#
##[text deleted]
##
###This is the same Margaret Sanger who said, in one breath, that
###abortion was wrong, and then died of one? 
###
###And don't say that isn't true; Planned Parenthood themselves, in their
###big Sanger's Birthday celebration ads, talked about her death by an
###illegal abortion. 
###
###Don't even TRY to escape from this one, Garvin.
#
##Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966.  
##
##Feel free to try to squirm out of this one, Chahallney.
#
#Oh, MAN.  You shouldn't use a sledgehammer on someone's nuts.  Between him and
#Holtsinger, they *may* send a hitman after you :).

I'm not worried.  They'd probably lie to their hitman, too.

(I thought that I was gentle with the Airplane Boy.)

#Whaddya say, Chaney?  Do we get a retraction?  Or will you blow smoke out
#of your ass like Holtsinger does?

He did give me the best laugh I'd had in a long time.  I have
this feeling that he'll claim now that he read it in the
Weekly World News - "83 year old founder of PP dies after
legal abortion!"

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.171950.15352@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (James G Keegan Jr):
>>> -> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>>> -> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
>>> -> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
>>> -> abortion
>
>Quayle replied, "I would support her.  I would hope she wouldn't make that
>decision."
>
>You'd support your daughter if she decided to get an abortion?

Well, Steve Novak, how's about this: 

Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
having abortions. 
Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats. 

But what if they resorted to legal means to circumvent the pro-choice
movement's undying quest to nullify parental authority? 

Why, a parent could, upon being told that their daughter is pregnant,
threaten to drop her off at a home for unwanted children if she has an
abortion. 
That's no slight inconvenience for anyone; the daughter would be
devastated, and she would have no legal action against her parents.
She'd just be out of a home.
And where would the NARAL & Planned Parenthood be, then? They won't
house her. She'll be just an insignificant casualty in this war. Or,
as they say, "Another one bites the dust." 

But the parents would strike the last and final blow in the issue, and
the next daughter would more likely either not get pregnant or not
even consider abortion. 


Sure, the tactics are heavy handed, but anything is fair in war,
and as the pro-choicers like to say, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO IT. 

>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
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. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:12:42 GMT

<3697@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> (Susan Garvin) writes:
> I would appreciate it if you could post the article.  

From St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Thursday, July 23, 1992, page 4C:
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGE RULES GIRLS' CONSENT NULLIFIES FLORIDA STATUTORY RAPE LAW

Compiled From News Services

ORLANDO, Fla. --- Prosecutors will appeal a state court ruling that
found Florida's statutory rape law unconstitutional in two cases in
which teen-age girls said they had consented to sex with men, a state
lawyer said Wednesday.

   The courts in Florida have always held that consent is not a defense
under the statutory rape law.

   In his ruling, Circuit Judge Jerry Lockett dismissed two cases in 
which the 15-year-old girls involved said they had wanted to have sex
with their male friends -- one 19 and the other 20 -- and that they
did not want to prosecute.

   Lockett said the rape law conflicted with a ruling by the Florida
Supreme Court in 1990 that gives minors the same right to privacy as
adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I wish there were more, but that's the whole article.

> I support graduated age of consent laws,...

We're off abortion here, so let's go to email, but what do you
mean?  I'm imagining some kind of "base" standard (Ten year olds
may consent to first base, 14 to second, etc.), but I doubt you mean
that.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion