HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:10:13 GMT

In <1993Jan12.073021.5818@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>(Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>(Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
>>>>>   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
>>>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
>>>>>   right to an abortion.
>>>>
>>>>Try again, Ray. The parallel conclusion here is
>>>>
>>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent right to 
>>>>   an abortion if your life is imminently imperiled.
>>
>>>So you're arguing that unless a woman's life is threatened, rape is
>>>acceptable?  
>>
>>No.
>>
>>>After all, her life isn't necessarily being _imminently_
>>>threatened; 
>>
>>But often, it is.

>As is the case with pregnancy.  May a woman therefore act towards the
>fetus as she would a rapist?

There's plenty of time to determine whether a fetus threatens your
life; only seconds to determine whether a rapist does.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Peter & Gordon
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 16:50:14 GMT

<1993Jan1.034703.27951@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) said:
>In article <1992Dec30.234911.22366@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><nyikos.725748973@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>I'm truly touched by your open admittance of your feelings for me, Uncle
>>>>Peter.  May I call you Uncle Peter?
>>>
>>>Sure, unless there is an SAT-type in-joke involved, like somebody allowing
>>>others to call him "Uncle" is sufficient reason to flame him for the
>>>rest of his net.life.
>>
>>No in-joke I know of...  I'm suffering from the flu right now so it would
>>be difficult for me to even think of being that subtle for now.
>>
>Say Gordon, do you suppose it bothers Petey at all that his new
>"nephew" is one of the most pro-abortion people on the net? I'll bet
>he won't send you a birthday card unless you change your views... :)

I don't know if it bothers him or not.  I imagine it might. Of course, it
might also bother Suzanne that I don't call her 'Aunt' Suzanne too. ;-)
As for B-Day Card...  I'll let you know in 10 months.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth, 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
		    (And Uncle Peter's new nephew too)
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:42:15 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Law and Morality are not the same thing.
>>
>>Laws are designed to enable society to function.  Morals govern
>>personal behavior.  Abortion is legal because society works better
>>that way.  But it is not moral according to some Christians (for
>>whatever reasons).  Since there is nothing in the laws preventing
>>Christians from acting according to their faith, it makes perfect
>>sense to have abortion be legal but proscribed.
>
>Law is a subset of morality. Functionally, the major distinguishing
>feature of law, as opposed to other types of morality, is that law
>has certain enforcement options that the other types lack, being
>that it is, by definition, a coercive monopoly on force.

Law is separate from morality.  It is the law (here) to drive on the
right side of roads, stop at red lights, and go at green ones.  But
there is nothing moral in these laws; one might just as well have done
it the other way around: stop at green, go at red, and drive on the
left.  Laws are designed to enable society to function by defining
acceptable behavior and punishments for disregarding such behavior.
While it is true that many laws coincide with various religious and
moral teachings, there are many laws that have nothing to do with
morality (the laws governing the operation of banks, for example).

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:11:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.195306.862@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.163857.10936@mksol.dseg.ti.com> 
>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>
>>>> 4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.
>
>>> Position 4 is not logically consistent if a person does not
>>> condone infanticide in all cases. 
>
>> Your statement is only correct if the person believes the infant
>> is not a person.  Position 4 is logically consistent if the person
>> believes the fetus is not a person.  
>
>The belief that a child becomes a person when the child is born
>is a belief with no logical foundation.  I have not seen any
>reasoning which could support that belief, in which the position
>is derived from a set of general moral principles.  I don't see 
>why an unsupported position can be labeled as being 'logically 
>consistent'. 

The logical consistency of an argument is not the same as its "soundness",
Doug. If someone accepts, as a premise, the proposition that a child becomes
a person when it's born, then the conclusion is logically consistent, if
not "sound".
 
As for the validity of the premise, you know I don't usually get involved
in arguments over personhood, but let me point out that, at birth, a fetus
gains a social (as opposed to just a biological) identity -- it can be
moved from social situation to social situation, it can interact with 
different people, it at least has the opportunity to form meaningful social 
relationships. Up until that point, even after viability, it is _socially_
little more than an appendage of the mother.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:35:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.150542.15081@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>

Galen-

I found your last post enlightening and somewhat saddening.  You seem to base a
large part of you life's philosophy on the failure of laws to overcome human
nature.  One can follow your reasoning for awhile and ultimately conclude that
anarchy is the way to go.  

I am very pro-legislation  against abortion.  On the other hand, such
legislation will not pass unless there is enough public opinion to make it so. 
This doesn't necessarily mean a majority. For reasons I gave in a previous
post, I feel the anti-abortion movement has a long way to go.  So be it.

It sounds as though you may have been exposed to some of the worst aspects of
the law.  Laws are often capriciously applied and used in a discriminatory way.
 The inability for humans to always live up to their ideals, the law, doesn't
detract from those ideals.  Some of the most stident pro-aborts in this group
feel very strongly about the need for laws.

A very good case can be made for the legalization of drugs.  People come up
with "practical" reasons why legalization wouldn't work, but I think we all
know that the real reason drugs aren't legal is the old "we don't want to send
the wrong message" bugaboo.  I'm am quite torn over this particular issue.  I
bring it up only to point out that laws aren't just deterrents or for
punishment.  We know the street killings will stop, we know the drug kingpins
will vanish, but as a society we have a hard time sending that message.

Could you think of a society where murder were legal??  Think about it. Yes,
the laws probably don't stop anyone from murder, but...

All this wringing of hands regarding the suffering of women if abortion were
illegal projects an intensly pessimistic picture of our society.  In
my life I try very hard to alleviate the suffering of women.  There are ways to
do it, it's no where near as easy as snuffing out the life of the offending
child, but it can be done.  I think the Democrats have been ranting so loudly
about the callousness of the past Republican administrations (and rightly so)
that they have no choice but to impliment the social programs that can
alleviate much of the suffering that surrounds unintended pregnancies.

I see you may have cause to be pessimistic but your position seems to be one of
resignation.  Am I wrong?


>       
>     Galen Hekhuis 

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
From: dart@fugue.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan)
Subject: Abortifacients
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:17:00 GMT

listen folks, this is a self-followup to my husband's earlier posting.
we've gotten lots of letters saying to go to a doctor asap.
well, we don't happen to have med. insurance OR the $500-600 it will take
for an abortion.
we may be able to come up with said money, however, >I< would much rather
find a more effective, safer, and inexpensive way, first.
if we can't find a satisfactory alternative to abortion, then i .will. seek
treatment at a clinic.

please, if you can give us .helpful. information, then you have our thanks,
otherwise, please file your response to /dev/null

--
dart
--
Sometimes you can feel the fish
And then it slips away
Things aren't always what they seem
In North Hawaii
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55340 talk.religion.misc:25922 alt.atheism:25754
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:17:28 -0500 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Jan-93 Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
.. by Paul Hudson Jr@athena.cs 
> It is murder for us to kill the innocent.

    Mr. Hudson is yet another example of what Reverand Drieux calls
ModernSeXularHumanistScum.  To call pre-born babies innocent is to
ignore the doctrine of original sin.  The christian doctrine of original
sin holds that original sin is as a grevious a crime in the eyes of the
Lord as masturbating or raping and murdering a woman outside of the
context of war, a good reason to be burn in hell.
    An interesting aside is that Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary.  This holds that Mary was born without
the original sin.  Thus, if Mary's mother had had an abortion she would
have murdered the innocent.
    Another bizarre interaction between Catholicism and the "murdering
the innocent" rhetoric is that the Catholic form of infanticide and
abortion as practiced by the Spanish Conquistadores was to baptize
first, then kill.  Thus, the Catholics require that the baby innocent
before it is killed.  Perhaps, if abortionists would pay Catholic
priests to baptize the fetuses before the abortions, the Catholic church
could find another outlet for its political energies.

mIcHAELooomis


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:48:04 GMT

In article <C0pAqt.Jr@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu 
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

}                                                ...violating God's law to
}protect the innocent.  

Well, I know it's a nice thing to do and all that, and several people
recommend it, but I can't find "God's law to protect the innocent."
Could you tell me where it is?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:01:31 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
-> I will give you a moral absolute.
-> 
-> Murder is wrong.  

of course it it. what does that have to do with
abortion?

i think you should do a bit of reasearch on the
definition of murder.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<PATRICK.93Jan6191716@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<7JAN93.15032521@vax.clarku.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:53:03 GMT

On 7 JAN 93 15:03:25 GMT, hsims@vax.clarku.edu said:

>In a previous article, patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) wrote:
>>In article <1993Jan6.235607.3604@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>From article <1278@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>> 
>>> In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>>> a rather stunning display of pro-lie propaganda, beginning with:
>>> 
>>> #I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>> 
>>> Susan
>> 
>>   Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>   to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>   from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>> 
>>Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>>haven't seen any such activity -- and I don't disappear for a month at a
>>time because of work, or "news server problems", or such.  Seems to me this
>>claim's got at least the potential for being as funny as your backpedaling
>>about the clinic exorcism.
>> 
>>   Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
>> 
>>How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>>fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
>>really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>>really did that.)

>Actually, Suzanne and Edward aren't the only people who think I can do that.  
>At the time my boyfriend of about three years, who was the only person I was 
>sleeping with when I got pregnant, told me that it definately was not his.  So
>I guess I am capable of getting pregnant all by myself!

You may be right -- I can only wonder whose he thought it was, given those
facts... 

>>--PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...

>Well, I didn't think that's how my pregnancy happened until my ex-boyfriend 
>cleared things up for me.

I wonder how many kids are out there now that he says aren't his? 

(If only we'd known at the time, you could have looked to the west (Clark is
up in New England, isn't it?) for the arrival of the three wise men --
myself, Mark, Galen, and Dean.  Okay, make that the FOUR wise men.  I didn't
expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition. :-)

--PLH, anyone says the crossbeam's gone out of skew on't treadle, I'm outta
here...
--

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55224 talk.religion.misc:25849 alt.atheism:25671
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: not a man of his word?
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:04:29 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

for those of you who sometimes read headers of
crossposted articles ........

    'I do *not* want to discuss any child support
     issues in alt.flame any more. Not "Re: Hillel",
     not "Re: Paying for Pleasure", not any of them.'
          kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)      
          <1990Nov10.170334.5406@cfctech.cfc.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Apologies to Garvin, Keegan, clueless newbies, and Regard
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 00:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.223415.5317@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In article <nyikos.725578290@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> Anyway, I hereby apologize to any clueless
>> newbies who were confused by them, and to Adrienne for having to devote
>> some time to setting the record straight for the benefit of these newbies.
>
>After all this time, you apologize for any time Adrienne spent setting
>the record straight???
>
>WHAT ABOUT APOLOGIZING FOR FALSELY ACCUSING ADRIENNE OF FORGERY !?!?!?

That'll be posted under a seperate article, called "The [possible] innocence
of Adrienne".  PeteyHoney will be sure and include every article he has seen
_in their entirity_ since he first accused her.  After 2100+ lines of this,
he will write "As we can see, it would have been extremly easy for anybody to
make this mistake [insert inane Latan phrase here].  Is it any wonder that I,
who was played for a fool since I first joined t.a [include every article about
PHoney's SAT scores, how he was going to "hide them" for as long as possible,
etc here].  He will then finish with:  "Indeed, is it any wonder that I
'fell for the joke' again?"

--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker.  Space Reserved For Patrick, Gordon, and Druiex... (FWA!)=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 07:13:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.203530.10053@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
>private email between us, to USENET. 
>
If it was private between you and a close friend, how would Patrick
have seen it? Besides, it's always nice to have a good laugh, and you
certainly provide those.

>Why don't we just KILLfile PatricKKK? He has broken every rule he
>himself has set and that everyone else abides to out of courtesy. He is
>too afraid to apologize to me directly for his racist remarks, so I am
>perfectly right in making comments to and about his family. But will he
>recognize that? Yeah, when his wife is allowed to stroll the streets
>without being chased by the dog-catcher.. 
>
Can Patrick help it if his wife is so attractive that men all over are
chasing her (in vain, I've no doubt)? 
As for your "lipstick" claims, the simple fact that other men exist on
this planet is a sure fire guarantee that she's having nothing to do
with you.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: wendymas@gnu.ai.mit.edu (hell here)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: Free Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:55:42 GMT

once again, i feel i must correct something which is seriously amiss.
the claim was made that Roe v Wade allowed abortions up until the 9th month.

please, people, get a clue !!! or, at least, consult a lawbook before you
go around quoting the law very incorrectly. Ever heard of the trimester?
That's the primary set-up that Roe V Wade established that had never 
previously before been set by law regarding abortions. It goes like this:

1 - first three months: mother gets to decide. neither state nor doctor have
a 'fetal' interest. 

2 - second three months: state and doctor 'fetal' interest increases, mother
must have a more valid reason - usually medically motivated - to have an
abortion.

3 - state 'fetal' interest is greater than the mothers: maybe under health
risks could she get an abortion. 

i will admit that i am not a lawyer but i did take a law class the previous
semester, Law and Ethics - very appropriate, and so i have a pretty good 
idea of what the law says. However, now the last case that went to the 
Supreme Court has all abolished the trimester system and i, myself, am 
confused as to what the law allows. i don't even care really.

who knows? maybe god allows abortions as part of his ever-loving and 
oh so wonderful everlasting 'plan' that we are all to partake in one day
in the future. maybe god allows abortions because he truly recognizes
the fact that the real reason (as it seems to me - a woman who was raised
in a society who was busy telling her what she should be and using guilt
to do it) women are prohibited from having abortions is cuz men don't want
us to. just maybe. i realize not all are control freaks, but i also realize
that not all men want women to be self actualized. call it murder if you
like. i call it - i'm doing what the hell i want with my body and you can't 
stop me . besides, if god doesn't like it that much, why doesn't he stop it?
same reason he won't stop wars and such.... it's his 'plan'.

i hope god is having fun.

with happiness and light,

wendy

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:42:03 GMT

Isn't this subject line an oxymoron?

REB


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:07:44 GMT

00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?

Not me.

-Mark

--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu

Remember: 7 out of 10 people make up 70% of the popualtion

Newsgroups: talk.abortion