HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:14:21 GMT

In article <Jan.19.21.13.09.1993.7286@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>In article <1993Jan18.225016.13849@Princeton.EDU>
>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>> On the other hand, if I had no idea what would happen to the child,
>> I would rather [kill] it than live with the possibility that it may
>> be abused, that it may live in poverty, that it may be unloved.  _No_
>> child of mine, whether I raised it or someone else did, will ever
>> feel any of this.
>I changed the one key word in the passage above to more accurately
>reflect the nature of this supposed "choice".  So how does it look in
>all of its naked and inhuman brutality?

Pretty damn good. At least you won't have to spend your conservative
money on health and human services, government bureaucracies, possible
jail time, etc., etc., etc.

Better we should abort a z/e/f than to have an innocent child beaten,
starved, maimed, or killed. But then, that's just my thinking.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:29:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.200354.24658@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.130708.13203@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan18.213140.23135@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan12.171943.27306@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >...I take this opportunity to point out that
> >> >much of what the abortion debate is about is the matter of who
> >> >is best able to determine what is best for the woman involved:
> >> >the state by fiat or the individual woman (with the best advice
> >> >she is able to obtain)?  There is a certain arrogance inherent
> >> >in the belief that women are unable to make a correct decision
> >> >for themselves when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy.
> >> 
> >> I have no doubt that most if not nearly all women can make the best 
> >> decision for THEMSELVES, Dean. What is being questioned here, however, is 
> >> whether what's best for an individual woman may or may not be necessarily 
> >> best for the collective. After all, it's not just a decision that affects a 
> >> woman's body, it's also a decision that affects whether or not the 
> >> collective gets a new member. So shouldn't the collective at least get a 
> >> voice in the decision?
> >
> >The logical consequences of your statement are very far-reaching,
> >but to keep this as short as possible, the sister to your statement
> >is that the collective should then also have a voice in whether
> >people have children at all.  The collective, by your view,
> >then can order pregnancies and enforce child-bearing, not
> >simply prohibit abortion.
> 
> Er, where did I say "prohibit"? I said they should have a voice. I would go
> so far as to say they may also offer incentives for socially "good" behavior,
> and disincentives for socially "bad" behavior, as long as people's fundamental
> rights are maintained.

If that is the case, then you are talking about nothing at all and
I apologize to myself for wasting my time.  The "collective"
already has such a voice.  The discussion, as you frame it, has
next to nothing to do with what I was discussing prior to
your participation and is of no interest to me since it
is moot and irrelevant.

By the way, is this Kevin Darcy the individual I am addressing
or Kevin Darcy the group?

Dean Kaflowitz

Damn, sucked into another Kevin Darcy metadiscussion.  I won't
play, Kibble.  You were almost interesting, and then I found
you were just looking to be boring again.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:37:25 GMT

From article by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
> In forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>>the opportunity to set one's house in order.
> 
>>We're all gonna die some day.  The only difference between an
>>AIDS patient and a non-AIDS patient is that the AIDS patient must
>>confront his/her mortality, while the rest of us may foolishly
>>ignore ours at our own peril.
> 
>      Ohh, I see! It is Christian to _support_ the spread of AIDS. I'm
> finally beginning to understand the Pope's attitude to condoms.

Don't be ridiculous.  If everyone lived by what the Pope taught, AIDS
would never have happened.  If everyone started tomorrow living by
what the Pope teaches, AIDS would be stopped cold.

Abstinence or life long monogamy work.  Condoms do not.   (Condoms
don't even do what they were designed to do - prevent pregnancy.)


S. Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:54:41 GMT

For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
in favor of allowing that to continue?

MAC

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:44:49 GMT

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.235837.1790@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian
>Kauffman) says:

>>In summary, please form a well-posed question.  What is it you're asking?

>I'm not sure I ever did pose a question; I think I objected to the idea that
>life (meaning MY life, YOUR life, etc) does not have a beginning, which I
>felt I was seeing in someone's post.  But anyway:

>>Q1: when did life begin?
>>Q2: when does an individual life begin?
>>Q3: when does an individual's (ie. a person's) life begin?
>>Q4: when during individual's life does the individual life become a "person"?

>>It's all too common that someone will ask Q2, get an answer, and then carry
>>on as if the answer was to Q4.  So what is "THE question" really asking?

>In my opinion, question 2 and question 4 are (or should be) the same.  It's
>a matter of what we decide a "person" is.

I don't think something that isn't sentient is much of a "person".  I don't
think a single cell can realistically be considered sentient, whether or not
it "has a soul".  Doesn't a "person" have a "personality"?  Does anyone ever
say that a single cell has a "personality"?  (ignoring anthropomorphism)

When *you* say "person" you mean the same thing as "human".  Since it is
a waste of a term to refer to something that can be easily specified with
another term without ambiguity or much debate when the first term could be
used to refer to something more specific, most of us who disagree with you
use the term "person" to refer to a *sentient* being.  This is both more
general and more specific, and--*we* feel--more appropriate.
[love those three-sentence paragraphs!  ;)  ]

> Kurt  E.  Ludwick

-Rob
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:42:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <nyikos.728076896@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >In article <nyikos.727627950@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >#Did Susan put you up to this?
> 
> Susan, for the benefit of readers, is at CMU just as Scott Safier is.
> 
> Bense was clever enough to delete the attribution line so that he could
> better attack me.
> 
> #>For Susan, a net.bosom.buddy of the man Steve Chaney calls "PatricKKK"

Why yes, it's another conspiracy.

Calling Bill Overpeck!  Calling Bill Overpeck!  Do you
catch the whiff of paranoia there too, Bill?

Actually, whenever "Doctor" Nyikos posts, I catch the
whiff of something.  Today it was mixed with paranoia.
I'll give you a hint.  You can smell it any day you care
to walk behind a horse long enough.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:37:53 CST

In article <lm1g5pINNegu@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>A _very_ admirable position.  As I've said before, religious arguments to
>support U.S. code just wouldn't apply to anyone not in that religion but
>still a U.S. citizen.  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
>someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
>equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
>the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
>restrictive course.
>
How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
to peaceably assemble?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:02:01 GMT

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>Perhaps you should go sit with a few dying cancer patients. Try bone
>>cancer, for starters. Then you can graduate to some of the nastier
>>varieties.
>I have.  Yet, there is not way I would have killed this person.  even if 
>someone is dying in pain, there is no right to murder.
If the person wants it, how is it murder?  And are wars allowed just because
they have political reasoning?  They too are murder, are they not?

>This particular
>individual chose not to go to the hospital and take the pain medication
>or undergo hopeless operations.  I can respect that decision.  What I could
>not do is kill someone because they are in pain.  People are not animals to
>be put our of their misery.  If I were dying in agony, I would not want to
>have my family kill me.  I would not want that on their consciences for hte
>rest of their lives.  I would not want to die knowing that my family had
>killed me.
What if you did, though?  Would that be o.k. then?

>God can and has healed people in the last stages of cancer.  Even if I knew
>for sure that God would not heal someone in my family, I could not kill them.

I respect that.  That doesn't mean it should be illegal, though, does it.  It 
certainly doesn't follow naturally.  I can see why you can't do it.  But what if
I can, and my family members asks me to?

______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:28:56 GMT

In article <C1HABy.KJ4@hpchase.rose.hp.com> hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) writes:

[deletions]

>  The
>  two week old infant is no more "viable" than the eight month old fetus.
Boy, do *you* ever need a remedial biology class....

>  Both must be cared for and nurtured and yet in most states (in ALL states
>  if the FOCA passes) it is legal to abort a fetus up through the ninth
>  month.  You said the infant could be given up for adoption rather than
>  killing it, couldn't the same thing be done for the fetus?
>
Depends. Are *you* willing to pay the bills for removing the living
premature fetus from the woman and maintaining it on life support, no
matter what defects it may have? If so, may I have your credit card
number? There's a couple families with kids in the NICU here that are
never going to be able to pay their bills (for kids they want).

>  Just as a point of reference as to where my view come from. I am an
>  adoptee born in 1958 (thankfully before abortion was so common). My
>  mother was 17, in high school, and ask to leave her home by her step
>  mother. In todays climate, odds are I would not have been born.
>
Given the birth rate for 17 year olds vs the abortion rate, I must
queston that validity of the statement 'odds are I would not have been
born'.
Besides, if you had been aborted, you wouldn't *care*, now would you?

>  I find that sobering.
>
I find it totally irrelevant to the abortion issue.

--
                  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
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:16:06 GMT

In article <C1C4nn.JB3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[about "schizophrenia" (in common usage) ?= "MPD" (the proper medical term)]
>
>>I never said "schizophrenia" was "medically" correct, Mark. Are you such
>>a medico-geek that you can't see the rest of the world that exists outside
>>of the medical realm? According to the OED, "schizophrenia" has, in general
>>usage, the meaning I gave it. T.S. Eliot and George Orwell have used it in
>>the same way I did. It may be "incorrect" in Stethoscope-Land, Mark, but 
>>the word can have a different meaning in other contexts.
>
>In other words, everyone is using it wrong, including the compilers of the
>OED.  ;)
>Actually, dictionaries describe the way the words *are* used, not the way they
>*should* be used, so OED is not necessarily at fault.  ;)
>
Don't worry Rob, it's just Kebbin trying to deny his error. He knows
that he's wrong, but it's long been known that he is (for whatever
eason) completely unable to ever admit it. Even in something as simple
as word usage, an area in which he has often chided others to be more
accurate, he prefers to hide behind rationalizations.
You may notice that he dug himself into a nice deep hole on this one,
and then promptly stopped replying to it.

--
                  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
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:11:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.011134.25556@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.234749.12467@cs.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> you should really note that I don't believe that there exists
>> any act X of which one could truthfully say that X is immoral.
>> Therefore, it follows that I do not believe that infanticide
>> or abortion is immoral.
>Then you must agree that stopping an abortion is not immoral.
>Nor is it immoral to throw an abortionist in jail. 
Quite true. What's your point?

>>>> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.  
>>> Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
>>> tell certain human beings that they must die.  
>> Nonsense. They wish to permit others to terminate their
>> pregnancies. 
>Pro-choicers want to be able to tell certain human beings
>what to do.
How so? I certainly don't wish to tell fetuses what to do.
I agree that I wish to tell pro-lifers not to physically
harass pregnant women, but if that is what you mean, then
I hardly see that wanting to tell certain human beings what
to do is an indictment, since presumably you wish to tell
certain human beings not to steal your car.

>> Your claim is false on several counts:
>> 1) One doesn't tell fetuses anything during an abortion.
>One doesn't 'tell' women anything by passing an anti-abortion law. 
On the contrary. One tells them: You will be prosecuted if you do
X. (or alternately, your doctor will be prosecuted if he does X.)

>> Why would you? They can't understand it.
>I was using 'tell' as a metaphor, just like passing a law
>is 'telling' people what to do.  Pro-choicers want to be
>able to execute certain human beings, or 'tell' them they
>must die.
Once again, Mr. Holtsinger, many pro-choicers wish
no such thing. I, for instance, have no wish to kill fetuses.
I am not a medical doctor and have no wish to perform an
abortion. Therefore, it is not true that I wish to be
able to kill fetuses. 

>> 2) There are pro-choicers who will never have anything to
>> do with an abortion (for instance, they are male and have no
>> contact with medical professionals) and therefore would
>> never tell certain human beings that they must die even given
>> (1).
>Pro-lifers would never 'tell' these people that they must not
>obtain an abortion.  Therefore, pro-lifers do not wish to
>'tell' these people what to do.
So? They wish to tell women what they may or may not do. What's
your point, Doug?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57515 talk.religion.misc:27362 alt.atheism:26890
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:09:02 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <yhl384a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> 
>>From the moment of conception the only thing that is added is food 
>>and protection.  
> 
> Do me a favor.  Go tell your mother that all she ever gave you in the
> womb was "food and protection".
> 
> Warning - you may be somewhat surprised at her reaction.

   She might be mildly offended that you would make such a statement 
at all, but there's no denying that it's true.  Note that it says
"in the womb," and does not relate to what came afterward.  Giving
food and protection involved vomiting and backaches on her part, but
they are secondary effects and not what is actually given to the fetus.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: time
Organization: NRL 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:45:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.003654.23432@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>}}}In article 1234567ABC89026JAN93 god@universal.truth 
>(Galen Hekhuis) writes:
>
>If you can allow abortion at, say, 14 days, what is to 
>prevent you from drawing the line at 5 weeks, or 25 weeks, 
>or even 35 weeks?  It is simply a matter of what 
>rationalization sounds good to you.  Very few of us are at 
>all qualified to tell when "viability," "personhood," or 
>whatever happens, we have to rely on others, then we 
>determine what sounds good to us.  Some folks may quibble 
>about gestational age or lmp methods of dating, some may 
>trot out experts that say that something significant happens 
>at two days while others may claim that it happens at 2 
>weeks -- it depends on your rationalization totally.  The 
>only line that we can all see is birth, no matter where we 
>live or the level of our technology.

I'm not sure what your are getting at Galen.  If only seeing is believing then
you might as well throw away your science books.  Would you not use a
contraceptive just because you've never seen a sperm or ovum???

>
>There are some folks who say something happens at conception 
>itself, and that length of gestation makes no difference 
>whatsoever.  Those people must also be opposed to several 
>types of fairly common birth control. 

Yes that's true, so....

> I'll address that in 
>a forthcoming post.  I have numbered the posts backwards, 
>from 100 to 7, not for any good reason, but to try to 
>confuse some people.  I have also screwed up the attribution 
>lines (I already have changed the quoting character, what 
>more can I do?).
>
>--
>       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...
>
 -  Paul
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:28:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <Jan.25.19.48.24.1993.2763@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>It is not "bigoted" to note that any group which clings
>so tenaciously to the ludicrous contention (and manifest lie) that
>aberrant sexual behavior represents in some sense a "viable alternate
>lifestyle" is bound to have substantial problems coming to grips with
>reality.

I would like to hear you say that face-to-face to Diane Mosbacher (yes,
daughter of the famed Republican fund raiser) and her partner.  Their
relationship has outlasted all the relationships in the Mosbacher family,
supposedly a Republican bastion of traditional family values.  I guess
their steadfast love and fidelity to each other are "aberrant"-- they're
not screwing around like all the esteemed heterosexuals in her family.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
(Lesbians also almost never have abortions, and have lower percentages of
 cases of AIDS than heterosexuals.  So if AIDS is "God's Punishment", then
 Lesbians must be God's chosen people.)
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is it ever wrong?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:05:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1993Jan19.065053.20962@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.010903.13781@bsu-ucs>,
>00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>
>[bit bucket is filling up fast]
>>But how is a woman ever to know if carrying the fetus to full term will
>>be of any kind of hardship to herself until after she's had the baby,
>>aside from medical hardships....?
>
>Ever hear of a "budget", Brandon? Ever hear of a "full time job"?
>
	
Sure Brandon.  Balance a checkbook, kill a baby.  Whatever makes
life easiest for you.  

>Interesting concepts, really.
>
>Tep
>-- 
>Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.