HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: We want lots of life
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:02:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.005633.4108@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.204623.29426@ncsu.edu>
>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>
>>> Now, the parents were prevented from giving life (or a better life)
>>> to 8 other infants because of an attitude that values the act of
>>> living over an act of compassion. 
>
>>That is a lie, there were no other infants available that could
>>have received the child's organs. Here's what my local paper
>>had to say:
>
>>    Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
>
>>  "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
>>   Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
>>   the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>>   found."                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>In other words, no matching recipients were found *immediately*.  I'd
>imagine the searchers stopped looking when the doctors told them that
>the organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by the time she
>died (i.e. by the time they were available).  That doesn't mean
>recipients would not have been found if the searchers had kept
>looking.
>
>In other words, you misrepresented what the newspaper said.
>


There WE'RE recipients waiting before her brush with the court.
This is so sad. Where there could have been several healthy
babies, we now have none. The pro-lifer should stand back
and take a long hard look at themselves.

*sigh*
anne
>--
>"Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful....  Get your facts
>first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."      - Mark Twain
>
>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:19:47 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


kb>In article <1992Apr07.072555.8447@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

kb>You obviously missed last years Pro-Life march on D.C. where they out-
kb>numbered the Pro-Death 2:1.  I don't have this years figures (yet).

Hey don't let the fact that you don't have the figures bother you.
Do as your pro-life leadership has always done.  Just make up some
numbers.

kb>Kevin Brawley

Dan King
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:36:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Eric
>Ron
>>Larry

(Three men who need girlfriends)


>>>Why is everyone looking for / volunteering to be *ex*girlfriends; I
>>>need a *current* girlfriend...  :-)

>>Second that :]

>Third that.
>And I don't want to hear any crap about how if I weren't such an asshole
>I could get a girlfriend.

Eric, if you weren't such an asshole, you'd probably have a girlfriend
8^)

>-Ekr

kcw
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: about publicly funded medical care
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:29:38 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Apr5.221743.4140@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Brian C. Siener) writes:
>] 
>] For once, I am in complete agreement.  Social Security and publicly-funded
>] medical insurance are VERY wrong.
>
>when we 'outlaw' publicly funded medical insurance, does
>that mean the end of the Medical Corp in the military as well????
>
Why do they issue insurance policies?  He said insurance, not medical care.

>
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>
>next week "You can have my Combat Medic when You rip him from
>		our Dead Cold Hands... and I want that dust off 
>			within thirty minutes of our clearing the LZ!"
>
>
>-- 
>EOT 
>No More Written InPut 
>Why are you Looking Here?
>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:51:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.183532.7174@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:

>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>            morals on others. 
>> 
>> If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>> can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

> Likewise, you would have to agree that humans could force a woman to
> have an abortion.

Correct.

> Moot point.

If you disagree with the stated premise, then both observations lead 
to the conclusion that the woman has no control over her pregnancy.

> Your basic assumption, that a fetus is capable of making moral
> decisions, does not seem to be supportable. 

Premise (A) makes no assumptions about the capability of the fetus
to make moral decisions. 

> Also, your argument is not much of a proof in that it results
> is a deadlock. If the mother is not able to terminate a pregnancy
> because that would deny the fetus the right to determine its
> own set of morals, the fetus' existence denys the mother the 
> same right.

The existence of the fetus is not sufficient to deny the mother's 
right to determine her own set of morals. The mother could remove
the fetus from her womb without killing the fetus and still 
satisfy the two principles in the stated premise. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: alvin@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>   (stuff deleted)                                       
>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                       Ooops!!

>
>   (more stuff deleted)
>
>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  


Wrongo, bud.  Proof by junior high logic coupled with blatant assertion
(i.e. the "observation" you so gingerly slipped in) does not make a very
persuasive argument.  BTW, I don't think "premise C" is a premise if in
fact you're demonstating that it logically follows from other points.


Get back to class now....

-Ken
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Big news!
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:18:58 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <JBATES.92Apr14092456@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>	MY GOD! You're right! I never noticed that before! On careful
>observation, and with Matthew's inspired guidance, I have discovered
>that abortion seems to be used EXCLUSIVELY by PREGNANT WOMEN!

   Actually - this brings up an interesting point. If a 13 year old
has a child, is she defined as a woman or a girl in your eyes?
I would say that seeing that she has a mentality of a younger adolescent
should be sufficient to treat her as a child. Any disagreements?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:24:26 GMT

jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:

>This just does not parse. I think he's a freshman's AI project run amok.

>John

I thank you.  THAT was funny (even if it was aimed at me)!
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:29:39 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <9APR92.02500272@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

> (Somebody who I accidentally deleted...sorry!) writes:

>>Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
>>a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
>>and the lives.

	Hmmm... sorry, don't think so. I truly do not think "Abortion foes"
are trying to take the "rights of women" away. I believe their are working
towards protecting the potential life of the "unborn child". Half of all
"Pro-Lifers" are women, so I really doubt that's their objective. By the
way, I think "Pro-Lifers" is a better name. :)
 
>We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
>it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
>killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
>you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
>this issue.  

	Hi Loren! I just have a question for you. When do you consider the
fetus life? At conception? 12 weeks? The problem is that people have different
views on when a fetus is considered a "living being". I think that's one of
the main reasons why Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers disagree. If someone does
not think a fetus is consider a living being, to him/her an abortion is 
indeed the "termination" of a pregnancy. Hope you understand! :)

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

>					Loren Finkelstein
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.023124.8952@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> >-> Why is your email "private", but Welch's isn't?
>-> >
>-> >who said that mine was (other than you)? 
>-> 
>-> The mail which Kellmeyer posted was "private", was it not? If
>-> not, why did you title your article "Kellmeyer posts private
>-> email"???
>
>you've heard of mailing lists, haven't you? (that was in the oist
>you replied to [see below] but you seem to have not grasped it's
>implications).

So your assertion is that Steven Kellmeyer is a mailing list, right?

Good starting point...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:26:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.191903.12598@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <1992Apr7.055355.4336@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, by rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>>>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>>>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>>>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>>>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>>>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>>>> 
>>>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>>>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>>>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.
>> 
>> Crap.  What about the 10 million people that starved to death last year?
>> Don't they count?  
>
>Sure they do.  Our Supreme Court has not yet ruled THEM "non-persons" to
>be disposed of at will.

Right. The concept that they DO starve is of course of no concern to 
you...only if they are declared "non-persons" or not.
>
>
>> What about the 1/4 million Iraqis killed in the war?
>> Don't they count?  
>
>Sure they do.  Our Supreme Court has not ruled THEM "non-persons" to
>be disposed of at will.    Defense of _other_ persons in the course
>of a war just _might_ be a legitimate issue to have a war over.

Well...tell that to the Iraqis that were on the wrong end of the
gun barrels.

anne

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 06:59:31 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Steve, welcome to the real world.

>       commitment != sex
>       sex != commitment

Sure gets tiring to see this != crap.  These Pro-Deathers think that using
mathematical symbology will cause their arguments to magically become
logical.  Here's one for the unthinking child murdering masses:

          the want to have sex != nullification of responsibility

or how about:

          small body != less worth as a human

maybe:

          "unwanted pregnancy" != horrible life ahead
         
    "Woman should have a choice" != intelligent argument

       thinking children have a right to life != Catholic

I'm not a Catholic (just to nip that bigoted argument in the bud).  But you
people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

You will DIE one day.  The creator is going to want an explanation as to 
your actions.  Are you prepared to answer why you aided in this modern day
holocaust?  It's not too late to start using your head.

Kevin Brawley
>What is it going to take for you to see this? Some people out there
>are committed to each other but don't have sex... have you considered
>some older couples? Other couples are out there who have sex monogamously
>but are not really committed (I was in a relationship like this myself, 
>for a while) mainly because they haven't discovered whether they have
>that depth of feeling for each other yet. Then there are others who
>just have sex for the pure pleasure of having sex. Who are you to judge
>what others do, for reasons you know nothing of?

>>Why is it you feel you can afford
>>the money to accomadate your power company, but not a child? granted
>>a child isa hell of a lot more expensive than your electric bill,
>>but isn't it worth it?

>No. Not for some people, or not at that particular time. Read various
>posts from the last week that deal with this subject.

>>>You say this as if everyone having sex wanted children.  Hate to break
>>>it to you, but that ain't so.
>>   Oh, jeeez, I know that. That is my entire point. The emphasis wthin
>>society is that sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. I am aware of that,
>>and embarassed by it as well. Although the two should go hand in hand,
>>it appears that the fetus, a sentient being or not, is the victim.

>Embarassed??? Why? Leads me to wonder if you've ever had sex, or if
>you are so inhibited by insecurity that you couldn't enjoy it. Have
>you ever wondered why humans are the only species on earth that copulate
>when they wish, instead of when nature dictates? Because it is pleasurable.

>And how is the fetus a victim? Sex != fetus. Or at least most of the
>time :).

>Ron.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:01:13 GMT

In article <73588@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
>Eric
>>Kevin W.
>>>Well, you see Elizabeth is probably Anti-Roe because Roe has restrictions
>>>on abortions.  She probably anti-Roe because she wants universal abortion
>>>rights--from conception until birth.
>
>>Neither is true, asshole.
>>Why don't you try asking instead of speculating?
>
>Hey, "asshole", I never said that it was true.  I said "probably", which
>leaves room for error.  A word which leaves room for debate, for questions,
>asshole.
It wasn't probable. It was highly improbable--and if you'd pull your
head out of your ass long enough to actually listen to anything
Beth says, you'd have realized that.
Since you clearly didn't know, why did you choose to insult rather
than ask?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:54:06 CDT

In article <1992Apr10.152728.12945@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr08.061030.25741@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Then again, what are you doing to defend the majority of fetuses 
>|> >that died last year? There seems to be a great emphisis on the minority
>|> >(abortions) but little on the more easily preventable deaths (at
>|> >risk pregnancies). Any dedication to providing pre-natal care,
>|> >pre-natal & pre-pregnancy education, or hospital care for at risk
>|> >mothers?
>|> 
>|> What is being done?  Funding organizations like Birthright to aid mothers
>|> -to-be in need of help.  Now smart guy, what are YOU doing?
>
>I work with FGC & FWCC. I am a volunteer EMT, donate money & time
>to Planned Parenthood. I've assisted in 32 emergency deliveries
>in the past 2 years, donating my time & services.
>
>Happy now?
>
I am. Bruce was already one of my Heroes.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:44:22 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au



-    Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
-
-  "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
-   Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
-   the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
-   found."                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^

Who has heard of the latest use for aborted fetal tissue?

As reported in "The Australian" (7/4/92) a French cosmetics company is
currently engaged in the practice of making women's face cream from the
placentas of aborted fetuses. They apparently are able to get 1 tonne of
the material every day from the St Petersburg (Russia) area, and up to 4
tonnes world wide.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- too baudy for my modem)
Subject: Re: Mommy!  They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:01:54 GMT

Where it was written: <1992Apr12.161143.27019@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Who wrote it:         kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)

>> = <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)

>>Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression
>>of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime.

[side note - "intimidation of individuals" nicely sums up a nice chunk of
the anti-abortion movement... O.R. and the LoC, for example.  Only they
take it a step further by intimidating the individual's family and
neighbors.]

>So, are you AGREEING that pro-lifers who harass women attempting to enter
>planned parenthood clinics should spend time in jail?  Are you AGREEING that
>legislating that clinic workers can't discuss the abortion alternative should
>be a crime?

I asked a protester something like this once, and her reply was that it didn't
bother her, because the law worked to her benefit since she is "pro-life..."
*sigh* without a hint of irnoy, too.

>>you are guilty as charged dear...
>As are you, Honey.  Wanna be my cell-mate?  I promise I'll be gentle...

>=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
                                    ===
Yeah, I *bet* you will! *smirk* -----^
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: HELP
From: vamgt0gn@VAX.CSUN.EDU
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:39:14 GMT
Reply-To: vamgt0gn@VAX.CSUN.EDU
Organization: Cal State Northridge

Forgive my out-of-context post, but how do I find out which groups are available?  Such as this one and alt.sex?
I know only these two, but I would like to find a sports base, if possible.
Thanks!
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Plan of action?
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:33:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr11.021136.8047@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>In <10APR92.23101482@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>Abortions are going to happen, no matter what lawmakers decide.
>>How do anti-choicers plan to "save the children" of women
>>who intend to have "illegal" abortions, if RvW is overturned?
>>I guess continued harassment of doctors is the obvious answer,
>>although in such a case physicians probably wouldn't be involved
>>most of the time. What then?

>	Hmmm... how about a compromise?  Nobody wants any illegal abortions
>so why not try to find ways of lowering unwanted pregnancies? I think both
>parties should be happy in some kind of progress.

Mikeey,

    What you have to say is, IMHO, sensible. However, my experience
is that you are being terribly naive if you think pro-lifers are
willing to settle for anything less than an absolute elimination
of abortion. For that matter, 95% of pro-lifers don't seem to think
that anything other than abstanence is an acceptive form of sex-ed
for those women who are high risk in terms of having an abortion.

    I think that compremise is good, but I doubt that there is any
room for it on this issue.

>						Mikeey
>				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>				       (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity