HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:51:00 GMT

>Perhaps The Rink should check out Numbers 5:12-31 and see what the Law says
>about the reproductive destinies of women suspected of being unfaithful to
>their husbands.

I just did.  Here's the two verses that sum it all up:

NUM 5:27  And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall
              come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done
              trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth
              the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and
              her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and
              the woman shall be a curse among her people.
NUM 5:28  And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she
              shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

NOTE VERSE 28!!!!  Her "reproductive destiny" is unhinged unless she actually
was unfaithful (defiled) -- not if she was merely suspected to be.
-- 
Samuel Stoddard, the Weapons Master           JESUS IS LORD!!  HALLELUJAH!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
   thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
*=----                      --=* Romans  10:9 *=--                      ----=*
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41847 alt.flame:13457
From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:59:04 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1992Oct10.164522.3384@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <altz+pr@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

Kevin Darcy says...
>>->>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>>->>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
>>->>my view. You are dead wrong.
>>

and here is the article which supposedly proves he lied... 

>        "I would not force a woman to have an abortion, if by
>        "force" you mean legally.
<stuff omitted for brevity>
>	 And I would not feel bad about "forcing" her
>        financially to give up the child....

These are the key sentences in the post.  Now, time to practice reading
comprehension (remember that part of the SAT/GRE/ACT...)

The poster clearly states that he has no interest in LEGISLATION TO FORCE
a woman to have an abortion, although he does have an interest in forcing,
apparently through non-legislative means, adoption of the child.

Nowhere in this article did he say he supported abortion legislation of
any kind.  

Regardless of whatever prior sins this poster may have committed, The
person who thinks that those statements show the poster is in favor of
forcing women to continue their pregnancy in in need of a brain.  The
allegation that Kevin Darcy lied in this case is STILL unproven, and with
"proof" of this caliber it will remain unproven for the forseeable future.

Meanwhile, I do suggest practice in critical analysis.  Otherwise, you end
up looking like a twit.

-Ken (no spaces or capitalization, no relation)


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Not a flame
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:11:47 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>HOWEVER, referring to someone as "white man" is inappropriate,
>unnecessary, and without a smiley, especially from one as experienced
>as you, indicates that you are just as gender AND race insensitive as
>any homophobe or Patrick Humphrey out there who blurts "fat black ass"
>to an African American. 

Crap.  If you want to parade "fat black ass" up and down the street
and all around town, go ahead.  I, for one, don't care in the
slightest about Adrienne's "white man" comment since it obviously is
not a racist remark.  You are a sleazy, opportunistic, lying, bigot;
Adrienne is none of these.

>So we'll call you racially and gender insensitive. In other words,
>ignorant.

Coming from you this is as meaningless an insult as they get.  Maybe I
should get offended at anyone referring to you as a "man"?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:31:46 GMT

>>> = varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>>  = ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>   = mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>	Which could also boil down to:
>>> Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live.

Roughly speaking, I think this is the central issue, however there are
some implicit assumptions.  Let's explicitly identify the assumptions:
A1) a women has the right to not be pregnant (right to privacy)
A2) a fetus has the right to life 
A3) these two rights are in conflict

-----------
Now, based on the above assumptions, we try to resolve the conflict
by drawing an analogy.  Watch for some new implicit assumptions:
A4) killing a fetus is just like killing a born person
A5) bearing a child is "just an invasion of privacy"

>>> I certainly can't think of any other case where you are justified 
>>> in killing someone because they have "invaded your privacy". 

>> Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
>> is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
>> middle of the night.

> That's trespass, breaking and entering and theft, not just invasion of 
> privacy.

I'm not sure I can buy into the new assumptions
o since a fetus might bear very little resemblance to a born person, it's 
  hardly clear that killing a fetus is just like killing a born person.  
o It's not clear exactly what is meant by "just an invasion of privacy",
  but it sounds kind of like an inconvenience of some sort, whereas 
  bearing a child is way beyond an inconvenience.

-----------
Taking another tack, assumption A1 (right to not be pregnant) is retracted
on the basis that voluntary sex implicitly nullifies this right:

> BTW, is it trespass if you invite the burglar into your home.

I'd think not.  And wrt abortion, the analogy would be
   (consent to become pregnant) => (consent to bear children)

BTW, if your home is not 100% burglar-proof, is this implicit consent
to be burglarized?  This would be a more appropriate analogy to
   (consent to sex) => (consent to bear children).

-Brian
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Gay Pride .sig of Steve Chaney
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:48:43 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct15.184727.26677@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

#Sounds like Susan Garvin may not be answering this challenge. 

Sounds like you have a slow newsfeed.

#SO.. I gotta force her to respond by reposting it.. 

Now I almost wish that I hadn't refuted each of your "facts"
much earlier today.  

(Much to Dennis's dismay, I did it because I like making a fool
out of him, not because he has any power over me.  POC will
just have to keep dreaming about being able to force women
to do his bidding.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: since You Put it that way.....
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:18:09 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
] larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
] 
] >Depending on whether or not you consider the Persian Gulf a major war,
] >the USA has fought 4 or 5 wars in this century (not including minor
] >bloodlettings here and there).  Democratic presidents have taken us 
] >into the first four.
] 
] I guess FDR asked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor?  And of course, Truman
] asked the North Koreans to invade South Korea...
 
Steve,

Well there are two possible options:

1. proof of the linkage between the Democrats and the
International Monolitic Godless Communist Conspiracy.

2. That George Bush has extended VA Benifits to 
Brutal Warmonger Savages who Murdered Innocent
Japanese Pilots in China, thus Covertly pushing
Japan into war with the USA.

It Could Happen....

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42297 alt.abortion.inequity:4378
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipUlations..
Date: 13 Oct 1992 09:46:10 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct12.235505.18773@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>DJD> ] Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
>DJD> ] those of other persons.
>DJD> ] Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
xI think that you have somewhat misread Don's statement, Drieux.  I don't think
xthat he was saying that "having sex implies that women should remain pregnant,"
xas a few people have said.  When Don made that quote, he was primarily
xreferring to the fact that for *men*, this stipulation is *already true*, while
xit is not true for women.  In other words, he was only playing the Devil's
xAdvocate, IMHO.

Scuse, please, but can you please tell me more about this interpretation?
In what way has Don made reference to a fact that men suffer this stipulation
and women do not?

I do not understand your clarification.

Adrienne Regard
>
>Still, all of these stipulations won't change the current legal reality - women
>have a legally won right to renounce parenthood "before the fact," but whan a
>man has had sex, he has *no* legal recourse should the woman become pregnant
>and decide that she wants the child, and that the child "deserves to have a
>father," (read: someone to send money), whether he wants to be a father or not.
>
>---
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
>ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
>(416) 322-7876
>---
> * SLMR 2.1a * Oxymoron : Intense Apathy


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Fornication (Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!a)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:46:50 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Oct-92 Re: Don't just whine about
.. by Nadja Adolf@jetsun.weite 
> OK. So GOD (Marca Registrada) is a hypocrite. First he tells us not to
> fornicate, then he does it himself.

A question. When does God tell us not to fornicate? He tells us not to
commit adultery which is (dun dun DA da):
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other 
than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her
husband. pg 58 Web. 9th New Collegiate Dict. 1988

As far as I've studied neither God nor Mary were married at the time
of the divine encounter.

ag

smilies for everyone. Have a happy day.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Where does Mary "Choose" to say, "Yes"?
Summary: We let the blind man, lead the way to long... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 18:28:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.232040.1780@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>Hey, Mary was perfectly free to say "No", as has been pointed out to
>you before.  Anyone interested may read the first chapter of Luke. 

Luke 1:38 - And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me
according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Sounds more to me like she was badgered into it, Suxanne...

(And WHY does that passage always remind me of "A handmaid's tale"?)
>
>She most specifically CHOSE to say "Yes!"

Right.
--
=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???=
=It's National Coming Out Day.  Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!       FWA=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:28:49 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct13.164224.13052@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.053752.16496@watson.ibm.com>
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>
>>> Yes, that's exactly correct.  The pro-aborts who argue that women
>>> should have the right to abort by virtue of the fetus' residence
>>> within their bodies have reduced women to mere physical containers.
>>>
>>> According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer
>>> any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
>>> non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus. They
>>> ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead
>>> focus all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the
>>> woman's body.
>
>> Clearly, if the women were non-thinking, inanimate objects, they
>> wouldn't be able to *want* an abortion.  It's the fact that they
>> are thinking human beings that makes it necessary to consider whether
>> or not they *want* a fetus inside them.  If the fetus was in a container
>> rather than in a person, there wouldn't be much controversy.
>
>Exactly!  If women were non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply
>housed a fetus, then they wouldn't be able to want an abortion. Therefore,
>it makes no sense to *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion
>by focusing strictly on the fact that a fetus resides within the woman's
>body. To *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion is to
>treat her like a non-thinking, inanimate fetal container, which she
>is not.

Are you really this stupid, or is there a point somewhere that you're
trying to make?  A "non-thinking, inanimate fetal container" could not
*want* an abortion.  Taking away the woman's choice, either by forcing
her to get an abortion or by forcing her to remain pregnant, is
treating her like a container.  Letting her decide for herself is
treating her like an intelligent, rational human being.

   ignore (vt)
   DEFINITIONS:
   1   to refuse to take notice of
   2   to reject (a bill of indictment) as
       ungrounded
   ignorer (n)
   (c) G. & C. Merriam

There's a difference between *refusing* to take notice of her reasons,
and *not forcing* her to *disclose* or *justify* her reasons.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:34:33 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct13.030349.18748@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> A person who laughs when women are placed in such horrible circumstances
> might be accused of being a misogynist.  

Mr. Cochran is not laughing at women "placed in...horrible circumstances,"
you nitwit.

He's laughing at _you_.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Baby Machines (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:48:09 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu

From article <1992Oct3.152415.2425@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> 
> Why not just put all women
> into a big building where men can go to impregnate them whenever they
> please?  The women could all sit in the building waiting to impregnated
> so they could serve their God-given duty to multiply.  There's a
> happy set of thoughts, eh?


In your dreams,Mc Bean.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Keywords: forced childbirth
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:54:54 GMT

zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:

>In article <Bw49xJ.B2G@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>Supporters of legal abortion are ADAMANT in their insistence that there
>>exists no child until birth.  ...

>	Not all, certainly; I'm against making abortion illegal
>	and I am certainly *not* adamant that there exists no
>	child until birth (whether there is a "child" or a violinist
>	or Einstein or Attila, my opinion is unaffected).

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

>	By the by, have you found the quotation from the Koop
>	letter you cited?  If there is much more delay, people
>	(I, certainly) will lose interest in your remarks on it.
>				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org

I gave you the reference where I heard the information.  You are free to
contact the founder of Project Rachel for further information.  You are
free to head to your local library and look up the Koop report, as it
undoubtedly contains either the accompanying letter or references to 
where it could be found.  You are even free to rummage through the 
collected papers of Ronald Reagan, which should be bound and available 
on book shelves by now.  I am not your grad student, and I do not go 
hunting down further references than those that were provided to me
simply because you demand it.  You have more than enough information to
find this letter, if you care to.  If you do not, your laziness is not
my concern.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Eric Gorr on Biblical support for abortion...?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:54:43 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>>> I would be interested in knowing how you came to the absolute
>>> conclusion that my bible is on musical CD's?  Or you can just
>>> admit your ignorance, appoligize, and we can continue in a
>>> rational fashion.

>> Jeez, Eric G., Eric R. asked you for what you consider to be biblical
>> support for your anti-abortion position.  You replied by mentioning a
>> song on an Amy Grant CD.  There's a certain humor implicit in that
>> situation, don't you think?

> To be strictly fair to Mr. Gorr, he was actually claiming (don't ask
> me why) that the Bible was pro-choice, which was the position
> that I asked for justification for.

I stand corrected.  I still find it humorous though.  Too bad the poor
guy couldn't take a joke.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:23:12 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>Don't dare put in an "if you" in there.  Let me give you a lesson in
>grammar:

Why not? It is a translation in the first place, and of very old text
which tended to be much more formal and stiff than present day language.
Unless your translation was done by a native speaker of both dialects
(the original and the translated one) there is nothing to be said about
the accuracy of the word choice, and all the connotations that went
with the original. Personally, I subscribe to the late Sam Kenison's
views of how the bible was written, particularly the one about the last
supper, where jesus allegedly said "eat of my flesh, and drink of my
blood" which he took to be a paraphrase of "EAT ME, YOU BLOODY CANNIBALS,
SUCK MY BLOOD!  I'M GOING TO DIE TOMORROW!" <Sam's scream turned off>

>                                        "Choose life therefore, etc."
>The other verson said something like:   "Choose life then, so that, etc."

"Choose life then" where then takes the imperative out of the statement.

>These are what's called IMPERATIVE statements.  They tell whoever or whatever
>the sentence is addressing to do something.  "Choose life".  "CHOOSE LIFE".
>It doesn't say, "IF YOU CHOOSE LIFE."  It tells us:  "CHOOSE LIFE."

but it has the added qualifier of "then", which indicates it really
is a choice, since there is an alternative available. It is not the
imperative you wish it to be.

>Got it now, or do you need to have another English lesson?

I didn't get the first one. But, I'm still in the comprehension class,
attempting to show you how wording and logic go hand in hand.

>Don't ask me; I didn't write it.  But this quote comes in an entirely
>different part of the Bible -- things aren't always stated the same way, you
>know.

Right! You didn't write it, so why do you assume that you know what
was meant in the Deuteronomy quote? Is it possible you don't really
know there either, but it fits your agenda? I think so.

As for coming from another portion of the bible, you're right, and it
pertained to the choice of moses heading out into the desert with the
isrealites, i do believe. Others have commented on this already.

>I have great comprehension, and actually, I would like you to email me a list
>of these.  I've taken on many other people's prized Bible contradictions.

We shall see. I'll leave the contradictions up to someone who wishes
to post or send the previously discussed list to rink for starters.

>Nothing a bit of common sense and comprehension can't work through.

another memorable quote.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion