HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:51:31 GMT

jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:

>>The end result, the child has
>>lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
>>for dude.

>Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
>If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
>WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.

>Get off your religion and start THINKING.


Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.
Logic wins again.

>>And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
>>as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
>>for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
>>a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
>>us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?

>I don't think anyone on this forum is against abstinence.  Abstinence is
>quite proper for all of us at some time or another.  I think you took the
>remarks in question as an insult because you are extremely sensitive.  
>Not that there's anything wrong with sensitivity, women find it an attractive
>trait, but on this forum, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve.

Why shouldn't he be sensitive?  This group is full of insensitive
boneheads who continually ridicule him for his belief in abstinence.
I for one, am proud to see someone stand up for their unpopular
(in this forum) belief.

>I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
>some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
>practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
>be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
>is it bad.

"Serial Monogamy" is PC promiscuity.

>>   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.

>He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
>insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
>and most frail.

As a psychologist, why do you hide behind PC?

>Jennifer

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Is this guy pro-control, or what?
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:11:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr15.115656.18552@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) froths:

#   Well, it seems like eric wants me out of talk.abortion, so if you
#see fit to have me leave, then mail him with your concerns. 

I guess Franklin still doesn't get it - you do NOT have
the right (or the authority) to order me around.

#Boycot steve franklin! 

You're not worth that much effort.

#Otherwise Susan, Keep yer damn analogies off of
#talk.abortion. 

Again, no matter how much you want to control people,
Franklin, you cannot.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.164121.8405@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>You have manipulated the question, and then thrashed away at a straw man,
>Adrienne. I am not asking "if women have choice why don't men?". Rather, I 
>am asking...


Kevin, you will also notice, if you weren't just an egotistical twit, that
this particular discussion did *not* begin with questions you posed to the
net, but with questions someone *else* posted to the net, which was in fact
"if women have choice why don't men?".

I don't particularly care what you are asking, Kevin.  I think you are too
foolish to deal with seriously, and I haven't seen anything lately that 
encourages me to change that opinion.  You can, of course, butt in where
you aren't wanted; this is an unmoderated group.  But really, if you are
going to filter all comments through your egocentrism, I'm not surprised
that a whole lot of this fails to make sense to you.


Adrienne Regard
From: zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:50:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Pro-Abortion Airheads? that sould be Pro-life airheads!
anyone who thinks that a Zygote (Which has just 23 more 
chromosomes then a ova) is life, and it has the same rights
as the woman who has it inside her, is a airhead.
If you do not know what a Zygote is well this is 
from Taber's Medical Dictionary:(Zygote Cell produced
by a union of two gametes. The fertilized ovum) you see
it is a cell, not life. It can become life, but so
can the spermatozoa that are in my body now also become life.
Maybe the prolifers sould have a new name Pro-Zygotes!
I think if americans understand biology more, the pro-life
or the pro-zygote movement be dead in the water.
-- 
Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
----------------------------------------------
 Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 17:26:45 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


cj>In article <1992Apr6.164847.2826@shinobu.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
sf>In article <1992Apr6.004213.26399@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
cc>In <m4zth0a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:

cc>So how many kids have YOU carried, Steve?

sf>What a garbage question. I have had no children, and carried no
sf>children. Does that mean I am not in a position to care. I have no
sf>right to speak for the unborn?

cj>Uh, I think Dan King speaks for the unborn on
cj>this group.

I think you confused two intelligent, witty and good looking T.A.
posters here.  It is Galen who speaks for all those born, yet to be
born and dead.  Galen has been absent from this forum for some time,
but that is no reason to usurp the wonderful job he has done.  As a
matter of fact, when he does not reply it is much the same sort of
reply you would get from the un-born.

cj>I find it telling that you took Cathi's question to
cj>refer to fetuses, and not to the women who carry
cj>them.  Try not to forget that woman, Steve.  Many
cj>of us here find that she's more important than
cj>brainless blobs of flesh.

You mean to tell me there is a woman involved?  Do our congress
criters know this?


cj>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
cj>"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: Be Afraid, Be VERY AFRAID
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.011536.1732@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> BE AFRAID SHY QUIET NAIVE INNOCENT YOUNG MALES FROM SMALL
> TOWNS IN THE MIDWEST! THEY ARE OUT THERE AND THEY ARE 
> LOOKING FOR YOU! AND THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU!!!!!

Promises, promises. But, definitly *NOT* a threat.

-- 	MH (All good things benifit from time.)
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:58:09 CDT

In article <1992Apr7.000301.20413@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Mar31.101403.21736@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
>...
>>                              <sigh> Perhaps the memory is starting 
>>to go.
>
>Say it isn't so!  It seems like only yesterday we so young, so free, so in
>lust...  Ah fair youth, 'tis a pity thou art so wondrous and so fleet 
>of foot...

Some things I'll NEVER forget! And I do enjoy being a ProblemOlderWoman.
>
>
>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.

muriel
Ex-girlfriend of Gordon, Larry and Ron, with many memories of
being young-and-in-lust...

standard disclaimer
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:37:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <sf6g5INNmro@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> djd@agent99.East.Sun.COM  
(Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.171626.15538@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>  
jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
> 
> 	>Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
> 	>would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
> 	>to life because it can't waive it.
> 
> I understand the point you are trying to make, but it's seriously 
> flawed.
> A newborn infant also cannot consciously choose to waive his or her
> rights;

That I understand, but when it's out of the woman's body, its existence
is no longer is in conflict with her rights.

> ...mentally incompetent people also cannot consciously choose to
> waive their rights.

I'm sorry, but again his/her life, whether s/he could or would choose
to live it, is not in direct conflict with any other person's rights.
As for another case, those terminally ill or in a coma, I should have 
said here (and did say in another post) that the fetus has _not yet_
had a conscious thought. 

> Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you
> have a theory that you would not want to present.

True. My point, which I'll try to make clearer in the future, is that
unless we somehow knew whether a fetus would want to exercise any right
to life, we cannot abridge the rights of the pregnant woman, whose
wishes can be known. 

> The ability to waive one's rights is not, to my knowledge, recognized
> anywhere as a test of Constitutional rights. Your side of this debate
> has many profound Constitutional-rights arguments to offer. But this is
> not one of them.

But do you not agree that the definition of a right includes an option 
to not exercise it? For example, a government allowing me to bear arms
is a far cry from one forcing me to do so.

Thanks for your input, Dave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:23:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.004650.5332@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:
>
>>Spoken like a TRUE Pro-Lifer.  Hypocritical, illogical...
>
>
>WRONG. generalization, therefore invalid.
>
>please try again.
>
>Gee....I've never met an illogical pro-choicer who was a hypocrite :)

True.  Spoken like the true asshole, MaThiEu a. LeWis.  Hyporitical...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:22:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.193944.6425@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <ku26jsINN71f@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr06.151018.19614@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>	But more to the point.  You *say* a man is physically uninvolved in
>>the preganancy.  This is a physical fact.
>>	However, you then say that a man is involved in responsibility for
>>child support because of society.  This is a societal 'fact'.
>>	You are mixing physical facts with societal whims.
>
>Are you dense or what?  Does it come with the name?

What other "William" is dense, Adrienne?

>I am SEPARATING the physical facts from the social whims.  That's the POINT.
>
>>	You can't have it both ways.  Either lets go with the physical
>>facts, or lets go with societal whims.
>   
>This is *sad*, Kevin.  

Did I hear my name mentioned?

>SAD.  Society can have whims but society cannot con-
>trol physical facts.  That's kind of why we have TWO DIFFERENT realms that
>gain consideration in some questions (like *this* one, hint hint) and that
>have DIFFERING BASES of consideration.

Okay, then let's stop levying paternity child-support (a societal requirement)
on the basis of conception (a physical fact), and start levying it on the 
basis of negligence and/or fault (societal determination). Sound good to you?
That places the whole issue squarely in the correct "realm".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Summary: Try again.
Organization: A word we use a lot around here.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:03:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.202536.21326@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>
>
>roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>->         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall
>-> posts are indeed a fraud.
>
>
>If you spend more time arguing sense in t.a instead of snooping around 
> things that dont concern you and taking part in mud slinging feativals ,
>perhaps we can make something out of you afterall-though I strongly doubt it
>			Conrad C Vincent

Funny words, coming from someone who had no qualms about being a third party
in something that didn't concern him -- in case your memory's that short,
you were the one who apologized to Susan *for* Welch...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:43:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.015832.8831@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
>-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as the possibility
>-> exists that the potential father, and/or the state, might get
>-> an abortion veto-power, then certainly the LESS RADICAL
>-> possibility of giving this power to a neutral adjudicator is
>-> far more likely, as a compromise position.
>
>this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control freak like you
>kevin. now you seem to want so badly to lessen women's control of
>their bodies that you want to give that control to a "neutral
>adjudicator."

Keegan, do you understand the difference between

	"X is a possibility"

		and

	"I support X"

??

							- Kevin
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:42:37 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr15.121631.11834@cs.yale.edu> 
           rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>> No, the pro-choice stand is not valid even if the fetus is a human being. 
>> Killing a human life, and refusing to support that life, are two totally
>> different moral concepts.

> Yes, but the point of abortion is not to actually kill the fetus,
> but really to remove it. Killing it is incidental--i.e. it will
> die as a result of removing it it, and it's safer to kill it before
> you remove it.

The ends do not always justify the means. If I wanted to obtain
someone else's property, I could possibly (a) kill them outright, 
or (b) surround their property and prevent them from escaping,
thus slowly starving them to death (among other methods). 
In my opinion, you cannot attach the same moral significance 
to those two acts, even though the end result is the same. 

Your argument above is that killing a fetus is "safer" and perhaps 
more convenient for the mother; I could argue that killing a person
to obtain their property is "safer" and more convenient to me than
any other method. 

No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
the fetus.

ps: I could never do the brutal acts which I mentioned.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: John Heim has a sense of humor!
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:36:20 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.172855.24725@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM ) writes:

>Well, IMO, I don't think the numbers of 37 week abortions justify any
>legal action, do you?
   Oh... what a foolish point. So - even though there is ONE murder
allowed in your eyes, it is insignificant because of the number of
non-murder-abortions that are presently going on?
   I sure hope you don't bring this silly point up again...

>before).  But, I add, do the numbers of 37 week abortions justify any
>legal action?
   Damn, I was wrong. As I said earlier, even if ONE 37 week abortion
occurs, if you are against it, then clearly, in some ways you are pro-life
and should scream out against it.
   I sure hope this is the last time you say this Jen... Surely to God you 
wouldn't mention it a third time would you?

>danger.  I don't think the numbers of 37 week (and beyond) abortions justify
>any legal action.
   Ugh. This is not my day. Well.. Maybe I should have a standard #include
here. But in any case, read my earlier point. Not arguing abou the 
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27
28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36th week abortions, where WILL we draw 
the line in your mind? RIght up until birth? After 15.54345 weeks of
conception? We must be able to draw absolutes. Either at conception or
at birth. Surely to God you can't look at newborn baby and tell me
it deserves to die?
   Please... No... PLEASE! I hope I don't run into this argument again?

>Well, like I stated before, I might favor banning abortions after the 36th week.
>Why?  Because a 37 week fetus is "ready to be born".  
  Phew - something new. IN any case- You are so generous and I would like
to take the opportunity to extend my appreciation to you. You mean
that you are against abortions of a fully developed unborn child/fetus 
at 38 weeks? How CHRISTIAN of you... But what about 35.9 weeks? Or even
35? See my point Jen? 

>legal protection is unnecessary.  I don't believe in writing unnecessary
>laws.
   I'm really beginning to hate this. Do you have to emphasize your point
so repeatedly? Oh, is this something subliminal?

>He He.  You're right about that one!  There are SOOOOOOO many religious
>freaks here on this net that it is hard to find the logical ones.  
   Religious freaks? WHERE? Man, nothing worse than one of those. Who
are you guys talking about? 

   In any case - try not to be so condascending. It isn't lady-like 
*snicker* awhh, don't get mad. I'm kidding Jen. You're not lady-like
   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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:55:48 GMT

>Bye, Adrienne. Thanks for playing.
>								- Kevin


I devoutly hope he's serious.

Adrienne Regard
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: proof that sex education isn't working (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:14:18 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

In article <1992Apr15.225741.25161@liebe.uucp>
	kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes to eric marsh:
-> The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL
-> issue.  If the fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus
-> isn't human, then it doesn't matter at all.  It's the ONLY
-> issue.

it appears, lad, that you forgot an element. do you know what it
is? think now. that's it. try a little bit harder. that's it.

the woman.



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:04:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1rvj=#h.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:
>Okay, about a new name other than Nazi, about just dumb pigs?
>Here are some other facts thatmake the pro-lifers live up to
>the old name and the new name. First these pigs bring terror
>to every doctor who moves to North Dakota, unless they pledge
>to these pro-life pigs that they will not ever give a woman
>a abortion. Second more proof that these pigs like to outlaw


Some animals are more equal than others.... :-)

anne