HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:09:16 GMT

emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <18180@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
>> writes:

>->Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
>->and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would
>->logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

>>   No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
>>are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
>>increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as
>>we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
>>cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
>>population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but
>>once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
>>like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
>>the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.

>Can you produce some evidence of this claim? 

>Have you considered the implications of what will happen if population
>growth continues unhindered?

Population growth in North America and the world as a whole, is NOT and 
never has been anywhere near critical stages.  Also, the larger pool
of intellect available to draw from (ie. MORE people) has always meant
better, faster and more efficient solutions to world problems.

>Stop these damn blatant assertions.

Stop sending your brain out to lunch while posting.

>Eric
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:29:52 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>> 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.

You're right - the 1.5 million weren't people, the 1/4 million are. Makes
a world of difference.

>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.

You defend corpses?  It would seem to be a dull job.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:50:38 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.145630.9740@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.132046.483@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>             ... In that sense, an abortion is like killing a 
>person who stands a good chance of dying in the near future.  

Yesssss.... He shoots, he misses... Finally it comes out. The mentality
behind abortion is no different than the mentality of euthanasia. We
as a society are generally and increasingly abusing and neglecting
the weak, in favor of the strong and dominant. 
   How 90-ish
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: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: What is the choice?
Keywords: morality?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:15:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.215021.22170@acsu.buffalo.edu>
efhearn@acsu.buffalo.edu (Estelle F. Hearn) writes:

>Pro-Choicers...consider...maybe it is alive and conscious or
>whatever you have to accept to make the fetus a real baby to you.

I considered it.  That's why to the extent I think in terms of
myelination.  Before myelination, a fetus can't have a mind.

>Argue this point with me:
>Is the debate Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice?
>Or is the debate Slavery vs. Murder?
>Think about it.

Pro-life vs. pro-choice.  Murder: a) is illegal killing; b) refers to
killing of a person, which a z/e/f isn't.

--
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:57:35 CDT

In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?
>>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
>
>>                           -rocker
>
>The reason for so little response would be self-evident to the rational
>person.  In preparing for this "debate" you force the respondent to 
>automatically take up the defensive position.  Hardly an intelligent way
>to start any argument or debate.  

Newbie alert. What makes you think rocker _started_ anything here?

>                                  So if you are so proud (haughtily) of
>the ammo you wish to annihilate the respondent with ... you answered the
>question first with some proposals and we'll go from there.  If you have
>posted some of these ideas before then please reiterate as I have not
>seen any.  And people wonder why I have so little respect for pro-death,
>over-emotional, gullible females.
>
You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
Sigh. I suppose apple pie and the flag will be next to go.
Does your newsread show headers? Mine does, and the lady's name
is on them: Cathi Cook. A word of unsolicited advice: newbies
do better around here if they lurk for awhile before jumping
headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about three months
before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you would
make a *fine* lurker.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 06:31:03 GMT

cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

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

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

I guess "brainless blobs of flesh" (ie. CJ Silverio) will continue to spread
their vicious deceptions.  But for the record ... Most abortions are performed
on HUMAN BEINGS who would look remarkably similar to CJ.  If appearances are
all that matter ("...blobs of flesh...") then CJ has just made himself a
candidate for the first experimental post-partum abortion.

BTW woman suffer "TRAUMA" (pro-death words) by bearing children.
Children suffer   MURDER  (my words) by being MURDERED.

Don't ever forget that.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof/Solution
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:35:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.153534.2036
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) says:

>If this does not require the mother to be responsible for what
>action the fetus takes after being removed from the uterus, is
>this not the same as allowing for abortion. Both remove the
>fetus from the uterus, one simply recognizes that once that
>action is taken, the fetus typically responds by dieing.
>


remove the uterus while you're at it.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE 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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:27:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.172127.3061@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
>>by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
>>Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
>>a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
>>Sigh. I suppose apple pie and the flag will be next to go.
>>Does your newsread show headers? Mine does, and the lady's name
>>is on them: Cathi Cook. A word of unsolicited advice: newbies
>>do better around here if they lurk for awhile before jumping
>>headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about three months
>>before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you would
>>make a *fine* lurker.
>
>>muriel
>
>Why of course you would want me to "lurk".  Standard Pro-Death tactics is
>to scream their opinion while trying to shut others out.  This issue is
>much too important to sit by until I think YOU approve of the manner in
>which I post.

And the "standard" tatic of those who feel it's ok to endanger women's lives
so they can worship their "Holy Fetus" is to be ignorant, hypocritical,
closed-minded, and have no clue about biology, logic, or reasoning.

I'll give you a hint, Mr. Anti-Choice, you should step back a bit, read some
of the posts, and think about them.  I did it for 5 or 6 months before I posted
my first article to talk.abortion, and I think it certainly helped me.

(Note:  In an attempt to raise my s/n ratio here in t.a, I'm trying to talk
to some of these people before I start in with the flames.  I don't know if it
will work, or if I can do it, but I'm trying).

Now, if you'd like a clue, Holy Fetus Worshipper, those of us who feel that
the woman involved in a pregnancy should be allowed to receive a legal abortion
prefer to be called Pro-Choicers.  Got it?
--
=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@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:44:31 GMT

mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>> Franklin
>>> Brian Kauffman

>>>BTW, are you willing to reject all books of the bible that endorse polygamy,
>>>or do you pick & choose bible verses to taste?

Endorse polygamy?  Not simply state it as a matter of record, but
endorse it?!  Please tell me where.

>>The concept and value of LIFE is a message. 

>This statement is so blatantly wrong it's funny.  More than half of
>what most people consider the bible is composed of the Old Testament.
>I defy you to come up with so much as TWO PAGES of ANY O.T. book
>that do not contain any reference to gratuitous violence, especially
>killing.  Most "christians" conveniently ignore the mind-boggling
>crimes their god committed in that part of their holy book by saying
>"The O.T. is no longer valid," then hypocritically bringing up the
>OLD TESTAMENT commandement, "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Interesting how you consider yourself (a non-Christian I presume) an
authority on everything relating to Christianity.  The Bible doesn't
contain ANY "gratuitous" violence.  It is a history book and records
the actions of mankind (inherently violent).  God committed crimes?
My, that is a new one.  You mean the destruction of the pagan nations?
Remember the Supreme Being is as Righteous as He is Loving (who can
blame Him, He's God!).

>So polygamy is *mentioned*, but it's *not important*, whereas
>abortion is *not mentioned*, but it's *overwhelmingly important*.
>Very logical.

Actually the Bible refers to fetus' as responsive humans more than once.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:41:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.234140.24953
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) says:

>Yesssss.... He shoots, he misses... Finally it comes out. The mentality
>against abortion is no different than the mentality against euthanasia. We
>as a society are generally and increasingly abusing and neglecting
>the weak, in pursuit of easy to digest black and white answers to these 
>complex issues.
>
>   How backwards-ish
>


exactly......the real problem with abortion is not the act itself....
but the reasons and motivations behind it. Humankind is a loser
when it comes to, in the words of Spike Lee, doing the right thing.

later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: pennsylvania harassment law
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:09:26 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (james g keegan jr.)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

from the PA Crimes Code...
=============================================================
2709.  Harassment

     A person commits a summary offense when, with intent to
harass, annoy, or alarm another person:

     (1)  he strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him
to physical contact, or attempt or threatens to do the same; or

     (2)  he follows a person in or about a public place or places; 
or

     (3)  he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits 
acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which
serve no legitimate purpose.
==================================================================

this should cause boy welch some concern.

hell, maybe it'll cause darcy some concern.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 20:40:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.164048.9093@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <16772@plains.NoDak.edu> 
>       compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>
>>                     The Libertarian Party asks:
>>                     ABORTION: WHO SHOULD DECIDE?
>
>> The fetus inside a woman's body has no right to enslave her, to force
>> her to be an incubator for nine months, just as I have no right to
>> enslave you. 
>
>Note how the analogy results in a comparison between a person and a fetus. 
>
>I'm glad to see that the Libertarian party recognizes that the fetus is
>a person. After all, how could a passive non-person enslave a woman? 

No, they don't "recognize" that the fetus is a person. They simply consider
personhood irrelevant, as do I. EVEN IF the fetus is a "person", it has no 
right to violate a woman's Bodily Autonomy.

>> Even if I might die because you refuse to be my slave, I
>> have no right to force you to serve me. 
>
>The problem with this reasoning is that the fetus is killed during most
>abortions. The child never even gets a chance to live outside the womb. 

So what? If the fetus is non-viable anyway, what does it matter? Intact
removal confers *NO* benefits to a doomed non-viable fetus, and, in most
cases, would incur measurable risks and/or costs to the patient. So why not 
choose the abortion method which at least minimizes the detriment of *ONE* 
of the parties involved? Simple Utilitarian ethics here:

	Given two procedures A and B, and two principals, X and Y, where
	Procedure A inflicts risks and/or costs on Principal X that Procedure
	B doesn't, and BOTH procedures inflict the SAME risks and/or costs
	to Principal Y, which one do we pick? 

Come on, the answer's really not that hard to arrive at...

								- Kevin
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ingestion of placenta? (was:Re: The abortion beautiful)
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:45:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr8.231416.23794@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
> >after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
> >know if this is true?
> >
> I think there are a few women who do this. It's supposed to be 
> the 'natural' thing to do according to some (rather hardcore,
> IMHO) natural-childbirth types. Most of the women I knew who
> went for the hippie homebirth experience did not partake of this
> meal. I only have one acquaintance who has related the experience 
> of eating placenta; her husband was a chef who prepared it sauteed 
> with onions. 
> 
> We did bury one under a lilac in the back yard.
> Seemed to bloom more after that.

I was just kidding, Muriel.

Without those smiley things I sometimes am mistaken for
being serious when I am kidding.  I'm used to it.  I suppose
we all go through life being misunderstood a lot.

Now me, I ate placenta with some fava beans and a nice Chanti.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.170613.18155@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.201203.28022@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>I'm not sure you are going to garner favor from my gender by 
>making it known that you would wish DJR on any one of us...
I'm not wishing him upon you, but us single guys gotta stick together....

-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: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>I have had a lot of time to form my rational and balanced opinion.

>Evidently, it wasn't nearly long enough.

Agreed, but Kevin, I'd like to know how close you are to being balanced.
as in 20 years? sounds like about a reasonable age for what you've posted.

Ron
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:45:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr8.214140.8288@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr08.162313.825@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>Steve, I happen to think that your religion is a sack of shit.  I happen to
>>think it's pure drivel and foolish, and backward, and idiotic.  And I'm
>>entitled to that opinion.  But being a tolerant, fairminded soul, I decide
>>it's really YOUR OWN BUSINESS what you believe.

>   Great. I can't say anything to this. Conservative meets the 
>secular humanist (back from my first post). But, what happens when
>secular humanists decide that society is hindered by mentally
>handicapped people... Are you goin to deem that they are not human
>either because they are not self-sustaining and unable to survive on 
>their own? Say that everone (including teh fetus) with an IQ below
>70 (including yourself?) does not have the right to life? Go away 
>Adrienne...

But what happens when Christian Conservatives decide that society is
hindered by by non-Christians? Are you going to deem that they should
be burned and tortured because they are the minions of Satan in this
world? Say that everybody with a belief system inconsistant with
Christianity does not have the right to life? Go away Steve...

You see what happens here? It is easy to take the opponents argument
to extremes in order to make their arguments look bad. The only
difference between your response to Adrienne and my response to you
is that your religion has actually done what I referred to.
                      ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

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  *
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Isn't Adoption an escape from responsibility?
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:05:31 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr11.065913.9337@watson.ibm.com>
 margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <1992Apr11.020116.7847@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
  mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:
>>
>> Advice for today : Never wear red underwear.
>>
>> Reason : When there's a fire alarm, you have no time to get dressed, so...

>Corollary: never wear underwear.  Then you don't have to worry about the color...

	True. But I guess you don't know too much about the whether up here
in Rochester. It's better to have shamed than lost. (Yeeooowwwwlllll!!!!!!)

							Mikeey
					    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

PS We had a blizzard here in May two years ago.


>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)