HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 03:04:57 GMT

In article <C0K8Mw.MBz@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

[deletions]

>I as an unborn child will live if no
>one deliberately kills me.  
Wrong. 2/3 of all z/e/f never make it to birth. In the Real World (tm)
you have about a 30% chance of living long enough to be born. Those
aren't oddsthat arational person bets on.

>I as a kidney patient will die if no one come to my
>aid with a donated kidney.  Death just as Life is a natural process.  Killing
>is not natural.
>
Ah, so you don't eat meat or wear leather, correct?
And of course, despite your .mil address, you would never shoot
somebody just because your boss in D.C. told you to.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:30:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.172612.17505@news.unomaha.edu> 
trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:

>> It is said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the 9th month.

> First of all, the Court last June (I believe) redefined Roe v.
>      Wade.  Secondly, The Court who determined Roe v. Wade
>      allowed the state to proscribe abortion in the last
>      trimester (or last three months of pregnancy) unless
>      the woman's health was threatened.  Please look up the
>      decision if you are in doubt.

But the definition of ``health'' given in Roe v. Wade
and the companion case Doe v. Bolton is so broad that it
encompasses emotional and psychological health.  In order
to perform a constitutionally protected abortion, a physician
need only determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve
the woman's emotional or psychological health, which can be
easily demonstrated for a woman who would otherwise remain
pregnant against her desires. 

> Why not a side whereby we let 
> people make up their own minds, and let God take care of 
> them in the end?  

Why not legalize homicide, rape, and robbery, and let God
take care of them in the end?   Why must you allow your
religious beliefs to dictate your attitudes towards secular 
law in some areas, but not others?  If you are to be 
consistent, you must oppose all secular laws.


>SRM


Doug Holtsinger
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1993Jan10.063657.16609@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

> As far as I'm concerned, a woman and her doctor "act in accordance with the 
> z/e/f's right to life" as long as they 
>
> a) kill the z/e/f ONLY as a "mercy killing", i.e. when it is 
> pre-viable, and would die anyway shortly after removal, 

This makes no sense at all.  Assuming that I have the right 
to refuse to support someone who will die without my support,
how does it follow that I should have the right to kill them?  

>- Kevin


Doug Holtsinger
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:04:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu> JEFFREY JAMES PRICE writes:
>1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>   can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

Jupiter is made of cheese. You can't prove otherwise so it etc..
Don't be silly.

[..Rest of rediculous, badly thought out post deleted..]

I often wonder why people how it is that people this daft can actually
use a computer. Must be the improvements in the user interface...

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:43:45 GMT

In article <root.726168416@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>The sysadmin disabled the main netserver to install new software on
>>New Year's eve.  Since then, it has received no new messages.  I hope
>>that once he is contacted he can fix things up and then the new software
>>will be ultimately of benefit, but...well, see the thread title.
>>
>>In the meantime, I would appreciate people sending me copies of posts
>>they would like to see, and not making snide remarks about the *amazing*
>>coincidences of when my netserver breaks down unless I fail to post
>>responses to the messages they e-mailed me. [I will acknowledge receipt
>>of these as soon as I see them.]
>>
>>Peter Nyikos
>
>It never fails....anytime I destroy good ol' Doc Nykios in a series of
>posts, he all of a sudden can't read them....amazing coincidence...NOT!
>
> -Steve
You're not the only one Steve. I'm still waiting for him to reply to
questions I asked him *several* times, well before the date of the
alleged newsserver failure.
Like you, I'm *sure* it's just a coincindence. At least, Joe Isuzu
tells me it is, and he's more credible then PHoney.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:55:07 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Darcy and viability as important dividing line.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:23:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.023940.23790@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

}OK, I'll go with that then. 
}
}Do I hear Galen still whining?

Of course.  I whine for no good reason, you can count on that.  But 
in this case, I have a reason.  Btw, Kevin, a while back you said
that you would choose from Supreme Court decisions.  Now you pick 
this one.  Your indecision may be a rather hypothetical, abstract
exercise for you now, but I doubt it would be if you were pregnant.
Gee, Kevin, have you thought about this at all, or is this a brand
new experience for you? 

"Well, I'm satisfied with my rights.  We'll discuss yours next week."


 



--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:08:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.011901.9877@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
 
>
>From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
>> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>>
>>> It is possible for genuine Christians to be wrong about things, and there
>>> are only two sides to this issue.
>>
>> Hey, Steve Adams, Elizabeth Bartley and I (and others) are Genuine
>> Christians[tm].  We all support choice and we don't think we're wrong.
>> Would you care to enlighten us?
>
>
>Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
>that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?
>
>It would be completely absurd.
>
 
Another of your Miss And Run Comments, Suzanne.
 
Since nothing happens without your god, the
child is aborted with god.
Anyway, god(Father) seems to rejoice at letting
many freshly knitted humans starve. I hope you
enjoy it about as much.
 
Where is your problem?
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
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, 13 Jan 93 03:17:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.201501.11172@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <C0FBv6.DnF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>> I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
>> history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
>> preborn.  The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
>> protect their atrocities.  
>
>I disagree, I think there are very good reasons to discuss 
>the medical risks, ramifications, and history of illegal
>abortion.  How can you be "pro-life" if you don't consider 
>the risks associated with illegal abortion?  People may 
>disagree on the degree of risk, but how can you ignore it 
>completely?

The same way you keep ignoring the fact that RvW is not "abortion on demand,
through all nine months of pregnancy"?
--
=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???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker the one TrueGoddess[tm], Muriel.  Space Still Reserved... =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:26:57 GMT

From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
> 
> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
> ultimate in dignity, 


Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".



> considering forced birth as the alternative.

Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.


S. Forgach
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:15:37 GMT

In article <markp.726773008@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.022306.14508@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>>Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
>>>>shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
>>>>we feel it is necessary? 
>>>
>>>Of course we should -- but we shouldn't violate anyone else's right
>>>to life in the process.
>
>>In case you haven't been paying attention, terminating a pregnancy
>>does not necessarily imply violating anyone's right to life.  
>
>I've been deliberately avoiding the question of the z/e/f's right to
>life, as it's logically independent of the "womb eviction" argument.
>(at least, so say many pro-choicers on t.a, who have rejected
>the right-to-life issue as irrelevant.) But I have been paying
>attention -- and have yet to be shown that the right to life doesn't
>begin at conception.
>
Nor have you shown any reason to believe that the fetus has any such
right. After all, sperm and ovum are as alive, and as human, as a
z/e/f, but you don't seem to care that hundreds of thousands, even
millions are killed by various contraceptives.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54625 talk.politics.animals:10832
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:35:32 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

In article <uct7dvs@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>You should try doing some reading on fetal development.

Well, I may not know everything, but I don't think there's *any* way
an aborted fetus could be construed as a vegetarian dish.  I'd like to
see your research.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
 by those who have not got it."
                                -- George Bernard Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:06:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.054754.18920@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:

[much stuff and nonsense deleted]

>Breathing and birth are both simply biological processes.

Birth is not essential to an organism's (ORGANISM'S, not species')
survival, and is easily prevented.  Breathing _is_ essential for
an organism's survival.

>It is absurd
>to think that anyone could legally force a biological process on
>anyone.

So what are you trying to do by outlawing abortion?

>But just so's you can put it in perspective, ceasing to breath brings
>extremely quick, for all practical purposes instant, death,

So I shouldn't bother to save anyone from drowning?

>whereas
>birth in the vast majority of cases does not.   Therefore, it makes far
>more sense to speak of breathing as forced, than it does to speak of
>birth as such.

Two different uses of "force" here--"force" as in "necessary for life",
and "force" as in "compelled to do so, if the pro-life faction has
their way."

>You guys are so dumb.

Aw, Suze, I wuv you too.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:04:43 GMT

In article <markp.726160675@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <ueguljc@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>---
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>|Ms. Smith consented to have sex.  In so doing she has surrendered her rights
>>|to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. [...]
>
>>Oh, really?  Can you show me the contract she signed when she had
>>sex?  Can you show me exactly where the US Constitution says that
>>people who have sex give up these rights?  
>
>It's not a contractual or a Constitutional, but a biological consequence.

And a destroyed z/e/f is the "biological consequence" of her wish to abort, 
unless the government intervenes. Upon what rational basis does the government 
get to dictate what "biological consequences" are permitted, and which 
forbidden?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:09:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.200300.1575@news.columbia.edu> 
rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>> Therefore, a woman who wants an abortion during the last trimester of
>> her pregnancy need find only one doctor, the abortionist himself, who
>> will say that the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, using the
>> meaninglessly broad definition of health quoted above.  

> What illusory world do you live in? Do you have any idea how few
> doctors there are who will do third trimester abortions? There are
> several states that have none. 

Do you have any idea how few murders of people named "Robert 
Johnston" have occurred?  There are several states where no "Robert
Johnston" has ever been murdered.   Why do we need laws which 
protect the Robert Johnstons of this country from being murdered, 
when it hasn't been shown to be a problem?  

Furthermore, it's clear that murdering a person named "Robert 
Johnston" is not wrong because it's rare for such a person to be 
murdered.  And even if such a person was murdered, it would be a
waste of taxpayer's money to prosecute the murderer.

>Robert Johnston


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: consistency
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:19:58 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (St Theresa of the Net) posts
in alt.flame, talk.abortion and talk.bizarre:
-> Kebbin, i don't want any excuses. get the fuck out of my news group. if i
-> wanted to hear anything from you i'd go empty the litter box and wonder how
-> it touchtypes when i'm not home.

isn't it interesting to read how net.veterans reach
when kebbie posts to their regular newsgroup?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Challenge to Chris Lyman -- Get a real argument! (was Re: Greetings
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:35:09 GMT

In article <29422@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

[Deletions, massive deletions...]

>Just because you say you are a monkey
>doesn't mean you are one, dougie.
>
We recently had a short debate here in t.a. about DODies' ancestry.
The final result was a conclusion that DODie is *not* a monkey. He is
an exscaped experiment from the genetics lab in which a chiwuaua (you
know, the little rodent like dog that yaps all the time] was crossed
with a 3-toed sloth.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, Tiller is pro-death
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:18:03 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
pn> = nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

pn> The cold light of reality begins with the fee schedule.  Sixteen to 22
pn> weeks, $750; 22 to 26 weeks, $1800.  Beyond 26 weeks, $2200.  

>> I see your not too proud to go for a few cheap shots.
>>
>> (1) Nice innuendo.  (Do you do mathematical proofs by innuendo too?)

> Rotten innuendo.  Clean up your act and I'll address the other questions
> you've deleted.
(note: this was the entire response to my questions)

Excuse me, but it seems we need a little review:
a) *you* made the innuendo 
b) *I* asked for clarification & defense of your remarks
c) *you* deleted/ignored my questions (see below) & changed the subject.

While it's common in the academic community to make clear statements
and to expect & respond to challenges, if you'd rather change the subject 
or simply ignore the questions, we'll understand.  My best guess is that 
you really don't have anything interesting to add to the discussion anyway.
It seems the whole topic has already been wiped-out without your input.

---------------
Are you still unwilling (unable?) to clarify or defend your remarks?  
Let's see:

(1) Are you willing to make a clear and concise statement (ie. not a 
    wishy-washy innuendo) that Dr. Tiller and/or doctors in general 
    primarily do abortions for the money? <y,n>  (if yes, then do it)

(2) IF the fact the Dr. Tiller charges money for abortions demonstrates
    that he's only in it for the money, THEN what can we conclude when
    Dr.s & hospitals charge even more for live births?


-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:43:22 GMT

> = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc:
>> = Heather Sims:

>>	"Although the number of children institutionalized before the	
>>	overthrow of the Ceaucescu government is unknown, shortly after the 
>>	revolution approximately 150,000 to 200,000 children were in 
>>	institutional care.  Warehousing children in institutions overwhelmed 
>>	the health care system and reduced the standard of care. ...several 
>>	thousand severely retarded and handicapped children are likely to 
>>	remain in institutions for the rest of their lives".

>Ahh.. I see.  Once again you can play God and impose your judgement of who
>has a fulfilling existence on whether or not they have a right to live.

Who's this "God" thing, and why should whatever it is matter?  You're
not bringing...RELIGION <*gasp*!) into this, are you?

>Your arguments are getting so weak they become almost too funny to take
>seriously.

She posted facts, and TRIED to point to a Cement Head like yourself the
horrors of forced birth, the kids stuck in institutions, etc.  Man, your
reading comprehension is sorry.  Or, I suspect more likely, fucking
dishonest.                               




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion