HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 06:02:39 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <92099.011358JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>  JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.163310.26115@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, amy young
> <alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> says:
> >Suzanne said:
> >>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
>
> >No, they aren't Suz.  Children are those whom are outside of the
> >mother's supporting body.  Killing a child is murder.  Removing a
> >fetus from a womb is called an abortion.  The two are not related.
>
> But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

The end result is the same, but what's dead is not the same.  A child is
a person.  A fetus (at least, during the first two trimesters; third
trimester abortions are extremely rare and done to save the mother's life)
is not a person; it's a mindless blob of cells.  Amy is pointing out
that Suzanne is flat wrong when she says *children* are killed by
abortion.  If you like, you're free to believe that the fetus and child
have equal value, but many of us value the person much more than the
potential.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.152300.28970@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> >In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> >>In <1992Apr13.173029.24847@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Br
> >>indle) writes:
>    Sorry Ron... You're going Dooowwwwnnnnnn...
> 
> >>However, now that there are no periodic variables to direct our cycle
> >>of sex, Trojan Condoms makes millions while our Population growth is
> >>on the decline BIG time.
> >Good, we could probably use a billion less people on Earth. Too bad
> >it's actually *growing*. Why don't you pull your head out, get a breath
> >of freshh air, and get a reality check. I'm really beginning to wonder
> >about the education system in Canada, but then, you're probably a real
> >abnormality.
>    Heh... Ron - I said that the Population Growth is on the decline.
> Thus the rate at which our population expands is lessening. This means
> that eventually the rate of growth of the population will likely 
> be 0 and then delve into the negative. You see, this sucks, because
> when trends as large and universal as population growth recede, it is
> pretty damn hard for them to stop. I apologize that I had to point out
> that your point sucked, but I do believe it was just a misinterpretation.

Your remarks are all blatant assertion, without documentary support
or logcial support.  I would be very interested in seeing some kind
of support for your remarks about, for example, stopping a trend
in population growth.  Due to peopel living longer, the decline
in infant mortality, and the continuation of births, world
population continues to grow.  Fluctuations in the rate of growth
are normal.  I see no evidence for a decline proceeding to zero.

And you have not supplied any reason to believe in that decline
to zero except your assumptions.  You have also failed to show
why that decline to zero is not desirable.

And now for the real kick in the butt.  According to the
World Alamanac and Book of Facts, world population in
1850 was ~1 billion, in 1930 was ~2 billion, in 1975 was
means it doubled from 1850 until 1930, a period of 80 years,
doubled from 1930 to 1975, a period of 45 years, and has taken
a mere 16 years to add another 1.384 billion.

The Almanac uses the Population DIvision of the United Nations as
its source for population projections.  The estimate is that the
world population will be ~8.1771 billion in the year 2025.  While
this indicates that the growth RATE may be in decline,
I see no reason to fear an insupportable decrease in world
population based on the facts or the best efforts of those
who study world population trends to make projections based
on those facts.

Perhaps you, Steve, have some different sources you would
like to share with us.  I am always open to correction.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: You want to win (don't we all?)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:09:36 GMT

In article <92104.115616JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> Jennifer Brown  
<JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Ok, I'll work on the "time problem".
> I'll work on the "forced abortion thing".
> I'll work on the "woman's health in danger".
> ditto "If the woman will allow herself to be the host to the baby,
>        and the man gets the baby afterwards."  (Any suggestions as
>        to if the man wants it, but the woman DOESN'T??)

The man could probably get another woman who _does_ want a baby, or
at least is willing to bear one.

> ditto the C-O-H-E-R-E-N-C-Y.  (I know it was bad when I posted it;
>        I blurted out whatever came to mind.)
> 
> Congress to state this idea?  or  Congress to work there?  ;-)
> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> -Jennifer

At least you _are_ working...:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    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: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:48:35 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr8.165847.26730@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>>>> = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>  = rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>   = franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Consider a one-month-old fetus, according to your own argument (above) 
>you have 3 choices:
>1) concede that this argument doesn't apply a to one-month-old fetus'.
>2) state & defend that a one-month-old fetus *might* be sentient (good luck),
>   and therefore abortion is wrong.
>3) concede that a one-month-old fetus is clearly non-sentient,
>   and therefore abortion is OK.


>So your defense of the laws the xiantiy consists of finding fault with
>other systems of laws?  That's a pretty sad defense.
 Not in the least. How disappointing that you misinterpreted it.
I will try and write more simply in the future. You see, his logic felt
that by isolating some of the actions of the Christian church hundreds 
of years ago he could hack at the credibility of the church NOW.
I pointed out how ludicrous this was by showing that the corruptivity
of one government party 10 years ago does not incriminate or in any
way effect the intentions and efficiency of a present-day political party.
If one individual failed in the name of democracy 10 years ago,
does that mean that democracy does not work?
 
>>message by the people who carry it, (even 500 years ago for crying out
>>loud!) is pathetic. Just pathetic. I'm embarassed for you but will 
>>assume you don't make such flaws in logic often...

>Good point, I certainly wouldn't want confuse god's word with the things 
>you say.  Now if you listen to your own advice, you might figure out why
>we dismiss your "word of god" argument.
   I said do not judge individuals. The word of God is hardly an 
individual effort, but is supplemented by the most powerful force 
in the universe, and interpreted by some of the greatest minds. 
My words only touch the surface of God's message, but I can assure
you that "Thou shalt not kill" is nothin cryptic. It means what it
says. 
   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
From: ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:47:11 GMT
	<1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu> <18156@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
	<1992Apr17.013132.21620@csusac.csus.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Umassmed Medical Center; Worcester, MA 01655

In article <1992Apr17.013132.21620@csusac.csus.edu> Dennis Hall (cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu)  writes:
   >>>I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
   >>>otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
   >>>liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
   >>>but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
   >>>and you owe me an immediate retraction.

	   >And of course those who continue to call me "Chaney" have
	   >nothing to back their claims. They just continue to blatantly
	   >assert that I am Chaney, knowing they are wrong. 

Like most of us, it seems, I simply don't care whether you are Chaney
or not.  You are not Dennis Hall.  Some good detective work by a fellow
Net'ter proved that.  Therefore, regardless of you you are, you have
lost all credibility, because you hide behind the mask of another
person, afraid and unable to say what you really feel with your own
identity.  And you're no more pro-choice than Kevin Welch is a member
of NARAL.

Erik Jones
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: MoRe Problems: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:04:09 GMT

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

] > = bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
] >How on earth could there be a middle ground between those 
] >that are for choice, and those that are against choice?
] 
] There is no middle ground IF one or both sides holds an extreme position
] and refuses to accept anything except their extreme position.

{the middle ground is excluded.... }[1]

] Compromise    is possible IF  at least one side is willing to accept that 
] 			      they can't have *everything* their own way.

Which is a Possibility in this debate, solely if you
wish to Abandon the Discussion of Moral Absolutes, 
and are willing to Jump Into Bed with Every Heretic
and Moral Reprobate that wishes to water down the bible.

ciao
drieux

[1] anyone on for a little StevenArnoldIsm, we must defend
logic gambitry and therein confront the matter of the
law of excluded middles as needing to be defended as the
last desperate bulwark against total Moral relativism?????


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:14:38 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

> Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they 
> are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi analogies
> are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
for the library and do some reading.

There, that's for my Jewish ex-girlfriend Laura, whom Nora reminds me of
in many ways.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
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: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.072202.8316@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>to answer:
>
>>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.  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.
>
>Kevin Brawley (not afraid to use my real name)

But still shaping up to be a biffer asshole then Kevin Welch, with less "logic"
than David J. Rasmussen, and less intelligence than Doug...
--
=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: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.165848.17978@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu  
(Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> funny......the eggs of a spotted owl or a California condor
> have rights.......but a fetus doesn't. Use your fucking brain.

The animal eggs don't have rights, they have a sanctuary (whether or not  
it wants it). A fetus has a sanctuary, as well--the mother. We have no  
idea whether the fetus wants that sanctuary, either.
 
> and drop some stupid line about them being endangered and humans
> have overpopulayed the earth. the point is that we spend more effort
> proecting some stupid bird than we do our future.

Very simply, there _are_ more people than spotted owls. Are you tellin me  
that we almighty humans own this entire planet?  And besides, you don't  
know what future that fetus will have; abortion may just be its best  
protection....

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    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: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:31:51 GMT

tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes ...
> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>In order to live within society, one must accept the rules of society.
>>Right or wrong is irrelevant - numbers count.
>
>Precisely.  So when it comes to proposed anti-abortion law, why do we hear
>all this nonsense about it forcing ideas onto people.  

Because it forces a woman to carry a (potentially) unwanted child to
term, face the risk of pregnancy & birth, and endure the likely
ostracism of society and the emotional upheaval associated with 
adoption.  These are hardly insignificant considerations
and surely require compelling arguments before implementing
anti-abortion statutes.

So, what are these compelling reasons?  Let's review.
It's wrong ...
1) Because murder is wrong.
   Murder is the killing of a person over their objections.  But
   a zygote or embryo certainly does not have any objections and
   its personhood is, at best, questionable.
2) Because the church says it's wrong.
   This presumes that the church is correct.  There is ample evidence
   of prior errors made by the church.  Given this, how do we know that 
   the church is not mistaken again?
3) The Bible says it's wrong.
   I don't beleive the Bible mentions abortion anywhere.  And given the
   often contradictory nature of the Bible, why should we accept any 
   one (fallible) person's interpretation of it?
4) Killing is wrong - life is good.
   No doubt.  But it has hardly been established that eliminating 
   abortion will a) reduce killing, b) increase life, c) reduce 
   suffering, or d) improve the quality/quantity of life on the 
   planet.  In fact, decent arguments can be made that the continued
   legality of abortion will do all of the above.
5) Because most people say it's wrong.
   Doesn't make it so.  Most people once believed in witches and
   fairies and evil spirits.  And at least in this part of the
   world, most people think it should remain legal.

I don't like abortion.  As yet I haven't seen compelling reasons
to impose suffering on a large number of women merely because of
dislikes.

>Since the rightness or wrongness of "forcing" is irrelevant - why not
>let the majority (or a Constitutionally sufficient majority) decide?

Already been done.  Abortion is legal.  Are we finished?  Are you willing
to accept the legality of abortion?

>But it may reduce substantially the number of killings.

"May" is a pretty weak assertion.  Further, it doesn't speak well
for your cause that you apparently consider this more important than
the suffering of the people involved.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: AIDS and attitudes
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:28:06 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


    For those interested in AIDS, attitudes, and statistics, there is an
interesting article in the current Scientific American on the subject.
I believe it is the May issue.

    The people doing the statistics are hampered by, as they put it,
statistical models considerably better than their data - people seem rather
reluctant to give accurate information about their sexual habits, for
some reason. They do, however, present a number of predictions based on
various assumptions about the accuracy of the data, attempts to match some
of the predictions to events in various countries in different epidemic
stages, and so on.
    All of the models predict a spike in HIV/AIDS cases in the high risk
groups, followed after a delay by a much larger group of people infected in
the low risk groups. The explanation is that with a long incubation time
like HIV there is time for the high risk groups to infect a considerable
portion of the low risk group before their symptomatic period begins, and
long before symptoms appear in the low risk group.

    Some of the disturbing notes in the article: in some African countries
which are further along the span of the epidemic an estimated 30% of the
pregnant women are HIV positive. Odd results - under most assumptions
larger numbers of prostitutes with HIV will cause more deaths in the short
run but fewer in the long run, as the high risk group is more self
contained.

    It's an interesting article, and I recommend it strongly. I don't think
it's really relevant to t.a, except insofar as people argue over the
morality of sexual activity, but I think it's worth mentioning anywhere.

                                                  kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 07:49:31 GMT

In article <stljxjc.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:

>Why don't they come out more open then? all I have seen of the pro-life
>movement is the pro-control anti-women part of the pro-life movement
>(ie Nazi's). I would just love to sit down with the other side and talk
>how to reduce the abortion rate by reduce the unplaned babys, but all
>the pro-lifers I have seen just like to have control and put the goverment
>in our bedrooms.

Sir.  The term "Nazi" does not mean "pro-control anti-women".  Kindly
go away and stay away until you have enough of a clue to use your
terms correctly.  And until you can use terms correctly, please do not
use (and trivialize) a term which means "conspirator in mass-murder
and genocide".

I am losing my patience with misuse of that particular term, and *I*
don't even have a special emotional attachment to it.  Nora, my
sympathies.  May you succeed in turning the poor fools into as small
cinders as you wish to.

-- 
"Allow me to offer my congratulations on the truly admirable skill you have
shown in missing the mark.  Not to have hit once in so many trials, argues the
most spendid talents for missing."                - Emperor Galerius
Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:53:55 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>From article by ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman):
>> I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
>> time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
>> place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
>> people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.
>> 
>Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>Yup, those of us defending them are mored dedicated than ever too.

Crap.  What about the 10 million people that starved to death last year?
Don't they count?  What about the 1/4 million Iraqis killed in the war?
Don't they count?  What about the kids killed by guns and drugs and 
abuse and neglect?  Don't they count?  I'll believe anyone to be "Pro-Life"
when their concern is for _life_ and not just abortion.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Has anyone seen this ad?
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:37:53 CDT

In article <1992Apr6.220652.12759@athena.mit.edu> purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.115504.16597@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>Seems to me, since no haploid life is destroyed when a female
>>masturbates, I could make an excellent case for a gender-based
>><gasp> DOUBLESTANDARD on the issue of masturbation.
>
>Before you begin to feel too smug, I should inform you that the equivalent
>act for the female diploid human is menstruation (gee, I hope I spelled
>that right, but I've got a little double standard of my own when it comes
>to spelling).  
>
>So while the diploid human female need not feel guilty about murdering
>hapless haploid humans during masturbation, she doesn't get off scott-free,
>at least until menopause.
>
I refuse to feel guilty about anything that ain't fun!

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity