HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: About The christian perspective...?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:06:00 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  <1992Sep25.193419.19538@tc.fluke.COM>  emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.205212.16469@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth
> >In article <1992Sep24.155732.7629@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
> >>In article <19nue3INNqc1@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
> >>>However, I find the idea that *my* notion of sacredness should be FORCED
> >>>upon some random woman who has to bear the cost to be a sad and sickening
> >>>thing.
> >>
> >>Just of out curiousity, why is a mother having a child and raising it a
> >>sad and sickening thing?
> >
> >Read Adrienne's sentence again. She said that being "FORCED" to have a child
> >and raise it is sickening.  (I assume that she doesn't find the process
> >itself sickening, since I understand that she has several children...)
>
> I'm sorry if I inferred that I supported forced pregnancy.  I do not.
> If I did, I would then be supporting rape.  However, I do not.

I should hope not.  However, that's referring to a woman being forced
to *become* pregnant; the issue under discussion is a woman being forced
to *remain* pregnant.

> That is indeed a sad and sickening thing!

I'd agree, in either case.

> I would still be interested in hearing if Adrienne or anyone else
> has a strong aversion to motherhood and why.

The aversion is to force.  Since you brought up rape, consider if Adrienne
said "I find the idea that sex should be FORCED upon some random woman to
be a sad and sickening thing".  Would you then inquire if she had a strong
aversion to sex?

> >I guess I don't understand how my legal choices can be taken away "in a
> >loving and respectful way."  I don't see how telling me that I do not
> >have the right to control my own body is loving, or how not allowing
> >me to make choices based on my own conscience is respectful.
>
> Once again, Kristy, I do personally believe a woman has a right to
> control her own body.  Should not a woman have the right to avoid
> getting pregnant if she does not want a child?  I would say yes.
> A woman who really wants to avoid having a child and yet gets pregnant,
> was either forced to have sex or perhaps is not able to control her
> own body, sexually speaking.

A person who gets sick is not able to control their own body, medically
speaking.

> Yet even to one who can not control her body sexually, there are
> still medical ways to prevent from getting pregnant.

..and to keep from remaining pregnant.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38564 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4618 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5927
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 13:15:16 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

> In article <cJTLRB6w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> Mister Bad-Ass,
> posting as
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>
>               Listen up: You're being ignored, punk.
>
>
> >>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
> >>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
>
>
> =============================================================================
> -----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
>                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

Obviously not, given that you've responded.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:22:05 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.26.79.24

---
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|While CJ has killfiled YOU, I don't think she's killfiled Overpeck,
|so she sees your posts secondhand if he followups to you.
|So, not to worry, she still could be calling you a twittering fool.

Yeah, and it's really a drag.  I know I can killfile all
followups to the Master of the One-Note Samba, but I was
hoping Overpeck would give it up.  I *did* think he was
smarter than that, but he seems to be enjoying his little
experiment too much.  Bleah.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The documentation doesn't mention the mental health problems that 
develop from doing this, but very rarely is documentation this 
comprehensive." --David Bedno, in talk.bizarre, giving me a new
professional goal as a techwriter
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 01:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.183511.9059@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>] In article <achmadsn.4.717752897@dhhalden.no> achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR) writes:
>] >From: achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR)
>] >Subject: Re: So You agree Women are Still Functionally Second Class...
>] >In article <1992Sep23.201113.8638@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] >>From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
>] >>rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>] >>] Wait a second this cannot be a "well, if I want to and it is good for me
>] >>] then I'll be in a combat situation (get paid more)"  It has to 
>] >>] be an all or nothing.  Either women sign up for then selective service
>] >>] like all men do or they cannot fight.  Why should women choose when
>] >>] men cannot??   This would promote women into first class citzenship
>
>] >>Maybe when folks can understand that women are as good with
>] >>an M-16 as males are with them... perchance we might actually
>] >>think of them as real Persons deserving of Real Rights just
>] >>like all the rest of the DraftBait out there....
 
>] Personally I find it rather ludicrous that one would judge one's equality
>] with others on the basis of their ability or inability to wield an M 16.

Especially when shotguns with auto-loaders make more sense.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40318 talk.politics.misc:49342 alt.sex:31793
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct3.165017.26362@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Well, some pro-aborts rely on organizations like the "National Abortion
> Federation" and the "Alan Guttmacher Institute" for their information,
> which are both rabidly pro-abortion organizations.  Some pro-aborts
> even have the audacity to pretend that these organizations are unbiased!

Well, I don't know any "pro-aborts", (and I'm not familiar with the
"National Abortion Federation",) but I backed up my statements with
quotes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and also the Universal
Almanac, and from a book edited by Jane E. Hodgson of the Department
of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA,
and from the American Journal of Public Health.

Ms. Gansley-Ortiz has provided *nothing* to back up her claim; when
asked to back up her assertions about the risks of abortion, she
posted references to articles about contraceptives.

You, too, provide no facts, but prefer to question the veracity of
*one* of the sources I've quoted.  The fact remains that *every*
source I've seen says the same thing:
   The risk of death from abortion is lower than that of other
   surgical procedures or than continuing the pregnancy to term.

   There is no evidence of problems with later childbearing
   among women who have an early abortion performed by
   the most common method - vacuum aspiration.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if you had any contradictory
evidence, you'd have presented it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Do you seriously think that sperm/eggs a human?  I don't think so.
>Why do I think that sperm/eggs are not human lives?

>Well, I come to the conclusion based on common sense and reason enlightened
>by science and biology.

Are you moving into the comedy front now?

>The contention is based on the existence of a human life at conception.
>What's so moral about that?

You'd call this a basis for determining human life from science? (and
biology, we all know these are two totally different subjects!:)

If you call a sperm and egg not human life, but you do as soon as they've
formed the zygote (which bears zero resemblance to the human lives I
see every day) what do you call the in-between stages? Quarter human
life, half human life,....

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:24:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>A zygote may fail to implant or miscarry.  That is to say, a human being may 
>die of natural causes.  Fine, Ray, but that's not abortion.  You may die of a 
>heart attack, but that's not a shooting.  
>
>What is being said is very simple: a given human being (with a small 'h') has
>an equal right to life as any other human being (with a small 'h').  

Great.  Who gets to define "human being?"

>When does a new human being (with a small 'h') start, would you say Ray?
>It's conception, isn't it?  And you have posted that that's not a "useful" 
>definition for anything, because it's hard to know the moment of conception.
>Here your pragmatism fails you - why do you _need_ to know?  If the baby 
>miscarries on its own, that's sad, but there's nothing to discuss.  And if 
>a zygote fails to implant, through no fault of anybody, who even knows?  
>i.e. if a tree falls in the forest...  If none of the above apply, we will 
>soon reach a point where the woman notices that she is pregnant.  It's 
>reasonable to now infer that the pregancy resulted from conception, is it 
>not, and that we therefore have a new human being on our hands?

In essence, you're claiming personhood begins at conception.  Why?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40640 talk.politics.misc:49626 alt.rush-limbaugh:6565 alt.politics.clinton:8539 alt.politics.bush:7770
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:09:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

Ted Krueger) writes:

|> Because only one of the several people Dr. Kevorkian helped kill 
|> was terminal.  The others just wanted to die, they were not terminal.

Were all going to die eventually, it is only the time frame that varies.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:01:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct5.233320.503@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>right?  

So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?

So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?

If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
that _by_definition_ it is human life?

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40169 alt.abortion.inequity:4215 alt.birthright:511
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:29:02 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

> Yes, and let's not forget the forced-abortions policies of China.

Policies which are just a repugnant to pro-choicers as forced
pregnancy.  Forced-abortion and forced-pregnancy both take away
from women control of their bodies.
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:58:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.025134.3507@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Chalk up another linguistic scope problem. Sigh.
Chalk up Kevin once again trying to engage in a pissing contest with
me. I won't bite, Kevin. Screw.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Pro-life NRL symbolism and terminology
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Recently, I had the "opportunity to read the NRL news rag. It has explained
many things, such as why pro-lifers who have swallowed the propoganda
hook, line, and sinker use terms like "pro-abort" and "pro-death". The
rag is riddled with them, with one of these terms seeming to appear
on every other line, amidst lies and twisted truths.
    But this is not what really struck me. That was the appropriateness
of the symbol of the NRL movement, or at least their rag. It is a flame
(or leaf) inside two intersecting circles. The flame/leaf symbolizes
life (and/or freedom, for those to whom this is important) which is
encircled in chains. This is what it says to me, and it appears very
appropriate, in view of the freedoms the NRL wishes to bottle up. I'm
just surprised that they would choose chains as part of their symbology.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:49:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:


>Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
>
>Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
>1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
>judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
>the deaths of millions?!

Judgement day, eh?  So she'll be standing next to Joshua, who was
responsible for 10's of thousands of deaths in Palistine.  And next to
Moses who helped wipe out all of the Egyptian first born and then led the
Israelites around the desert until the entire generation died?  And next do
David who slew 200 Philistines and cut off their foreskins so that he could
marry King Saul's daughter?

Sounds like darn good company to me.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38568 talk.religion.misc:17122 alt.atheism:18004
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 24 Sep 92 10:41:43 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <23SEP92.20083018@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> >Also, in the U.S. a woman is raped every five minutes, not every other day.
> Hang on one second...
> Isn't the standard figure for rape that 1/3 of all women will be
> raped at some point in their lives?

If you define rape as "sexual intercourse without consent", then I believe
recent studies suggest that approximately 40% of female university students
in the UK have been raped.  I would therefore suspect that your figure of 1/3
is a big underestimate.

Rape in western culture is horrifically common.  Sometimes it is even
officially condoned; until last year, UK law allowed a man to rape a woman if
he was married to her.  The law considered that marriage represented
unconditional consent to sexual intercourse -- only on the part of the woman,
of course.

When discussing rape, the thing to do is to think how sick and depraved you
can imagine society being; it's then twice as bad as that.


mathew
-- 
"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
 at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39288 talk.religion.misc:17384 alt.atheism:18182
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:33:06 EDT
 <usglkrx.717514784@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> <1992Sep26.150527.24955@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Sep26.150527.24955@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <usglkrx.717514784@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Just a guess, but perhaps it's "a rape is *reported* every five minutes"?
>>
>>Really have no idea, but that would make sense to me....
>
> Yes,that's been suggested.
> 
> I'd like to hear something a little more convincing.

   One every five minutes adds up to 105,120 per year; probably an
underestimate, so I would think "reported" is probably correct.

Karl
------
"That's the letter 2 and the numeral U...hahahahahahaha!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Annoying rhetorical habits
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:05:03 GMT

>  = Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>> = Mr. Martin Guerrero:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   The following paragraphs rather jumped out at me from a recent post
>>Once people realize that that which is killed during abortion is a human
>>life, then there is a much better chance that that person may change his/her
>>mind on abortion.  Of course, not everyone knows that.  Some people still
>>think that the unborn is just a bunch of human tissue.
>>[...]

>        I abstracted these to illustrate one of the rhetorical habits of the
>anti-abortion crowd (well, *some* of them, anyway) that particularly gets on
>my nerves:  the assumption that if you don't buy the idea that a zygote is
>*exactly the same* as a born child, you're simply ignorant or misguided.  If
>you only knew the Truth(tm), like Martin here, you'd naturally agree with him.
>You simply need to be "educated"!
>	It's simply not possible that you might see things differently or that
>you might have perfectly sound reasons for believing that z/e/fs aren't people.
>No, you're only allowed to be ignorant, foolish, evil, or selfish.  People of
>good will who simply see things differently just don't exist.  Case closed.
>[...]
>	Yeah, I know: a lot of the regulars here aren't the least bit
>interested in dialog of any kind.  The Forgach/Nykios/Chaneyhall types are
>mostly interested in reasserting their own notions of righteousness by
>scorning the UnGodly; ditto for some of their analogs on the pro-choice side.
>But some of us would still prefer some intelligent discussion, and would
>prefer not to be treated as idiots in need of "education", thank you very much.
>	We now return you to your regularly-scheduled food fight.
>Chuck

What he said.
Unfortunately, that pretty much sums up my feelings about t.a
& I couldn't have said it better.  

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion