HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.004239.5246@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>does the term "auto-mailer-from-hell" mean anything to you?
>and yeah, I'm the site administrator. :)
I seriously hope this isn't a threat, dear boy.
Allow me to donate you a clue:
If you were to set up an automailer to mail to anyone's system on this
newsgroup--with the possible exception of DJR or SF, I can think
of several things that most of the people out here could do--that
would be little burden on their local systems--and would probably
do the equivalent of ensuring that you can't productively access
the internet ever again, site administrator or not.
-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: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:38:17 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.UUCP (Lisa Corsetti)
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <12489@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>
>Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
>1) decided to involve herself with a loser
>2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
>3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
>4) got pregnant by the loser
>5) and carried the loser's child to full term
>
>Now she's paying for her poor judgement.
>
>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>loser.

Excuse me, but my friend is anything *but* a loser.  Sure, she may have
used poor judgement four years ago.  I suppose you lived your life mistake
free.  However, most of your mistakes may not have required drastic changes
in your lifestyle.  I've lots of respect for *any* single mom.  I do not
feel sorry for my friend, but I *do* admire her courage and strength.
The person who won't face up to responsibility *is* the loser!

                                          - Lisa


   "There's no beginning, no ending. There's just infinite
    passion of life."
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Susan does Washington (Re: Crowd size at abortion rights march)
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:12:25 GMT
 <ian.702785731@asi1><9APR199207374575@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov><1992Apr09.182110.162652@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Apr09.182110.162652@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   I collected signatures at the March.  Most people that I spoke to had
   already been asked to sign in at least twice.  Are you sure that
   you were at the same march the rest of us were?

   Susan

Susan, wasn't I suppose to meet up with you at the march?  Instead, I was
abandoned, alone in the midst of a million pro-choice people, screaming,
shouting and pushing.  Since I didn't see you, can you really prove
that you were at the same march as the rest of us :-)

Scott, I kill rocks.
From: keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:19:57 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes...
-> >heim@vms (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
-> >-> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
-> >-> >I don't believe the someoneness (Cool word huh?) of the
-> >-> >fetus is that important to the abortion debate.  I have
-> >-> >my own personal feelings regarding the someoneness of the
-> >-> >fetus, but do not feel they are pertinent to the legality
-> >-> >of abortion.
-> >-> 
-> >-> I started reading this group only about 1 week ago but I
-> >-> always thought that was *the* issue.
-> > 
-> >well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of
-> >the fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an
-> >agruing point. the issue is a woman's right to
-> >self-determination, her right to control her body. those who
-> >try to make the issue something else usually do so because
-> >they have no way to deal with the issue of controlling women.
-> 
-> This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to
-> self-determination is self evident.  I promise that I am not,
-> have never, and will never be in favor of limitting a woman's
-> right to self-determination unless I feel I have to.  You have
-> nothing but my word on this.  Since you don't know me I guess
-> that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the truth.

what would make you feel that -you- -have- to limit a woman's
right to self determination?

-> I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to the moment of
-> delivery.

well then don't have one. what you favor, however, is not
relevant when it comes to telling someone else what do do with
their body, or its contents.

-> (I had thought that this is something most people would agree
-> with.)  It seems incredible to me that anyone might think that
-> a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby
-> becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the
-> womb.  Clearly he's entitled to *some* protection before that.

i don't see how you can argue to take rights from a woman and
give some of those rights to the contents of that woman's body.

-> It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society
-> have to place *some* limits on a woman's right to
-> self-determination.  

non in my book, it isn't.

-> Not because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but
-> because we want to protect what we believe are humans in need
-> of protection.

i respect your beliefs. i suggest that you do the same for those
who don't share your beliefs. imposing them on others, in fact on
an entire class of others, is, imo, unacceptable.

-> So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving 
-> protection?"  

you have yet to prove that it does. after you do that, "when"
might become an issue.



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:50:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.182451.26157@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.122354.12540@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
First Steve says to Eric:
> > Why don't you stop programming long enough to see
> >the REAL world for once, rather than through newsnet?

To which Eric replied:
> I have seen the real world.

Now Steve is the one who said in other postings that he
would like to see all the pettiness and insults in talk.abortion
ended, which he follows up with this heady bit of brilliance:
> > Give us a bit
> >of time. Right now we're fighting a pretty superficial group of
> >individuals.

To which Eric replied:
> Is the ad hominem necessary?

But here's my favorite part, and tie it to that first quote
of Steve's:
> > Given a little time for people to realize "hey, our
> >population is sinking" and we'll win...

To which Eric rightly replied:
> You're kidding, right? You're making a population argument AGAINST
> abortion? Have you noticed that people are starving out there?
> You can't seriously mean to defend the proposition that abortion
> is going to let our population get dangerously low.

Currently there are about 3 live births for every abortion in the
United States.  People are living longer in the United States.

Speaking of real world's, Steve, what color is the sky in your's?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:48:43 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.191915.10157@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>>know that the Inuit natives still have a Gestation period (not in 
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>     Gestation: the period of carrying developing offspring in the
>uterus after conception; pregnancy. (Lat. gestatio -- a carrying).
>      The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed).

>     And those Inuit natives (on average at least) still have not
>eveolved out of having a gestation period? Shame on them! Steve, of
>course, leaped fully developed from his mother's womb immediately after
>conception (that was S.A.R.C.A.S.T.I.C., Steve).
>     But honestly, you've posted such ridiculous ideas of biology
>recently that I'm having problems deciding which is most outrageous.

   I feel sorry for you... YOu're about to be disproved. I am well
versed in the cyclical nature of pregnancy which is referred to as the
"gestation period" insinuating a repeating nature of the gestation of the
fetus. In other words, a predictable nature to the gestation cycle results
in a consistent gestation period. So, the fact that the cyclic nature of
sex has been lost by the majority of society proves that man has 
evolved above nature and mastered it. Thus, this takes out any variables
or factors which would affect or manipulate the gestation cycle. 
  My points are not outrageous or ridiculous my friend. THe fault is
with you interpretation.
    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: keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: - about retractions - (was Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

In article <1992Apr12.172804.12116@rotag.mi.org>
	kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

-> Since you have failed to meet your burden of proof, you should
-> retract the charge

you once wrote:

        "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
        I make, or retract it."
			Kevin Darcy
			<1992Feb11.054339.25284@rotag.mi.org>

and you also wrote:

        'Is this the same James Keegan who donned his net.cop
        badge and uniform, and told me to get "my" [sic]
        child-support threads out of t.a this past December??'
		kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)
		<1992Feb26.002308.5595@cfctech.cfc.com>

and you never supported it or retracted it.

you also said (about susan garvin):

        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>

and you never supported that either, nor did you retract it.

is susan garvin "a lying bitch," kevin?

practice what you preach, you cowardly hypocrite.



--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:15:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr13.234140.24953@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>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.

Please explain what is wrong with the reasons and motivations behind
abortion, or any other act for that matter.

Please explain why humanity is a loser when it comes to doing the 
right thing.

>MaThiEu a. LeWis   

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: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:30:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.034532.4308@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>> Rape implies the use of force, which may result in the death of
>> the potential rape victim.

> Wrong.  (Non-statutory) rape implies force or coercion, but not
> necessarily lethal force.  

I didn't say that rape implied lethal force, I said it implied force. 
The rapist may wind up killing their victim, hence the potential for
the death of the rape victim.

> The use of deadly physical force is
> permitted by law to prevent or terminate a rape *even if the victim
> is in no danger of being killed*.

How do you know that a rapist will never kill their victim? You can't
possibly know unless you're a mind-reader. 

>> A fertilized egg in a petri dish has the right to exist, and no human
>> should be allowed to kill it. But no human should be forced to support its
>> existence, and no human can prevent other humans from supporting the
>> egg. Humans may leave the egg to die from a lack of support -- humans
>> do not cause the death of the egg by not supporting it. I cannot cause
>> the death of another person by not supporting them.

> So you would permit an alternative to abortion in which the fetus is
> removed from the uterus without killing it, and placed in a petri dish?

Yes. I believe there are forms of abortion in which the fetus dies from
a lack of support (induced abortion, I think), but other forms like vacuum 
suction and saline injection generally act to kill or harm the fetus before 
it would die from a lack of support. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:00:59 GMT


In a previous article, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) says:

>As a matter of fact, I take offense to that also. I would also like
>to see you prove that I'm a hypocrit.
>


are you and Dean Dickowitz willing to say that NEVER in your life
you have compromised yourself in the manner of being a hypocrite??

If so, then I will no longer pay attention to you. You would be a liar.


-- 
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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:54:42 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr5.201439.17099@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
>
>>>>Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
>>>>abortion?
>
>>>Absolutely. 
>
>   Okay. I have messed up. 

Boy, did you.

>                           In not being careful enough with my words
>I have opened up to alot of flaming. The argument should hopefully
>be resolved with my answer of "absolutely" being directed to 
>"Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
>abortion in a perfect society, and LESSENS the need for abortion
>in reality?"

I have a feeling that polygamy would do as well.  What you really seem to
mean is that a *stable* relationship reduces the need for abortion.  I
would tend to agree with this in the most basic sense.

>   Absolutely. I apologize for any confusion that this has provided,
>and am glad I have given you ample opportunity to correct me. I'm sure
>the pleasure is all yours. Monogamy bred with the intentions that I
>envision leads to sex with responsibility. 

So would polygamy.  I think you have narrowed your focus too far.

>                                           Sex with responsibility 
>includes the cherishing of life and consideration for the 
> precious value of the fetus. 

Why do you value a fetus so much?  I mean, what makes it so important to
you?  I personally think it's some sort of conditioning that results in
this 'fetus worship'.

>                              In any case, I apologize for my slip.
>I am not yet used to these odds of 10 to 1 in a political and ethical
>discussion. 

Kinda makes you wonder why the pro-life side keeps claiming numerical
superiority, doesn't it.  The abortion rallys tend to be 5 to 1 in favor
of pro-choice (at least, from what has been posted here), and the postings
here at at least 2 to 1 if not more.

>            It takes some getting used to... I am truly sorry, and will
>now proofread my posts (conceptually, not grammatically).

Well, you could try to do both.  We all make mistakes, that's for sure.


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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Summary: Big deal.
Organization: That little old school on Sunset Boulevard
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:07:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.022904.1885@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>Ok, Suzanne, question time.  Why is the Pope coming to Denver, where I live,
>>and not to where you live????  Maybe he likes ME more then he does YOU???
>
>Maybe he perceives that your need for a visit from him is greater than
>mine.

If he's so perceptive, he'd surely take note of a self-described devout
Catholic who spares no opportunity to tell us how loving her religion is,
while simultaneously condemning anyone who might disagree with her...then
again, maybe old Karol figures there's no use in trying to set you straight.
(Or, to put it in my native dialect -- if the Avenging Angel was to come
through here killing all the real Christians, he'd never cock his pistol at
*you*...)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                    I've fallen -- and I can't reach my beer!
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:05:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr15.180234.12290@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>To give you
>a hint, I asscoiate with neither pro-life or pro-choice.


I think you associate with liars, since Doug H. has quoted
your post in which you claimed to be pro-choice.  Did
you have any particular reason for this, or is it just
one more part of your "Oh, well, I'm male and therefore
this is all a big joke to me" schtick?  

The real world's going to hit this one awfully hard.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:43:24 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>>Why do you value a fetus so much?  I mean, what makes it so important to
>>>you?  I personally think it's some sort of conditioning that results in
>>>this 'fetus worship'.

>>What makes you value your wife so much?  After all, she's simply a mass
>>of nourished "fetal tissue", dipshit.  "Conditioning"?  I conditioned
>>myself to care for human life?  Or was it YOU conditioned by society to
>>disdain children?

>Kevin, some quick advice....check your flamethrower for backwash.

>My ask a simple question and the name-calling abounds.... I thought
>Kevin was one of these good-guy christians who were complaining about
>all the flaming going on in t.a.

>Anyway, Kevin, if you can't distinguish between a woman and a mass of
>fetal tissue, I begin to understand your total lack of concern for women
>during pregnancy. My next suggestion is to go check yourself into a
>psychiatric hospital so that reality can be explained to you and you
>can refrain from making such ludicrous comparisons.

>Ron

Thats what I like about you Ron.  A towering wall of logic.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:42:46 GMT

In article <wP00iB7w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>        Calling pregnancy "involuntary servitude" is a cute twist, but
>when ANOTHER LIFE is involved, I'll still argue that personal
>inconvenience is outweighed.  The physical location of the baby and the
>inconvenience (and a degree of danger) to the mother are inherent in our
>humanness: that's how babies get here.

But, Clyde, the real questioni s not HOW babies get here, but whether or
not we are going to FORCE women to make sure babies get here.

Sure, the fetus is physicallyy located within the mother.  She can change
that.  We have the technology and the fundamental know-how (and have,
with varying degrees of safety, for centuries) to get rid of the fetus
for the woman's 'convenience', at her behest.

Since she kinda inhabits her own body, I think she has the right to do
that.  Just because the mechanics of birthing babies is thus-and-such
isn't really an argument for or against abortion per se.  That's like
saying the MECHANICS of slavery means slavery is a good idea.

The POINT in an abortion situation is there *is* a woman involved who
does *not* want to be pregnant.  Can we, as a society, and should we as
a society step into the realm of her personal existance to enforce her
to continue a condition that (1) she does not want to continue (2) for
which SHE and ONLY SHE incurs the costs and risks and (3) which removes
from her, a born, breathing, thinking individual, rights that are recog-
nised as belonging to all otehr born, breathing, thinking individuals in
our society because we happen to value the contents of her womb (but she
does not).

The mechanics of birth are certainly that a fetus resides within a nother
human being until it has developed sufficiently to be born.  But that 
is neither an argument FOR forced birth than it is for forced impreg-
nation.  There's only one way for people to get born right now.  Do we
FORCE people to do it against their will?

>        That is the whole issue.  The primary victim is the _baby._

In forced birth scenarios, the primary victim is the woman.  

Is that PREFERABLE?  

The secondary victim is all others in our society whose civil rights
can then be abrogated on the alter of the 'public good'.  Is that
preferable?


Freedom isn't itself free.  There are costs involved.

Adrienne Regard