HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why is vengance Anti Military?
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:50:06 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
] In article <1993Jan6.223304.3303@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
] drieux) writes:
] >vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
] >] >psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
] >
] >Paul, You might want to talk to you boy here....
] 
] YES SIR, MR drieux!  What shall I say, Sir!
 
You might get him to resolve his following dialectical problem,
before he tries to get the tribe KILLED....

Also to Put on your list of problems is the
young ossifer who wishes to impose the UCMJ on all....

] >] To label me as anti-abortion is accurate, but not the most accurate.  
] >] Pro-life means that I consider life to be the single most basic and
] >] fundamental right of existance.  Not only do I oppose abortion, but I
] >] support standards and policies of morality which seek to improve people's
] >] lives after birth.  Pro-life means that I don't think it is up to anyone
] >] to decide for anyone ELSE what a "meaningful life" means, or to
] >] decide if that person has the "potential" for "meaninful life".
] >
] >
] >so Ed, you don't mind if we get personal here.
] >
] >but why are you anti_military?

ciao
drieux

ps: is this where we get to talk about Close Air Support,
Co_ordinated artillery fire.....

] >-- 
] >Modern Day Problems:
] >
] >"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
] >				Olivia Newton Algegra
-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:55:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.094401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

|>In article <C0CMoK.45t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert
|>S. Parker) writes:
|>> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|>> 
|>>>     "Human persons" should be replaced by "convicted murderers" in your 
|>>>appeal -- to make it more specific to the thread.  Second, your use
|>>>of "zygotes or fetii" tends to dehumanize the unborn children you're
|>>>considering (definition of child is an unborn or recently born person).
|>> 
|>> Well, if you hadn't said "definition", I would have let this go, but...
|>> According to Funk & Wagnals Standard Desk Dictionary:
|>> 
|>> child:  1. An offspring of human parents.  2. A boy or girl, most commonly
|>one
|>> between infancy and youth.  3. A descendant.  4. A childish person.  5. A
|>> product of a specified condition, quality, etc: a child of joy.
|>
|>     I used the word "child" based on the definition in Webster's Ninth 
|>New Collegiate Dictionary (1991).
|>
|>       child: 1. a : An unborn or recently born person. 
|>                 b (dialect) : A female infant.
|>              2. a : A young person esp. between infancy and youth.
|>                 b : A childlike or childish person.
|>                 c : A person not yet of age.
|>                 ....

So much for the American dialect. Could anyone look up the English definition?

By this I mean the OED which is the only text that is anywhere near
authoratative.

Those of a semanticaly pedantic nature should note that there is a big
difference to the use of "child" to mean fetus and the insistence of the use of
child when fetus is in fact the correct term. The dictionary lists "An unborn or
recently born person." Given that few pro-abortionists favour infanticide it
would be sloppy use of language for them to use the word "child".

Personaly I never had any time for this "debate" after the anti-abortionists
started calling themselves pro-life and the pro-abortionists called themselves
pro-life.

As a Yorkshireman I prefer to call a spade a bloody shovel.



--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54667 talk.religion.misc:25577 alt.atheism:25408
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:35:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <cass8806.568.726515935@elan.rowan.edu>,
cass8806@elan.rowan.edu (Kyle Cassidy) writes:

>and if you saw where your cheezeburger came from you'd probably lose
>you appetite too.

Actually, I have seen where meat comes from, up close and personal.
I have an uncle who used to be a kosher butcher, and whenever I eat at
the local Fuddrucker's I find it fascinating the way they chop up sides
of beef and prepare the meat. In any case, in biology I've
also dissected squids, grasshoppers, live decerebrated frogs... but
what, pray tell, do cheeseburgers have to do with abortion?

Ah, I remember--the discussion on pickled abortions. Well, Kyle, as a
pro-choicer _and_ a biology major, I don't really find pickled
abortions gross. My argument is that it is unethical, to say
the least, for someone who claims s/he values life to use a prop that
devalues life.

Damn, I'm getting hungry. Double cheeseburgers on me, everyone!

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 06:09:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.094401.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <C0CMoK.45t@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

[Deletions]

>> Well, if you hadn't said "definition", I would have let this go, but...
>> According to Funk & Wagnals Standard Desk Dictionary:
>> 
>> child:  1. An offspring of human parents.  2. A boy or girl, most commonly one
>> between infancy and youth.  3. A descendant.  4. A childish person.  5. A
>> product of a specified condition, quality, etc: a child of joy.
>
>     I used the word "child" based on the definition in Webster's Ninth 
>New Collegiate Dictionary (1991).
>
>       child: 1. a : An unborn or recently born person. 
>                 b (dialect) : A female infant.
>              2. a : A young person esp. between infancy and youth.
>                 b : A childlike or childish person.
>                 c : A person not yet of age.
>                 ....
>
>     An "unborn person" is not a contradiction according to "Webster."
>
Considering the many other inaccuracies in "Webster" I don't think
you'll find it considered a valid source here. As an example (and the
mostrecently discussed here) look up fetus. "Websters" claims that the
change from embryo to fetus takes place at the end of the first
trimester, when in point of fact it occurs at the beginning of week 9,
gestational age.

[More deletions]

--
                  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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:47:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.012811.21437@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan2.224341.9574@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan02.035011.4843@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1993Jan1.001959.29643@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec30.200825.22596@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>I think "arguing for legislation while claiming he doesn't want it"
>>>>>is the most descriptive I've seen yet.
>>>>
>>>>I don't argue for abortion restrictions. I argue only against certain
>>>>absolutist positions. Learn the difference.
>>>
>>>What's the difference?
>>
>>The difference is that I dislike absolutes, whether they are pro-choice
>>absolutes, or pro-life absolutes.
>
>Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they're wrong...

HAHAHAHAHA!! To a relativist it might, Larry. Think about it...

>>Carefully. If you do, I think you'll find that I argue against absolutes, and
>>certain kinds of just plain old illogic, but _not_ inherently _against_ any
>>(more-or-less relativistic) position on pro-choice.
>
>In other words, you argue for some restrictions.  

No, I don't argue for any restrictions. I argue AGAINST the proposition that
_all_ restrictions are inherently immoral, but that's not the same as arguing
"for" any restriction.

								- Kevin
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:26:56 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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
--
  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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Who are you guys?
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 15:08:54 GMT

In a previous article, markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) wrote:
> 
>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

If the most fundamental right is life, why is it okay to kill some living 
fetuses because their father was a rapist?  This makes absolutely no sense.  
How is the fetus itself different from one conceived through consentual sex?
How can you say that all fetuses should have a right to life when you are 
perfectly willing to kill some of them because of something someone else did?

It sounds to me like this is less about a fetus' right to life and more about
punishing women for consenting to sex.

>Mark Pundurs

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:34:27 GMT

In <29531@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David A
>>aron Tepper) writes:
>]>>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>]>>Pundurs) writes:

>]]>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>]]>>the conception.
>]>>>Which IS an important difference.
>>>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!
>>But it is to the mother.

>Abortion is either wrong, or it is not. 

Here's your mistake. No serious ethical questions are this absurdly
simple.

Compare: The use of force is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong,
you may not use force to prevent someone from killing you. If it is not
wrong, then anyone who wants may use force however he wants.

>If it is wrong, you're propogating
>a wrong for another wrong, giving the proverbial two wrongs make a right.
>This is contradictory, not to mention assinine. That leaves one other
>case, that abortion is not wrong, in which case it would be wrong to
>deny it to those who want/need it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Porphyria & Forgach (An argument for better sex ed)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:16:16 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>> haven't seen any such activity -- 

>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

Jesus Christ, you snotty bitch.  Did you and Chaney contract the same
case of rabies?  What's this strange hangup you two have with Patrick's
wife?

If your "god" actually existed, it would be "Forgach Flambe'" the
instant you died.

>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...

>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Wow.  Amazing.  

Maybe someday you'll have that orgasm, you sanctimonious hag.

Blech :-P
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Keywords: Energizer Weenies
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:19:16 GMT

In article <C0FG5v.Ey3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

}Show me ONE lie I have told.

}I yield.  

Go on, prove it isn't a lie.  I dare you.  In fact, I double-doggone-dare
you...

--
       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...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55108 talk.religion.misc:25782 alt.atheism:25624
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Why are You folks Denigrating Christ?
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:53:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <1993Jan9.074243.9436@netcom.com> 
] ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] >forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
]  
] >> I demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
] >> in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
] >> and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.
] 
] > While Christ would probably not assist in any abortion, nobody is
] > suggesting that _any_ Christian be required to do so.
] 
] Some people are suggesting that Christians should be required
] to assist in abortions.  The Freedom of Choice Act, which Congress 
] is planning to consider soon, contains no conscience clause which 
] would protect hospital employees from facing punishment for refusing
] to assist in an abortion procedure.  And Bill Clinton has said that
] he would have no objections to using federal tax dollars to pay for
] elective abortions.

Doug, I think that you should SERIOUSLY talk to Susan,
as she seem to be of the Opinion that Christ is NOT
a Part of the Trinity and Oneness of God!

If She presumes that the minor matter of Numbers 5 is
not to be taken literally, then I can see how she can
presume that God does NOT involve himself in abortions.

Then Again, this also would get her off the hook on a
lot of other things..... but at that point why not just
say that she believes in some GodUnit not related to the
bible?????

Now on the Other Hand if she is Talking about the God of the
Bible, then She must go back to the Minor Matter of Numbers 5,
and Deal with Why she is Alienating Christ from God.

You Really Have to stay Abreast of which Christina Bashers
you wish to defend and which you wish to let run loose
Raising Holy Hell....

ciao
drieux


ps: as for your matter on the FOCA, so?



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Lets String 'em up
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 21:22:48 GMT

In article <1ia8qpINN314@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.195541.12488@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>Loren has lost the vote.  Despite the fact that he has apparently
>>already found a suitable hiding place away from T.A., the reader ship
>>of T.A. has decided it is suitable to strap the bugger down to a 
>>chair.  The final tally is:
>> 
>>13 Yes votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
>>2  No  votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
>
>
>Thank you, Dan, for tallying the vote.
>
>Now, is Loren going to consider himself bound by the will of the majority,
>or is Loren going to recognise that the majority vote has diddly to do with
>strapping an individual to a chair?
>
>I know what MY guess is:  none of the above.  Loren's going to keep his
>head in the sand.
>
I think he's going to hide for a few more weeks or months, then come
back and insist this was all invalid, 'cause he never saw the results
of the vote.
IN this case, it would be nice if the majority vote could be enforced.
:)

>Though, if I were optimistic, I'd hope that Loren has left off posting in
>this group because he's actually READING that copy of the Bill of Rights
>sent to him, and MAYBE even READING some history of the formation of this
>country, to boot.
>
Geeez, you'd *really* have to be an optimist to believe that...

--
                  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.
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 22:47:36 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan3.020013.9981@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <72831@cup.portal.com>
  <ueirq1o@zola.esd.sgi.com>

"Sorry this causes you conniption fits.  But it's reality.  Lump it."?
Why so sarcastic and insulting?  Do you support my right as a father to
declare I don't want the child before it is born and thus be absolved of
any responsibility for raising it?  Also, if it were as simple as "it's
reality", I don't think there would be such a hot debate not only here
but internationally going on about it.  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:37:00 GMT

In article <1ism0dINN5g4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <C0KBxJ.10x@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.151527.17439@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu
>>(The_Doge) writes:
>>>	Maybe she just had one line too many of the smug, self-righteous stuff
>>>you've been posting here, my man.
>>If one is adamantly anti-abortion he is deemed, self-righteous. 
>
>Uh, I don't think that's what he said.
>
>Hmmm.  And I read it twice.
>
	DING!  A big kewpie doll for the lady!!
	I'll admit there aren't too many adamantly anti-abortion folks on
t.a who *aren't* smug and self-righteous, but they do exist.  Stephen
Matheson comes to mind; Lebow might want to read some of his stuff to find out
how to take a pro-life stance without coming across as a geek.

>I think people are deemed to be self-righteous if they post things that
>sound self-righteous.  Correct me if I'm wrong....
>
	If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"But why-a duck?  Why-a no chicken?"
			-- Chico, in "Animal Crackers"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Keegan's morality 
Organization: Uff da!
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:45:33 GMT

On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:50:56 GMT, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> We haven't yet heard whether James Keegan condones the
>> remarks of a pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-
>> lifers. 

>And we're still waiting...

No, DOD, *you're* still waiting.  The rest of us have lives, already...

--PLH, I'd say more, but I have to go to work...
--
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Getting the Slavery Analogy back on track
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:39:04 GMT
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

Give me just one example of a slave in the deep South who occupied the 
slaveowner's belly for nine months of pain and sweat and I'll concede
your point.

It got awfully *quiet* around here...

--Teddi
---------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)----------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion