HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:06:42 GMT

an5200@anon.penet.fi writes:
] 
]     

An interesting position paper.

p1: cancer cells are also determined in their growth rate by their
genetic information.... unlike a z/e/f which is determined in its
growth rate by its genetic information.....

p2: The Stark Irony of the 'alledged' ProLife position when it
comes to the fact that it wishes to establish as law that which
science will not support. I refer person to the whole of the
ongoing debate about In Vitro Fertilization, and the fact that
not all of the Persons_In_A_Petri_DISH are implanted, and that
these Persons_In_A_Petri_DISH are then BRUTALLY MURDERED OFF by
medical technicians as 'medical waste.'

	p2.1: Either the Person from Conception argument holds,
	and said medical personnel are in point of FACT murders.
	And the SCREAMING SCILENCE of the 'ProLife' faction in this
	are Prove that they have begun in themselves the far worse
	form of 'dehumanization' as they can NOT LIVE with their
	own alledged 'beliefs.'

	p2.2: the Underlying Fantasy of Persons from Conception
	is merely a romantic hope, and is Known to be Blatantly False.

p3: the more amusing subtext of the 'thou shall not kill' gambitry
is also pleasantly amusing.... for long and involved reasons, some
of which were addressed. { we shall skip over the hand ringing of
the trendy folks about the matter of actually sending in the US
Marines into Somalia to save the starving children, as clearly that
direction leads to a Hornet's nest of Moral Complications, especially
when one holds to the INVIOLATE INTRINSIC MORAL VALUE OF ALL HUMAN LIFE. }

p4: Now, if Folks were to center their Arguments upon preventing
the NEED for abortions, and not on Outlawing them as some mystical
Means of Winning the War on Drugs^H^H^H^HAbortions, we might see
that as a meaningful step towards a solution.

Maintaining Mutually Refuting Positions, from the same poster,
and trying to say that this self refuting position should be law,
is, to say the least, not something likely to win votes....

Unless of course, one has already abandoned reasoning as a basis
of civil law, and wishes to establish a Theocracy. 

p5: given the flagrant abuses of the bible by the alledged
'ProLifers' has also not warmed the cockles of those of us
who FEAR the imposition of even an Isreali Style Theocracy.

Have we thus been able to communicate?

I fear FASCISM! And the proLifers have not given me any
sense of certainty that their faction, if allowed to 
dominate will be willing to maintain liberty and justice
for all.... Especially for the Born Persons who are
actually already here.


ciao
drieux



-- 
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: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:44:30 GMT

> = (Dave Stow) writes:
>> = JEFFREY JAMES PRICE writes:

>>1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
>>   can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

>Jupiter is made of cheese. You can't prove otherwise so it etc..
>Don't be silly.
>[..Rest of rediculous, badly thought out post deleted..]

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

Good point.  Luckily, a technological breakthrough is due to come out
this year: the "Friendly-User Interface".

If I say, 
		   "Suzanne, you're an ignorant bitch."
what you will read is
		   "Suzanne, you are a female lacking in knowledge."

If Chaney says,
			"PatricKKK, your wife is a slut and I'd like to spin her on
			my virgin propellor",
what you will read is
			"Patrick, your wife likes sex with you, and please send me some
			pictures if you don't mind; I am *LONELY*."

If Holtsinger says,
		   "Roe vs. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout
		   pregnancy."
what you will read is
		   "Roe vs. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
		   pregnancy."

Hmm.

Next interface breakthrough: The "Truthful-User Interface".





-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:49:58 GMT

In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
pointless or self-contradictory?

>           -rocker

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:47:10 GMT

From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio):
> |   margoli@watson.IBM.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> |
> |   > Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.
> 
> Sheesh, Larry.  Marry an atheist.  No way in hell is any child of
> *mine* going to be raised Christian, either.  

Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.

Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
Or how 'bout best man?


> My own Christian 
> childhood is to thank for my vehemence in this matter.

Then it wasn't Christian in the first place.

SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:09:30 GMT

In article <1i9nd0INNsom@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>Mark A. Cochran writes:
>|> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|> >Mark A. Cochran writes:
>|> >>John Townsend writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>|> >>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>|> >>
>|> >>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>|> >>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>|> >>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>|> >>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>|> >>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>|> >>*another persons* body.
>|> >
>|> >Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>|> >body.
>|> >
>|> I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
>|> was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
>|> Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
>|> evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
>|> How sad...
>
>Oh good.  You won't mind, then, if I choose to go bludgeon to death a million
>and a half baby seals tonight.  How I love to see the body parts fly!
>
I must have made a wrong turn someplace. I could have *sworn* I was in
talk.abortion, not talk.animal.rights...
BUT what the hell, I'll give it a shot...
Those baby seals are not *your own* body either bozo...
Why do you have such a hard time differentiating between your body and
others?

--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55357 talk.religion.misc:25947 alt.atheism:25770
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:25:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>                                                    What pro-lifer is going
> to shed a tear over an abortion clinic being destroyed, even if vehemently
> disagrees with the tactic?

And what Christian is going to shed a tear over an atheist's house being
burnt down, even if he vehemently disagrees with the tactic?

What Protestant in Northern Ireland is going to shed a tear over a couple of
Catholics being gunned down, even if he vehemently disagrees with the tactic?

>>link> I have seen some examples of pro-choice protestors who
>>link> did appear full of hate.  One group of pro-choice
>>link> protestors blockaded a Catholic Church in New York.
>>link> These women were topless except for painted crosses over
>>link> their breasts.  THe elderly people who wanted to go to
>>link> church were unable to get into the building because of
>>link> this lewd display.  
>>
>>Please explain the hate so evident to you in this behavior.
>>Scorn, perhaps.  Ridicule, even... but hate???
> 
> Looked like hate to me.

No, those are breasts.  It's an easy mistake to make, though.  Especially if
you're a misogynist, as many anti-abortionists are.


mathew
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:54:00 GMT

In article <bob1.726426577@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan5.143250.8078@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel
Nelson)
>>writes:
>>>In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>>Townsend) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan4.205628.11758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>|> In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>>Townsend) writes:
>>>>|> >
>>>>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives
one's
>>>>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>>>>
>>>Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
>>>And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
>>>point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
>>>_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
>>>H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
>>>your credentials by posting your SAT scores.
>>>
>>>
>>>muriel
>
>
>>Muriel - 
>
>>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>>mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent
>
>Fine words, and agreed that the z/e/f would have some value to someone. The
>one simple problem that seems to escape most people is that, in order to
>have any value at all the z/e/f must occupy some woman's uterus and get
>all of its nutients from her body and use her body as its sewage system.
>Now, you could remove the z/e/f, and then debate the intrinsic value of
>it and the woman to see who's is greater. Just make it a very quick
>debate.
>
Well, maybe we are speaking of a different "value".  The value I am referring
to  is associated with the gene structure which differentiates one human from
another.  That exists independently of the uteris. I don't argue that to allow
that valued individual to develop requires the nurturing of the mother's womb.
The only thing the pregnant woman can willfully do it to destroy a pre-existing
value.

Referring to the woman's body as a "sewage system" may point out, in a crude
way, certain aspects of the child's growing process.  It seems to be at crossed
puposes with the objection to the notion that the womb is 'just a place'.

- Paul

>
>REB
>
>	When men can carry to term, we'll let them make the rules - Me.
>
>
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Meet Peter Nyikos, Coward (was Re: Netserver problem: newer is not necessarily better)
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<root.726178744@spssig> <1367@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:12:33 GMT

In article <1367@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

   In article <root.726178744@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   #I wonder if he's (Peter Nyikos) ever heard of ethics?  

   I wonder if he realizes how many anti-abortion people quit posting
   to t.a. because he embarrasses them.

Speaking of Petey and ethics, I've always wondered if his
talk.abortion ethics are anything like his ethics in research and
academia. Do you think he treats his research and his academic peers
the way he treats people in talk.abortion?  Could he
responds to critiques of his work the way he responds to criticism on
talk.abortion -- 
  1) claims he never saw the reviewers comments on his paper
  2) claims reviewers comments were lost in the mail
  3) claims the Post Master General disconnected mail service to South
     Carolina so he never saw the comments
  4) he doesn't like the reviewer so ignores his comments

   #Jeez, what a coward "Dr." Nyikos is.

   That he is.  I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Coward?  Cowards normally have an understanding of the thing being
feared.  Petey Honey doesn't understand talk.abortion, anything
associated with the topic of abortion, the net, nor netiqette.  I
don't think coward is the right word.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:18:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.024809.22609@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>in a way that women aren't?   

I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
custodial parents.

If you do know of one, please tell me.  As such, there's no
sex-discrimination claim, and indeed courts have consistently
refused to consider equal protection arguments in this context
valid.

>And how does it follow that every type of abortion restriction, 
>including waiting periods, informed consent provisions, and
>late-term restrictions, will result in the subjugation of
>women?

Take it up with Tribe.  It's not my argument.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:10:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.025445.11132@ncsu.edu>,
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I guess I have a problem with your use of the term "wrong".
>You seem to be saying that abortion is "wrong" from a
>religious perspective, but abortion is not "wrong" from
>a secular perspective.   I am assuming that you believe
>abortion is not "wrong" on secular grounds since you
>appear to have no secular reasons for being opposed to
>abortion.  Is that correct?

>I understand that you do not wish to impose your religious
>beliefs on society, but that is besides the point.  And your
>duty to God is also besides the point.  Abortion may be wrong
>for you personally, but that's not what I'm interested in.
>I want to know whether abortion is "wrong" for others.
>Your own personal morality, which you would not impose on
>others, is not morality at all.  It's your own personal
>preferences.

Oh, Doogie, you're _so_ close! Now if you could just take
the next logical step, we could sic you on Suzanne. We could
make Chaney scream for mercy. Heck, we could even put Operation
Rescue out of business tomorrow.

<slobbers, laughs maniacally> DOMINATION WILL BE OURS!!!!!

Ahem... sorry about that. [smileys for all concerned] So now
we come down to one question--is abortion wrong for others?
You say eether, and I say eyether. Let's call the whole thing
off! ;-)

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:16:17 GMT

<1993Jan7.223932.24408@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>I hate to follow up my own post, but I wanted to make it clear to 
>Dr. Phoney Giggles that Doug did not write the following:
>
>}}> Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
>}}> aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
>}}> scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
>}}> the woman had had an abortion.  
>
>It shoes up as being marked with a "}>" in my earlier follow-up to
>Re:  I became pro-life...and pro-choice...

It was written by me.

>I think it was written by Gordan Storga, known to Kevin Darcy as "Galen."
                               ^
Ahem!  At least Darcy could spell my name correctly when he used it.  I
forgive you, Golen.


GordOn
-- 
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: Letters, I get letters...
Summary: How funny *can* it get?
Organization: Willy's Pub'n'Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:27:51 GMT

(Well, well, well -- Chris Lyman sent a little question to Airplane Boy,
with a cc: to me, and I replied -- trouble is, I didn't take out the cc:, so
you know who got the copy.  As a result, look what appeared in my mailbox
this morning -- I hope you think it's as funny as I do...PLH)

From chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu Tue Jan  5 09:49:33 1993
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:51:04 PST
From: chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
To: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov, patrick@is.rice.edu
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Cc: chaneysa@is.rice.edu

[note -- what in bloody hell is *that* address in his cc: field?
Shudder...PLH] 

----------------------------start mail-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PatricKKK, I cannot believe you can take so much pain, embarrassment,
and solid, total defeats on USENET, and still keep coming at me. 

You are pathetic unlike anything I have ever seen in the entire
universe. You are the biggest liar and racist on all of talk.abortion,
and probably the biggest liar in all of USENET. 

You know as well as anyone that Anita Hill has no evidence to back up
her claim and that in AMERICA, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty by
evidence. That ends that discussion, plain and simple (though it may
be too complex for your dinosaur brain to understand). 

Why do you refuse to recognize the fact that I am superior to you? I
am, always have been, and always will be. I'm better, quicker, smarter
and meaner than you. You are obsolete, just as maniacal as I ever will
be, and it would mean something if you weren't so stupid. 

And please, tell your wife to stop changing lipstick. I'm getting a
rainbow around my dick from all those different colors she's using,
and it just does not want to wash off in the shower. It's really
getting annoying. :(

See you on IRC if you've got the balls to meet me. Tell Mr. McGreary
or whatever the hell his name is, that it was fun kicking him off
#Limbaugh.

 

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
[Steve's racist slur of me, the one you've come to know and not love,
deleted, of course]

I may have to call in sick at work this afternoon, because I'm too busy
rolling about the floor laughing at this...:-)

--PLH, feeling *much* better



-- 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:02:03 GMT

>In <C0CBnL.Myn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

[Deletions]

In regards to a claim that most aboritons are performed while during
the embryonic stage:
  Simply give me one credible source showing
>>that most abortions performed are done before the 8th week.  I should
>>probably qualify that as most doctor induced abortions.
>
Just to keep things straight here...
The embryonic stage is considered to last through the 9th week,
according to any and all references provided by me and other medically
inclined t.a posters. If you have a citation for the 8 week cutoff,
please provide it.
o
Larry Margolis wrote:
>P.S.  In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> you said
>"References available upon request."  People have requested them...

And we're still waiting...


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:15:31 GMT

In <1iv0hbINNivd@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <markp.726855166@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>I have no valid claim to other taxpayers' money. 

>But other taxpayers' bodies is fair game....

Being already born, I have no claim to anyone's body but my own.

>>If we're talking my
>>money (or my insurance company's money), then maybe I should give it
>>up for the good of others -- but it's not government's place to 
>>mandate such charity.

>But it *is* the government's place to mandate child birth?  No this 
>governments....

No; it's government's place to protect the z/e/f's rights.


>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs