HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:54:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct4.183323.1724@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>Ah, Ted, Ted, Ted.  I see you need a lesson, too.
>
>Please take YOUR pencil and prepare to write...
>  Abortion is not a crime.
>  Murder is not only a crime, but a legal term as well.
>  Abortion never was, nor ever will be murder.
>  Murder involves, among other things, the killing of borned persons
>  Fetuses aren't borned persons.
>  Children are borned persons; children are not fetuses.
>
>There.  Now repeat this 100 times.  Every statement there is absolutely TRUE.
>Are you getting it yet?
>
>Jennifer 

Yes...Yes...I see it all now, so clearly...Just let me get my steel 
marbles...and roll them around in my left hand...and get my cat...and 
gently stroke its fur...and slowly begin looking like Humphrey Bogart.

Wait a minute...I can't remember...Is my name Caine...Or is it yours?

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:50:16 EDT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Cornell University

What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?

As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
a murder.  And that is illegal too.


Simple enough.


M.S.Hiranandani
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:02:41 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
->>>conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
->>>that sound familiar?
->>
->>familiar? sure. it's the attitude that becky bell's
->>parents believe killed their daughter. it's the kind of
->>attitude that could kill a lot of young girls. i truly
->>hope that you never have to look back like becky bell's
->>parents have.

->Thank you.  Me too.

it's too bad you don't feel the same about other
parents. but then, a lot of people establish rules for
others.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: i represent myself
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:24:02 GMT

In article <1avligINNoei@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:

> The law aint shit.  What asshole would actually listen to a guy in a blue suit
> with a gun.  I don't understand her either.  Law, waht a joke, only weak losers
> pay any attenteion to the law.  I think rape is great don't you
> Hey its against the law so it has to be good.  Besides I like jail, Its the
> only place i can get my hemroids scratched by some one else.  This cuntry
> should ditch this democracy shit and we should have anarcracy.  Much better.
> But then no one woudl scratch my hemroids. 
> 
> That was sarcasm if you hadn't guessed already.

it wasn't that subtle.
you're obviously another flag waving, law abiding, epsilon.

the point is that a dictionary of law is not necessarily the final word for
any definition, it's merely one reference source.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- absorbs 5x its weight in excess verbage)
Subject: Violence From Pro-Lifers (formerly: Walking down...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:18:43 GMT

What: <7092@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Who:  sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)

>#  = Brian Kendig

[Snip Snip]

>#A clip of a videotape of
>#the event was shown: as she was being escorted through the blockade by
>#a policeman, a pro-lifer ran towards her at full speed and slammed
>#into her, tackling her and knocking her forcefully to the ground!
>
>I think that the O.R. thugs, like most bullies, are simply
>cowards.  They know that it is unlikely that a patient will
>press charges against them for assault.  (A woman who pressed
>charges would run the risk of endless harassment.)  For example,
>a man named Hugh Amick punched an escort in the face here in
>Pittsburgh.  There were about eight of us in the group, and
>Amick hit the smallest person. [...]  Amick was found guilty of simple
>assault.  The most recent arrest of an anti-abortion 
>protester for assault here involved a priest who threw
>himself at a group of escorts and two women entering
>the clinic.  While he was on the ground (he dropped there)
>waiting to be carried to the wagon, he grabbed the ankle
>of a woman entering the clinic and tried to pull her down.

And they somehow manage to maintain an image of peacefulness.  How?
At a blockade earlier this year, I was lucky [?] enough to be taping,
when a man rushed clinic property and jumped a patient, fortunately
missing her but tackling one of the escorts.  He had been roaming
behind the police line, pacing back and forth, his face growing more
contorted and more angry by the minute.  I was absolutely stunned by
the reaction of the other O.R. people there - they immediately
wrote him off as being an undercover pro-choicer, trying to discredit
them.  An exact quote from one:  "He's not with us, he is with you
guys."

Two months later, he was at another blockade, this time wearing a
clerical collar.  I wonder if he was ordained before he attacked
the patient, or after?

Come to think of it, Michael "terminate the abortionist" Bray also
wears a clerical collar at blockades.

Speaking of Michael Bray, the number of new people here might justify
running the article I have in which he says that abortion providers
should be killed.  Any interest in this?
--
 "Non-brain does not necessarily imply non-thought."    -- Steve Arnold

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 02:06:12 GMT

In article <BvpsJp.IrF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.165716.22162@cs.wm.edu> jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
>
>>I'm glad Catholic Social Services is doing its thing, but just a few 
>>questions... last I checked, it cost between $5000 and $10000 for 
>>"proper" medical care of a woman during pregnancy through delivery
>>(doctor visits, lab tests, delivery room, etc). In general a couple's
>>health insurance will NOT pay those bills for someone else. So, *who*
>>can afford such a service, and what type of child do *they* want...

>	Generally - for a poor mother, the government will pick
>up some portion of the tab. As well, some charitable organizations
>will help with the bills.

In most states a woman can only obtain this assistance if her husband
leaves. Terminating a pregnancy is better, in my mind, that dismembering
a family.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 14:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


kl>In article <92281.220346KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
dk>In article <1992Oct7.004419.29767@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) says:
 
dk>he says is that pro-choicers are scared to put abortion
dk>legislation to a vote.  He uses the abortion initiative
dk>on the Washington State ballot.  He claims their were
dk>more votes against the measure than for it, but it lost
dk>because they counted the absentee votes.  Um, Rush, hate
dk>to have to be the one to tell you this, but absentee
dk>votes count as votes.
 
kl>I don't think he said otherwise.  He was just pointing out that in a state
kl>as liberal as Washington (a state which sends Tom Foley to Capitol Hill, as
kl>he puts it), the measure BARELY passed.  Indicating that there isn't over-
kl>whelming support for the pro-choice position out there.
 
So why didn't he just say it like that.  Why did he say that
the initiative got more opposing votes than votes in favor?
To a normal person this would leave the impression that the
ballot measure lost.  I don't have the book here at work today,
but the way I remember his statement was that he was crowing that
this pro-choice initiative lost in a liberal state like 
Washington.  Then at the end of the statement he added that 
the absentee votes ended up resulting in the ballot winning.  
What Rush either didn't realize or was being intentionally 
deceptive about was that absentee ballots are votes.  Therefore
when he claimed that the initiative got more votes against
than for he was telling an un-truth. 
 
By the way, do you know the Seattle station that cancelled 
the Rush show over the caller abortions?  I'm kind of 
curious if this might be another Rush un-truth.
 
kl>By the way, don't forget to read the other twenty-odd chapters not dealing
kl>with abortion. 
 
I bought it to read it.  I've read through about 3/4s of it. 
If the AL playoff is boring tonight, I'll probably finish it.
I am enjoying it.  I listen to him when I get a chance to.  It
really isn't that big a surprise that he has built such a large
legion of ditto-heads out of all you adolescent white guys.  He
is really good at simplifying complex issues.
 
kl>Kurt Ludwick
 
Dan King
From: spinoza@next07wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: HEY!  IT'S IN THE BIBLE!
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.230544.7022@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
> In article <1b26d9INNhpv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  
bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
> }
> }   Yep!  That's right!  I found it in the Holy Book of Wholes, in
> }book one, chapter one, "...and he knew not his ass from a hole in
> }the ground."
> }   So there!  The Bible even predicted Steve Chaney!
> }
> Hey, I'm a caver.  I know the difference between my ass and a hole in
> the ground.  We even have a tee shirt to this effect.  (You don't know
> how long I've been waiting for someone to bring this up!)   Quite  
simply,
> Dennis ^H^H^H^H^H^H  Steve is not a caver...
Speaking of caves: this thread  reminds me of the classic line from  
Raiders of the Lost Ark. Rene Belloc (the Vichy archaeologist) was  
anticipating the Propeller child when he said to Dr. "Indiana" Jones  
(Graverobber for Fun n' Profit Extraordinaire),
"Just think: if we leave you here, in ten thousand years, even YOU will be  
worth something". The fact that Belloc did not say, "Just think: if we    
were to leave Chahallaney here for ten thousand years, he might not only  
be worth something but also might be interesting" only proves he was an  
idiot. But at least he was an idiot who occasionally had a good line,  
unlike the defective Borgoid implant mentioned previously.

"Cavers do it in the Dark",
"Kayakers do it in swiftly moving water, then roll over and do it all over  
again", etc. etc.

jeff skorecki-weiss (terrapin trail club treasurer) 
ps - the brisket is going fast, but we've got enough chicken soup for a  
while.   Come on in - we'll leave a light on!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:26:50 GMT
 <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,<1b1mngINNdh1@overload.lbl.gov> <BvtHx4.KvB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray "I don't understand drieux" Swartz) writes:

>	I believe that the way "drieux" treats language devalues it, because no
>meaning is conveyed.

Good ol' driuex conveys pleny of meaning in what he says....I don't know if
this is good or bad, but I understand him...

Having a unique style is NOT bad.  Creative use of language is NOT bad.

 -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
From: guest@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Guest Account)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:08:53 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct11154251@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>I'm curious about the criteria that other people who are pro-choice
>would use to determine whether an organism is a person.  I'm
>pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion rights activists are
>often unclear about this in their public statements.
>
>I'm not interested in debating with pro-lifers who believe that
>personhood begins at conception.  They generally believe this for one
>or both of the following reasons:
>
>1) They believe that a soul enters the body at conception.
>2) They believe that personhood is defined by having a unique genetic
>code.
>
>It seems pointless to argue over these.  (1) is a religious statement
>which one can either believe or not (I don't).  (2) is a semantic
>definition which one can either choose to adopt or not (I choose not
>to).
>
Brian-

You follow this with a collection of synopses of various pro-choice definitions of personhood.  I don't know how you can justify leaving out option (2) above 
since it is merely a boundry point on one end of the spectrum you describe.

I have to warn you - I don't know how long you've been looking in on this ta 
newsgroup, but you are treading on thin ice.  There are some out there ready
to chew you up and spit you out for daring to question some of the conventional
pro-choice wisdom.

For each of the catagories you describe there are epicycles upon epicycles of
debates - going to finer and finer points that finally get lost in the noise.

Since you have decreed that there only two valid reasons for "personhood at
conception" I guess I'm stuck with box #2 since I have no religious basis for
my believing it.  I don't know what you mean by "semantic", but, as a
scientist it is clear to me that conception is an extremely highly significant
event, STATISTICALLY.  The change in state of this "person" from anytime after
conception to after birth can't compares
the unfertalize egg to the fertalized egg.  If you wish to call that a 
"semantic" event, fine.  But if I saw an event with that level of statistical
significance in my lab, I'd publish like crazy.

In the end, however, you will find many pro-choicers who essentially abandon
these 'meaningless' arguments in favor of "its in her body, she gets to decide,
person or not". Period, end of statement.  So forget your silly question.
  

Paul Lebow>
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Keith's question, Patrick's shoots and misses
Date: 15 Oct 1992 07:28:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@krusty

I really don't intend to offend anyone, but both the arguments in the
discussion thread with this title have become incomprehensible to the
casual observer.  This might be my fault for not reading more
carefully, but I do think that both sides reconsidering and re-
stating their opinions could greatly contribute to the debate.

Just a thought,

Mike A.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:45:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



Can anyone offer any proof at all that Planned Parenthood's *current*
agenda is based on eugenics?  (Any commonly used definition of
eugenics will do.)

I'm still surprised that the RCC supports any form of eugenics.
(And yes, Suzanne, the book has an imprimatur - that of the
Archbishop of St. Louis.)

Susan
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Answer to Woodyatt's 'jisms (syllogisms, that is)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:43:25 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <Oct08.005257.18791@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>	When a mother has sex, she consents to take every reasonable step within
>her power to protect the life and safety of the person her act creates.  But she

Hold it!! Nice emotionalism here (and they say this applies only to
women), but a mother ISN'T a mother unless she has a baby.  Baby as in,
being born.

I was not a mother when my first child miscarried.  Nor is any women a
mother just because she has sex.

Geez!

CRS
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Birth-control vaccine
Summary: New Birth Control Vaccine Developed in India
Keywords: Contraception,hCG,beta-hCG
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:53:14 GMT

I am paraphrasing an AP release seen this morning in the Boston Globe of
October 10.

Gracious goodness golly gosh. It seems that a birth control vaccine has
been developed by a team in New Delhi National Institute of Immunology.

An injection is given the woman which caauses an immune reaction in her
body that either prevents an ovulated egg from being fertilized or
prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus wall. The
researchers are not sure which is the case at this point.

The main ingredient in the vaccine is beta-hCG (beta human chorionic
gonadotropin) which causes an antibody antagonistic to hCG (human
chorionic gonadotripin) a hormone essential in sustaining pregnancy.

The effectiveness has been established, and studies are now being done to
evaluate the saftey of the vaccine making sure there are no serious
unintended side effects.  The indications are that the vaccine is
*reversable* so the immunity is not permanent.

.... My commanents.....


If it can be shown the beta-hCG vaccine *prevents* the egg from being
fertilized at all, the main objection of the anti-aborts would be met, and
the whole issue of abortion would be (theortically) moot. Only crazies
like Randal Terry, who is really anti-contraception would object to such a
treatment.  Listen up anti-aborts, the days of your favorite issue are
numbered.

Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
"If you can't love the Constitution, at least hate the Government"


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42948 talk.politics.guns:22214 alt.conspiracy:11334 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6978 talk.bizarre:34373
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:45:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again) (rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: 	This sentence is made up of words.  Words generally have standard
: meanings.  These meanings can be found in the dictionary.  I could not find
: "WarmCuteFuzzies" or "AntiChristianDogma" or even "BigBluedBarrels" in the
: dictionary.  Therefore, they are not words.

uh, you might wanna read some ee cummings. or john dos passos. right
now, i'm in the midst of the latter's u.s.a. trilogy. part of the
richness of the books is dos passos' use of language, particularly the
way he often coins new words by shoving several words together. it
gives the prose a different feel, and often increases the
effectiveness of a given passage.

so get over yourself already, dear.

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:53:38 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: na
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Oct7.145041.7616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.085016.15276@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
> > What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?
> >
> > As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
> > classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
> > a murder.  And that is illegal too.
>
> Are you sure suicide is classified as murder?  I thought murder was
> the taking of someone else's life, and that suicide was classified,
> curiously enough, as suicide.

He's RIGHT!!!  Suicide is MURDER!!!  And anybody committing SUICIDE
should be given the DEATH PENALTY!!!  I know this is the GOD'S HONEST
TRUTH, because I read it in my HOLY BIBLE!!!  (You just have to know
how to read between the lines.)

Next week:  How to get your HOLY BIBLE secret decoder ring.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41947 alt.activism.d:3760
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Let's Play StipUlations..
X-To: DRIEUX, JUST DRIEUX
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:59:00 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...

DJD> DISCLAIMER:  I AM NOT STATING PERSONAL BELIEF.

DJD> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Stipulate: fetus (B) is a person with rights to be weighed against
DJD> ] those of other persons.
DJD> ]
DJD> ] Stipulate: voluntary sex implies voluntary reduction of privacy rights.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DJD> Stipulate: women are not Real Persons But Breeding Mares of the Riech.

DJD> Stipulate: God Divinely Appoints Some of us to Rule and Others Not.

DJD> Stipulate: That Those who Do not Agree with me Have Proven that
DJD> they are Clearly Enemies of GOD and Must Pay Penance for their
                                 ^^^

No, no, they are enemies of *GOiD*...  :-)


DJD> Idolatrous and Blasphemous Heretical Notions, and then Be Burned
DJD> at the Stake.....


I think that you have somewhat misread Don's statement, Drieux.  I don't think
that he was saying that "having sex implies that women should remain pregnant,"
as a few people have said.  When Don made that quote, he was primarily
referring to the fact that for *men*, this stipulation is *already true*, while
it is not true for women.  In other words, he was only playing the Devil's
Advocate, IMHO.

Still, all of these stipulations won't change the current legal reality - women
have a legally won right to renounce parenthood "before the fact," but whan a
man has had sex, he has *no* legal recourse should the woman become pregnant
and decide that she wants the child, and that the child "deserves to have a
father," (read: someone to send money), whether he wants to be a father or not.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Oxymoron : Intense Apathy
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA