HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:32:59 GMT

<1992Nov5.200701.27675@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
><1992Nov4.002024.4669@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>>> If you had been aborted, you would have been killed before YOU could
>>>> exist -- before that which is known as Doug Holtsinger, with all your
>>>> hopes and dreams and individuality, had come into being.  
>
>>> The exact same argument applies to infanticide. 
>
>> Pardon me for butting in here.  The difference is that in the case of
>> abortion, the woman does not want to be pregnant.  There is no one who can
>> be pregnant for her once she finds out she is pregnant.  In the case of
>> infanticide -- there is no need to kill an infant.  If a women can't
>> handle her child she can take it to the authorities where someone else
>> can care for it.
>
>So your argument then, is that infants can be killed when a 
>person can't immediately transfer custody of an infant to 
>another person.  

No, my argument is "infants" can be killed when they inhabit the body of
an unwilling host and the only way to remove them is to kill them.  Note
that in my statement below I use the phrase, "*PART* of the argument..."
[emphasis added].

>> Part of the argument for abortion is inability to transfer
>> gestation to a willing person.  That argument does not exist for infants.
>
>Why restrict yourself to gestation? 

Why not?  It is the stage of a pregnancy that involves involuntary
servitude that preceeds many abortions.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
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: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Summary: Why DOD still hasn't can't argue his way out of a wet paper bag... 
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.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 01:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.200525.8182@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (rocker) writes:
>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>No, because I can destroy trees on private property, 
>
>>Again, this is not correct.  
>[...]
>>If you are going to base your argument on some legal principle, do
>>make sure that there actually IS such a legal principle.
>
>Um, rocker: nice try, but...you're telling this to Doug "No Comprehende
>Facts" Holtsmussen.  

I thought he was going by "David Holtsinger" these days...

>
>
>-- 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Long time no see, Steve.  Care to pop over to alt.politics.homosexuality
for a while?

(Oh, and a note for the BayAreaTalk.Abortion people.  Jan/Feb, 1993.  Watch
for us!)
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Subject: Re: Quote from John Calvin (1509-1564)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:58:07 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: talk.abortion

Previous postings deleted--

>	But you must admit that asserting the right to life of an embryo
>while slaughtering your political and philosophical enemies is right in line
>with much of the thinking of the political right wing today.  Quoting Calvin
>in support of anti-abortion laws is more ironically appropriate than the
>original poster realizes, IMHO.

I agree completely. It is this twisted philosophy that has driven me
further away from the Republican Party that has embraced the extreme
religiou right. I have known many fine people who I disagree with on
various issues of some sort, but the fanatical with (right and left)
that is unable to see the other side as fellow humans worth of dignity
and respect has given a bad name to such terms as liberal,
conservative, and Christian.

However, this is not a religious board, and I do not particularly enjoy
getting into discussions about religion or abortion. These two topics
are, IMHO, the most personal and private issues facing each person.
Government intervention, either through the judicial or legislative
branch, is morally reprehensible.

>	Also IMHO: argument by "authority" is valid in forensics contests but
>otherwise worthless.

What about dissertations :-)?

>>--john chadwick      johnchad@triton.unm.edu
>Chuck

>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Nov7.194731.19500@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:34:50 GMT

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

[ On whether Chief Justice Rehnquist believes in States' rights, or
  tilts towards government authority in general as opposed to individual
  liberties. ]

>From The Brethren, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (largely these
>passages deal with Renqhuist and the 14th Amendment):

>"Even more chilling to the liberals was Renqhuist's ideolodical
>commitment to keep the federal courts out of certain types of cases.
>He argued that state legislatures, state governments, and state
>courts should be given the benefit of the doubt when it came to
>defining the individual rights of their citizens.  Only the most
>extreme abuses could be corrected, he felt.  The Court had no
>business forcing its views on the states; it was not the voice
>and conscience of contemporary society." (p. 262)

>"Renqhuist was also convinced that the Court had helped the federal
>government usurp too much power from the states.  Unhappily,
>there was little he could do about it since most of the states'
>rights issues had been settled by the Court a century or decades
>earlier.  Sn important impediment to limiting the federal
>government's power was a 1968 Court decision (Maryland v.
>Wirtz) that upheld application of a federal minimum wage law to
>nearly 3 million employees of state hospitals and schools.  In the
>previous term, Renqhuist had argued, without much luck (Fry v.
>U.S.), that the Court should consider overruling Wirtz."

OK, the second paragraph is certainly evidence that Rehnquist is a
proponent of States' rights.  Do Woodward and Armstrong say anything
about what the issues in Maryland v. Wirtz and Fry v. U.S. were?  Has
Rehnquist argued for States' rights in any other opinions?


Keith
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why Pro-Lifers must support forced organ donation
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:05:05 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Bx3I9x.G8y@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
(Bernard A Schnaufer) wrote:
> 
> In the case of a pregnancy it is perfectly natural for the baby to be inside 
> the mother to grow.  Human beings cannot grow normally in any other 
> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The mothers body accomodates
> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  Women are designed to be able
> to be pregnant.

Hmm.  Let's see what we can do with this, through the magic of "search and
replace"...

> In the case of cancer it is perfectly natural for the tumor to be inside 
> the host to grow.  Tumors cannot grow normally in any other 
> enviroment at this stage in their lives.  The host's body accomodates
> the new life inside by adjusting accordingly.  People are designed to be 
> able to develop cancer.

Do we have an accurate analogy to your reasoning here, Bernard?  Should we
outlaw surgery removing tumors anytime soon?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Yeah! Slick Willie Won! Yeah!
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:14:49 GMT

In <1992Nov5.161257.16911@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


>To all thoose celebrating Clinton's election,


>I congrratulate Bill for his wonderful comeback and election to the White House
		^^^^^^
That's Governor/President-elect Clinton.

>Although I feel he will not be a good president I am hoping I am wrong.

You're being wrong wouldn't surprise me in the least. :-)

>Many feel that the War is over if FOCA is passed because what states feel
>will no longer be important. 

>The War is not over we have just lost a battle. We may have to wait

Till hell freezes over.

>for another 4 years before another one as important as this one comes up again
>but hopefully Bill will screw up and we get a pro-life presidant with a few
>morals again

>-Jeff Price

REB
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:54:14 GMT

In <1992Nov5.031221.27218@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.200525.8182@advtech.uswest.com> 
>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (rocker) writes:
>>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>No, because I can destroy trees on private property, 

>>> Again, this is not correct.  
>>[...]
>>> If you are going to base your argument on some legal principle, do
>>> make sure that there actually IS such a legal principle.

>> Um, rocker: nice try, but...

>I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
>the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 

If you lived in Maryland, and the tree was a Dogwood, my understanding
of local laws is that the tree had better be a dead one. Of course,
why anyone would destroy a dogwood is beyond me.

>>Steve Novak 


>Doug Holtsinger

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:49:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <adams.720977803@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>All you Anti-abortionists might as well move onto a new pet project like
>>prayer in school or something.  The abortion issue is moot as a political
>>issue.  Clinton has won and will sign the Freedom of Choice Bill.  It's
>>finally over.  Thank God.
>Any bill can be repealed...you won't have pro-choice leaders forever.  The
>price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

This is so true.  Until there is a "Freedom of Choice Amendment" this
will continue to be a political issue it seems.  How sad.  

Eternal vigilance is necessary to ensure freedoms and liberty.
-- 
Brian Charles Kohn               using !bicker's account
Poet-Magician of "Quality"       E-MAIL: bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Originator: jjprice@c00069-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:54:34 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.162618.15721@nas.nasa.gov>, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov3.204620.2480@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|> 
|>>I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
|>>to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
|>>between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
|>>to save her life 
|> 
|>Now don't all you women folk just feel privileged as all hell.  Jeffrey
|>has actually decided that he will allow you to live if the circumstances
|>meet his criteria.  Ain't he one swell guy?  Despite his strong moral 
|>beliefs, he has decided to grant y'all life.  I can hear a big loud 
|>Thank you to Jeffrey now.
|>
Please Please  No Applause No really Please no Applause
Well Thank you Thank you Very Much !!!!! :-)
|>>-Jeff Price
|> 
|>Dan King
|>
Dan,

What exactly is your problem I try to make a concession because I feel that
it is important and you try and make me into a fool? I must admit i do 
appreciate what an ass you are.

-Jeff Price

	"What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as
	 morally acceptable" 
			- Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Nyikos flamefest
Date: 10 Nov 1992 12:32:24 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <bob1.721414164@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>So, Dr. Nyikos, if you intend to keep on slandering me in your
>posts, the rest of the group now knows it for what it is - pure
>slander or a bad case of reading comprehension on *your* part.


He'll keep at it until *you* prove, to *his* satisfaction, and make
sure it's during a period of time when *his* newserver isn't down, now,
that *he* should feel compelled to stop slandering you.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Dangerous Thinker on the LOOSE.
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:22:33 GMT

9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:

Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CAN justify calling infanticide murder


Not to scare you or anything,
but many of the pro_choicers I know
have no fear of calling a square a foursided figure.


and a triangle a three sided figure.....

and a pentangle a pente sided figure....


ciao
drieux


ps: next time try for something radical,
like why Murdering the Pre_concieved is a SIN.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:08:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.161152.27418@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.080322.1006@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>
>>> [Doug, Keegan, Doug, Keegan, etc. ad nauseam] 
>>>
>>>Am I the only one who thinks this infantile bickering could be
>>>more efficiently dealt with via email?  Does anyone else resent
>>>having to sift through this refuse in search of meaningful
>>>debate and discussion?  Do these folks have *anything* better
>>>to do than chant, "I know you are, but what am I?"
>>
>>Trouble is, at least one of the participants *REFUSES* to use email
>>for this crap. At least, he has a long history of refusing to do so. 
>>
>>You're lucky he hasn't started calling you a "net.cop" just for merely
>>_suggesting_ email...
>
>So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?

What business is it of yours?

			 				- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Sorry, Scott, but I think Nyikos had a lobotomy
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.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 04:11:24 GMT

In article <BxJ017.FMy.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <nyikos.721424594@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>[text deleted, before and after]
>#Let me jump in here before you set the sarcasm to "off":
>#
>#Adrienne: "Peter, get your attributions right.  I did not say the above.
>#Will did."
>#
>##/* set sarcasm off */
>
>
>Is there a word for someone this stupid?  

I've heard rumors that druiex is going to release it very soon...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47316 alt.abortion.inequity:4979 soc.men:18939 alt.dads-rights:2576
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 08:30:14 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <BxCntB.5JD@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1defqoINN4ue@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>But as a *general* rule, they do not do this.  Because as a *general* rule,
>>there is no presupposition within the relationship that the man should for
>>some reason shoulder these costs.
>The "GENERAL RULE" is not relevant, though.  The question is whether
>an unmarried man is liable or not, for expenses before birth and/or
>related to the woman herself.

Wait a minute.  What exactly is the difference between a 'general rule'
and a question about an (random) unmarried man and his liability to the
pregnancy of a (random) woman?    

The GENERAL rule would seem to be eminently relevant to a general question.
A GENERAL rule would not necessarily bind one specific case.  Which are you
talking about?

>If the police only check the parking meters once a day,
>you won't be excused by telling a judge that the GENERAL RULE
>is that you can park there free.  You are liable.


Nah.  You are talking about exploiting the practical application of a law,
rather than talking about the law.  I'm talking about the law.  And the
GENERAL rule I refer to above is me talking about the law, not some ex-
ploitation of the realities of police enforcement.

Adrienne regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:46561 soc.motss:46025
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss
Subject: too controversial for NBC
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:50:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

CNN News reported today that NBC has banned the producer's of "A
Different World" from developing stories on the topics of abortion and
homophobia.  During CNN's Showbiz news, the producer's of "A Different
World" discussed how ideas were developed, and how some ideas had to
be fought for.  Producer Debbie Allen said, "I have gray hairs under
my arm pits from that one," when asked about an episode which dealt
with AIDS two season's ago.  Another producer recalled how the
network's attitude toward the AID's show had initially been that this
topic was "unsuitable", and how the producer's had to fight for the
show.  This producer acknowledged that the network had already deemed
show's on abortion and gay-bashing as unacceptable for this season.

My question is, what criterion makes a topic unacceptable?  That the
issue is multifaceted?  That the differing sides are passionate with
their arguments?  That the religious right is involved?

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 love my son and I think this shows we don't hate anybody."
Phyllis Schlafly on homosexuality, San Francisco Examiner (9/28/92) 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Nov2.201905.19118@wdl.loral.com> 
	<bob1.720897182@cos>
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:34:54 GMT


bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>I wonder if anyone is going to try a challenge of Maryland's law,
>Question 6 on the ballot which we just approved 62% to 38% :-).

They would lose.  Even Justice Rehnquist, in his dissent in Roe v.
Wade, agreed that the States were not *required* to restrict
abortions.  Maryland's law could be overturned only if the Supreme
Court ruled that a fetus has Constitutional protections under the
Fourteenth Amendment.  Of the Justices now on the Court, the only ones
who might conceivably do so are Scalia and Thomas, and even that is
doubtful.  (As far as I know, neither has said anything about it.)

The opponents of Question 6 have promised to keep fighting, but it's
hard to see what they can do.  The legislature has no interest in
taking up the abortion issue again at this point.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: abortions, animals, analogous.
Keywords: abortion and animal rights
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:50:35 GMT

In article <markts.721258550@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:
> interesting it is that those who oppose choice are those
> who support animal research. it must be fine to destroy
> a creature of god's, as long as it's furry.
Huh? I'm pro-choice and pro-animal research. What makes you think that
there is any correlation between the two groups whatsoever.

> so which will it be? no animal research or the right for
> abortions. we shouldn't have both.
I fail to see why. Can you explain?

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."