HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:45:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.030116.3393@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>-> >Kevin, in the common parlance of t.a, you are a hypocritical lying
>-> >twit. Since you consider common parlance to be sufficiently accurate
>-> >for this forum, then you will, of course, stop trying to deny the
>-> >labels you have been given, correct?
>-> 
>-> This is about the flimsiest, most contrived excuse I've ever seen to get
>-> in some cheap name-calling. Very disappointing, Mark. Surely you can do
>-> better than that.
>-> 
>-> The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
>-> "common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.
>
>don't be so modest, kebbie. i believe you're the
>sole remaining person still posting who has been
>elected to a lifetime term on the council of
>net.idiots. your reputations spans newsgroups.
>you're famous. takecredit where credit is due
>kebbie. there are many idiots on the net. but you're
>an elected net.idiot.
>
Didn't Suzzie Forgasm get simoultaniously elected to the council of
net.idiots, the net.stupid.conspiracy and net.rabid.fundi all at the
same time? Were hers merely 1 year memberships or something? If so, we
should hold another election. She's surely due for permanent
recognition. 
This will be such a tough year. with Suzzie, DODie, and PHoney all
trying so hard. And now Airplane Boy seems to be tossing his hat in
the ring (to the sound of much of net.land tossing their cookies into
the ring).

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:39:18 GMT

In article <1iqk4fINNflh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:

> None of us has the right to impose our views on this
> subject on anyone else, least of all the government. 

I agree, none of us should have the right to impose our views 
about abortion on an innocent child in the womb.

> How would it be if the government decided to make abortion *mandatory* 
> in certain cases.

If the respect for human life plummets much further than it 
already has, I would expect it.

---
Doug Holtsinger
finger this account for documentation showing that Roe v. Wade
is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:55:18 GMT

In <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>> 
>>> 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.

Calling Dr. Nyikos, calling Dr. Nyikos. I believe you were looking
for some proof that what flows in Ms. Forgach's veins is something
less than the 'milk of human kindness'.

>But be that as it may, I know you don't have access to my mailbox, and 
>you must have missed those followups as well.   By the way, I've been on
>the net longer than you have been.


>>> Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
>> 
>> How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>> fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  

>Because if he'd said the opposite, that pregnancy takes 2, I guarantee that
>Garvin, or somebody of like political persuasion, would have claimed that
>_that_ statement was "idiocy".


>> Or are you saying you
>> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>> really did that.)
>> 
>> --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.

Ms: Forgach, you may wonder at my buTTing in (small spell flame) but, while
I doubt we will ever agree on the main topic of t.a, you never cease to
amaze me with the crassness of your posts. I'm sure Patrick has flamed
you from time to time, but in all the time I have been in this group I
have never seen a post where Dale flamed you in any manner. Do try and
stick to attacking your opponents only and let's leave innocent
bystanders out of the battle, there's a dear child.

>SF

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:12:48 GMT

In article <aidler.726345716@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>
>>>People (men and women) who do not want to have
>>>children should abstain from sexual relations
>>>(if they desire to curtail their children
>>>for a time) or undergo sterilization (if they
>>>decide they are finished forever).
>
>>Imagine how heartwarming I find it that you have unilaterally decided
>>that I should not be allowed to consummate my marriage, or that I should
>>have to undergo major surgery, because I would find pregnancy to be a
>>terrible burden at this time.
>
>>Imagine how warmly my spouse would react when you mention that my spouse
>>is not permitted to have sex, either.
>
>By all means make whatever choices you and your spouse
>feel most comfortable with.
Thank you for joining us in the pro-choice camp Idler.

>However, the least the both of you can do is agree to
>accept responsibility for your progeny.
>
I'm certain they will. You *do* know that abortion is aresponsible
method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy don't you?

--
                  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: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
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, 8 Jan 93 15:41:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.130421.6568@comp.lancs.ac.uk> daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.233902.5458@ncsu.edu> 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...
	Sort of a telling argument against GUIs, ain't it?  >:-)>
	But a strong one in favor of kill files.  Price has been in mine for
a while now.

The_Doge
ObQuote:  "Are you abnormal?  Then you're probably BETTER than most people!"
                                        -- Rev. Ivan Stang

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: An Item for Dougie
Keywords: trees
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:52:17 GMT


This is a short excerpt from a story which appeared on 
clari.local.florida.  [The person I spoke with at Clarinet said that
properly attributed excerpts are not considered to violate Clarinet's
news copyright.]

-------------------
	MAITLAND, Fla. (UPI) -- 

[...]

egg was brought to the Maitland facility Dec. 29 after a tall pine tree
supporting its nest was cut with a chain saw on private property in a
wooded area of Pinellas County.

[...]
	The commission is investigating the tree-cutting incident, which was
a violation of several county, state and federal laws.
-------------------

                 -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line """"arbitrary""""
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 14:38:33 GMT

In a previous article, markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) wrote:
>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>>In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>>Once again, Ms. Smith went and had sex without using her brain.  
> 
>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
> 
>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

Assuming the people involved know enough about sex, that sounds reasonable.  
However, consent to the chance of pregnancy is still not the same as 
consenting to continuing a pregnancy for nine months.

>>You keep refering to a woman who 
>>consented to sex.  What kind of punishment would you hand out to men who 
>>consent to sex?  Do you think only women should suffer bodily harm for the
>>horrible "crime" of consenting to sex?
> 
>The father has an ethical responsibility to meet his child's needs. That 
>he doesn't experience the same physiological responsibility as the mother
>is, again, a simple fact of biology. (Is this "inequitable"? Would you
>rather reproduce by sporulating? Go complain to Mother (!) Nature.)

Why does the father only have an ethical responsibility, when you'd make the 
woman have a _legal_ responsibility to carry to term?  

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:43:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.043830.9305@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan1.021611.412@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> }In article <1992Dec31.010805.20244@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
|> }>
|> }>It seems that Gregg Skinner, Paul Lebow, and Michael P Noonan among others
|> }>think that slavery is a good analogy to abortion.  I maintain that there is
|> }>no good analogy to abortion nor is there any good analogy to pregnancy.
|> }
|> }If you lack the ability to abstract from actual, mundane EXPERIENCES of 
|> }pregnancy and/or abortion, Galen, how do you expect to ever discuss these
|> }issues intelligently?
|> }
|> }Perhaps you should consider just leaving the discussion to those of us who 
|> }CAN abstract... 
|> 
|> Well, I might, except then people like Kevin Darcy might jump in with
|> no counter.  Perhaps it escaped you, but using slavery as an analogy
|> is often unproductive, as many are confused as to who is the oppressor
|> and who is the oppressed, as I think Mark pointed out, in stating that
|> many pregnant women, not the fetus, felt enslaved.

Many slave owners felt justified in their actions because the slaves
"oppressed" them by demanding food and housing.  They felt that the
slaves were like property that had to be taken care of but could be
thrown away if not needed or wanted.  I would contend, as would many
in this forum, that providing for someone does not give one rights to
enslave them or to end their existence.  I don't think the analogy can
go any further than this except to provide legal precedent for
protecting the weak from the strong.  Of course there are any number
of precedents for the opposite.

|> To put it rather bluntly, Kevin, I tend to care more for the "actual,
|> mundane EXPERIENCES" as you put it, than I do for whatever abstracts you
|> might care to construct.

I know you address Kevin directly, but since I am listed in the
original article, I feel I am included in your implication that
I "don't care".   Of course we all care about the "actual mundane
EXPERIENCES."  Your implication that I don't is an insultuous and
unconstructive.  Discussion of possible analogous situations does
not imply lack of concern regarding the real issue.

[snip]
|> --
|>        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...

Mike Noonan
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Statistics
Date: 11 Jan 1993 13:14:07 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan11.142445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>A comment:  over 20 million unborn infants have been aborted since RvW in 
>1972.  This is three times the number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in 
>World War II.

Ya know, Stokes, it's probably an order of magnitute less than the number of
dogs and cats that have been purposely killed because of the dog and cat popu-
lation exposion, too.

Folks make reference to the cheapening of human life on talk.abortion all the
time.  And then someone comes up with a gem like this!?!?

3 fetuses don't come *close* to valuing one living breathing human being
who was killed as a result of a world dominion scheme gone mad!!!

What a *slam* to jews everywhere!!!!

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:21:34 GMT

In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?

A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
right to life.


Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:31:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.172612.17505@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>I'd like to ask a simple question: where in the New Testament does
>     either Jesus or God say, "I leave it unto you, my followers,
>     to persecute those who you deem in the wrong."?

No, but we are instructed to care for the fatherless.  Would it have been
wrong for Christians to send pictures of dead Jews to Nazi leaders, or
even to blockade the Auschwitz deathcamp?

I do recall
>     a passage where Jesus, in a parable, talked of two men going
>     before the temple to ask for forgiveness.  One said something
>     to the effect of, "Forgive me Lord.  I am a sinner."  The 
>     other (perhaps a Pharisee?) said somthing to the effect of,
>     "Aren't you glad I'm not like that sinner over there-- me,
>     your ever-faithful servant?"  It would seem the writer of
>     the above paragraph would fall in line with the second
>     personage. 

Thank you for your kind and gracious words.  I did not realize that you had
the ability to look into my heart and see if I were penitent or arrogant.

>But, to get back to the topic Link wrote about, why must there
>     only be two sides to the issue?  Why must there only be
>     pro-life and anti-life?  Why not a side whereby we let 
>     people make up their own minds, and let God take care of 
>     them in the end?

Everbody makes up their own mind anyway, and God does take care of it.  If
I wanted to take a machine gun and kill people, God would take care of me
in the end.  But if you were present, you might want to try to stop me from 
harming the innocent.  No matter what, it does come down to the question,
"Is abortion murder?"  If abortion is murder (as I obviously believe), then
it is wrong to kill the children.  If it is not, abortion could still be a
sin for a Christian to get one, because she would have to trample over the 
consciences of other Christians to get one.

So why not let God do the job of
>     judging and condemning (I'm sure He'll do a much better
>     job of it than Link ever could)?

God certainly will take care of it.  But in the mean time, babies are being
killed.

Link Hudson.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:57:58 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>FROM:   Doug Holtsinger <dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu>
>
>In article <C0G8oI.6E1@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>
>> I personally find it repugnant to carry dead unborn babies around in a jar.
>> Most would consider it disrespectful to lug a corpse of a fully grown
>> person around, even if one were lugging aroud a dead Jewish body during
>> the holocost to make a point.  But I can see why they would do that, or
>> send pictures of aborted babies to advocates of abortion.
>
>I remember reading about a public opinion poll conducted during the 
>early 1960s which showed that 60% of the public disagreed with the
>protest tactics of people who sought civil rights reforms.  Eight 
>months after the poll was conducted, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was 
>passed. 
>
>Doug Holtsinger

Well.  Let's see how that works.

1962:   "My god, Martha, I think there's a nigger in here ordering lunch!"
Disapproval rate: 60%

1992:  "My god, Martha, that priest is carrying a dead fetus in his hands!"  
Estimated disapproval rate: 80%.

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C----> If 80% find fetus hoisting a bit much, then it looks like
;;| >-  `.__),; curtains for the pro-choicers in 6 months. Airtight. Elegant.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55390 talk.religion.misc:25965 alt.atheism:25787
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:44:24 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> Why do people get so shocked to see the fetus-in-a-bottle?

Because it looks repulsive.  Same reason people complained about the Benetton
advert which featured a live newborn baby covered in blood and mucus.  It may
be a normal part of the human reproductive cycle, but I don't want to look at
it while I'm having my breakfast.

> Many people today just believe the lie that the fetus is a lump of tissue.

I take it you have evidence to suggest otherwise?


mathew
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:59:16 GMT

In <29608@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29563@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>>WHere is the implicit consent to the possibility of lost bodily autonomy?
>>>Another free clue: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy

>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

>More word play. A logical extension of this "thinking" would be the
>following:

>Crossing the street = possibility of Mark Pundurs running me down
>Consent to crossing the street = consent to Mark Pundurs running me down

The difference is that nobody's rights are violated when you jump
out of my way (or sue my ass later). Abortion violates the z/e/f's 
right to life.

YES, I realize I must now defend the proposition that a z/e/f has
the right to life. However, some pro-choicers in t.a have claimed
that the z/e/f's humanity is irrelevant -- that human or not, the
z/e/f can ethically be evicted by the mother from her womb. Do we
agree that this pro-choice argument is wrong -- that the z/e/f's
right to life is the crucial point?

>>Fine. Now, where's the irony?

>Since you insist on asking, I guess I'll have to explain it to you.
>These are the type of bumper-stickers found on the religious right's
>cars. 

I knew that.

>In addition to this, remember that they think god is great; a
>beautiful concept, and the thing to aspire to (heaven is, anyway). Now
>also remember that hell is suppossed to be a rather unpleasant place,
>torture and all that, you know. On top of all that, recall that the
>bumper-sticker proclaims that the road to hell is bumper-to-bumper,
>while the one to heaven is implied to be empty, indicating that all
>the people would rather go to hell, and wait in traffic for it, than
>kowtow to god. This implies that there must be something rather unpleasant
>about god, and his heaven. 

There is. In Christian theology, God expects you to do difficult things 
like love your neighbor as yourself. If you don't, you choose an eternity
apart from God (aka hell); but many people go for the short-term gain.

Nothing ironic here.

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion