HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 to speak of...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:42:13 GMT

In article <C015K3.Ip4@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
>In article <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel 
>Nelson) writes:
>
>....
>> In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan 
>Idler) w
>> What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
>> dies?  What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
>> Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
>> or self-induced abortion?
>> 
>> muriel
>
>> 
>
>Guess what Muriel? There were fewer abortion related deaths back then than 
>now -
Care to provide evidence to support this? Here, try this:
Total morbidity for D&C and Suction abortions: 8.8 complications per
1000 abortions, or 0.88%.
Total mortality for D&C and suction abortions: 4.0 per 100,000
abortions, or 0.004%.
Compare that to complication rates as high as 20% from illegal
abortions.
(Source: _Maternal Child Care_ 14th edition,
Reeder/Mastroianni/Martin)

>try a different line of rhetoric.  I know, the standard, "back alley, coat 
>hanger" image is so juicy and hard to resist by pro-aborts.  Keeps those 
>undecided folks shaking in their shoes. 
>
You mean, like lying and inventing statistics is so juicy and hard to
resist for pro-forcers?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 21:17:46 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan04.025841.10057@watson.ibm.com>

Well, Larry, if "just because a man slept with a woman does not give him the
right to control her body", then why does just because a man slept with a
woman and she chooses to HAVE the baby, she get the right to receive money
from him to support her baby?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: MEET GEORGE TILLER, LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST Part Two
Summary: Will wonders never cease? 
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.
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria, pro-death
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:35:22 GMT

In article <BzyoB9.BvE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

[Yet another heart-wrenching article about cruel heartles abortionists
deleted].

I think that doctor needs to find some new staff.  None of the three doctors,
my neurologist, my dentist, or my ID specialist will even see me without
prior arangements being made.

--
=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???=
="I could have missed the pain, but I'd have had to miss...
=the dance"-Garth Brooks
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Followup-To: news.net-cops.kevin-darcy
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:03:34 GMT

In article <nyikos.725159376@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> Does Susan Garvin ever return these big favors Kaflowitz does for her
>> and the rest of the talk.abortion inner circle of women?

Excuse me, but Kebbin Darcy owns the sycophant.flame franchise
in these newsgroups -- you'll have to check with him before you 
trot out this sexist nonsense.  After all, Kebbin wouldn't want 
you to mistakenly surpass his own talent for spotting a sycophant 
behind every tree to say nothing of his ability to create inner
circles or clubs where none exist.

---------------
I notice that you have nothing to say on the actual issue,
but just a pathetic attempt to act as though my words produced
your stupidity.  I can take no credit for your stupidity,
"Doctor."
			<1992Dec28.141244.9494@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
			decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:40:03 GMT

<1992Dec21.032911.22147@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>>>First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>>>pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>>>are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>>
>>Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>>Christian.  
>
>Well, putting aside for the moment the question of whether "pro-abortioners 
>on this net" are representative of "pro-abortionists" in general, you haven't 
>even LOGICALLY refuted his statement, Gordon, since he said "pro-abortionists
>OR pro-choicers", and at best you've only addressed the "pro-abortionists"
>part of that.

Very good, Kevin.


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.
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: who got whom pregnant (was: Spoken Like a True ProLifer)
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:05:59 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
[...]
|>I'm still not sure why you brought up the driving analogy.  But anyways, 
|>you also do not have a right to force me to stay pregnant against my will.  
|>You do not have a right to force me to use my body to support a fetus.  You 
|>are not forced by law to donate bone marrow or kidneys to save other people's 
|>lives.  Why should pregnant women have less rights than you?

|I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  

No sir, no men involved!  Just that wanton sluttish woman!

|I'm simply forcing you NOT to murder the helpess, unwilling victim 
|of your hormonal lack of control.  

So you feel that forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies
is just punishment for their engagement in sex.  And once they've
given birth, you'd like once again use force to take their
children away from them.  What equivalent punishment do you
suggest for the men involved?  Nine months of slavery?  Organ
donation?  What, praytell?

|I'm not forcing you to DO anything you haven't already done.
[...]

So pregnant women don't DO anything, hmm?  In that case, who
needs 'em?  If pregnancy doesn't involve DOING anything beyond
the initial act of intercourse/other fertilization method, then
why involve the women at all?  Let the fetus do that big nothing
all on its own!

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what 
it does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is 
painful and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts." -Kevin Welch,
a pro-lifer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53960 talk.politics.misc:66093 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11325
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: (Kevin Darcy) writes supposedly `specious' pro-choice arguments:
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:45:59 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <C014os.ID3@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>They distract people from the real issue - abortion kills children.

Nonsense - abortion is about the safest operation around; the pregnant
female almost *never* dies, whether she's an adult *or* a child.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In respect of Suzanne
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:30:42 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):

>> I disagree with Suzanne on nearly everything, but I'll grant her this -
>> she's no coward.

>Hey thanks, Gordon!

>(Speaking of cowards, you know, I really do have a hard time understanding
> this cultural widespread fear of babies!)

Hi, Frau F. Just taking a moment for a X-mas post. Again, you catch
my attention by posting something awkwardly expressed, at best. Fear
of babies? Where? Those of us outside the 18 and under, living at home
age bracket really don't need to "fear" babies. We just don't want them
at the moment. Then again, you seem continually unable to grasp the simple
concept that one does not want a CuteFuzzyWarmEinstein.

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

Merry X-mas to all. :)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:44:23 GMT


>Talking and doing are two separate things.  Please remember, it would
>never have occurred to me to compare the abortionsist to Nazis.  I am
>merely using your analogy.  Obviously your analogy doesn't do much to
>convince me that pro-choicers aren't actually pro-abortionists.
>Please, I'm not some abortion fanatic.  I merely wanted to point out
>a fallacy of Suzanne's and I got drawn in to this argument of semantics.

Well, try this. I am a pro-choice, but I am personally against abortion. The
reason I am a pro-choice is because I find the thought of forcing my believes
upon others as horrible, outrageous and cruel. As an analogy, if there were a
muslim dictator in my country and he made a law which prohibited me from eating
pork meat just because he believed that it was wrong then I think I would have
fled the country!



Onar.
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:16:10 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec21.012812.8797@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.223810.17255@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>|> <1992Dec18.213300.4979@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>|> >
>|> >First of all, I'd like to point out that most pro-abortionists or
>|> >pro-choicers are Christian.  Secondly, there do exist atheists who
>|> >are pro-life/anti-abortion.  So, just what exactly are you implying here?
>|>
>|> Sorry Mike, but the three admitted pro-abortioners on this net are hardly
>|> Christian.  I'd like to know where you get your stats.
>
>I admit that I don't have any statistics to
>flash around, but I know many pro-abortionists that are Christian.

I'd tend to doubt it.

>Do you really think that the whole pro-choice movement is run by atheists?

No, he was talking about the three people on the net who claim to be
pro-abortion; he was saying *nothing* about the millions of us who are
pro-choice.

>Understand, that I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice synonymously.

If you want to be understood, you probably shouldn't.

>Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me, but if your fighting
>for the right for people to have abortions, aren't you pro-abortion?

No, because you're not fighting for people to *have* abortions, but for them
to have the *right* to *choose* abortion, if that's what they feel is best
in their particular situation.

>Who cares whether or not you would use that right yourself, if you are
>pro-abortion-rights, you are pro-abortion.

Not only are you wrong, but by referring to them as pro-abortion, you're
insulting many pro-choicers who are against abortion, but nevertheless
feel that forcing their moral beliefs on others through laws would be
a greater evil.

To pick an extreme example, think of people defending the rights of Nazis
to speak.  They might be pro-free-speech for Nazis, but that's a far cry
from being pro-Nazi.

>This is definitely one discussion in which I do not wish to get entangled.
>I thought my first point was self-evident, and was not prepared to
>defend it with stats.  My second point, I thought, was definitely not
>apparent to Suzanne Forgach, but true since I know of at least one (i.e. me).
>Her implication that atheists and atheists alone support abortion is false,
>so I felt obligated to post.

And your implication that pro-choice = pro-abortion is false, as (apparently)
is your claim that most pro-abortionists (as opposed to pro-choicers) are
Christian.  Gordon felt obliged to correct you on the latter point, and I
feel obliged to correct you on the former.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:40:30 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Dec29.182956.21402@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <C00L3K.HwF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 

>Pro-choicers have stated that
>the child is inside the woman, which is a fact.  Why does this
>fact carry moral weight?

Because it's presence there means that any attempt to regulate it's well-
being makes it necessary for the government to place controls upon the
woman's body.  This violates what I believe to be a basic right of
bodily autonomy.  I feel that it is immoral for the government to 
exercise this power over another, *especially* in absence of any
crime or wrongdoing on the part of the person so controlled.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 06:47:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.195635.8471@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.191949.27148@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>
>> Zygote and fetus are medically correct terms.  
>
>And 'gravida' is the medically correct term for a 
>pregnant woman.  
>
It is *a* medically correct term DODie, not the only one by any means.

>> I know they don't fit your political agenda, but there
>> it is.  
>
>The only people with political agendas are those
>who are inconsistent in their terminology.  You
>should either stick to 'medically correct' terms,
>or use the terms 'woman' and 'child'. 
>
"Woman" is perfectly correct medically terminology DODie. We use the
word all the time, and there is no confusion. "Child" on the other
hand, is not nearly so clear, and is, instead, replaced by such terms
as fetus, neonate, adolescent, and other terms which are not so apt to
be confused or misrepresented.
But congratulations DODie! You managed not to post any outright lies
in this article! Your therapy making progress finally?

--
                  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: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
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.
Keywords: Argument Clinic
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:48:10 GMT

In article <1hv08cINNl9c@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (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.
>|> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.
>
>If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
>I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
>*another persons* body.
>Try not to post without engaging yoru brain, or at least your spelling checker.
>
	Yes, it's *two*, *two*, *two* time-wasters in one!  Yes, we get not
only the Pee-Wee Herman Defense ("I know I am, but what are you?") but the
now-classic Spelling Flame.  Such a deal.
	Just for the halibut, I'll actually point out once again that zygotes,
embryos, and fetii are not persons, no matter how often or how loudly anti-
abortion types insist that they are.  Legally, this is a matter of fact.
Otherwise, it's a matter of belief.
	Y'all can return to the Argument Clinic.  That'll be 5 pounds sterling.
Thankyew.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction"
		"No it isn't."
			-- Monty Python, series 3, show 1


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:39:12 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec28.183805.33934@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>In <BzsD10.KxJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1992Dec22.194559.23077@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>>  While women might not be able to name the father in a
>>>few cases, I think this number would be dwarfed by the number of men
>>>required to pay child support in your case 1, where there would *be* no
>>>child if abortion had remained legal.
>>
>>Again, the point of (1) and (2) is to say that the number of births
>>may well be reduced.
>
>Again, I would tend to doubt it.
>
>>If abortions were illegal AND men got custody and child support 50%
>>of the time, I would bet that the number of unwanted pregnancies
>>would go down.
>
>But if abortion were legal, I would bet that the net effect would be
                      ^^^^^
>that the number of unwanted *births* would *increase*.

Oops - that should be *illegal*.  Sorry...

>>Again, I'm discussing a hypothetical case, not proposing anything.
>
>Then I think we should just agree to disagree.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Okay, who sent the anonymous e-mail?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 19:05:16 GMT

In article <1161@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>[There's a discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh about people being
>"kicked out" of unmoderated newsgroups.]
>
>In article <1992Dec24.231507.26670@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:
>#   A while back I ran into something like this on talk.abortion.  I admit
>#that I initially went overboard in the content of my postings, but I got
>#flamed worse after I tried to tone down my articles.  I even got flamed
>#after acknoweldging the need for compromise and attempting to find
>#common ground.
[...]
>#Most of my articles had responses telling me how
>#stupid I was or thatI should leave the net until I 'learn proper procedures',
>#similar to what happened to Chaney and others, no matter how logical or
>#polite my postings
>#
	Polite?  Logical?  Compromise??  
	Say, does anybody actually know where Booth postings demonstrating
these characteristics appeared?  I don't recall seeing 'em in t.a.  Of course,
news delivery at this site was interrupted for a bit, so maybe I missed the
kid's change of heart.
	Or maybe this is just another load of dingoes kidneys...
	In any case, he's better off in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.  The Rushies
are less likely to flame him for being self-righteous and smug, since they
seem to enjoy that sort of thing.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous
		without ability."	-- George Bernard Shaw
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:32:23 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

margoli@watson.IBM.com writes of kebbie:
-> Mark, you must be confused.  Kevin keeps telling us that he is *not*
-> arguing in favor of legislation.  (I'm afraid that I'm confused as well,
-> since it sure looks to me like he's arguing for legislation, but there's
-> probably a fine semantic point that we're
-> overlooking.)

i doubt you're overlooking anything. i haven't seen
kebbie argue for legislation. what i ahve seen him do,
over and over, is make the same arguments that those
who wish legislation make (while denying that he wants
legislation, of couse).
Newsgroups: talk.abortion