HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
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: From: decay@
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:39:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.025548.12689@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.013523.6206@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.034533.4952@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>You must be blind, Jay, if you can't see lots of folks here who argue for an
>>>abortion "right", even after the point of viability. And after viability, 
>>>what's the essential difference between terminating a human life _in utero_ 
>>>or after birth? 
>>
>>This must be the GROUP Kevin Darcy answering.
>
>What makes you say such an ignorant thing?
>
>>C'mon, Kibbles, if it's so obvious, you must be able to provide the name of
>>even one person who has stated that a woman should be allowed to obtain an
>>abortion that kills the fetus five minutes before she goes into labor...
>
>I have never claimed that such a person exists. I claim only that there
>are Extremist pro-choicers lurking hereabouts who argue for an abortion
>"right", even after the point of fetal viability. As far as I'm concerned,
>such a position is not different in any important respect from condoning 
>infanticide.

"Gee, that's pretty close to my definition too."
    <1992Jun21.012016.066@rotag.mi.org>
--
=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 want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.115822.7033@wetware.com>
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

#> { its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
#> you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
#> level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
#> the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

%A man cannot be said to be "seeking to Kill" his partner because the
%woman consents to the risks involved in sexual intercourse. Consent to
%sexual intercourse implies the consent to the possibility of pregnancy
%and all its attendant risks.

If this doesn't qualify as the MaleChauvinisticPig Quote of the day,
what does? So the man doesn't consent to the risks involved in sexual
intercourse? What?!? You're directly implying that it is entirely the
woman's risk! That's MIGHTY big of you DOD. Maybe you should therefore
desist your entire pro-life campaign, and leave it to the women, since
you apparently feel that it is all *their* business anyway.

I thought about disecting this post for you also, but decided I don't
have the time to show you the flow of logic, besides which, you didn't
seem overly appreciative the last time I offered you this service.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Tired of that subject line. "Pick the 'right' woman, John."
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.194056.26712@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Jul20.170234.4463@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
>><1992Jul17.232737.6202@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>><1992Jul16.214250.1773@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>>><1992Jul11.234114.22394@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>...
>>>Yes, removing the last part of that context does make it more reasonable.
>>>However, I don't want to "need" 'our' women, I want to interact with them
>>>out of choice, not necessity.
>>
>>Sorry.  Your statment is neat ideology, but not very realistic.  We DO need
>>women, and they need us.
>
>Why do you feel we *need* women, and they *need* us?  You are using a very
>all-encompassing turn of phrase.  Perhaps you are not aware of gays and
>lesbians who seem to get along fine without the other gender being an
>active part of their lives?


Don't worry, it's a side effect of sever tunnel vision.  John should feel
free to need away.



>>>I would much rather that the woman I care about do what she feels
>>>most comfortable doing with her own body, because *she* is the one it would
>>>affect the most.
>>
>>I don't view 9 months of pregnancy as affecting the woman more than
>>dying.
>
>Maybe you should wait until you've been pregnant, and faced death, before
>you make that choice for someone else.


But that wouldn't be as *fun*! Plus, John is *intrinsically* correct about
this. He doesn't *need* to think about not ever being a woman.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorad.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bdsuba@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Subject: OR conviction overturned
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Date: 22 Jul 1992 12:51 EST  

                         Judge nulls conviction
                         of abortion protester

                                         WICHITA, Kan

	A state district judge ruled yesterday that life begins at 
        conception and overturned the sentence of an abortion protester 
        convicted of criminal trespassing at an abortion clinic.

	Sedgwick County District Judge Paul W. Clark said Ann Tilson's 
	"wrongful act is forgiven in the eyes of the law under the doctrine 
	of justification by necessity."

	Tilson was arrested during protests last summer at Wichita Family 
        Planning Inc.  She was convicted in municipal court of criminal 
	trespassing, fined $1,000 and ordered to serve six months in jail.  
	She appealed to district court.

	Tilson had contended she should be acquitted because the harm she 
	sought to prevent, abortion, was of greater community concern than 
	the crime she committed, criminal trespassing.

	Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for the ProChoice Action League, said she 
	needed to have lawyers review the ruling.  But she said she is 
	concerned it might set up a revolving door that would allow 
	protesters to appeal their convictions to district court and be 
	acquitted.

This article is from the July 22nd edition of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 
Ohio.  Just in case you all haven't heard, yet.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Silly protest signs
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul23.002338.14811@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price):
>> 
>>      My personal favorite is a guy who marches up and down in front of
>> Genesee Hospital with a sign that reads "Abortion: One and a half
>> million U.S. consumers destroyed every year."
>>      There's nothing like a really _patriotic_ pro-<insult deleted>


>Hey, last year we pro-lifers picketed Dayton-Hudson stores for providing 
>money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. 
>My sign said,

>              "Mervyn's Supports Aborting Future Shoppers"


>Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only thing they understand.

     I am glad that Suzanne's subject heading indicates that she
understands the rationality of her sign. And I'd like to point out that,
given the amazingly rapid turnaround in Idaho when pro-choicers
threatened to boycott Idaho potatoes (with an "e"), it seems that
hitting pro-forcers in the pocketbook may also be the only thing they
understand.

      BTW, Suzanne, did Dayton-Hudson stop funding PP?

                                                        MP


.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:00:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Distribution: world  
Keywords: Chaney does hypocrisy

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>Your intellegence has devolved to the level of a paramecium, not to
>mention your blatant, in-your-face lies. 

>		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 

Anyone _else_ notice any inconsistencies here?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir)
Subject: What Are You Going To Do After The Election?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 04:06:55 GMT


The resolution to the abortion issue (on a nationwide scale) is quite
simple.  If Clinton is elected, the Freedom of Choice Act will be passed
and every woman will have the right to choose for herself whether or not
to have to raise a kid for 18 years. If Bush is elected, he will choose one
or possibly two Anti-Abortion Justices to the Supreme Court and Roe Vs. Wade
will die.  It will then be up to each state whether or not they want to outlaw
abortion.  I'm just curious what cause the religious fanatics will take up next.
My guess is either:

1.  Getting Forced Prayer Back In School
2.  Reinstating The Hollywood Production Codes Of The 1930's to 1950's
3.  Spreading Further Prejudice Against Homosexuals
or
4.  Further Undermining American Democracy By Trying To Get The Entire Nation To
    Adhere To Christian Beliefs


Seriously, if you consider yourself Pro-Choice, please please please vote for
Clinton/Gore.  I admit they are not perfect (I think they are too Conservative),
but they are the final hope for the Right To Choose.  Vote for Bush and Roe Vs.
Wade is gone
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.105456.23402@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy?

>>> In the first place, it is difficult to imagine a
>>> self-governing or self-directing state for an entity
>>> which is completely contained within the body of
>>> another.

>> Why not?

> Where will it direct itself?  What kind of moral
> decisions will it make?

The late-term fetus will make the same moral decisions as a 
newborn infant (if either is capable of doing so, which I
seriously doubt). They are essentially identical entities. 

>> Since a newborn infant is generally incapable of enjoying or
>> expressing such things as 'self-directing freedom', your logic
>> would require us to deny rights to newborn infants.

> There are limits to the expressions of 'self-directing
> freedom' that are possible for a newborn.  The possibilities
> for a newborn are orders of magnitude beyond those of a
> late term fetus, however.

I don't see any difference between a late-term fetus and a
newborn baby. They are essentially identical.

> Also, a newborn baby does not impinge on the bodily
> autonomy of another.

Define "impinge". Does the mother also impinge on the bodily
autonomy of the fetus? If not, why?

>> A viable fetus can be removed from the woman alive and it'll 
>> become a nursing infant. Is a viable fetus autonomous? 

> Not until it's removed.  

A viable fetus can survive without any one particular host, 
just like a newborn infant. 

>> If a woman and an infant were isolated from civilization and the 
>> woman could only offer her breast milk to the infant, then the
>> infant would not be "autonomous" by Mr. Tjoa's definition.

> Please clarify.  Is there food for the woman to eat or not?

Yes, the woman has food available, but she can only offer her
breast milk to the newborn infant.

> If not, she can't nurse forever.  If so, she could choose
> to share the food with the infant, rather than nursing.  Do
> you really wanna know how primitive baby food got processed?

Are you telling me that a newborn baby can live on solid food? 
What kind of solid food? Raw meat?  

>muriel


Doug Holtsinger
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Silliest sign carried by a pro-forcer
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:52:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

(Susan Garvin's great sign story deleted--although I'm not sure the guy
she describes might not have been a pro-choicer having a little fun. But
I bow to her personal knowledge of the situation).

     My personal favorite is a guy who marches up and down in front of
Genesee Hospital with a sign that reads "Abortion: One and a half
million U.S. consumers destroyed every year."
     There's nothing like a really _patriotic_ pro-forcer.



                                               MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:47:03 GMT

From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
> #If an adult teacher at the front of a classroom sneering and smirking as
> #his/her child pupils roll condoms on and off cucumbers, isn't adult/child 
> #sex, what the hell is?   If you filmed it, you'd have a porno movie!
> 
> Suzanne, my SO asked me to tell you that he finds you disgusting,


Too bad he doesn't find that all too frequent classroom scene itself disgusting.


> and he said that he is willing to explain to you just what
> adult/child sex involves so that you will no longer feel a need
> to misrepresent this crime as an innocuous action.


Say, I always knew your brain was operating backwards.

Susan, I was representing an innocuous action, the classroom scene, as a crime.
Innocuous, but disgusting all the same.


> Susan

Suzanne.
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:55:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul21.151223.874@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>...
>This lead me to think.  We all know about Bush flip-flop
>on abortion in 1980 (when picked as Reagan's VP).  We've 
...

Why is it one is said to 'flip-flop' when they change their
mind?????????????

If one has new found evidence/convictions, why is is so bad 
(or at least played up as being so bad) to change to a new position?
Wouldn't you do the same or are you not open to new information?

>                                             ...     We know
>know the roumours that Barbara Bush is pro-choice (When
>asked specificly about this roumour by Baba Walters, Barbara 
>gave a vauge answer about not always agreeing with George's 
>positions).  ....

I believe, Mrs. Bush said (paraphrasing) that she and The President 
agreed on the essentials and that the parts they didn't agree
on were minor points and that if she stated which these were,
Walters (or the media in general) would emphasize the differences
and not the similarities.  DOES THIS MAKE MRS. BUSH PRO-CHOICE OR
DOES IT CONFIRM HER STATEMENTS?

>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Curly & Moe are gone but not Larry! (was Re: Chaney goes down on himself yet again
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:24:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.031108.21454@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Jul24.001713.19641@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>> Planned Parenthood DID run an advertisement with the statement that
>> Margaret Sanger died of an illegal abortion.
>
>I suspect that either you're quoting lies from anti-abortion propaganda,
>or that you're lying yourself.

No. They were lying when the doctor said "It's a boy" to your mother.

>> Maybe THEY misprinted, but no one around HERE misread what we saw.
>
>"We saw"?  You claim to have seen this ad yourself?  Then it should be easy
>for you to prove it - how about a reference.

Sacramento News & Review 1991 Women's Issue. 

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield)
Subject: Re: why the schools need to teach about sex: a sad example of ignorance
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:42:20 GMT

In <nti74do@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:
>|since I'm speaking up, I'd do it just once, and say what I've
>|got to say:  I believe the choice is whether to conceive a
>|child or not, *not* what to do with the child ("fetus") after
>|it is conceived.  You've made your choice before you're 
>|pregnant.  If you can't live with that, don't have sex. period.
>|end of discussion :-)

>I'm sure all the married couples who don't want more kids
>are really happy to hear that you've made their sexual
>decisions for them.

Oh, boy here we go.  I knew this would happen.  

>But you do seem quite ignorant about sex.  Maybe you should
>ask your parents to sit down with you & talk about birth control.
>You know, contraception.  Ways to prevent pregnancy.  (You
>learn something new every day, don't you!)  Some methods are
>98% effective, when used properly or in conjunction with a 
>second method.  Pregnancy is unlikely to happen to couples
>using birth control.

I'm not an idiot, and don't appreciate being treated as such.
If I had said "use birth control", I would have heard about
that %2 when it fails.  

[ a bunch deleted ]

>So now you've learned something about sex.  Maybe you should
>think about your statement above in the light of all this new
>information.  Maybe you should rephrase, and say something like,
>"If you can't live with [pregnancy], don't have intercourse
>without using birth control.  period."

I'll accept that.  The point I was attempting to make remains the
same.  If you have sex, you have made your "choice" already.
Grow up and be responsible for your own actions.  All this 
individual rights crap gets people to think that they don't
have responsibilities, only rights.  Buzzt.  wrong answer.

>Then we'll sit down & have a nice chat about compassion, which
>is probably another new concept for you.

compassion - for whom?  The mother, father, or child?  
But you're right.  campassion is important.  


-- 
Todd Greenfield
tgreen@iastate.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Preservation of Ones Species
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:30:48 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>And when we attempt to rise above in search of a moral code, we get
>conflicting signals. Most Christian churches still teach that abortion
>is wrong, but their holy book says that God commands abortions in the
>adulterous (Num 5:12-31).

Brian,

  What is OK for God is not always OK for man.  This trial by test is
imposed by God for the purpose of judgement upon an adulterous woman.  I
agree 100% that the verses clearly imply giving some form of abortificant
to the woman.  But it is under clearly defined circumstances, and only
under those circumstances.  At most, you can draw the conclusion that God
commands that children conceived by adultery by aborted.

  Many, many other verses imply that the baby is a person, and assign such
characteristics to it.  As such, it is easily understood why Christians
decide to oppose abortion on demand.  The issue with me is that I refuse to
apply my religious moral laws to society as a whole, because I don't want 
anyone else applying their religion defined morals on me.

  As I've said before, I believe that it is proper for Christians to
abstain from having or procuring abortions.  That doesn't mean it should be
illegal.  Christians are instructed to avoid sexual immorality, too.  That
doesn't mean it should be illegal.  We are to live to a HIGHER standard
than the rest of society.

  Sadly, many fall way short, and have missed the main message: love and
tolerance, and evangelization through education, not the point of a sword.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality