HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:33:45 GMT

Martin writes:
>Brian writes:
>>Think of it this way.  Would you support legislation that would
>>require you to donate a lung or a kidney or some other part of your
>>body that you can survive without in order to save a life?
>>
>Notice that abortion is ACTIVE killing.  The situation you describe
>about saving someone else by donating involves someone who is dying
>on his/her own without your ACTIVELY killing that person.

You didn't answer the question, but I'll assume your answer, then, is
"no, I wouldn't support legislation that would require me to donate
parts of my body to save a life."

Whether or not it's active killing is irrelevant.  The truth is that
there's a life in the balance, and by your decision, the life has
died.  This is obviously a bad thing, so why don't we pass laws to
eliminate that choice?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Useful Delimiters of the Debate
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:57:44 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>	Anyway, birth is arbitrary.  If you can set the mark at
>birth, someone else can set it at "being a member of the Master
>Race."  There is no difference.

Yes, of course choosing birth as the moment of personhood is somewhat 
arbitrary.  So's conception.  So's intercourse.  So's ovulation. So's
myelenation.  Pick one.  If you're going to pick one for legal
purposes, make sure 1) you can enforce it, and 2) the cost isn't too
high.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: About Parental Consent and Funding too:
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:17:41 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>We have a major consistency problem when it comes to parental consent
>abortion laws. 

I don't.  Consider a 14 year old girl who's pregnant.  What does she
risk by giving birth?  Her life, her health, her emotionaly
well-being, the prospect of raising a child for 18 years, and the
possibility of being trapped in poverty for the rest of her life.
What do her parents risk?  The prospect of raising one more child for 4
years.  Given the number of homeless children in the US, I rather
doubt that all parents are more interested in the well-being of their
daughters than they are in their own morality.

>4) To give a child a right to tell parents that they can do what they
>want and the parents have no power to stop them, is a classical
>example of anti-family, anti-parental rights legislation. 

Say Chaney.  If you think that children shouldn't have the same rights
as their parents or other adults, why do you think that a fetus should
have a right to life?  After all, if your willing to take away most
rights, why not one more?

>Abortion is classified as ELECTIVE surgery. Read your medical
>textbooks on that: when it does not have to do with saving the woman's
>life, her seeking an abortion is called elective surgery. That means
>it is no more necessary than face lifts, liposuction, or nose jobs -

Or your continued "education".  Why don't you stop wasting taxpayer's
money and quit school so you can work at preventing some more
abortions?

>Fellow pro-lifers can have fun with this; I'm swamped with midterms
>and will only have time to post an article every now and then. 

Thank goodness for small favors.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:24:15 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame,misc.legal

In article <1992Oct4.205149.3755@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> Either you're extremely ignorant, then, or you're just trying to cover up a 
> whole bunch of lies with this one, because you've posted lots of untrue 
> stuff to the Net; the lie about me threatening to sue Lefty, for instance. 

Sigh.  Here we go _again_.

The last time you brought this matter up, Mr. Darcy, I ended up explaining
what it was you were blathering about.

You ended up looking exactly like the incredible fool that you are.

Since I'm feeling magnanimous today, and in the interests of allowing both
sides equal time on this issue, why don't _you_ explain to the studio
audience exactly what you threatened me with and why.

I predict that you'll end up looking exactly like the incredible fool that
you are.

> For someone who professes innocence so intensely, you sure as hell don't
> seem to bother checking your facts before you spew all kinds of 
> disinformation, Cochran.

"Mr. Kettle!  There's a Mr. Pot on the phone for you!"

> It's possible, I guess, that you really BELIEVE
> all this shit you repeat, but don't you feel any duty to at least make a
> _cursory_ check of an assertion's veracity before you state it?

"Mr. Kettle!  He says it's _urgent_!  Something about the legal principle
of 'servitus tigni immitendi'"

> I think a rude awakening awaits you, Keith.

I'd say the same to you, but I've long since lost any hope that you
might _ever_ wake up.

> Get a sense of humor sometime.

Tell me about your "sense of humor", Kevin.  What do you find funny? 
Making ridiculous threats in public?  Calling abuse victims abusers?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41672 soc.singles:27409
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Danger Danger!
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:43:44 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct9.121940.2421@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com writes:
|OH YUK!
|they're playing Kissy Face Again and In PUBLIC!!!!!
|ps: as a small point of reminder for the new folks,
|this is NO WAY to conduct a flamefest.

You're quite right. I should have called her a Nazi, in proper
net.form.  And THEN she should have asked me for my SAT scores.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Whereas Usenet is a miracle to people possessing good communication 
skills, it is a trap for losers, because it deprives them of any natural 
way out of the pointless debate loops which they fall into so easily."
-- Michael Rigler, in talk.bizarre
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:30:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Was anyone else at this TBTN event?

FFLA has a way of twisting what actually happened.  Ron Graham,
for example, claimed that marchers in the April 1992 march yelled
"4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?" at a FFLA contingent.
He neglected to mention that the FFLA group was in the
midst of several other anti-abortion groups at the time,
preferring to twist it to make it sound like the chant was
directed only at them.   

Of course, we're up to five FFLA spokespeople on the net,
now.  They all seem to be male.  I wonder why.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:56:14 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

: >	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
: >bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
: >Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
: >RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.
: 
: Gee! It seems like you are angry!

Naaaaaah!  He's just giving us all a demonstration of his inability to
conduct a rational argument, possibly due to a substandard intellegence
quotient.  ;)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: NRA has no position on abortion
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<JYM.92Sep22101720@remarque.berkeley.edu> <1050@bug.UUCP>
	<1992Sep29.020251.25183@jetsun.weitek.COM>
	<1992Oct9.033353.3626@polari>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:37:59 GMT

<In article <1992Oct9.033353.3626@polari> peterd@polari.online.com writes:
<nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:

<>In article <1050@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
<>>-- 
<>>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce

<   >I would like to remind everyone that the NRA takes no opinion on the 
<   >issue of abortion and confines its efforts to the second amendment.
<   >-- 
<   >The Earth Pig Bourne....

<   >nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
<   >nadja@weitek.com

<   Ah - but does the NRA support the unborn's right to own firearms,
<   THAT is the true question.

	No.

<   Inquiring minds are reading other newsgroups.

	Try reading talk.politics.misc, where the followup
	to this article is set.

<   Sup[port the right to bare arms!

	Pointless. Also not particulary humorous.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:14:42 GMT

In <1992Oct13.233300.9875@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>> There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>>>> brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>>>> abortion the killing of that child.
>>>
>>>There have been discussions about the possiblility that an aardvark does show
>>>brainwave activity.  This would make a aardvark a living child, and thus make
>>>abortion the killing of that aardvark.
>>>
>>>But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
>>>likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
>>>between stations.
>>>
>>I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.
>>The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
>>seems to offend people.

>It doesn't offend much of anybody; are you really this stupid?  The
>point is that brainwaves are worthless for determining personhood,
>intelligence, or much of anything else.    ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

If you take the word "determine" too literally, that is correct.
But they are good for establishing a presumption that consciousness
COULD be present.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:25:38 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
->Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
->> Five months later, she's still at it.

->Actually, I believe that it was Keegan that brought it up

the first post on the subject was the post in which cj
lied. you are welcome to dispute that but, if you do,
please provide evidence.

->> C.J. lied.

->I don't believe this has been shown.  

are you taking intellectual honesty lessons from
rescorla? the evidence has been posted for days. you've
seen cj's email offer to retract. you`ve seen her
classless post where she implies an offer to retract is
a retraction. what more to you want, a longer list of
lies?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: LifeStyle Choices and Personal Responsibility
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.234840.18204@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
    >Don't forget, the Wimp Liberals are infringing our 2nd
    >Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Militia Weapons. I want my
    >F16 and I want it yesterday. :-)
    >
    >
    >-- The Earth Pig Bourne....

If you are under the impression, "Earth Pig" (or should I just call you
"Pig"?) that you can not own an F-16, then you are most mistaken.

You can. Of course, you'll need around $14 million, and about another
$2 million a year to keep it up (excluding JP4 of course), and whne you
buy it it will be without most weapons systems, no radar, and so on.

If that is too expensive, and you must simply HAVE supersonic flight,
then there are used F-104's coming on the market. However, better be a
real good pilot there -- its a tricky little mother.

There's been two F-104's privately owned in this country. Both have
crashed and burned.

Then there are PRC copies of the MiG 15/17/29/21 series available,
starting at $30,000 for a low-time MiG-15.

And the Soviets will sell you a MiG-29 for only $7,000,000+.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Trumped-up charges against Suzanne. Demurrer #1.
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:56:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <26094@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>Perhaps she just gets too flustered of late. It tends to cause hot flashes
>>when consistent adrenaline rushes for an extended period of time keep
>>coursing through your brain, you know. Maybe she just can't take it
>>anymore. Maybe her doctor told her to stop posting when her husband
>>drove her into the office because she was ranting and raving continuously
>>and it scared him. :)

>I think this ad hominem, baseless speculation is way out of line, your
>smiley notwithstanding.

Perhaps, with your limited knowledge, it seems that way. Ever thought
I might know something you don't? Perhaps I know more about dear little
misguided Suzanne than you, which is likely, as I've been in several
discussions with her long before you appeared on this newsgroup. I don't 
think she much cares to respond to me anymore, as she thinks I tend 
to use "fighting words" with her.

>I wouldn't bother telling this to the likes of Gordon, but I expected
>better of you, Ron.

Gordon, a fine honest fellow. Haven't personally experienced any thing
bad or wrong about Gordon, and he even grudgingly admitted once (publicly)
that my correction to one of his statements was correct, albeit in a
very general fashion. He doesn't believe himself infallible, as certain
other posters here do, although he is correct much of the time. Now,
Larry is probably the only one I've seen who is correct all the times
that I've seen him make some incredible statements. That's a good record,
imo. As for me, trust me.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:59:34 GMT

In <1992Oct14.201318.15184@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
   (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
In article <1992Oct14.140603.15539@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>>I can think of  anumber of reasons why you might
>>>not understand it, but then I wouldn't want to try to
>>>analyze your motivations.
> 
>> That's real big of you, Dean.  I can certainly (as I've
>> indicated elsewhere) understand why someone might tend
>> to displace their anger when faced with such a situation.
>> What the Bells (seem to) fail to do is accept any personal 
>> responsibility *at all* for their daughter's death.  It is
>> all laid at the doorstep of evil legislators, evil laws 
>> and evil pro-lifers.  You may think that's perfectly ap-
>> propriate, but I do not.  I think it's kind of sad.
>
>What the pro-lifers (seem to) fail to do is accept any personal 
>responsibility *at all* for Becky Bell's death.  

This one, at least.

>It is
>all laid at the doorstep of those evil, malicious Bells and
>the dead girl, 

Not evil.

>who is characterized as a slut junkie.

Not by me, though.

>We are in perfect agreement on one thing, Bill.  I think it's
>kind of sad too.

I hope you don't think your characterization of pro-lifers includes
me - it doesn't.

>Why can you not accept that one of the consequences of pro-lie
>legislation will be an increase in deaths of young women due
>to illegal abortions?  If such legislation is passed, and
>the deaths start to happen, some responsibility for it belongs
>in the hands of those who pushed for and got that legislation
>passed.

It's arguable.  But it's also arguable that families 
are directly responsible for the health and safety of 
their children.  That's where the primary responsibility
lies, IMO.  My reasons for supporting consent/notification
laws don't involve the Bells or other victims of tragic
abortion related deaths; they involve my family and what
I believe is in the best interests of society.  Your ex-
perience may be different than my own, but most of the
adolescents I've dealt with simply lack the maturity to
make such a difficult decision.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:50:42 GMT

In article <w+2zpdq@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>you are misspeaking yet again, eric. i won't call you a
>liar because it could be that you've forgotten a post
>you replied to not too many days ago.
I grant, I had forgotten about this post.

Nevertheless, I disagree with you. You chose to call CJ a liar,
a reference to CJ's accusation, which was otherwise long since dead.
You chose, Jim. Not I and not CJ. 

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:42:58 GMT

I've deleted a good deal of this because I am amazed to find
that I think there was progress in there and almost a certain
agreement.  Since I don't argue about what is agreed, and
since some of the minor areas, whether in agreement or not
lck importance to the main points I was trying to make, I
left them off.

In article <1992Oct15.214737.25159@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> In <1992Oct14.122520.29042@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com 
>    (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
[..]
> >Their
> >daughter died from an illegal abortion because she was unable,
> >for whatever reason, to go to her parents to obtain the consent
> >required by law.  The people who pushed for and support that
> >law are pro-lie supporters, like yourself.  Could this
> >possibly be the motivation behind their "malice?"
> 
> Possibly.  Are there other possibilities, or only the one?

Yes, there may be other possibilities.  Maybe you'd better suggest
them because I can't think of any.

[..]
> >I think you
> >want to avoid facing the ugly fact that pro-lie legislation
> >did and will result in the deaths of women.
> 
> And flawed or dysfunctional family relationships don't/won't?

I already stated in other postings in this thread that I thought
there was definitely some fault to be found where Becky Bell
wasn't able to discuss her problems with her parents.  But the
issue here wasn't whether the Bells have some responsibility.
I think they do.  The issue was whether or not there was not
some responsibility that could accurately be spread to others
as well.  See, what I am coming down to Bill is that those who
support legislation which will result in the deaths of women
are just going to have to face that they have some responsibility
in those deaths.  You can view that responsibility in a 
sanguine manner if you like, but you have to reconcile
yourself to those consequences.  Because it is one of the
trade-offs your side of the issue has to accept.  There is
no question that there are trade-offs for my side of the
issue.  I know you concern yourself with fairness and have
said that neither side is the embodiment of all that is evil.
Well this is a fairness issue.  And that responsibility is
there (and read "blame" for "responsibility" if you like).
I have never said that pro-life supporters (ah, there's my
"f" key) are solely responsible for the death of Becky Bell,
but let's not shift all the blame to the victims either.

And let me remind you, Bill, that this thread heated
up because of the campaign of the pro-lie (where'd that "f"
go now?) supporters to paint Becky Bell as a junkie slut.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:14:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.014431.25029@news.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

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

>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>> Why? It IS a parasite. It's living off the woman in who's body it
>>> is living. It is damaging her body and giving her nothing  if she does
>>> not want it.

>> Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
>> is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
>> damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
>> the infant.

> Yes, I suppose I would. What's your point?

Just checking up on your consistency.