HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johne@tule.intel.com (john elliott)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Reply-To: johne@tule.intel.com (john elliott)
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:19:43 GMT


In article <1992Apr8.164541.261@cco.caltech.edu>, anne@cco.caltech.edu
(Anneliese Lilje) writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
> Path:
aus!intelhf!ichips!iWarp.intel.com|uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremo
nt.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!anne
> From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
> Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
> Message-ID: <1992Apr8.164541.261@cco.caltech.edu>
> Sender: news@cco.caltech.edu
> Nntp-Posting-Host: trixie
> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
> References: <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>
> Distribution: usa
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:45:41 GMT
> 
> In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S.
Lape) writes:
> >	Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
> >fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
> >premeditated taking of a human life.
> >-- 
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Without life, there can be no choice;
> >without choice, there can be no life.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> But wait! Isn't the sperm and egg alive? Or are they really dead. Oh
> I get it...only the embryo is alive, the sperm and egg aren't. Gag!
> Be more careful how you define "life".
> 
> 
> anne
> 
> 

I take it that "Gag!" is scientific word from some branch of science
with which I am not
familiar. 

Do we really have any proof that life does not begin at conception?  So
far the most premature
babies that have lived have all turned out to be humans.  Not one ever
became anything else.
Can any study or method of proof be cited that even might indicate otherwise?  

Can any proof other than insults be found to show that life does not
begin at conception.

If I can't proove that the fetus is not alive, then on the chance that
it might be alive,
I am much more comfortable with the assumption that the fetus is alive. 
It then follows that 
termination of the fetus for any reason other than protection of the
mother is ............(fill in the blank).
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Men's Rights
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:24:24 EDT

No one has seen fit to respond to this question:

If a woman has the right to abortion on demand, should not a man have the 
equivelant? He ought to be able to pay a hospital the cost of an abortion, 
donate, say, two or three pints of blood, and the hospital will issue a
certificate of male abortion, which names the woman currently carrying the
child he wishes to abort.
No abortion actually takes place, unless the woman wishes it, but the man
has obsolved himself of financial responsibility for the child.

Anyone have any problem with this? And if not, why do we not see anyone
women's groups fighting for a man's right to do this? Abortion is still
legal in all 50 states, and yet we see more energy being spent to keep
what women already have, than energy being spent to make it fair to men.

Any takers?

THIS IS WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR, AFTER ALL!

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:18:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

CJ
>Kevin
>CJ
>>Kevin

>>|Control your legs then. 
>|>I hope all the women you meet take your advice to heart.

>|Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>|I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
>|Jerk.

>Well, that's odd.  If you find your own advice so unpleasant 
>& insulting, why did you offer it to others?  You do plan to 
>live by the standards you'd recommend to others, don't you?

I don't find it unpleasant and insulting.  I told women to keep their legs
crossed and the guys to keep it in their pants if they are afraid of
getting pregnant.  I don't find it unpleasant; I gave it out.  I found
it offensive that you cut out the part about the guys to make it
look like it was all the woman's fault.  THAT made me upset.  It takes two
to get pregnant, and I will never blame the woman or the man, but both.

I do.


>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

kcw



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:29:01 GMT

In article <72698@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Larry
>>Kevin
>>> David
>>> >Kevin "suck my penis" Welch
>>> >>Larry Magnolia writes
>
>>> Abortion kills the fetus.
>
>>True.
>
>Gee, at least we agree on one thing...
>
>>> Abortion has the purpose of killing the fetus.
>
>>False.
>
>>   purpose 1(n)
>>   DEFINITIONS:
>>   1a  something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION
>>   1b  RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION
>
>Exactly.  I intend to kill the fetus by suction.  I intend to kill the
>fetus by salt poisoning.  I resolve to extract the fetus through suction.
>I resolve to inject this into your womb to kill the fetus.  I am determined
>to kill the fetus.  I am determined to suck the fetus out of your womb.
>


What is your purpose in doing this?
-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:35:05 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr15.234733.26101@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
> I have proven you wrong a number of times in the last two weeks alone.

Not only haven't you proven Chris wrong, you haven't proven *anything*.
All you do is make blatant assertions.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:58:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Nora
>Kevin
>>Nora

>>>No, it doesn't; that's why I said "another idiot Kevin". There is a
>>>Kevin or two on the group who doesn't fit into the category, but yonder
>>>Brawley fellow ain't one of them.

>>Kevin Brawley, Kevin Darcy, Kevin Welch.  Am I one?  :-(

>You do a first-class imitation of one of the nasty Kevins on occasion.

Hey, now.  :/

>I am not convinced that you are one, at least not entirely, because I've
>seen too many decent things you've done as well. I'd be more comfortable
>about the premise with a bit more evidence...

Hey, I'm not a bad guy.  I'm one of the good guys...

>>>Right. And he's refused to respect mine. If he starts behaving in a
>>>civilized fashion, I will stop treating him in an offensive manner.

>>This is good.  If he refuses to respect yours, will you continue to do
>>wrong to him?  Is that right, Nora?  

>Yes. I don't especially believe in mercy.

All right.

>	-Nora

kcw



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: fsrlg@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: A woman's choice
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:43:19 GMT

I believe that abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is really a "life"
or not.  It should simply be the woman's choice.  This whole issue boils down
to the fact that our patriarchal American government is still trying to tell
women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.  THAT is not right.
From: IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:26:08 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

It is my belief that the only way the pro-abortion advocates can rationalize
the killings of millions of babies a year is looking upon the fetus as a
lifeless lump of tissue.  By doing that, it is easier to say, "legalize
abortion" for, by your logic, how can one kill what is already dead?
Unfortunately, you are lying to yourselves.  The fetus is a life.  When the
medical profession can stop swaying with public opinion and declare this
fact to be true, then perhaps the pro-abortionists will pay attention to
the consciences that have been bothering them for so long.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ernest Hua)
Subject: My sincere compliments to the non-abrasive article
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:09:16 GMT

I would like to pay my sincere compliments to "Bill" who posted one of the few
non-abrasive articles I have seen in a long time!  Please keep it up and help
encourage others to do the same!

Here is the quote:

...  The central discussion is not about "responsibility";
it is about people, real, live, often hurting human beings.  "Responsibility"
is a big, broad concept, one that this sort of discussion is very good at
bandying about at great length.  But when I encounter abortion in the real
world, is it with REAL PEOPLE.  Not all of them fit your description.  Some may
be married, desparately want to have children, but are unable because of a
threat to the mother.  Are they being "responsible"?  They're trying.  Some may
be women who grow up in an inner-city atmosphere where responsibility could
contradict the laws of survival.  What I am saying is that abortion cannot be
solved by big, grand ideas.  "Abortion" is not a single entity (except as a
medical procedure); it takes place is a wide variety of circumstances and for a
wide variety of reasons.  Not every woman who has an abortion is happy about
it; many may wish fervently that they had a good alternative.  I would rather
deal with such people where they are, rather than coming at them with Large
Ideas that are meaningless to their lives.

For me, this is an issue of caring for other people.  Not condemnation; not
moralizing; not legislation to solve the whole problem at once.  Simply caring
for other people's - usually *very different* - needs.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:940 talk.abortion:15690
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortiion,soc.women
Subject: can we clear up these stats a bit?
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:31:38 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] 
] From the 1990 World Almanac
] 
]                                  1972      1976     1980      1985
] Reported # of legal abortions  586,760   988,267  1,297,606  1.328,570
] Ratio per 1000 live births      180.1     312.0    359.2      353.8
] Rate per 1000 women aged          13        21       25         24
]      15-44 years      
] 			Percentage Distribution
]   Race
] White                            77.0      66.6     69.6       66.6
] Black and other                  23.0      33.4     30.1       33.4
]   Marital status
] Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
] Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7


1. as we all know, lumped together as 'white' are
a lot of sociokultural groups that are not homogeneous.

2. also is there any form of discrimination in the notion
of 'unmarried' between those who are in 'long term protracted
arrangements external to the clerically sanctified form' as well
as those who are working on 'interrum negotiable poly or di - adic
arrangements not sanctioned under the laws of their state of
residence' from the, well, you know, CheapHussySluts.

----------------

This way we would be able to look at 'marriage equivolent units'
and with more clarity of socio cultural groups.

Such data might also help maria schriver support her husband,
arnold schwarzennegger's assertion that the cause of couch potatoes
amongst children is caused by women working outside of the home....

We need to know are these WickedWhiteWomen merely CheapTramps
or the Sort of ViciousBloodSuckingLustCrazedBasicInstinctBimboHarlots
who are manipulating Corporate America and keeping Good GodFearing
HardWorking Decent Family Men out of High Paying Jobs.


ciao
drieux



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Summary: From one eigenstate to the other... 
Organization: Rice Institute.  (Bring back the '60s.) 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:21:57 GMT

In article <74258@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn) writes:
>Pat
>>Kevin
>>>David
>>>>Kevin
>
>>>No, I am lecturing about crediting and accurate portryal.  Deception.
>
>>Coming from someone calling himself "Geisha Dawn"?  And here I thought I'd
>>already seen everything...:-)
>
>Hey, Patrick....I could have sworn I saw you with a different attribute
>once or twice on t.a  :)

I know.  It's amazing what you can do with xrn, isn't it?  I promise,
though, you can have "Geisha Dawn" all to yourself.

>>--PLH, who's been confused at times, but has at least known who he was all
>>along...
>
>I know who I am...how about a little variety for a change.

We know who you are, too...how about a *real* change?

>>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>>                  Support term limitations for politicians:
>>                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
>
>(Only if they're democrats...:)

Or Republicans -- after all, they're the same party with two front
organizations...

So, Scott Roby is "history", eh?  Sucking up to such slime as Steve
"Absurdgent" Chaney won't make you any friends...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:59:13 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- currently no fees) writes:

>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

>     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
>   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
>                                               \

As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
be Pro-Family.  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
ultimatly, murder of children.  When a man loves a woman, he would do his
best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.

Kevin Brawley
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:43:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Cj
>Kevin "Biojerk" Welch writes:
>|CJ


>|>|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
>|>|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
>|>|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.
>|>You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
>|>you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
>|>sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
>|>of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
>|>car accident."

>|There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>|involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>|you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.

>I see that Kevin has never heard of brake failure.

Brake failure.  A number of causes.  Little brake fluid.  Hmmm..  Did someone
not check the fluid level.  Hmmm.  human error there.  Going to fast down
a hill?  hmmm.  human error there.  Loose rings?  hmmm.  instalation 
error there.  Old brakes?  failed to have them checked.

Human error, cj.  No such thing as an accident.

>|When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>|faulted in decision making.

>I see that Kevin has never heard of birth control failure.

EXACTLY, cj.  The contraceptive FAILED.  Open mouth, stick foot in, cj.
That was no accident.  something is at fault.

>Why don't you come back when you know what you're
>talking about, Kevin?  If you ever will, that is.

I do know.  It is you who cannot realize that there is no such thing
as an accident.


(OH, btw...you can put that in your sigs, guys.)


>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

kcw


--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
From: yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ernest Hua)
Subject: what is the purpose of these two discussion groups?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 22:59:12 GMT

Would the people in charge (if any) or the originators of these two groups:

	alt.abortion.inequity
	talk.abortion

Please send me mail to let me know the purpose of these two groups?  Better
yet, because the discussions tend to degenerate into name calling and gross
generalizations, perhaps the appropriate people should post an FAQ or some
other monthly reminder on the purpose of these groups to help everyone focus
on more productive and substantial topics rather than "all pro-X are jerks".

I am really amazed at the extent to which many posters call each other on
things like generalizations and assumptions and then, two lines later,
commit precisely the same error.  How do you expect to gain respect for your
opinion when you cannot distinguish between what is factual and what is your
opinion?

Ern
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: abortion protest
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:51:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr4.164500.9435@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:
>The following is an AP article, printed in the March 16, 1992 ed. of American
>Medical News.  It is posted here to encourage discussion on abortion protest.  
>It is NOT posted with any particular view in mind, but in the hope that open, 
>constructive discussion on the protest of abortion will be fostered.
>
>LEAWOOD, Kan. (AP)-
>   An anti-abortion demonstration in front of a physician's home included 
>shouts of "baby killer" and a picture of an aborted fetus but lacked on thing -
>the right doctor.
>
>   About 15 anti-abortion demonstrators gathered outside the home of Arnold 
[...]
>
>   "They asked my wife, 'Did you know that your husband is killing babies?'  
>She told them they were not at the right place," Dr. Katz said.  "They told her
>that she just didn't realize what I was doing."
>
>   Missionaries to the Preborn, a Kansas City anti-abortion group, said it was 
>responsible for the protest and apologized to Dr. Katz.

	The implication being, I guess, that it would be perfectly OK to insult
and harass the wife  and family of the *other* Dr. Katz.  How very charming
of them.  Just the sort of thing Christ would do, I'm sure.
Chuck

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- 51% shareholder of the WeSaySo Oil Co.)
Subject: Re: next
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:22:51 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>> = me (Jay)

>>I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
>>people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
>>it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
>
>Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?

[I was not talking about rape.  You seem to have missed my point.]

I suspect that you know what I meant, but in case you really don't, I
meant that a woman should not be forced to produce children for other
people, even if they are unable to have children of their own.  It's
not a justification for making abortion illegal.

C'mon, Kevin, the context should have made it obvious.  (and if it didn't
I humbly apologize for not being clear.)
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:808 talk.abortion:15312
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:31:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> 
> The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
> of happiness.

No, it does not.  The Declaration of Independence, which does
not have the force of law in the United States, refers to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  My copy of the
Constitution does refer, in the 14th Amendment, to "life,
liberty, or property," but it is speaking there of due process.

That is, the state may not deny any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law.  This does not refer
to the actions of individuals who are not representing the
state in some official capacity.

> Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
> guaranteed?
> 
> just a thought

The Constitution doesn't make any such guarantee.  The thought
is in error.

Dean Kaflowitz

>                    I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Watch less television.  Read more.  Start with the COnstitution.
I also recommend Locke's Second Treatise and De Toqueville
(the latter for some insight into the American character).