HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ok, So booth Really is a Nazi Fan?
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:14:08 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct15.222750.11635@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.091027.16980@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>]
>>] Well, actually my aim is very similar to Orwell's-- I plan to depict this
>>] New Order Party being elected by the people out of desparation.  The people
>>] are so sick of one type of extremeism, they accept another form of it
>>] without even noticing.  Extremism breeds extremism from the other side.
>>] I plan to demonstrate that such system might come to power if Liberal
>>] extremism runs unchecked.  Ever read about how Hitler was elected??
>>] Germany was in a state of anarchy, the Nazis were seen as the only alternative.
>>
>>
>>You really do need to clarify this....
>>
>>Your Fantasies about JackBootedFascism Run Rampant
>>in the Street Napalming ProChoicers is your way
>>of Saying:
>>
>>1. this is a Good Thing, and Clear Proof that Abortion Should be Outlawed.
>>
>>2. Not Really the American Way of Doing Things, and I Deeply and
>>sincerely Apologize to all the Veterans OUT there who have
>>valiantly defended the ramparts of Freedom from the Likes of the Fascist
>>Scum who make up the AntiAbortionist Ranks and wish to
>>Undermine the American Way of Life.
>>
>Wait a minute, I explain the concept of the story, and I'm still accused
>of promoting Nazism??  Let me explain again:

>The idea behind the story is that if Liberalism runs out of control, the

Simon, child, I hardly think we need worry about out of control liberalism
here in this country. In Canada, most of my acquaintances belived tha
I was somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan, yet here I am considered
to be a Liberal. Nuff said?


>resulting backlash might cause the people to accept any alternative, without
>even considering that they might inadvertently vote for a fascist party.
>Like I had said, read about how Hitler came to power.  I seriously doubt the
>people actually knew what the Nazis really were, until it was too late.
>Theoretically, something like that could happen again, and my idea was to
>write a story about the dangers of that happening.  My story, pure fiction,
>is to depict how extreme liberalism might drive the people to vote for a
>fascist, although they of course wouldn't realize this at first.  All they
>see is someone who would stop liberlism, that's how they'll vote.  Now,
>I in no way promote Nazism, in fact I my objections to abortion stem from the
>fact that abortion could be used as a tool for Nazi-style eugenics.  So you
>see, I am light-years from being a ascist.  I hopw this clears things up.

No.

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cortes@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Enrique Cortes-Rello)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Summary: RR?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:09:20 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
> 
> <   Anyway, that wasn't what I was intending to argue about.  Liberals don't
> <   like rules that don't make sense or favor people who need no favors over
> <   those that do.  
> 
> 	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
                                  --------
> 	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
        ----------------------------------------
> 	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
> 	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
> 	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
> 	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
> 	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.
> 
> 
SOOOOO, is Ronald Reagan a pinko liberal?
He seems to favor such absurdities as the Brady Bill.

ENRIQUE
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A hypothetical case: Assault or murder. 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.190900.8985@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dennis@Lise.Unit.NO (Dennis G Landsem) writes ...
>> In light of the discussion on what rights apply to a fetus I'd like you to 
>>consider the following scenario:
>>
>>    A women is, lets say, 2 months pregnant. She has every intention 
>>    of carrying the child to term. One evening as she is walking in 
>>    the park, she is assaulted by a robber. As a direct result of this 
>>    (a kick in the stomach) she has a spontaneous abortion. 
>>
>> What I'd like you to answer is this; would you consider this an assault 
>> or would you consider it to be murder ?
>
>Excellent question!  One that nicely illustrates one of the problems
>of assigning personhood to fetuses/embryos.
>
>Did the actual kick kill the fetus?  Or did it start a miscarry which
>then killed the fetus?  Or were the two events merely coincidental?
>Was the fetus actually alive when the robber kicked the woman?  How
>was the robber supposed to know that she was 2 months pregnant?
>
>There are lots of legal problems that turn up here.  Murder almost
>certainly doesn't apply since generally it's not possible to tell that
>a woman is two months pregnant by observation.  Thus the robber
>clearly did not intend to kill the fetus.

BZZZT! Wrong. Since the "homicide" occurred in the course of committing
a felony, murderous intention in some jurisdictions may be IMPUTED, whether
it actually existed or not. See "felony murder doctrine", and the legal 
definition of "murder" I posted recently.

Of course, if the fetus is not a person, this may be moot. On the third
hand, though :-), states like California specifically include fetuses in 
their murder statutes without actually defining them as "persons". Variations 
abound, in other words.

								- Kevin
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:48:10 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Martin writes:
>In the fetus/unborn's current state, it is alive and wants to keep alive.

Wrong.  In the fetus/unborn's current state, it is alive and has no
mental capacity whatsoever (before the third trimester, but we're not
talking about the third trimester here) to be able to "want" anything.

Let me try rephrasing my original puzzle again:

Unless you donate some of your body's resources, a man will die.

Unless a woman donates some of her body's resources, a fetus will die.

Now, will you (a) legally require both yourself and the woman to
support another human life, (b) legally free both yourself and the
woman from being required to use one's own body for someone else's
good, or (c) discriminate between the man and the woman?

-- 
_/_/_/  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
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re:  Re: Choice for life
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:54:02 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.152402.21263@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.195053.13962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>You're WAY off--I'm 22--one must be 35 to be President, so I'd be eligible
>>to run in the November 2008 election.
>>Now lets watch all of you panic at that prospect.......
>
>If J. Danforth can get as close as he has to the presidency,
>it would hardly surprise me if you could.  It would not surprise
>me if you ran for president any more than you actually finding
>a publisher for your novel.  Good luck on both counts.  Neither
>would hardly be cause for panic.
>
Wait a minute, go to the action/adventure section of your local bookstore.
Some of those books have similar scenes in them, and no flak has resulted from
them.  And watch Kubrick's 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange".  Now if Kubrick
was allowed to make that movie, I think my story abut the dangers of fascists
rising to power as a result of a backlash against liberalism would be allowed.
BTW, I'm not promoting fascism.  Wht my story is  is a criticism of liberalism,
showing what could happen if Liberalism is allowed to run amok in our society.

Geez, Clinton is running for President and no one get upset......


Simon
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Simon's such a friendly guy, isn't he? 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:23:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.033035.8768@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <BvwtIt.1JI@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>In article <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>>>>Here's my blow-hard, simplistic, brutish (and therefore aptly suited to the
>>>>alt.rush-limbaugh group) opinion on the abortion issue:
>>>>
>>>>The right of the woman to choose what to do with her body supercedes any rights
>>>>the unborn parasite has to her body.
>>>>
>>>>There.  I have spoken.  This issue will never be resolved by consensus.  If
>>>>people want to resolve it by majority-rule vote, that's fine.  I believe
>>>>most of America is pro-choice.  My only regret is that as a male, I will
>>>>most likely never have the opportunity to squash an Operation Rescue person
>>>>trying to block my entry to an abortion clinic.
>>>
>>>Especially if the Operation Rescue people carried the appropriate hardware.
>>>Try to squash someone who is armed...
>>>
>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>
>>Uh, Simon...before you go off to write your masterpiece, you might be
>>interested to know -- it's already been written by Margaret Atwood.  Have
>>you ever heard of "A Handmaid's Tale"?  :-)
>>
>I enjoyed the story, although I didn't like the slam against religion.
>In the story I'm planning, things would be depicted much more openly.
>Atwood's story dealt mostly with government control of reproductive rights.
>What I am planning is more a more across the board depiction.  Basically,
>I am planning a story in set in the future in which the people are so fed up
>with liberalism that they elect a leader who pledges to erradicate liberalism
>and its supporters. I can make Atwoods story look like a Sunday picnic.

Be sure and let us know all about it, then -- I'm sure people will want to
know who to avoid...:-)



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
         What will our "leaders" do once the Constitution is gone --
                   and we STILL have a drug problem???
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: .
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.050730.10253@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>As I've said time and time again, sperm isn't human life!  No scientist
>or biologist will agree with you on that assertion.

I hate to be the one to cast the cold clear light of reason upon your
blissful ignorance, but here's one holder of advanced degrees in biology
who has done some original research (which ought to qualify me for the
title of "scientist") who agrees that human sperm and ova are human life.

As a matter of fact, human sperm and ova are the dominant form of
humanity by numbers alone.  We of the diploid generations are few and
far between, compared to our haploid children.

Lets play twenty questions:

Q. Are sperm and ova comprised of human protoplasm?
A. Yes.

Q. Do sperm and ova possess human chromosomes?
A. Yes.

Well, gee.  Looks like sperm and ova must be human!

Q. Are sperm and ova alive?
A. Yes, at least until they die.

Well, gosh.  Looks like sperm and ova are human life!  And that only
took three questions.

But wait, there's more:

Q. Are sperm and ova independent entities?
A. Yes.

Q. Are sperm and ova genetically unique individuals?
A. Yes.

Well geez, Louis.  This is enough to make them human beings under some
definitions.  In fact, any definition that allows one to call a human
zygote a human being automatically qualifies sperm and ova to the same
title, unless it is chromosomally biased (in which case it excludes
some individuals who, despite their partial diploidy or triploidy, are
almost universally recognised as human beings) or badly constructed
(such as including an assumption about an unknown future state; such
inclusions allow all sorts of nonsense).

>I think I should keep a file of ready made answers to common statements.
>Everytime I see a statement I've seen a million times, I'll just paste
>it on.

I think you need to write "I will be nice to haploid humans." a
godzillion times on the blackboard.

>Nah.  Too lazy.

No doubt this laziness is why you persist in your ignorance of the true
scope of human existance.

Remember, its no coincidence that "masturbation", "menstruation", and
"murder" all begin with "m".
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:15:27 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Oct9.020146.7139@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran):
>> And the DOI <Declaration of Independence> has no legal bearing, thank Dean.
>Tell it to Mother England, Keithy.
I'd say that's a good example of exactly how much legal bearing the
DOI had. Look how many lives it cost us to get our freedom.
It certainly has no legal bearing on current US law.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:33:46 GMT

In article <3s1zp2j@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> How many pregnant women want abortions simply by virtue of the fact
>> that a fetus resides within their body, or because the fetus is "using 
>> her body" against her will?  

> Just as a guess, I'd say pretty near 100%.  At least, I never knew
> a woman who got an abortion because a fetus was in someone _else_'s
> body.

I don't see ``unwanted bodily residence'' listed below as one of 
the reasons why women get abortions.  Women who get abortions don't
think of themselves as fetal containers.

---
WHY WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS
Source: 1987 survey of 1900 abortion patients
        by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.  
        Published in the LA Times, Mon 17-Apr-89, Part I page 16
        Each woman was allowed to cite more than one reason.

   76   Concern about how having a baby could change her life
   68   Can't afford a baby now
   51   Problems with relationship or desire to avoid single parenthood
   31   Not ready for responsibility
   31   Doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant
   30   Not mature enough, or is too young to have a child
   26   Has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children
   23   Husband or partner wants her to have abortion
   13   Fetus has possible health problem
    7   Woman has health problem
    7   Woman's parents want her to have abortion
    1   Woman was victim of rape or incest
    6   Other

(Figures which have been previously posted to the net by Don Porter?)

>-rocker


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:05:41 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>No.  You are mistaken here.  The objective is =>NOT<= to kill the
>>embryo/fetus.  The government is =>NOT<= specifically allowing 
>>people to kill fetuses.  The objective is primarily to END THE
>>PREGNANCY.
>
>The government very definitely does allow abortions to take place.  Certain 

I never claimed otherwise.

>politicians even want to make the right of an abortion to be law and even
>have abortions funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
>abortions, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.  

Well you can rest assured that it will never be _your_ money being
spent on abortions.  Your money will go towards Trident submarines;
_my_ money will go towards funding sex education, contraceptives, and
abortions.

Feel better now?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:51:16 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade (was Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
	<1992Oct13.234758.11864@netcom.com>

>>>>>> so he could charge patients more money, and asked sedated patients 
>>>>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> to get up off the operating table to pay more money. 
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[deleted most of argument]

>Wrongo boopsie.  That line was both funny _and_ dumb.  And we're not
>laughing at this alleged women's alleged misfortunes, either.

Question. What is funny about the above line?

ag
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:55:54 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <7146@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.013649.6601@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>#From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

>[text deleted]

>## However, if you would try to justify your pro-life stand even in cases
>## where the child isn't 'beautiful' or the mother doesn't love it, then
>## perhaps you could discuss your reasoning with us and persuade some of
>## us to agree with you.
>#
>#Are you a parent, Brian?  If you were you would know that EVERY child IS
>#beautiful.  If the mother doesn't happen to think so, there are millions
>#of people the world over who do, and would love to love it and raise it.
>#It is a very sick society that kills the child rather than give it to
>#the people who DO want to love it and care for it..

>[text deleted]

>Does this make sense to anyone?

>Suzanne seems to be claiming that the only thing that keeps
>Brian from realizing that "EVERY child is beautiful" is
>the fact that he's not a parent.  (I have no idea if he is
>or isn't.)  Then she says that some parents may not believe
>this.

>Maybe her official spokesperson can explain the logic here.

Are you talking about me, perchance?  There is nothing official about me,
I'm just a volunteer, and I am not her spokesperson either; she is 
perfectly capable of speaking for herself.

Anyway, I must admit her logic eludes me here too.  Perhaps she was
using the "phantom universal," like Linda Birmingham saying you
cannot fit a baby through a birth canal without some tearing and 
resulting scarring.

Which Adrienne took to mean that there are cases where one cannot...

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:46:39 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BvqAu6.AwA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> In <Bvq88E.9B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> 
> >A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth 
> >Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
> >may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
> >case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
> >the born person's or the unborn person's?
> 
> 	Which could also boil down to:
> Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
> can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
> because they have "invaded your privacy". 

The term "right to privacy" is an unfortunate term with which
we are burdened.  It allows deep-thinkers like Mr Varney to
give the impression that we are discussing the right to kill
someone for peeping over your newspaper on the morning train
to catch a look at your face.  A better term might be "right
to not have other creatures living inside of your body."

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect an "unborn
child's" right to live.  I am curious how StarOwl got such an
idea.  Certainly not from reading the Fourteenth, which refers
to limitations on the government's power to deprive citizens
of their life, liberty, or property.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of Peter against "Lady" Adrienne
Date: 9 Oct 1992 13:03:10 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <1992Oct9.013649.6601@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):

[text deleted]

#Are you a parent, Brian?  If you were you would know that EVERY child IS
#beautiful.  If the mother doesn't happen to think so, there are millions
#of people the world over who do, and would love to love it and raise it.
#It is a very sick society that kills the child rather than give it to
#the people who DO want to love it and care for it..

I know a few volunteers who work with crack-addicted and AIDs
infected babies down in DC who would likely disagree with these
assertions.

I'll be happy to get the phone number of the ward they volunteer
in, for any of you who are just waiting for the opportunity to
love and raise one of these children.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's