HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: "Pro-Lifers" Are Really Pro-Death
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:19:54 GMT
Keywords: abortion prisoners sex

tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

>In article <BrwCst.2nA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>jxs52@po.CWRU.Edu (Jonathan Sheir) writes:
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand how these religious zealots who call themselves
>>>"Pro-Life" can do so.  By outlawing abortion, they would be forcing
>>>women back in the alleys, and many would die of these illegal abortions.

>["three reason" part of Steven's response deleted]

>>Yeah, and I'm also against using prisoners for medical experimentation
>>against their wishes.  I am not to keen on the human experimentation...

>Are you implying that we give prisoners a choice (which we do)?  Wow!
>That's "one up" on women.  At the already pregnant stage, they only
>have two choices and I think you want to get rid of one of them.

I noticed you deleted the part I was answering.  The original question
was "Why would anyone be against fetal tissue research?" or words to
that effect.  Your reply is a non-sequiter.

Furthermore, the woman and her
partner already *MADE* their choice when they decided to have sex.
They just don't happen to like the consequences.  But since that 
consequence is another human life, they cannot choose to end that life
simply because they don't like the results of their choice.

>>>And many of these people are
>>>against teaching the young about safe sex, and then diseases like AIDS
>>>spread.
>>
>>"These people" teach chastity.  If you don't engage in sex, you have an
>>extraordinarily small chance of getting AIDS.  True, many of us are 
>>against the use of contraceptives.  But claiming that condoms offer
>>protection against AIDS, is like claiming that schools should teach
>>"safe" Russian roulette - always wear a Kevlar vest.  After all, teenagers
>>are GOING to play Russian roulette, theirs no way to stop them, so we
>>really ought to show them how to do it safely.  

>So, when will people be taught about sex then, if ever?  (Who'd want to learn
>about it anyway?  It's dirty and disgusting and... [extreme sarcasm])

Teaching chastity involves teaching what sex is so that the students know
what it is they are reserving the use of (pardon the dangling preposition).
The whole point of chastity teaching is to explain that sex is so special,
and filled with so much meaning, that it should be reserved for the special,
enduring love of marriage.  It's obvious that you've never been taught
about sex or chastity by the response you've made.

And it is still the best way to avoid sexually transmitted disease of
all varieties.

>-Richard
>Yes, there are many ethical problems that need to be resolved with fetal
>research.

Well, I'm glad we agree on something.

SK
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28583 alt.birthright:103
From: jrs@zippy.unet.com (John Switzer Frame 3.0)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:02:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Jul23.120150.17424@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>-> who just heard Dan Quayle say on television that he would
>-> support his daughter in her decision if she chose to have an
>-> abortion
>
>wow. the bush campaign people must really, really be scared.

Quayle said he would not support her having an abortion as 
a minor, but would leave the decision to her as an adult.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin)
Subject: Re: BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:08:41 GMT

In <1992Jul28.023927.29220@crd.ge.com> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>darcy expresses pleasure that a loved one of one of his 
>many adversaries has been sexually abused.

>franklin defends darcy.

>darcy and franklin; the similarities are overwhelming.


   Go away little man. You see, you state I was defending Darcy. I ask
you to consider what he actually meant. However, since dealing with you
and your pro-choice mentality has become old hat for me, I realize that
you thrive on twisting words whenever you can. 
   YOu're tiresome Keegan, and face it: you have nothing productive to
contribute, so as you watch your dissapating mentality slide, you struggle
to take people down with you.
   I was merely giving Darcy a chance. That is something you never do to
any individual outside of your pre-pubescent pro-convenience clique.    
   I truly believe that Darcy did not intend to poke fun at sexual abuse,
because the initial statement seemed to imply that the individual (as an 
adult) had partaken in child/adult sex at some time in his life.
   If you're not grown up enough to consider that another individual 
simply misinterpreted a vague and unsubstantiated post, then you shouldn't
be posting quite so much. But then again, this is your trademark. You
try to make fun of people on the computer, because in real life you're 
a nobody. Does it feel good? 

pathos and Keegan: the similarities are overwhelming

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: About flaming (was: Re: IS COMPROMISE POSSIBLE... YES?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:07:23 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

weber@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]) writes:
-> keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
-> >|>>I have yet to see any evidence that Franklin can think.
-> >|>
-> >|>Well, I think what Sue meant was:

-> >i think ms. garvin said exactly what she meant. and what
-> >many, many other t.a. readers think.
-> 
-> Are you folks really sure that this is what you are reading
-> this group for?

i can't speak for the others, but i think it's perfectly
appropriate to state that someone meant what they wrote, rather
than what someone else rewrote for them. don't you?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
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: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:26:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.192708.5295@spool.cs.wisc.edu> 
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:

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

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

> It does - as long as it doesn't violate someone else's.

Since the woman also violates the fetus' right to bodily autonomy, 
why doesn't the woman forfeit her right to bodily autonomy? 


>> I think it's reasonable to assume that the alleged right to bodily 
>> autonomy must include the right not to be killed though dismemberment.  

> Sure - as long as it is possible to detach it from the host woman by other
> means.  Otherwise, tough kabookies, kid.

But it is possible to detach the fetus from the "host woman" by means 
other than killing the fetus. The physician can either induce labor, 
or perform a hysterotomy, which involves a surgical removal of the intact
fetus. Therefore, the vast majority of abortions which are performed today 
cannot be justified on the basis of "bodily autonomy".


>> Suppose that you and I were in a lifeboat, and I pushed you overboard. 
>> Does my right to bodily autonomy include the right to consciously refuse
>> your attempts to "crazy glue" your hand onto my face" if that were the 
>> only means of saving yourself from drowning?

> Sure, you certainly have the right to *try*.  Of course, if you had really
> pushed me overboard, in all likelihood I would try anything to save myself,
> regardless of its consequences to you.

Would you have the right to authorize third parties to try anything to
save yourself from drowning, regardless of its consequences to me? 

If so, then would the fetus have the right to receive assistance from
third parties, regardless of its consequences to the woman involved?  


>> Or what if you tried to grab hold of my arm -- would I have the right
>> to remove your hand from my arm and let you drown, even if I had pushed
>> you overboard? 

> Sure.  Why shouldn't you?

But isn't that murder? 


> [...]
>> If the fetus enjoys the right to bodily autonomy, then it cannot be
>> killed by others.

> As long as it is not violating THEIR bodily autonomy.

Since the fetus is not violating the abortionist's right to bodily
autonomy, the fetus cannot be killed by the abortionist. Is that what
you really want to say?  


[.. rest deleted ..]

>Michael Rawdon


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: debling@cae.wisc.edu (Jon Debling)
Subject: Pay Women for Abortions !
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:02:15 CDT

I just had an idea that would solve the abortion issue. If some people 
are intent on forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term then we should
compensate those individuals for their losed income, pain and suffering.

I figure almost 9.5 months of labour which is 289 days or 6,931 hours at a 
salary of $6/hr is about $41,586.

Therefore, any woman "FORCED" to have a baby by the state must be paid
$41,586 for her "labour".

End of abortion issue.

Any supporters of this bill ?


J. A. Debling

Note: The abortion pill will arrive in the U.S. fairly soon (legal or otherwise
) and this will put an end to the debate.
  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:41:16 GMT

In article 29660@ncsu.edu, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>And how does your position square with the 14th amendment to the
>Constitution which gives equal protection under the law to all 
>citizens of the US? Would you oppose changing that amendment 
>to deny full citizenship status to newborn infants? 
>

You forget, the 14th Amendment grants equal protection to citizens of the US, and
qualifies the term citizen as being those persons born in the US or born in other
countries and naturalized into the US.

Don't have to change a thing to cover new-borns.

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FUNNY PP
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:50:54 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Jul27.193735.29722@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In <1992Jul27.165146.7915> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>>>
>>>"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous
>>>to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a
>>>child you cannot have it."
>>>
>>>Planned Parenthood pamphlet published in 1965.
>>
>>These two assumptions concerning health are wrong today, with safe, legal 
>>abortions (so far) still available.
>
>Would you care to define "safe"?
>
>>The third assumption meant to say "fetus", instead of the erroneous "baby".
>>Obviously, Planned Parenthood has learned.  I suggest you do the same.
>
>Planned Parenthood has learned that they can make millions in the
>abortion industry.  All those stupid obstetricians who continue to tell
>pregnant mothers that they are carrying "babies," it's just shameful.
>
I saw a similar ad from Planned Parenthood in 1986.  Back then they were
arguing that they were not pro-choice nor were they involved in referring
women for abortion.  I just wish I could remember the journal I saw this in.
It's an irony to see their 180 degree change on this issue.  It seems that
it was done for political reasons.  I believe if their thrust remained on
the issue of abstinence, self-control, STD education and contraceptive 
education and use our country would be much better off today.

Wes
>


-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:39:14 GMT

In article <p7nmgb-.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes ...
>>Thanks for the effort, Steve, but once a witch-hunt is in full swing, it's 
>>often very difficult to demonstrate to the mob that the victim isn't actually 
>>a witch (shades of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-). I have a feeling this 
>>one is no exception.
>
>Have you even once considered apologizing for your mistake?

I have offered to do so, with reasonable conditions. 

>By defending your original comments you (and still are) saying that
>there was nothing wrong with them, and that there is nothing wrong 
>with being molested.  

I never made fun of a child-molestation victim. I made fun of the S.O. of
an apparent child-molester. Different thing entirely.

>>As for "distastefulness", I'll remind everyone, YET AGAIN, of where my article
>>was posted originally. Taste is a very relative concept...
>
>And I'll remind YOU to keep in mind who read it.  

The original article, you mean? Only the readers of alt.flame. Hardly a 
sensitive and vulnerable bunch, would you say?

Or, do you mean the subsequent reposting to t.a? I was not responsible for
that, Susie Garvin was, for ulterior motives I can only guess at.

>What's more 
>important, your petty posturing, or someone else's pain?

Exactly. Why did Susie Garvin cause her S.O. pain by making a _cause celebre_
of all this? Why did she repost to t.a, thus taking the risk that hundreds or 
thousands of potential t.a readers who are victims of child abuse would be
pained? Could it be that she considered her "petty posturing" more
important than their pain?

Why don't you ask her?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: conradv@eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Subject: Re: franklin defends darcy
Reply-To: conradv@eng.clemson.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Clemson Univ.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:53:38 GMT

In article Mzs@cs.dal.ca, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Elvis) writes:
>In <1992Jul28.180637.25888@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Subliminal Psychology Talent Scout) writes:
>
>>What: <Bs3wn8.BLz@cs.dal.ca>
>>Who:  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca [Steve Franklin]
>
>>You've yet to recover from your rather embarrassing assertion that functional
>>families never beget homosexual children but that the presence of homosexual
>>children doesn't necessarily imply a family that isn't functional.
>>I, and at least one other poster, told you that the two statements are
>>equivalent.
>
>   I don't recall saying this exactly, but you almost hit my point. My
>"embarassing" assertion was that children are a product of their
>environment first and foremost (my oversight was in making this statement
>an absolute, rather than a "in most cases" statement).
>   You see, I fully believe that strong, loving heterosexual relationships
>will (in most cases!) breed in turn loving, heterosexual relationships.
>However, I subscribe to the theory that homosexual relationships and
>practices stem from a childhood that was less than "normal". You define
>normal if you like. There is a higher incedence of homosexuality in chilren
>who have been through a divorce. There is also a higher incedence of 
>homosexuality in those who lost a father (OR mother) when young...
>   Sure, in my first article I flunked by generalizing, but I still
>think the point holds.
>
>steve
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA


I am in complete agreement with Steve's profound insight into the root of
homosexuality.  Remember, Socrates turned into a homosexual because he 
had a nagging wife( lack of proper family environment, as Steve would
put it)


__________________________________________________-


" All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"
						            Edmund Burke


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:05:06 GMT

In article <3693@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

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

>>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes to Mr. Miller:

>>> I believe that the laws of Mark Kaufman's religion have not 
>>> changed over time.

>> I saw nothing in Mr. Miller's post which suggested that he was
>> referring to Mr. Kaufman's religion. In fact, he specifically
>> referred to "cultures" and "customs". 

> [... slander deleted ...]
> 
> The "customs" that Miller refers to are laws if one is Jewish.

Oh, so now you're telling everyone how Mr. Miller's posts should
be read? 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:33:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <85fmkv_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com writes:

> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes ...
> >  Show me a newborn infant that can survive more than a day or three without
> >someone to feed/care for it.  It must leech food and resources from outside
> >sources too.  Abandoning an infant is a crime, I believe.
> 
> The key (and embarrasingly obvious) difference is that, like any other person,
> an infant doesn not depend on any _one_ person for its survival; care can
> (and often is) transferred to other people.  This is not possible before
> birth.
> 
> Try carrying a newborn everywhere you go for nine months.  _Everywhere_,
> _all_ the time.  No breaks.  You, and you alone, are responsible for
> the care of the infant.  You sleep together, you go to work together, 
> you eat together, you live together.
> 
> Now, let's consider making this required by law.  From birth until nine
> months of age the father _must_ be exclusive care giver for the infant.
> Have any problems with this?
> Ray Fischer

  If it was necesary, I would do it law or no law.  But I'm not advocating
laws in EITHER direction, anyway.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29310 alt.birthright:129 alt.abortion.inequity:2701
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: How many deaths are insignificant? (was Re: THE THIRD TRIMESTER MYTH.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 07:03:03 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul24.185338.15202@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
><1992Jul22.212034.28968@coopsol.com>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> But how many late term abortions would cause you to re-think 
>>> your position? It's obvious that you think thousands of 
>>> annual deaths are insignificant, so perhaps we should start
>>> at 10,000 and move on up. Pick an absolute number; don't hide 
>>> your callousness behind percentages.  
>
>> The assininity of this approach Doug is that we the people routinely
>> allow the government to arbitrarily decide how many deaths are
>> reasonable, in all sorts of activities.  Reducing the speed limit from
>> 65 to 55 mph saved an enormous number of lives.  Reducing it to 45mph
>> would save even more.  [..]
>
>The only thing "assinine" here is your analogy. Killing a fetus is 
>done intentionally, but deaths from traffic accidents are not intentional
>killings. The government does not set permissible limits on the number 
>of motor vehicle fatalities which can be caused intentionally. 

As many of your fellow pro-lifers have stated on this net: dead is dead.

The fact is, intentional or not, our government regularly decides how many
deaths of people are acceptable for a given activity:  Number of deaths
too high for handguns?  We'll restrict handguns until the numbers become
more acceptable.  Too many people dying from bungee jumping?  We'll have
to look into restricting that to more reasonable death levels.

As far as "intentional" goes, many of the violent professional sports
promote physical mayhem where deaths occur (boxing, football, etc.)
Only when the number of deaths and injuries exceed acceptable limits
does the government threaten to get involved at all.

Fact: If the government required auto manufacturers to install airbags and
roll bars in ALL automobiles the number of deaths would be drastically
reduced (50% reduction is what I heard on a radio report).  But the
government doesn't do that, Doug.

What number of deaths from inadequatedly outfitted automobiles is
acceptable to you, Doug?  Pick an absolute number; don't hide 
your callousness behind percentages and 'intentions'.  


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Where ARE you, Chaney?  (WAS: Abortion and Infanticide)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:10:36 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Susan Garvin) writes:

[re: DJR-with-a-proofreader, Holtsinger...]
>He's still weaseling.  It is fun to watch.  (But not as fun
>as it's going to be watching the Airplane Boy try to explain
>his Margaret Sanger story.)

A*ma*zing, don't you think, that the motor mouth of Propellor Pod has been
totally SILENT since he was nuked.  He's having a hell of a time getting
out of this gracefully.

Oh, Borgie!  BORGIE!  BOOORRRRRR-GGGGGGIIIIIEEEE!!!!!  We're WAIting!!


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29761 alt.birthright:217 alt.abortion.inequity:2813