HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:54:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1992Apr10.213503.11130@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.063103.7375@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>|>I find it telling that you took Cathi's question to
>|>refer to fetuses, and not to the women who carry
>|>them.  Try not to forget that woman, Steve.  Many
>|>of us here find that she's more important than
>|>brainless blobs of flesh.
>
>|CJ has just made himself a candidate for the 
>|first experimental post-partum abortion.
>
>I find it telling that my request not to forget the
>women involved in abortion produced a response
>which advocates murder of an adult human being.
>Is thinking about the woman so painful that you
>find violent outbursts preferable?

I'll second that. I find this quite offensive. I read his original
post and I didn't like the fact that he totally brushed aside the 
woman. It is difficult to struggle with an issue like this if the
two entities are considered equal. If we reduce on of them to being 
less than the other than it's really easy to make a decision. Read as
THINKING not required.

Let's say I am a pro-lifer (*gasp*). And I consider the womans life ==
to the embryo/fetuses life. Boy, am I in a jam. I have to now make some
pretty hairy conclusions on the relative values of life versus quality
of life. 

As an example...

A woman has an 80% chance of dying sometime during her third trimester.
Is the fetuses life worth the 80% chance of the mother dying.

A diehard (how ironic) pro-lifer might claim... the fetuses life is 
equally valuable to the mothers therefore she should risk her life
in bearing the child. And by law we should force her to continue the 
pregnancy.

But ya gotta ask....

Why is the pro-lifer playing God here by forcing another supposedly
equally valuable human being to risk her life?

And is this a clear-cut trade-off?

I always think that pro-lifers find it easier to tell others what to 
do when they are not the one facing the consequences.


anne



> 
>---
>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"Distinctions of this kind are interesting because they notify us
>about the limits of our empathy."  --Brian Eno
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:59:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr12.225650.21492@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu said:
><1992Apr9.210134.3581@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>No offense to Nora, Monica, Dean, and many others of the Jewish
>>faith/race, but at least you have a country to fight for.  At least the
>>rest of the world came to your rescue when you were being slaughtered by
>>the millions.  Ah well, I've gone on too long about this.  Sorry for the
>>diatribe.
>
>No problem about going on too long, and yes, it helps that I have a 
>country to fight for. But the rest of the world certainly did *not*
>come to our aid. They came to France's aid, and Britain's aid, and
>Russia's aid; and when they had destroyed the threat to the nations
>of Europe we climbed back up out of hiding. 

I stand corrected.  Still ex's ??? :-]  <- hopeful smiley.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:36:29 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

>So, pro-"life"s, here's your chance to respond to the question that
>I have asked countless times on t.a and that no one has EVER tried
>to answer:
>
>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?

18 years of financial support.
>
>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
>
>                           -rocker

           Mark
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:19:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Women's Health.
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:59:15 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Just in case anyone was at all fooled by Kellmeyer's cites,
I want to remind you all to look at the dates and sources.

Do you have any peer reviewed studies done in this decade,
or even last decade, Kellmeyer?

Susan
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:10:56 GMT
 <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu> <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Organization: Alphabetical

In article <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>,
ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com says:
>
>In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu
> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
>> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.
>
>Suzanne, have you heard of an event called the Immaculate Conception?

The Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that
Mary was conceived without sin.  Perhaps you are referring to the
incarnation and virgin birth?


Joy Haftel               "He that now goeth on his way weeping,
JKH107@PSUVM              and beareth forth good seed: shall doubtless come
                          again with joy, and bring his sheaves with him."
                                  --Prayer Book, 1662
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Jane Roe (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:09:50 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>#Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>#entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>#movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.

>Oh, great.

>Can someone tell me just which anti-choice group perpetuates the
>myth that Norma McCorvey was represented as a rape victim in
>the Supreme Court case?  

Well, I can definitively comment on this one, since I recently had
the honor of having a conversation with Sarah Weddington (the lawyer
who argued Roe in front of the Supreme Court) after attending a
speech she gave.  She was specifically asked about whether she
thought Roe had lied.  Her answer was "I don't know if she lied 
to me or not".  In early consultations, Roe (McCorvey?) had asked
her "Would it help if I told you I was raped?"  Weddington answered
"No, the state of Texas has no rape exception."  She said that rape
was not mentioned again, but that she had read interviews with 
Roe where the rape got more and more dramatic with each subsequent
interview.  Her reaction to this was basically resignation.  (She
shrugged)  In any event, she made clear that

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARGUMENTS.

because she believed that the circumstances of conception did not
matter.  The "Jane Roe" case in no way dealt with rape.

If you ever get a chance to hear Ms. Weddington speak, I urge you
to do so.  She's literate, funny, and utterly captivating (and, of
course, Southern (-:  ).

>I keep hearing this "Jane Roe lied"
>line used as if she never told the truth.  She did.  She did
>so very early on.   

But don't let it obscure the fact that whether she did or not had
no bearing on the case.  In fact, the case had been prepared before
the lawyers ever met her.  The "Jane Roe" case started as a
fully-formed case in search of a defendant.

>Susan

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Statistics: married/unmarried
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:33:20 GMT

In article <18126@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>BTW, just how many abortions are done to married women???
>>I'm sure the number of abortions by unmarried, perhaps promiscuous
>>women is alot higher. Statistics anyone???

>I believe it was around 30%. Someone has the list, please post for Matthew.

                                 1972      1976     1980      1985
                 Percentage distribution (excludes unknowns)
Married                          29.7      24.6     23.1       19.3
Unmarried                        70.3      75.4     76.9       80.7

--
"But facts are facts and flinch not."               - Robert Browning

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey Jean Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DeMoss Foundation
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:40:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <2nzj5xk.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:

>Yes, why don't they do a ad showing a woman who has been raped
>and is forced to have the baby, or ends up killing her self. About
>a other ad show a very sick woman who needs a abortion to save
>her life, but ends up dieing anyway. because the pro-life pigs
>have outlawed all abortions. I can tell you that these ads will
>not be so nice and cute.

	Gee... don't you know that most "Pro-Life Pigs" do support
abortions in cases of rape and danger to mother's health. Not all are
trying to outlaw abortions, the important issue is to lower abortions.
By the way, STOP CALLING PRO-LIFERS PIGS!!! (I wonder if he got the hint)


>By the way anyone who has been to school
>knows that the Campus Crusade for Christ are the bigest buch
>of jerks on the campus, when I was in high school i knew
>someone who was with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, he
>was the bigest asshole i have seen in my life. As for Pat Boone?
>need i say more?

	Yeah, I'm sure if one guy is a "jerk", all of them must be jerks.
As for "asshole", I'm not even going to bother to say what I think of you.
By the way, what does the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have to do with
the Campus Crusade for Christ. Please explain you (lack of) logic.


>-- 
>Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
>Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
>----------------------------------------------
> Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com

	To put it as nicely as possible. How about saying something more
resonable? So far all I've heard from you are varies derogatory names.
Instead of the name calling, why not try some reasoning? It might help.
Think long and hard about this or else someone'll knock some sense into you.

*****************************************************************************
*			    *              +------------------------------+ *
*     Brought to You by     *   (lllllll)  |       Hello, my name is 	  | *
*			    *   ll ~ ~ ll  |        Inigo Montoya	  | *
*      Mikeey Jean Lin      *   (  0 0  )  |			          | *
*       Vice President      *    |  ^  |   |	You killed my father.	  | *
*      Gymnastics Club      *     \_-_/l   |      PREPARE TO DIE!!!       | * 
*  University of Rochester  *  	      ll   +------------------------------+ * 
*			    *          l		                    *
*****************************************************************************
* Today's Quote : Sex is not the answer, sex is the question.		    *
*		  "Yes" is the answer.				Swami X     *
*****************************************************************************
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:18:06 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
-> keegan@oboe.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) errs in posting:
-> >-> Laws force beliefs, 
-> >
-> >name one law that forces a belief.
-> >
-> >-> its the same for any and all laws
-> >
-> >first, show that there is one.
-> >
-> 
-> What a law or a belief?  

can you read what you wrote: you said "Laws force beliefs." prove
it. name one law that forces a belief. alternatively, you can
just admit that you made a mistake.

-> I didn't say religious or moral belief, just belief.

why do you raise the issue of "religious" or "moral" belief?

stop scrambling around the issue. you made a statement. can you
support it?


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Organization: Wherever it lands, it stays 'til I need it
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 02:02:49 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads

In article <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:

>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.  It seems to me
>that, if a woman is truly concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, the
>proper occasion to exercise this right is before conception occurs.
>Now if all these irresponsible loudmouths would take it upon
>themselves to behave like mature human beings, exercise some proper
>self-discipline, and truly keep men out of their uteruses, there
>wouldn't even be any controversy regarding abortion.

Yep.  If women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.
And if they don't want to be in an auto accident, they shouldn't drive.
And if they don't want to get raped, they shouldn't make themselves
    attractive.

Cause and effect is such a fun little game, isn't it...

>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]

Define 'convenience,' please, it's an ambiguous term at best.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Summary: Marvels of humanity
Keywords: food, waste disposal, circulation, blood loss
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:04:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <7446@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>In <1992Apr6.003146.29171@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
>>As for energy prior to implantation, there is sufficient stored energy
>>in the egg to last until implantation.
>
>What a marvel!
>That one cell can carry the energy required to divide so many times!
>
>--
>Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
>Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
>University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
>Australia                        | anything about.

I agree wholeheartedly, Brendan.  Having watched this process of
development and birth of a human infant probably 6000 times in the
last 33 years I never fail to be amazed at the process which will
start with two cells, and thru an intricate process of dividion,
differentiation, and selective proliferation, end up 280 days later
with a living breathing human being.  It is indeed a marvel!  It is a
source of recharging my spiritual battery every time I see that
newborn kick in and start breathing and crying.

Shalom,                               Len Howard MD
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:24:43 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr7.190628.12162@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
><1992Apr6.231713.15643@adobe.com>, by kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall):
>> <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
...
>>  And 1.5 million *people* died of abortion?  NOT!  
>
>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.

How?  Does the doctor do an abortion and then run out and kill a kid, or
does the woman run over them in the parking lot on her way home.
Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.012638.18701@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

[Rest of article deleted to save space.  Steve was asked some questions, and he
comes back with the standard, "_My_ Church Says" responses].

[Then, he makes the standard "if you can't afford any more children, you have
to show discipline with your spouse" remark.  Then, he attempts to slide the
following by everybody...]

>(I'm not telling YOU how to do things, but how WE do things)

Ok, Steve, fine.  Then how about if YOU don't ever get an abortion, or
have pre-maritial sex, or etc etc etc, and let the rest of us live as we
see fit until we all stand before God on Judgement Day?

I mean, after all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you???
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:45:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr8.014927.5236@ncsu.edu>  dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.141153.5249@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
>
> > In order to hold this position consistently, you must also affirm
> > that an individual has no right to use lethal force to defend
> > against a rapist unless it is clear that the attacker also intends
> > to murder.
>
> Rape implies the use of force, which may result in the death of
> the potential rape victim.

Wrong.  (Non-statutory) rape implies force or coercion, but not
necessarily lethal force.  The use of deadly physical force is
permitted by law to prevent or terminate a rape *even if the victim
is in no danger of being killed*.

> A fertilized egg in a petri dish has the right to exist, and no human
> should be allowed to kill it. But no human should be forced to support its
> existence, and no human can prevent other humans from supporting the
> egg. Humans may leave the egg to die from a lack of support -- humans
> do not cause the death of the egg by not supporting it. I cannot cause
> the death of another person by not supporting them.

So you would permit an alternative to abortion in which the fetus is
removed from the uterus without killing it, and placed in a petri dish?
This way, no human kills it, but no human is forced to support its existence.
If you would *not* allow this, please explain why, since you just stated
that "no human should be forced to support its existence".

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:27:28 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <FN1BJB20w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>> If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
>> them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
>> fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
>> and not in the domain of the state.  Period.

>        You can assert the fundamental right to "control one's own
>body", but the USA has all sorts of legislation about things you can and
>can't do with it.
>        The right to make "reproductive decisions" always involves other
>people and often brings in judicial decisions about consent,
>responsibility for child support and custody, and with recent hi-tech
>biotechnology several new cans of worms about who has the rights to the
>ex-utero embryo and what inherent legal rights do embryos have ex-utero
>and/or after live birth (and other such conundrums).

The state has demonstrated that it can force a financial contribution to
society in general and the underpriveledged in particular by using the
constitutional power of taxation to "redistribute wealth".  I have no
problem with a financial obligation to one's offspring.  Child support is,
after all, just another redistribution effort.  (I may have problems with the
tax code, but they are not on a legal scale.)

The state has never, for example, asserted it has the power to force you to
be an organ donor.  The state can't force you to give up a kidney, some
bone marrow, or even a pint of blood to save the life of another, even if
you are the only donor in the world that can save this life.  Why, then,
does it exercise a similar power with regards to abortion?

/* By the way, just because the state does something does not mean that the
state SHOULD be doing it.  Consider Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran-Contra,
napalm, the House Bank, life on a reservation, the 1040 tax form, ADA, the
Bay of Pigs, Agent Orange, the House Un-American Activities committee,
Oliver North, and other assorted stupid/illegal bonehead maneuvers brought
to you by the state.  Do you trust these people?  I don't. */

>        The state certainly _considers_ "reproductive decisions" as well
>as many issues concerning one's own body to be "in the domain of the
>state", whether you like it or not.

I don't like it.  I am working to change the system.  My philosophy
currently states that the state is a necessary evil that governs best when
it governs least.

>Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!


-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Caffeine Consumption        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion