HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Alphabetical
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 16:49:28 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
 <1992Apr9.183532.7174@bmw.mayo.edu> <1992Apr10.00515
 <1992Apr13.234140.24953@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <kum4otINNshs@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <kum4otINNshs@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr13.234140.24953@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu
>(Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>exactly......the real problem with abortion is not the act itself....
>>but the reasons and motivations behind it. Humankind is a loser
>>when it comes to, in the words of Spike Lee, doing the right thing.

>Please explain why humanity is a loser when it comes to doing the
>right thing.

>>MaThiEu a. LeWis

It seems obvious to me.  Read the front page of a major paper (the
_Washington Post_ is good for this) and see if all those murders,
robberies, rapes and shootouts really show that humanity is a big
winner.

Even to tie abortion back into it:  many people say that an underage
woman should be allowed to have an abortion without her parents' consent
because the alternative is abuse.  The risk of abuse and the existence
of abuse definitely exists; surely the abuser is a loser at doing the
right thing.

Even I, upstanding citizen that I am :-), have often done the "wrong
thing".  And a wrong goes so much further than a right, most of the
time...

Joy Haftel               "A vague, a dizzy, a tumultuous joy".
JKH107@PSUVM                        --Southey
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Dennis Hall (cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu) 
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Rasmussen talks, I act.  
Organization: California State University, Sacramento. Standard Disclaimer. 
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:31:32 GMT

In article <18156@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>->In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L
>->Humphrey) writes:
>->Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?
>
>
>>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die?
>
>
>>I am not Chaney. I hope you can prove what you say, Patrick L Humphrey,
>>otherwise I demand a retraction from you. Either you're listening to a
>>liar, or you are a liar. I don't know which, and frankly, I don't care,
>>but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>>and you owe me an immediate retraction.

	And of course those who continue to call me "Chaney" have
	nothing to back their claims. They just continue to blatantly
	assert that I am Chaney, knowing they are wrong. 

	Or, as I have put it to Keith Andrew Cochran privately, they are
	either fools following liars, or liars trying to generate their
	own following of fools. 

>>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>>sysadmin, I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next
>>person that gets brought down.
>
>>Comprende?
>
>Wow, this sounds a lot like the David J. Rasmussen that was boycotted.
>
>
>Eric, any comments? I just read your file, but I wasn't around at the
>time, whoever was can be the judge.

	David Rasmussen (and this is from an e-mail message I've gotten
	concerning him) makes threats. I don't know if he can back up
	what he says. 

	Me: I dealt with the person who publicly declared that I am
	Chaney. That person, Scott Roby, an administrator (or so I was
	told), was himself punished by his system administrators for
	this stunt. THAT is a fact. Steve Chaney and I worked together
	because both of us were badly insulted by him, and we carried
	out our threats to him, and got Mr. Roby severely punished.

	Maybe Mr. Roby's lies still live on in the hearts of the fools
	who still follow him. I hope you choose not to follow him.

>It sure sounds like his tactics, however.

	Difference: Rasmussen carries no force behind his words. My
	words already *have* carried force behind them, and have helped
	result in punishment.  

>Ron

	- Dennis Hall 

"On the scene and in your face." - Tony Pope, "Hard Core" - Predator II
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:54:53 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr07.192728.5615@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:


>Of course, so is the concept and value of man's WILL.
   And hasn't man's "will" just gotten us in a fine mess? Damn apple in
the garden of Eden... heh
   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:35:25 GMT

In article <8APR92.16515884@vax.clarku.edu>
lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) wrote:

>>No, they aren't Suz.  Children are those whom are outside of the
>>mother's supporting body.  Killing a child is murder.  Removing a
>>fetus from a womb is called an abortion.  The two are not related. 

>That's a pretty interesting view of the word "children".  I'd bet that 99 out 
>of 100 pregnant women (who intend to give birth) would fight you if you said 
>that it wasn't their child that they were carrying.  

While pregnant women *often* refer to the z/e/f as a "baby", I've
never heard anyone except a pro-lifer talking about abortion refer to
a z/e/f as a "child".  N.B. In addition, "child" and "x's child" mean
different things.  The first refers to age, the second to whose
offspring an entity is.

--
"Thou shalt honor the noble English language, speech of Shakespeare, Milton,
and Poe, and it will serve thee all the days of thy life." - Robert Heinlein

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:30:28 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr13.122125.4321@hemlock.cray.com> 
                mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>> As I told Ms. McCabe, a mother cannot normally act to cause birth to happen, 
>> birth is an event that happens to her. Birth can be induced with drugs, but
>> that's not what I was referring to. Please extend me the same courtesy
>> that I give to you by not quoting me out of context.  

> Though the timing of labor's onset is presumably determined by the 
> same dread class of gremlins who set the timing for flat tires and
> lost dental fillings, giving birth to a baby is not something that
> 'happens to her' with no effort on the woman's part. 

I *never* said that the woman makes no effort during birth. Birth is
a natural event which she cannot "cause to happen" -- as you say, 
the timing of the event is not up to her. I understand that the woman
goes through a painful ordeal during birth, but in the original 
exchange, the woman's ordeal during birth was not the topic of 
discussion. 

> Once labor has begun, women take _active_ steps to deal with the 
> situation. in the absence of any such activity on her part, live
> births would be far less common. Examples of actions which a woman
> might take: [... deletions ..]

Of course, I agree completely, the woman can take active steps to
handle the ordeal when it happens. But she cannot cause birth to 
occur -- as you said before, the timing is presumably determined 
by a "dread class of gremlins". Where are we disagreeing?  

> Please try to understand that comments made in this forum which
> trivialize the physical demands that are made on women during
> pregnancy and childbirth are generally seen as evidence of a trend
> which we call 'ignoring the woman' syndrome. 

I said that birth is an _event_ that she cannot "cause to happen" -- the
timing is not up to her. How does that trivialize the demands placed 
on the woman? 

> I think the comment you made about childbirth was quite insulting 
> to mothers, in light of the efforts which most of us are called
> upon to make during childbirth.

I'm sorry if my comment offended you. But honestly, I can't see how 
my remark could be interpreted as meaning anything other than what you
have told me about the timing of birth. 

And speaking of insulting remarks, what is your opinion of recent 
posters who compared an abortion to "buying a car" and "playing a 
casino game"? Would you agree that those remarks are grossly insensitive 
to the feelings of women who go through an abortion?  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:49:40 GMT

Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <+44tn#a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) says:

>>What is the value of a man?
>[value of man post]
>>So does anyone have any objections to this plan?  When can we get
>>started?

>One thought:  when a woman is pregnant, she is risking her life for
>her own child.  The man in this scenario wouldn't be.  He would
>be risking his life for strangers who are external to him.

Two answers to your one thought.   :-)

1.  He IS risking his life for his own child.  His child receives
    most of the fee that is paid to him for this donation.  If you
    think that monetary payment is too crass, then the kid gets a
    certain amount of free medical care or something.  Hey, I'm
    willing to work with you on this.   :-)  AND this plan has the
    ADDED benefit that he helps someone else as well!

2.  Should it matter?  I have seen many pro-"life" males on this
    group smugly assert that they believe in the sanctity of ALL
    life.  In that case, why should they balk at the opportunity
    to help a stranger?  It couldn't be that they feel that donating
    a kidney is INCONVENIENT?  How horrible, not to physically
    support someone else because of one's own CONVENIENCE!


>Joy Haftel 

                      -rocker
From: lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:10:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>
>>Child care generally has no adverse affects on children (supported by
>>psychological studies).
>  Can you quote cases? I guess I'll have dig out the books to prove you
>wrong which is annoying, but there have been many studies supporting
>the mental and emotional disadvantages of the "latch-key child"...

I thought "latch-key" children are those children who go home alone,
i.e. not in any "child care" situation.  Be sure you get the studies
showing the mental and emotional disadvantages of "child care", Steve.

I think this is the first time I've seen Steve say he will dig out
studies.  

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:22:47 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 


So far, semi-logical...


>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 
>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 


**<sound of tires squealing>**  Whoa!!  Time out!!
*WHAT* observation that a fetus is a human life???  You have not established
this.  No hand-waving argument is gonna fly past me.  

No one disagrees that IF a fetus is human that abortion is an immoral thing.
The thing is that not all people (myself included) buys the "fetus is a
human, just accept it" argument.  PROVE this assertion is valid and there
will be no need for this newsgroup.  (HINT:  You can't prove this
assertion.  That's the source of the whole disagreement.  You can hold this
opinion and live your life according to it, but you can't get a majority of
people to follow you.  No way.  Uh-uh.  Forget it, mano.) 


>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
>
>Follows from premise A and B.


Not if B is invalid, as I believe it is.  Square one.  Try again.


>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  

Nice try at the logic thing.  Next time check your assertions.  I know you
religious zealots are new to it, but I want you to keep trying the logical
thing.  Just might make you see the error of your ways and un-repent (ha-ha,
only serious).
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                                    compton@plains.NoDak.edu

Your analyst has you mixed up with another patient.  Don't believe a
thing he tells you.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Eric
>Kevin W.
>>Kevin B. writes
>>>Beth

>>>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

>>>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.

>>Well, you see Elizabeth is probably Anti-Roe because Roe has restrictions
>>on abortions.  She probably anti-Roe because she wants universal abortion
>>rights--from conception until birth.

>Neither is true, asshole.
>Why don't you try asking instead of speculating?

Hey, "asshole", I never said that it was true.  I said "probably", which
leaves room for error.  A word which leaves room for debate, for questions,
asshole.


>Ekr

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: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:02:11 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr11.171856.2968@liebe.uucp>
kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr08.060536.25602@liebe.uucp>
>>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>>>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                            - E. Elizabeth Bartley

>>>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, Joy! (sorry, Joy.) Another Kevin for the pro-force-women-to-do-what
>>-we-think-they-oughtta side.

>I love it when the opponent proves my point for me.  Thanks muriel!

I enjoy it when my opponents are my best allies.  Thanks, Kevin B.!

---
"For the stupidity and overconfidence of our enemies, may Allah make us
truly thankful."

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan, Muriel, Cathi, please read this...;-)
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:32:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr10.230121.25145@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
#In article <1992Apr8.182426.10884@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

##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.
#
#We're proud of you, too, Gordon. In fact, we get together sometimes
#to have slumber parties and talk about you; don't we, girls?

Of course we do.  Cathi and I have some other ex-boyfriends in
common, too.  Allow me to recommend Dan King and Dean Kaflowitz 
and Keith Cochran and Patrick Humphrey and Jim Keegan once again.
It would give us that much more to talk about while we eat all 
that junk food and try on each others clothes.  

I'm inviting Kathi and Linda to my next sleepover, too.  They
may or may not have dated Gordon.

I'm really hoping that I can get a new ex-boyfriend with gills,
too.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.165434.15016@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>Back in my high school days, I had a Jewish girlfriend (not Nora, alas :-( ).

And I thought I was going to get a chance to acquire another net.ex-
boyfriend... ;-{

>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:25:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rv6qaINNk6u
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <8APR92.16325265@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>As for the overwhelming majority of abortions being for the sake of
>>convience, I say so what. Who are you to judge? As has been stated before
>>(by me) I have'nt met a woman who has had an abortion who didn't agonize
>>over it first, and through strength of will and mind, made a difficult
>>choice for herself. I never met a woman who just waltzed in, got rid
>>of that fetus, then went out and got pregnant again to go through that
>>sheer joy of abortion again. :)
>

Mind that "convenience" can also be defined in comparative terms, i.e:
"it is more convenient not to be pregnant than being pregnant, the post
abortion agony taken into consideration"

As for Loren's comment, I find it true. Abortion is widely used as a contra-
ceptive method all over the world. In Eastern European countries, where birth
control devices and education were hard to get women often had seven or
eight abortions in a lifetime. The anthropologic perspective on abortion
shows it was and is very common in all parts of the world and it occurs
mainly for economic reasons ( I guess the Lord sometimes forgets to pro-
vide..:-)  ) Some "primitive" population used to kill newborns (thereby
avoiding the risk of putting the mother through an abortion - she usually
did most of the work in the field) in order to keep the group size and
demography at an optimal level (as a function of the available resources)
They of course stopped doing that when the budget constraint disappeared.
My gues is that if we gave $50,000.00 to each pregnant woman that considers
abortion we 'd see a dramatic decline.   


Cheers!    
-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:36:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In a previous article, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:

>> A child is a born person.

>A child is not necessarily a born person.

>Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Edition:

>child: 1. an infant, baby
>       2. an unborn offspring

>You can always find a dictionary that will give you the usage that
>you prefer. I guess it's easier for some pro-choicers to deny their
>opponents the use of certain words, rather than to engage in an
>argument of substance.

Well, I must profess, my dictionary says the same thing. It can be an
unborn offspring. You are correct.

I guess we'll have to delete some more connotations from the English
language. Everyone, child == fetus, delete all those emotional feelings
that went with seeing a child as that cute, tow-headed kid you saw yesterday
in the market holding its mother's hand. From now on, a child must be
envisaged as that weird blob a fetus represents.

Doug, you can appeal to emotions all you want, but it will never win
an intellectual, logical argument. A fetus is a fetus, no matter what
else it might be called that could relate it emotionaly to something
in your cause. 

It will never be a person while it is a fetus.

It will never be sentient while it is a fetus.

It will always be a parasite while it is a fetus.

And there will always be a woman sufferring because of a fetus.

Whether that woman undergoes it willingly or not is the actual point
of the entire abortion issue, you want them to go through it unwillingly,
I say let them make the choice...

    ESPECIALLY SINCE I WILL NEVER HAVE TO FACE IT MYSELF.

Is that clear enough for you? You will never know what it's like either,
so I strongly suggest that you leave the decision to those that will
have to live with it. Otherwise, I suggest you start telling everyone
what job to partake in, when to eat, what to eat, etc... since you have
no respect for privacy.

Ron