HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:01:34 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->I work with a young married woman who is also a Chinese national. 
->She states that among people of lower socio-economic status who
->(as you indicate) live in smaller towns and villages, forced or
->coerced abortion does indeed occur.  Those who have advanced edu-
->cations and/or money generally have nothing to worry about, unless
->they appear to be reproducing indiscriminantly (my paraphrase), at
->which time they might receive a friendly visit designed to politely
->deter such behavior.  

i play tennis with a young woman who is a chinese
national. she tells me that forced or coerced abortion
does not occur in china.

you seem to be expressing some of djr's old
ideas. as i recall, his "source," a fellow named mosher,
was discredited.

although that was no surprise.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:30:35 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:26:44 GMT

>> = William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>  = sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [...]  Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with
>>millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of
>>blueprints are floating in their respective ovaries and vesicles. When
>>the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
>>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer,[...]

...or may have been the next Hitler. 
...or may have been the the assassin of the woman who would have cured AIDS.
What this is a "blueprint" of is completely unknown.  Furthermore, what a 
person a f/e/z evolves into is not completely determined by genetic info.
That dead-end argument works both ways, but it's so stupid, for credibilities
sake, I suggest you drop it.

Certainly this random "blueprint" has value, perhaps even great value, but
o is the "blueprint" the same    as the finished (or nearly finished) product?
o is the "blueprint" as valuable as the finished (or nearly finished) product?
o is destroying a blueprint the same as destroying the finished product?
I think not.

--------------------
>>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!
>> [...]

o is not creating another random blueprint any better or worse than
  destroying an existing random blueprint?
o Is destroying a blueprint more similar to not making the blueprint or
  is destroying a blueprint more similar to destroying the finished product?

--------------------
>This is what I have been trying to tell these people.  Abortion destroys
>an unique, sentient, feeling person.
>
>That is why I object so strongly to it.

PROPOSITION
  (abortion) !=> (destroying a unique, sentient, feeling person)
PROOF (by contradiction):
  ASSUME  
    (abortion) => (destroying a unique, sentient, feeling person)
  NOTE THAT 
    a fertilized egg:
    1) does not always result in a unique person (can you say "twins"?)
    2) is not sentient
    3) cannot feel
  SO THAT 
    aborting a fertilized egg DOES NOT destroy a unique, sentient, 
    feeling person
  THUS 
    aborting a fertilized egg is not abortion, which is a contradiction
  HENCE 
    the assumption must be wrong.
QED

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:33:45 GMT

In article <26157@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.062449.8215@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
>> writes:
>
>>>A man is dying for lack of a kidney, and although he desperately wants
>>>somebody to donate the organ to save him, he's unable to get one from
>>>another person by himself.  Therefore you say that he's not allowed to
>>>have that done.
>
>>However, let us just make a mental note that someone is dying here.
>
>Let's make another one and that without the mother's support, so is
>the fetus. (Are you really this dense, or just this confused?
>
In the fetus/unborn's current state, it is alive and wants to keep alive.
You have to kill it or be in the process of killing it to have the
fetus/unborn be in a dying state.

The fetus/unborn is in a living state.  

>>>A woman is pregnant with a fetus, and although she desperately wants
>
>>A pregnant woman is not dying.
>
>In this case she takes the role of the potential donor.
>The fetus is the one dying.

The fetus/unborn is not dying in its current state.  You have to Force
or induce death to make it start dying.
>
>>>somebody to cut off her support for the fetus, she's unable to do it
>>>by herself.  Therefore you say that she's not allowed to have that done.
>
>>I don't think you just "cut off" support.  I believe abortion methods
>>require killing first.  I don't think you starve the unborn child from
>>the womb.  I could be wrong about this.
>
>Hey, simple snip of the unbilical cord, and that's it. 

Why don't they do this more often?

>
>>In the earlier situation, someone was already dying.  What gov't does
>>in this situation is to "force" people to donate parts.
>
>The fetus is in a constant "dying" state, except for the support of
>the mother.
>

Just remember exactly what abortion does: Abortion is active, forced, or
induced death.
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

In article <1992Oct15.182156.25919@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
# And in the meantime, I'm going to sign up to join my buddies who will
# be hitting ACT-UP super-hard, from now on. We'll get those buggers
# back once and for all. 

Your `buddies?'  Great.

What in Holey Eris' Name does ACT-UP have to do with your
anti-abortion agenda, Mr. Chaney?


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Shuddering over what Mr. Chaney might think getting `those buggers
back once and for all' means...

*and*

Wondering why ACT-UP, of all groups, should be the bane of his
existence...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.war.vietnam,alt.conspiracy
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Is George IN the Loop
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.200933.12903@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>First OFF, I must Agree with Former JCS ADM Crowe

First off, a friend and I where going over a list of the military
people who endorsed Clinton. It was amazing how many of them had
a personal axe to grind with Bush or Reagan. Admiral Truly for example,
endorses Clinton but was fired by Bush for doing a poor job running NASA.
The former Chief of Staff for the Air Force endorses Clinton but he was
fired by Bush for talking about battle plans before Desert Storm. I
believe (but could be wrong about this) that Crowe resigned from the
Reagan Administration because he wanted a 600 ship Navy and Reagan wouldn't
give it to him (in other words, he wanted to spend even more on defense
than Reagan).

>We KNOW that it is "immoral to demonstrate against one's country
>when it is at war...." {Read His Lips, Would HE Lie to US?}

Are you saying he isn't entitled to that opinion?

>Why then is it that Nixon, Reagan, AND BUSH, have not even
>sought a Grand Jury Investigation of this CRIME?

I don't think Bush has accused Clinton of doing anything illegal
so a Grand Jury wold be kind of silly woldn't it?

All Bush is saying is that it shows bad judgment. He also raises the
interesting question of why Clinton feels the need to lie about it
(and every other negative story).

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:20:52 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = Warren Lavallee writes:

>> Does anyone else other than me feel it is foolish to be talking about 
>> abortion from a Biblical perspective with non-Christians?

>Talking about abortion from a Biblical perspective is not likely
>to influence non-Christians such as myself.  Whenever I see
>a post with bible quotes, I'll usually skip the post. 

What a liar.  You harp on everyone that uses the bible AGAINST
"pro-life".

>(BTW, I'm not pro-choice or pro-abortion.

Nor are you credible or compassionate.

>> They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  

>Why must you think in binary?  There are many non-Christians who
>simply don't know whether the bible is factual or not.  

Um, mind documenting this dubious claim?

>I tend to be very skeptical about the exitence of God, but I'm willing
>to keep an open mind.

Then you're not an atheist.  

Since you're so ignorant on the meaning of words, possibly you're
actually pro-CHOICE, too!

>> They admit no absolutes, no matter what we say, it seems to bounce off them.
>> How do you argue values with someone who has no values?  

>This is complete nonsense.  A person does not have to be a Christian
>to "admit absolutes" or to possess values. 

Geez, Doug - you're RIGHT.  I AGREE WITH YOU!

<*Ouch!*>  Goddam, the sky is falling.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:37:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <92281.215719KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.172923.16641@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H
>Woodyatt) says:

>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

Eric
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42626 alt.abortion.inequity:4441
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What I am wearing today
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:00:57 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less


Cheap baggy gonzo pants from L.A.
Tie-dyed Alice's Restaurant T-Shirt (w/ Big Peace sign)
Argyle socks (matching)
Black leather Rockport shoes


I figure I can probably outgeek anybody here.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Maybe this should have been a short, shameful confession...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:46:45 GMT

wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
->(dean.kaflowitz) writes: >
->>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
->> 
->>> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
->>
->> Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
->> one to conclusions.

->In true Kaflowitz tradition...

->All lies and jests

i've never seen dean post a lie. will you post a couple
of examples of dean's "lies?"

he is the king of jest though.

so, you were half right, which is an improvement.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:55:05 GMT

In article <Bvrnnx.3vu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.184949.5694@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>Okay here goes.  I am not saying anything about where I stand on this
>>"personhood thing." But would you say that a "person" begins at birht
>>or after birth?  Would you be willing to protect "persons" from being
>>killed?  Would you be willing to protect non-persons who are humans?
>>(i.e.  the time from conception to the time you perceive to be the
>>age when a human life becomes a person.)
>
>
>In some religions "personhood" isn't optained until after 3 months
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of gestation.  For these religions that is when a soul is bestowed.  
>For these religions abortion in the first trimester is fine as the   
>z/e/f is still a non-human.


Which, if true, tells us that perhaps the pro-life, pro-choice debate
isn't necessarily a religious issue.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:16:04 CDT

In article <7187@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>Can anyone tell me why this person is posting long lists of
>periodical articles?  
>
Alas, I have no professional training in analyzing the
motivations behind net.behaviors.  Perhaps Mr. Overpeck 
would be kind enough to offer a list of possible reasons
for such behavior.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:32:17 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct14.204014.779@anasazi.com>  best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.051623.122379@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >In  <1992Oct12.200432.9297@muddcs.claremont.edu>  weverett@jarthur.claremont.ed
> >>
> >> Requiring people to be responsible for their actions is not a punishment.
> >
> >Taking away one of their responsible choices, however, is.
>
> Larry, you seem to be a reasonable person so I have chosen you to ask this
> question.  Do you believe that both parents of the child are responsible
> for the child if it were to be born?  I suspect the answer is yes so I will
> move on to the next question, if you believe in equal rights then should not
> the male have the option to have the child aborted even if it is against the
> will of the mother?  Certainly the female has this right today and the same
> arguments can be made [...]

If the same arguments can be made, then I would certainly give the male
the right to have the child aborted.  I'm no sexist - *regardless* of
whether the person is male or female, I'll give the one in whose body
the fetus resides the final say over the use to which his or her body
should be put.

> I am attacking the stance that it's the woman's body and the woman's choice
> yet it is also the man's responsibility if she should decide to have the
> child in the first place.

I'd also support the ability to sign a legally binding pre-coital agreement
stating that the man would have no responsibility for child support should
a child result.  The woman could then decide, if abortion were against her
principles, whether she was capable of handling a child on her own or
whether she would rather forego sex with this person.

That the laws might be unfair in one direction is no excuse for making it
worse for other people.

> Basically, a group right has been established which gives one group (women)
> a right which another group (men) does not have.

Men have the *same right* to abort a fetus growing in their body as do women.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Right from the start, blah blah blah
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:51:27 GMT

In <5804@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us 
   (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes: >
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>>
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >>>>>>

>>>>> What purpose is served by repeating vile, unsubstantiated rumor 
>>>>> about a dead young woman?  
>
>>>>Perhaps it has something to do with her parents malicious anti-RTL 
>>>>crusade.  
>
>NOTICE:  Here Bill thinks the spreading of vile, unsubtantiated rumors 
>is dandy keen wonderful because he doesn't like what someone is saying.

Is that what I think?  Gee, Teddi, you might try asking for clarification
before posting your own verion of my thoughts.  Unless, of course, you're
one of those "mind-readers" Jim Keegan is fond of referring to.  Your
inference seems a bit on the vile and unsubstantiated side to me.

>Thanx for your homage to the truth.  That certainly earned pro-lifers 
>the moral high ground, huh?

I'm afraid nobody in this debate can claim that. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:21:09 GMT

In <ldbc8lINN98q@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>In article <92283.030621KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <ld8ou7INNqrg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>>(Eric Marsh) says:

>>>>>So, the fact that it is illegal is what makes it wrong?  Is there
>>>>>anything deeper, Grasshopper?

>>>>Besides absolute right and wrong, no.

This use of "absolute" is misleading.  There are strong philosophical bases
for morality having nothing to do with religion, but there is nothing
really "absolute" about most of them.

>>>No kidding? So how are these absolutes determined?

>>Of course, given the disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God, that's a good
>>question; how CAN one determine what absloute right and wrong are?

>Perhaps one might conclude that there is no evidence of an absolute
>right and wrong.

But there are plenty of people with strong beliefs that certain acts, even
illegal ones, are right, such as certain acts of civil disobedience by
Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and their followers; and certain acts, even
legal ones, are wrong, such as the extermination of Jews during World War
II.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:19:13 GMT

In article <1bc40aINNgnu@overload.lbl.gov>, inspecti@ux7.lbl.gov () writes:

[responding when I wrote about a posting by drieux...]
>>	If you understand it so well, perhaps you would like to translate what
>>he keeps writing?  Not only on talk.bizarre, but on all of the groups to which
>>he posts.
>
>This was intended to be a learning experience.  I can only assume you made it
>past primary and secondary school, and perhaps through the 
>preliminary phase of college up to an undergrad degree.   Therefore, you
>are now a grown-up, and should be capable of solving problems for yourself.


	Not that it's relevant, but you've underestimated my acedemic
credentials.  But let's get back to the point.
	Your paragraph above seems to imply that you can't understand it
either, and you use the old "solution left as an exercioose for the reader"
dodge.  Way are you pulling a Clinton?  Just tell the truth (quoting a certain
VP).


>Once again, applied to French, German (a language which creates compound 
>words in EXACTLY the same way drieux does), or perhaps Farsi, this would
>get you thrown out of the building feet first.  

	Exactly, in FRENCH and GERMAN.  My post said that what he was doing was
not English.  I'm glad to see you agree with me.  If the language of use here
were German, it would be acceptable.  Since we are using english, though, it is
babble.


	Can we get back to the point of this group, please.  I made a one-post
message saying that I agreed with Kurt, and even mentioned in that message that
I gave up reading postings by "drieux" long ago.  Yet I continue to get
messages by people who obviously cannot read properly-structured English
telling me about kill files and suggesting that I use them.  I also get
messages from people who don't agree with me.  Fine.  Disagree if you want, I
really don't care what your thoughts are in the matter.  It's all a religious
argument in the end anyway, and my opinion is as I've stated it.  If you don't
like my opinion, hit 'n' now.  I read this group (t.p.g) to discuss the
politics of firearms.  If I wanted to read static, I would subscribe to those
groups containing static.
	The number of people who are so insecure as to be personally offended
my opinion is amazing.

Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion