HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: What do you REALLY mean?
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:01:59 CDT

In article <yo80iB6w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:

>        Under current law, unborn human beings have NO civil rights.
>Admitted: "removing women's rights" to an abortion would be _inherent_
>in recognizing the personhood and the "right to life" of the preborn,
>even as the former slaves were granted citizenship that eliminated the
>"rights" of their former owners.  _SO_BE_IT_!_

If you can compare a woman's right to her reproductive organs to 
the 'rights' of a slaveowner, it takes no great stretch of the
imagination to deduce just what your attitude towards women
must be. I don't want people like you making choices for women.

>        The US Constitution speaks of the "right to life, liberty, and
>the pursuit of happiness", it didn't apply to black folk then, and it
>apparently doesn't apply to the preborn now...  yet...
>
<sigh>. You might try reading the group for a day or so before 
starting to post. This error has been corrected at least three times
in the past 24 hours. It's the Declaration of Independence which
you are quoting. It guarantees nothing.

Question: how do you justify affording _fewer_ rights to pregnant
women than you do to other born human beings?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:28:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.014320.8730@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes [to Linda Birmingham]:
>->                  
>-> If you
>-> wish to imply that Welch's particular form(s) of harrassment
>-> are in violation of some applicable law(s), then please
>-> identify exactly which statues/ordinances/ bylaws/whatever he
>-> has supposedly broken. Otherwise, stop slandering him.
>
>why should ms. birmingham cite statutes/ordinances/whatever to
>support allegations -you- imply.

You implied it, Keegan, in your question "isn't harrassment against the law?",
combined with Welch's admissions of harrassment. I have already explained this 
many times.

>you also forgot to answer ms. birmingham's question of -you-.
>'Please cite where Kevin Welch admitted to doing anything other
>than "harassing pregnant women."'

I never implied anything of the sort. All I did was spotlight your 
implication that Welch is a law-breaker and insist that you meet your burden 
of proof.

Since you have failed to meet your burden of proof, you should retract the 
charge of law-breaking.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:04:54 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>> A word of unsolicited advice: newbies do better around here if they lurk
>> for awhile before jumping headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about
>> three months before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you
>> would make a *fine* lurker.

> Why of course you would want me to "lurk".  Standard Pro-Death tactics is
> to scream their opinion while trying to shut others out.  This issue is
> much too important to sit by until I think YOU approve of the manner in
> which I post.

It's also much too important an issue to be handled as ineptly as you have
so far.  Don't be surprised if being flamed to a crisp hinders your attempts
at re-inventing the wheel.

I lurked for about two months before posting; getting to know the players
without having to riffle through a program helps, believe me.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Keywords: food, waste disposal, circulation, blood loss
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:41:49 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


lh>In article <1992Apr7.220444.3380@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
bm>In article <7446@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:

bm>What a marvel!
bm>That one cell can carry the energy required to divide so many times!

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

This leaves me rather damn curious Dr. Howard.  In all these times
of witnessing this marvelous process was there ever a woman involved?
Could this intricate process have even been possible without the
woman's contribution to the process?  Since you seem to have more
expertise in this field than I do, I'm sure you can answer these
questions for me.

lh>Shalom,                               Len Howard MD

Dan King
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:06:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

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

>are you and Dean Dickowitz willing to say that NEVER in your life
>you have compromised yourself in the manner of being a hypocrite??

I made no such claim, I just asked you to prove it from what you know
without making a blatant assertion. Whether the blatant assertion happens
to be true or not is immaterial, and I would be foolish to give you
any help in this matter. So i again ask you to prove it. (hint: this
requires facts)

>If so, then I will no longer pay attention to you. You would be a liar.

Simplistic attitude. Certainly you expected more of a response than
a simple yes or no?

And Matthew, you shouldn't let your immaturity show by corrupting someone's
name. It also is not very respectful, and as far as I can tell, Dean
has been very polite, doing nothing to earn this disrespect. If you
feel cornered, concede the argument and drop it, don't play petty insults.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: The March in D.C.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 APR 92 02:50:02 GMT

>Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
>a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
>and the lives.

We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
this issue.  

					Loren Finkelstein
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.054116.21897@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.033005.14103@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>
>>>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Apr15.012228.6818@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure, Steve.  Just like your church minded its own business during the
>>>>>>Spanish Inquisition...got any more fairy tales for us?
>>>>>and HOW many Christians were killed by non-Christian Romans and all
>>>>>those crazy Ostrogoths, and Visigoths, and Vandals? ( I love those names!!)
>>>>You might be interested to know that the Goths were generally
>>>>Arian Christians.
>>>
>>>Sorry my friend.....not when they invaded back in the 400s AD.
>>Actually, completely untrue.
>>
>>Allow me to refer you to Henry Chadwick's "A History of the
>>Early Church."
>>On page 124: "Not until about 318-320 were there signs that
>>Arius's orthodoxy were highly questionable."
>
>notice I mentioned Vandals.....
No, dear boy. I said...."The Goths were generally Arian Christians."
And you responded "not when they invaded back in the 400s AD."
Why don't you just admit you were WRONG?

>there were many centuries of 
>successive invasions.
This much is true.

> The first invaders(Vandals and Goths) were
>heathen barbarians. The went through the HRE to Spain and Africa.
>As the centuries went on, each wave of invaders became more civilized.
Not more civilized, just Christian.
In any case, Alaric--who entered Rome in 410--and his Gothic
followers--were Arian.
Look, Matthew. You were WRONG. 
You'll like like less of a fool if you just admit it.

>>>Take a better history class.
>>It was obviously better than the one you took.
>
>Probably not......mine was in French
Might explain why you failed to understand it.
You barely seem to speak English.

>Next time......ask me to clarify before you attempt to prove
>that motorcycle riders can have intelligence.
Ahem.
Argumentum ad hominem, impressive....
It's not a matter of clarification. You made a flat out error
and are now trying to back out of it.

-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: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:07:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr8.200734.609
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

|>Tommy Kelly:
|>  >Bruce Cameron

... lines deleted...

RE: anti-abortion laws...
|> >	2) they codify a discriminatory difference based on gender
|> 
|> 	Uhu.  And?
|> 	The genders are different arent they?
|>

So, it is your belief that laws that are applied to members of
society based strictly on gender are acceptable. Presumably this
can be extrapolated to: laws being applied to members of society
based on physiological differences from some norm. Thus we can
infer that you would also approve of laws based on skin color
(a physiological difference), mental * physical handicaps
(physiological differences) etc.
 
|> >	3) they prohibit the complete self-determination of women (an action
|> >	   not prohibited to men)
|> 
|> 	But men don't get pregnant!
|>

This is enough of a reason to base a law on?!
 
|> 	Men do pay taxes however - even if they self-determine that they dont
|> 	want to.
|>

Good try, but not true. If a man does not wish to pay taxes, there are
no laws that prohibit his efforts to avoid paying taxes. They do
define the directions those efforts are to take if they are to
avoid penalities.

If you wish to use this as an anology, then your proposed anti-abortion
legislation must provide legal avenues for a woman who wishs to 
end a pregnancy to do so.


-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:22:29 GMT

In article <16772@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>This is the text of a leaflet published by the Libertarian Party.  I am not
>a member of this party (yet?), but their view on abortion is one I share.
>***************************************************************************
>
>                     The Libertarian Party asks:
>                     ABORTION: WHO SHOULD DECIDE?
>
>The Libertarian Party has for many years supported the woman's right to
>decide whether or not to abort her pregnancy. It is a matter of
>principle, not political expediency. The government must not be allowed
>to interfere with this most crucial, private decision.

That's why the 1988 LP candidate Ron Paul was so vehemently anti-abortion,
hunh?
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Ingestion of placenta? (was:Re: The abortion beautiful)
Distribution: na
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:14:16 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.213743.6194@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>      BTW, wouldn't it make much more sense to use placentas from
>> full-term births than from abortions? After all, even though what we
>> covered in high school about placental development was rather minimal (I
>> think they were still calling it the "afterbirth" then), surely the
>> placenta increases in size as the fetus does. Or is it magically there
>> and fully developed immediately after conception--kind of like the soul?
>
>Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
>after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
>know if this is true?
>
I think there are a few women who do this. It's supposed to be 
the 'natural' thing to do according to some (rather hardcore,
IMHO) natural-childbirth types. Most of the women I knew who
went for the hippie homebirth experience did not partake of this
meal. I only have one acquaintance who has related the experience 
of eating placenta; her husband was a chef who prepared it sauteed 
with onions. 

We did bury one under a lilac in the back yard.
Seemed to bloom more after that.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:00:32 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = Brendan Mahoney writes:
>> = (James Hansen) writes:

>>A fetus is not a human being with a conscience and a soul,

>Where do you get these superstitions from?
>Show me a sould or a conscience.

Geez, Mahoney - you and I are in rare, nay, UNIQUE agreement here.

Some time you'll have to elucidate your anti-abortionism.  Like, in
three novels or less.  Your comment seems to preclude the usual      
religious delusions. 

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sherri@beastie.colby.edu (Sherri M. Gray)
Subject: Just curious...
Summary: What is T.S.A.K.C??
Organization: None whatsoever.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:39:40 GMT

I'm a relative newbie to UseNet.. been following this group for about
a month..

Background: undergrad. pro-choice. 20 years old. female

I have a question, that I don't _think_ I can get flamed for. :)

What do the initials T.S.A.K.C stand for? I have some theories.. but
I'm kind of curious... e-mail or post a response. 

Thanks!

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sherri Gray             | I speak for myself. Consider this a disclaimer.   |
| sherri@beastie.colby.edu| "Well, duh!" -what we say when done with a proof. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:18:16 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
#In <1992Apr10.152706.408@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

#   Cj - someone mentioed you resembled a fetus, and i take strong objection to 
#that. But I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you. Your 
#tactics are embarassing to your movement. When I started to post here, the 
#first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "blah blah blah...
#   Nice - scare off any newcomer to the game before they get any
#good ideas in... Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression
#of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime. you are guilty
#as charged dear...

Why is it that the people who complain the most about 
flames are also the ones who can't resist making them?

I thought that you were taking a break, Franklin.  Is this
a new pro-force tactic, to announce that you're leaving
and then post a few insults the next day?  I see that
you're honoring the old traditions of criticizing the
people who post flames rather than those who post flame
bait and of being condescending to women.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: do unborn have rights????
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:34:18 GMT

mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes ...
>funny......the eggs of a spotted owl or a California condor
>have rights.......but a fetus doesn't. Use your fucking brain.

Animals have no rights.  Condors are never asked about what they
would like done, and are ignored when they express what might
be considered an objection.

>and drop some stupid line about them being endangered and humans
>have overpopulayed the earth. the point is that we spend more effort
>proecting some stupid bird than we do our future.

Many people have argued that Condors, Spotted Owls, and other species
ARE our future.  People, on the other hand, are hardly an endangered 
species.  Further, if abortion is considered in light of what is best for
humanity as a whole, it is hardly clear that making abortion illegal will
solve any problems or improve the quality of life.

Ray
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Dear Stupid, Pro-Life, Ass-Hole... :] (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:17:20 GMT

In article <14APR92.03353958@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>Loren:
>> 
>>I'm pro-choice.  I have absolutly not problem believing that the fetus is
>> 
>>(1)Alive
>>(2)Human
>>(3)a "Human Being" (in pretty much whatever way you want to define THAT).
>> 
>>I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions before the 20th
>>week of pregnancy.  I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions
>>after the 20th week of pregnancy provided they have more of a reason than
>>"Oh, I woke up today and it was, like, you know, cloudy, so I like, decided
>>to go out and have an abortion".
>> 
>>Would you like to know why?
>> 
>>Because the rights of the BORN HUMAN BEING WOMAN must have more priority than
>>the "rights" of the UNBORN HUMAN BEING FETUS.  There are cases where these two
>>humans have almost equal rights, but those are few and far between.
>> 
>
>But we are not talking about the same right.  We are not talking about one
>persons right to live over another persons right to live.  All rights are not
>equal.  Does one persons right to free speech supercede another persons right
>to live?  No, if it did then solicitation to commit a crime (specifically, a 
>murder) would not me illegal.    I believe that the right to live must have
>priority of over the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. 

Nice to know that you believe the right-to-life of a WOMAN involved in a 
pregnancy is more important then the right of the "WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornFetal
ChildThatIJustKnowIsDoingCalculus" to subsist off the woman.

Or are you going to do another Kevin Welch, and claim that unless there's a
100% chance of the woman dying, that she shouldn't be allowed to have an
abortion?
--
=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, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:02:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr10.000256.7148
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr9.183512.11815@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:


>   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
>the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
>that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
>a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
>against choice?

	If people actually believe what you just said, then I'm afraid for
all of us. There is always a compromise between both parties, despite what
you may think. The Pro-Lifers (I prefer this term) want to lower abortions,
just like the Pro-Choicers. If both parties want to lower abortions, then
they can find a middle ground. However, the extremists of both parties can
make it difficult to achieve a compromise. It's not impossible!!! Got it?

						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
				      (Pro-Choice/ANTI-ABORTION)

PS Many Pro-Lifers are reasonable, you'll see.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15422 soc.men:8489 soc.women:9009