HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:27:25 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

> No one is asking the baby.

D'you suppose there might be a _reason_ for that?

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

                  -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Recommended reading
Organization: Clark University
Date: 29 SEP 92 20:40:43 GMT

There is an excellent article about the pro-life movement in the October 1992 
issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (starts on page 224).  It was written by Leslie 
Brenner, and called "Pro-lifers:  Who are they, and what are they after".

I don't have a scanner, and I don't have time to type it all in, so I'll just 
type in some of my favorite parts.  See if the descriptions of the pro-life 
men and woman remind you of anyone you know...  


About pro-life women, Ms. Brenner writes : "These God-fearing women have to 
live with a difficult paradox: In order to have children, as the bible 
commands them to (and because they usually want to), they must have sex.  Yet 
sex for pleasure is "dirty" and "sinful".  Obligated to perform an act they 
are not allowed to enjoy, they're very uncomfortable with their own sexuality 
- and even the idea of sexuality for others.  Coming from this point of view, 
they can't possibly understand women who set up their lives differently - 
women for whom sex is pleasurable and satisfying, as well as a way to deepen a 
relationship emotionally.  They see this "free sex" as wanton and want women 
who engage in it to _pay_.  If _they_ don't get to enjoy sex, why should other 
people?  They shouldn't is the answer - which is why pro-lifers zealously aim 
to make sure that sexual women suffer the consequences."


On why men spend so much time and energy trying to take away a woman's right 
to abortion : "Some experts have suggested they're threatened by women in the 
workplace (which seems plausible; most of the met I met were notably 
unsuccessful in their carrers.)"

"Mysogyny is another strong reason for the involvement of male zealots in the 
movement... they believe that women are divided into those who are meant to 
bear children and those who are whores - and there is no in-between.  For 
them, women who have sex for purposes other than childbearing are sluts and 
must be punished for it...  This type of puritanism, which continues today 
among so many male pro-life members, may be due to the fact that they 
themselves are sexually repressed.  A large number, too, are social misfits 
whom no woman would have; in the anti-abortion movement, they find the 
acceptance they haven't been able to gain elsewhere."


The author tried to find out why a group of pro-lifers labeled themselves 
Democrats : "I asked each delegate whom they had voted for in 1988.  They all 
told me the same thing: What they did in the voting booth was their own 
business.  Apparently, I had violated something sacred to them: their right to 
privacy."


A Randall Terry quote: "I was conceived out of wedlock.  I could have been 
aborted.  I hope and think that my parents wouldn't have, but I'm just real 
glad they didn't even have the choice."  


There is other good stuff in the article.  I recommend it to anyone interested 
in learning more about the anti-abortion movement.

                            .... Heather.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:42:38 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep28.183917.15379@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
>Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
>Date: 28 Sep 92 18:39:17 GMT

>In article <Bv75BB.9DJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.224506.26902@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep25.003312.4297@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, Naziism was the first place where abortion was legal. 

>>>Actually, your forgot the early Soviet Union. Then the Nazis 'legalized'
>>>it - but only for 'non-Aryan' women.

>>Sounds like they were influenced by Margaret Sanger...     :-|

>The Nazis were, the Soviets weren't.


>-- 
>The Earth Pig Bourne....

>nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
>nadja@weitek.com

Yes, and let's not forget the forced-abortions policies of China.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Right to Kill (was Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy)
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:30:29 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
    [quote of Nathanson's]
>>	concept is common to all tissue and organ transplant), but
>>	also in placing brain tissue into someone else's brain they
>>	are creating a second personality as well?  Think of it:
>>	two human beings of separate tissues and separate personal-
>>	ities within the shell of one being.
>
>As the pro-choicers say, "*Sigh* Reading Comprehension Time"
>Nathanson does not claim this happens in ALL cases.

Doesn't matter. Nathanson's claim that this can happen at all means 
that either he lies without shame or that he slept through med school.
It doesn't happen.  Brains are not like holograms where you can just remov
e a piece and have a whole personality.  Bits of brain are just bits of 
brain.  Chunks of brain die without nourishment.

>>Does Nathanson have any evidence to back up this bizarre claim?
>>If so, exactly HOW did he obtain this evidence?  Has he been doing
>>experimentation in this area?
>
>No, just using a little common sense.  The brain is, according to
>commonly held beliefs, the location of the "someone home" that 
>Elizabeth Bartley and I talk about.  If you take a big enough chunk
>out of one person's brain and put it in another person's, there is
>a very real possibility of Nathanson's punch line coming true.
>Remember, we are talking about *live* tissue, still able to multiply
>and grow--WHICH IS WHY IT WAS CHOSEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You're showing considerable ignorance about brains and brain tissue.
(Not that that's stopped you before.  (-:  )  Brain cells don't grow.  
This is why tissue transplants are needed - to replace damaged brain 
cells.  And the notion that transplanting brain tissue is somehow going 
to include personality is absurd in the extreme.  This is no more likely 
to happen than putting pieces of my Apple ][ into my Mac is going to let 
it start executing 6502 instructions.  

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:56:56 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <25427@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1992Sep20.183313.26829@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>
>>>Would NFP be mandatory under your system?
>
>>No, not at all.  However, I would like very much for sex education
>>courses to teach NFP alongside the other methods of birth control.
>>In fact, since it helps women to get in touch with their bodies, it
>>would make sex education a lot more meaningful than what passes for
>>sex education in most schools now.
>
>Peter, I agree with this completely, the teaching of NFP in sex ed courses
>alongside other methids of birth control, for the primary purpose of
>putting women in better touch with how their bodies work. (Might be
>a good idea for men to learn this too, so that they understand how women's
>bodies work, instead of some magical process). I also agree with you
>that sex ed in most schools today is a total joke, however badly written.

That's the up-side of NFP. It gets the men involved as much as the women.
But now, since the RCC has approved it, I'm sure that Doofus, Tweedledee
and Tweedledum, will probably (likely - I admit room for error in case
these folks lie through their crooked never-been-brushed teeth and tell us
that they would not oppose NFP teaching in the classroom) oppose it.


=============================================================================
Planned Parenthood on abstinence and sex ed:

<<< Attention! >>>
The pro-life movement has been severely BURNED for asserting that Planned
Parenthood avoids talking about abstinence!
<<< Attention! >>>

Teacher: "Okay, boys and girls, how do we spell Abstinence?"
Class: "A-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-c-e."
Teacher: "Okay, class. Which one is worse - being promiscuous or being
celibate?"
Naive Student Needing Reality Check: "Being promiscuous?"
Teacher (checking with PP guidebook): "BZZT! Try saying 'I am celibate' to
your friends at age 21 and see which one is worse, sucker! That's an *F*
for the day, kid!"
Teacher: "Now you can tell your parents that YES, we DO discuss abstinence
here, boys and girls. Now, if you'll open up to your Changing Bodies,
Changing Lives textbook - which Planned Parenthood has advised you to get
for this class - we'll begin our lesson for the day: the possible benefits
of incest during the early years of childhood..."
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt you for a little while" - "Prince"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:47:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.185959.5750@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes ...
>> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>Only in some states.
>>Please post the name of a state which has a law forbidding the use of lethal
>>force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.
>
>>>Only as a recent innovation.
>>Please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder for
>>using lethal force to prevent a rape, Oh Mighty Net.Lawyer.
>
>(Somewhat) relevent case happened recently in this part of California.
>Man breaks into house, rapes woman.  She gets away and runs to kitchen
>while the guy trips over the pants around his knees.  By time he
>catches up to her she has a large knife.  Result: if the police hadn't
>found him unconcious in his car, he would have bled to death.  He's
>facing many years in prison, she isn't.

Non-lethal self-defense is a totally different ball of wax, I'm afraid.
This example, while interesting, doesn't really shed any light on the legal
question.

Besides, what good would it do the rapist to file charges (did he?)? About all 
that'd do is piss folks off enough to ruin his chances for an early parole.
And let's not forget where the sympathies of any jury would be in such a case,
either.

Larry has been appealing to an alleged legal PRINCIPLE that deadly force is 
permitted to prevent or terminate a temporary violation of Bodily Autonomy. 
Sometimes, legal principles and practice can be very different things...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:48:36 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.717711689@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> In <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> 
> > Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.
> 
> Behold what Martin meant by dehumanization.
> 
> Fetuses are no more interchangeable than you and I.

Nor are trees or cabbages.  It seems as though you must have some kind of
reading problem, Mr. Nyikos: Adrienne clearly wrote "renewable" but you
seem to have read it as "interchangeable".

What's your point?  I assume, of course, that you actually have one, and
aren't simply settng up a straw man for the simple pleasure of knocking it
down again.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Overpeck's problems  (Was: Re: Have you herd about the ram?)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:33:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.222255.28498@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.170923.25652@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep29.041532.26362@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>> >
>> >You know, I've always felt that someone who spends weeks and
>> >thousands of lines of typing flaming someone else for 
>> >one sentence looks like a twittering fool, particularly
>> >when that is their only contribution to the newsgroup.
>> 
>> How many "weeks and thousands of lines of typing flaming [sic] someone else"
>> was expended on my smattering of words posted in alt.flame re: child
>> molestation, Susie?
>> 
>> Look in the mirror.
>> 
>> 								- Kevin
>Poor Kevin.  Some guy posted something to the effect of
>"If you want to talk about child abuse, I can tell you
>about child abuse," and Kevin, a bonehead if ever there was
>a bonehead, flamed the guy and called him a child molester

CORRECTION #1: I didn't flame "the guy" [sic], I flamed "the gal".

>when the man was speaking about his own experience of having
>been abused.  

CORRECTION #2: There was no clear indication in his original statements
that he was speaking from the point of view of a victim.

>Most people would just say they were sorry and
>they were wrong, 

CORRECTION #3: You seem to be implying that I didn't.

GENERAL CORRECTION: None of those flames were ever intended by me to reach
talk.abortion. If you want to whine about their presence here, please
direct your whines to the responsible parties. I only responded in the same
forums where I saw baseless charges, accusations and untruths, as is my
right. I never imported any of it into talk.abortion.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:06:49 GMT

In article <4588@tivoli.UUCP> dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor) writes:
>Douglas:
>> [deleted] My aunt and uncle have
>>been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.  Surely
>>they can wait a little longer while the pro-aborts continue to take the easy
>>way out.

Have they considered a puppy?
I am so happy that your aunt and uncle wish misery on someone else so that
they can attain their version of happy. Personally, such an attitude doesn't
strike me as one desirable in parental units.

>evertime I hear of people 'waiting' to adopt a child I wonder what these
>people are really 'waiting' for. if they were truely concerned with the
>care of a child they would simply adopt one out of their backyard... the
>entire adoption process truely puzzles me.

They are waiting for a blue eyed unhandicapped white child, preferably male. 
Ask any social worker.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Something you will rarely see
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:23:25 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


I made a statement in one of my responses to Suzanne F. that I didn't know
of any forced abortions.  It has been pointed out to me that these do
happen, esp. in the case of pregnant teenage girls.

I retract my statement on this topic...it was clearly wrong.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:12:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct2.195517.21533@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan
King) writes:
....[much abridged]  Where I think your argument lacks consistency is
>if the woman knew when she participating in coitus sex that she could
>die if complications arise in the pregnancy.  Wouldn't she still
>have a responsibility to this fetus?  Shouldn't she then due to this
>responsibility have to forfeit her life to save the fetus's life.
>She made the commitment by having coitus sex and why would threat
>to her own life allow her out of this commitment?
>
     The resolution of the case where two lives are in contention seems to be a
very complex one.  Our society does not require a parent to die for his or her
child.  On the other hand a certain amount of risk IS demanded.  If abortion
were ever criminalized this issue would surely have to be addressed.

Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:48:29 GMT

In article <_-pz9z@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>>>> Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.

>> The first person posted that she felt that abortion was a viable
>> method for getting rid of a problem.
>>
>> My response was intended to show that I felt that if it was alright
>> for her to kill those she felt would be a burden to her, I also wanted
>> the priveledge of killing those who had become a burden to me.

> ...that is residing within her body.  Gosh, this whole debate is
> so easy if you just ignore the pregnant woman.
>
> Are these welfare folk you disdainfully refer to currently residing
> within your body?

The debate becomes even easier when the pro-aborts such as yourself 
turn the woman into a mere physical container.  


>                    -rocker


Doug Holtsinger
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:06:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes ...
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) wrote 
>>And arguing that unborn children should be ignored in favor of born
>>children, is as stupid as rednecks who said minorities should be ignored in
>>favor of some rednecks who would lose their jobs in the age of equality.
>>You know... more "persons" equals more competition for jobs...
>
>This is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, and I think you knew that.

I thought you'd been around longer, or that you'd read more of propeller
boy's ravings.  He _lives_ for gross misrepresentation.  Among anyone
who's read more than two of his posts the official virus has _no_ 
credibility.  This is the same boy that claimed Margaret Sanger died 
of an abortion (in her 80's) and that science discovered where babies 
come from in the late 19th century.  He's also argued at great length
that to be pro-choice is to advocate child molestation.

In short, Chaney has no honor.  Probably doesn't even have a dictionary
in which to look up the meaning of the word.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 06:29:03 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  <1992Sep30.231426.28016@jetsun.weitek.COM>  nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>
> If one really cared about teaching young women how the female body works,
> one would encourage the teaching of masturbation.
> Teaching NFP to show how the female body works is like teaching car washing
> to show how automobiles work.

I.e.:  autoerotic, not auto-aquatic.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:03:12 GMT

In article <nyikos.718387487@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <10467@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep30.072730.14377@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>
>>"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
>
>Something we could use more of where the unborn are concerned.
>

How about for women?  I have watched time and time again how you're
debates lack compassion for us.

Try this one.  A young woman is raped, and before being raped she was
a virgin.  Circumstances surrounding her rape are unimportant and so 
unreported here.

Now she is pregnant by her rapist.  She has already lost the pleasure
the intimacy of loosing something she will never have again, in an
atmosphere of love and trust.

Now, if she is refused an abortion, she will loose more experiences
which are one time only.  Her body will be forever changed by pregnancy
and carrying to ter.  Gone will be all the things that make the first
pregnancy special, something to be shared, hopefully in a relationship, 
not cloaked in fear, anger and darkness.

Or. . .

How about if she is pregnant out of incest?  She has lost her childhood,
something that can't be returned to her.  She has already be violated
and now through pregancy without the abortion option (whether she gives
up the child or not) that violation will be with her the rest of her
life.  There will be no more special firsts, nor will there be for the
former case.    

You all speak, with great emotion, of the pain (percieved of both the
emotional and physical) that the z/e/f undergoes thru abortion.  Your
language is even geared to create emotions (i.e. The Silent Scream) --

It seems you've forgotten that there is an emotional side for the woman
also.