HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:53:48 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>> I removed the whole post for reasons that will become obvious.

>> I will only say this once, then sincerely promise to lose my
>> temper with whoever continues.

>> Will you all please leave comparisons with the Holocaust out of
>> this newsgroup (and any other for that matter). It was and is
>> a blot on all our humanity, 

> as is abortion.

Iyho, Suzanne.  So why are you baiting the Old Grouch?

>> and to this day is extremely
>> hurtful in the memories of the Jewish people and their friends.

> Why?  Because, sad to say, many who grieve over the holocaust
> yet commit the same crimes by accepting abortion of the youngest,
> most fragile of us.

Have you noticed that many Jews, including those who lost relatives to
the Holocaust, are pro-choice?  They don't seem impressed with _your_
comparison.

(I emphasize the word 'your' because, in your inimitably stubborn way,
you have chosen to embrace this absurd and insensitive comparison.)

>> We have been down this road once before, and for the benefit of
>> those new to t.a, it did no earthly good in the debates.

> It certainly did.

It certainly did not.  What usually happened was, some dyspeptic pro-
choicer turned the analogy around to compare the controlling tendencies
of anti-abortionists with the totalitarian tendencies of a certain
political party in 1930-1945 Germany.  Umbrage was taken on both sides,
feelings were hurt on both sides, and the truth was buried beneath
all the mud.

> The truth hurts, don't it.

Indeed, the truth _was_ hurt.

>> I hope that I never see this stupid, senseless argument again.

> But you will, Bob, you will.

I have to agree with you, Suzanne.  As long as there's people who don't
put much thought into their arguments, this stupid comparison will
continue to make the rounds.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:35:51 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>From the moment of conception the only thing that is added is food 
>and protection.  

Do me a favor.  Go tell your mother that all she ever gave you in the
womb was "food and protection".

Warning - you may be somewhat surprised at her reaction.

>MAC

                    -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57920 alt.abortion.inequity:6727
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:36:15 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <5=+3rpa@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>Rape laws don't violate equal protection simply because the majority
>of rapists are men.

Ah, so a discriminatory effect does NOT, _ipso facto_ imply a violation of 
Equal Protection, eh? 

Are you reading this, Mezias?

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:08:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.173003.23723@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.055119.15266@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.000916.20341@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan23.181412.6771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>>>>(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:
>>>>
>>>>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>>>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.
>
>Why? We legally protect the lives of some animals, trees, whole ecosystems, 
>etc. I see no reason why personhood must be a prerequisite to legally 
>protecting a fetus'es BA...
>
I guess you missed the part where it says 'and the issue of abortion'
Kebbin. Or are you now prepared to present evidence of a law which
prohibts the abortion of a non-human species?

I notice you're still hiding (via delete) from admitting that you make
incorrect word choices, and then try to rationalize it. Are you going
to hold yourself to the same standrds of 'tight' language as others,
or are you going to admit you're a hypocrite, orare you going to admit
you made a mistake?
I predict you'll try to weasle out ofthe question, probably by
deleting this portion of the article.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: numbers
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:16:34 GMT


It seems like the numbers keep creeping up.  1.3 million, 1.4 million,
1.5 million, 1.6 million.  It looks like about .1 million a semester.
Soon, some bright cookie will look at the numbers, and just simply
round off to the closest million, and say 2 million.  Then some clown
like me will probably round off to the nearest billion, and say 
zero.  No problem.  It's all in the way you look at it...


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:27:19 GMT

In article <root.727557692@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <root.727512141@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>>I have one thing to say:
>>>>		    These people need a LOBOTOMY.
>>>Physician, heal thy self.
>>>
>>Hey! That's sort of an insult to physicians everwhere, you know? I
>>mean, it's really *icky* to think that Airplane Boy (he with the Fat
>>Black Ass) could be confused with a physician...
>
>Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...that's the second time.  First,
>Adrienne points out that I insulted 15 year olds by compaing Chaney to one.
>Now this.  Jeesh...;-)
>
Ego te absolvo. Fopr your pennance say three Hail Usenets and four Our
Internet-Fathers.
And you're getting off easy. Last time I made a mistake like that (I
had to read DJR posts for punishment....
;-)

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:04:29 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

I think the argument is that the fetus is not "autonomous", and thus can not
*have* "bodily autonomy".

>MAC

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57687 misc.legal:23220
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 24 Jan 1993 10:13:58 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>there is a rule of statutory construction called _expressio unius est exclusio
>alterius_ (literally: "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of 
>another"). I have invoked _expressio unius_ many times in explaining to the
>RightToKeepAndBearArms fanatics why the Second Amendment only applies to the
>"well-regulated militia".

There's another rule of statutory construction called _find out what the words
mean_.  If you apply this to "well-regulated militia" you will find out that
nearly everyone in the NRA, for example, is a member, and thus, even if you
ignore the rules of English grammar in order to limit the Second Amendment
to members of the "well-regulated militia," those RightToKeepAndBearArms
fanatics, as you call them, do have the right to keep and bear arms.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.test
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
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.
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:58:25 GMT

In article <kkelly.10.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.171758.17571@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
>>Subject:  CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
>>Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
>>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:58 GMT
>>Copied without permission from:
>>The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>>
>>CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
>>
>>By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons
>
>It's crap like this that makes me wonder how strong the anti-abortionists 
>grip (this person in particular) on reality really is. How about sticking to 
>the issues and leave the anti-christ crap out. 
>
>Rest of garbage deleted 
>
	True, of course, but one must make allowances for the boy's youth.  It
is not uncommon for children in their late teens to honestly believe that they
have already acquired all the world's wisdom and most of its knowledge.  When
(or if) they mature emotionally and intellectually, they often come to regret
the silly things they said or did during their youth.  Such is life.
	In any case, let's not assume that kids like Booth are in some way
representative of the pro-life movement.
The_Doge
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:21:29 -0500 
From: Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Gag removal...

    Well, sometime in the next couple of days Clinton will by executive
order remove the gag rule. Clinics receiving federal funds will once again
be able to discuss abortion as one of a womans options. Apparently some
additional measures are on the way to remove other Bush and Reagan rulings
and executive orders on the subject.

    The tides are changing, folks. After 12 years of increasingly
conservative administrations the pendulum is swinging back. It's nice to
see. Especially the removal of the gag rule: a ruling imposed by an active
minority, intended to prevent people from learning about their legal
options. A poor example for a democratic nation.
    New gains in womens rights and equality, perhaps an Equal Opportunity
Employment Agency that actually does its job, and hopefully some reversal
of the trend towards the loss of the middle class. I have some hope for the
years ahead.

    Oh, things are still rather conservative: the Supreme Court is going
to remain that way for some time. But things are heading back to center.

    This is really going to change the balance of the abortion debate.
The Attorney General and the Executive branch will no longer go out of
the way to support pro-life groups, causes, or cases. I expect increased
pressure on groups like Operation Rescue, the Lambs of Christ, etc..
The 'Right to Choose' (? - I'm not certain of the actual title) bill in
Congress is likely to pass, making most restrictions on abortion against
Federal law in all 50 states.

    I think I will enjoy the fireworks...

                                                   kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
   or     kevin.ryan@cmu.edu

P.S.  After this, back to the shadows. It was so much easier to keep up
when my Mac was an Ethernet Internet site... but hello to everyone.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:57:44 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>in favor of allowing that to continue?

Because if I were to outlaw abortions, this would mean that women
would be forced to let someone else use their bodies against their
wills.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: my right to my
body goes deeper than my right to my life.

Abortion isn't a fight between the life of one human and the comfort
of another; it's a different battle: does the government have the
right to forcibly intervene and compel one person to unwillingly let
her body be used by somebody else?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57289 talk.politics.misc:69133 talk.religion.misc:27222 misc.legal:23087
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:45:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Jan.19.13.57.14.1993.23727@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.100336.10737@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- will not cause chafing) writes:
# # Here evidently is someone else who hasn't been watching.  I say again:
# 
# # Last year, I watched an O.R. person [...]
# 
# Quite simply, I find the pro-abortionists' description of what goes on
# at pro-life demonstrations to be wildly at variance with what has been
# my own personal experience.  Frankly, I find it very difficult to
# believe you.
# -- 
# The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis

I've never been to any of these demonstrations.  While I consider it
is POSSIBLE that such things are done by O.R. people, I must admit
to some skepticism.  I know a number of pro-life people, and the
violent attacks being described are very out of character for any
of these people that *I* know.

Of course, demonstrations in general seem to attract a pretty odd
bunch.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.war.vietnam
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Coincidence or Conspiracy??????
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 25 JAN 93 08:29:48 EST


In article <1993Jan23.221412.29191@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux,
just drieux) writes...

>1) Nixon did Participate in AntiWar Activities on Foreign Soil,
>as President of the United States.

Be more specific.

>2) Nixon travelled to the USSR as VP even!
> 
>3) to My Knowledge, Rush has not Pointed out Nixons participation
>in trying to Stop the War In Vietnam .....
>{Let alone that it was NIXON who Capitulated to Red China....}
> 
>This is TRULY SPOOKY!!!!!

What does this have to do with anything going on today?

If Rush had a show 20 years ago, I am sure that he would have discussed such
issues and made such points.

He deals with CURRENT EVENTS, what is going on NOW. That also means things
which have occurred in the past with affect current events.

So, you tell me, how does ANYTHING that Richard Nixon has done or is doing now
affect current events?

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:22:37 GMT

In article <C19GG9.7q6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>> We protect them by legally declaring them persons at birth, even if they 
>> don't yet qualify for a definition of personhood which requires a certain 
>> level of consciousness.  The moral difference, of course, is that they are 
>> no longer inside a person, and violating her right to bodily autonomy if 
>> she doesn't want to have a fetus inside her.

> Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right
> to bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?

I think you're going to have a long wait ahead of you.  For months
now, I've been trying to get a pro-choicer to explain why abortion
is morally justified even when it violates the child's right to 
bodily autonomy.  I got a bunch of kooky explanations, but none 
that really distinguished between a newborn infant and a child 
who's still in the womb, or that didn't reduce the woman to a 
fetal container.


>MAC


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:36:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <1993Jan19.234354.27547@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
## In article <C111Cu.JpM.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
## garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## #dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
## 
## ## it is questionable whether Ms. Garvin's estimates could be 
## ## applied to today's situation.  
## 
## # Of course, I never claimed that they could.  
## 
## Then we agree that your estimates are worthless.
## Why are you still arguing the point?
#
#Are you for real or just feigning stupidity?  Susan never said
#any such thing.  She agreed that she never claimed the estimates
#she posted could be applied to today's situation.  Any
#intelligent person would agree to that.  Only a stupid
#person would conclude that therefore they are worthless.  And
#the material Susan presented answered precisely the issue
#under discussion at the time.  They were not, as anyone with
#a brain could tell, meant to be applied as you insinuated.
#Only someone lacking in intelligence or being deliberately
#obtuse would have attempted such an insinuation.
#
#Oh, but then that was YOU, Reverend Holtsinger.

DODie seems intent on proving his stupidity beyond all
doubt lately, doesn't he?

I wonder why it was so important to him to lie so persistently
in this thread.  Maybe it's a religious thing.


#Dean Kaflowitz
#
#"Yeah, bringing that Amazon enclave of women to America would just 
#spoil everything.  I'd prefer to have them stay in the Amazon, 
#so that I could go live them there." - Reverend Doug Holtsinger

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: another PHoney lie
Followup-To: alt.habitual-liars
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:40:31 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
->yikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->>>Btw, your apology to Ms. Regard is long overdue.

->>I don't apologize for things I don't do.

->Scuse, please, but did you or did you not link my name with 
->"forgery" in a public posting to this net?

->Did you or did you not create the following heading?:

->Subject: A forgery by Adrienne Regard?!?!?!?!? (was: Stipu..)
->Distribution: world
->References: <Bw42t5.8L5@cs.psu.edu> <1bhi7lINN9bu@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <nyikos.719283669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1c197pINN2ve@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>

->This is and remains the net.abuse in question.  You, through your own
->stupidity, publicly named me a forger.  I don't appreciate it.  You were
->wrong, and you owe me an apology.

->You haven't had the character to do so, so far.  Gee, what *was* the date
->of that heading, anyway?......

worse yet for PHoney, just about everyone who has
followed this discussion knows that he screwed up. just
about everyone who has followed this discussion knows
that he knew he screwed up within a few days of doing
so (if, in fact, he didn't know it when he first
posted).

he doesn't have a lot of choices. if he apologizes now,
would he regain any of the respect of credibility he
lost by not doing so in a timely manner. if he
continues to stonewall, he reputation as a person of no
credibility grows.

but then, i think he deserves to be in the situation
he's in.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:31:27 GMT

In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba>,
casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

>Tit for Tat,

>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of
>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the
>school private or public of their choice

Loaded question. Let me rephrase that:

Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-life" against the right of
an individual to study evolution in school?

I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine...

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion