HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:21:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:08:34 GMT

>Needless to say, the few hundred abortions a year that would result from 
>rape or incest would be far preferable to the 1.5 million that occur as 
>a form of birth control.

What makes you say that?  You'd rather have 1.5 million extra unhappy 
starving families?  That's a funny way of looking at life.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:15:36 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct15.214147.24838@acd4.acd.com>  wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>
>Roe is our (corporate) response to the "problem" of abortion.
>Insofar as the government sanctions the *right* to abort, it
>also sanctions the act itself.  Not a hard concept.

Insofar as the government supports the right to practice Christianity,
it also supports Christianity itself.  Since I think that the
government should *not* support religion, I suppose I'll have to
work to get Christianity banned, in order to avoid having it be
forced on me.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Atheist for Christ  (WAS Re: Biblical
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:36:36 GMT
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation


>In article <1992Oct15.044155.9064@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> 
>If you're consistent, you will push hard to eliminate the Pledge of
>Allegiance (as it was revised by Roosevelt - a DEMOCRAT who put God
>into the Pledge), and you'll have the Dollar Bill changed to eliminate
>"In God We Trust." 
>  

God was added to the money and to the pledge in the 50's under the
Eisenhower Administration.

---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Doctors Assisting Suicide
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:32:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct7.085016.15276@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> z3ij@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>What is wrong with allowing a doctor to assist somebody in commiting suicide?

>As I understand it, suicide is still illegal in this cuontry, and still
>classified as murder.  Therefore anybody assisting in a suicide is assisting
>a murder.  And that is illegal too.

I think that you are wrong about suicide being illegal. When my wife and
I got into a discussion on the issue, I called the local police
dept. and asked them about it. They told me that there are no laws
against suicide, but the officer said that if the person who committed
suicide were to do so on public property, it is possible that litter
laws might apply.

>Simple enough.


>M.S.Hiranandani

Eric

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Responsible sex
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:39:07 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>>What I was saying is that abstinence would obviously prevent unwanted
>>>pregnancy, while protected sex would greatly reduce the risk.
>>>Theorectically, responsible behavior would greatly reduce the need for
>>>an abortion.
>>
>>It does without a doubt.  Are you proposing responsibility police?
>>"Police!  Open up!  OK fella, pull out reealll slow and show us the
>>condom."
>>
>You make it sound like it responsible sex is a bad thing.  And no, I'm
>not talking about "police" of any kind.

Quite the contrary.  I think responsible sex is a _very_ good idea.
I just don't see it being a very useful _legal_ concept since
enforcement would be difficult.  And the first rule of good
government is don't make any laws you can't/won't enforce.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41056 talk.politics.misc:49938 alt.sex:32173 alt.rush-limbaugh:6714 alt.politics.elections:15425 alt.politics.clinton:8815 alt.politics.bush:7990
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:44:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...

>>	Which could also boil down to:
>>Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
>>can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
>>because they have "invaded your privacy". 

>Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
>is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
>middle of the night.

That's trespass, breaking and entering and theft, not just invasion of privacy.

In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
>who is sexually assaulting you.

That add's rape and assualt to the invasion of privacy.

In both cases you have added felonies to the invasion of privacy, the
presence of the felony raises these cases to a higer level of danger.

BTW, is it trespass if you invite the burglar into your home.
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>Isn't "pro-life intellectuals" an oxymoron?

>Of course not.  I've been one for the last 25 years.  Of course, you
>are one of the people who gloat over how I was "stupid" enough to "fall
>into" another Trap (an in-joke, really), but that does not make me any
>less an intellectual, nor any less a pro-lifer.

Einstein was undoubtedly an intellectual. Yet he couldn't tie his shoes.
It wasn't because he wasn't physically able, he was a violin prodigy
after all, but because he was metally incapable of this feat. Perhaps
this is the type of intellectual that the pro-life side attracts.

>Of course not, bozo, unless they have the potential to grow into people
>like yourself.

I see that it is time to repost that bruce cameron post again. Peter,
do try and read it this time.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.religion.computers,soc.singles,alt.sex
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: New States from GnuU!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:55:15 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
] 
[ the funny stuff deleted to force folks to find it. ]
] 
] > If I get to have an abortion, can I have PMS too?
] 
] There's this Big Difference between Boys and Girls, Alan.

Oh Sure! just espouse your RadFemSurfNazi Propoganda!

] Girls are in the Reproductive Mode about once every 28-29 days;
] Boys are _always_ in the Reproductive Mode.

I thought there was an Emacs KeyBinding that was required 
to get that to work?
 
] Hence, Boys are always prone to PMS.

This IS NOT F*CK[1]ing funny!

I had ONE MIDOL and now I swell, put on Water Weight,
have lowr abdominal cramps, don't feel all that sexy,
and have LIMITED TOLERANCE for People LIKE YOU!


ciao
drieux

[1] man fsck for further details.

-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
From: Jennifer Bernold <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:32:08 EDT
 <1992Oct6.004311.16448@wdl.loral.com><1992Oct8.203633.8168@acd4.acd.com> <5kxzq+p@rpi.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

Just to let ya all know, I remember reading a story in Readers Digest some
5-8 years ago about an Asian girl who was forced to have an abortion and
get sterilized because of the number of people in the country.  I remember
it, because it made me cry.  =-(
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:01:33 GMT

In article <1b265mINNlka@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

#include <std/ekr/bitch/about/setting followups/to/misc.test.h>

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: LifeStyle Choices and Personal Responsibility
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:03:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.163039.4150@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.234840.18204@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>    >Don't forget, the Wimp Liberals are infringing our 2nd
>    >Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Militia Weapons. I want my
>    >F16 and I want it yesterday. :-)
>    >
>    >
>    >-- The Earth Pig Bourne....

>If you are under the impression, "Earth Pig" (or should I just call you
>"Pig"?) that you can not own an F-16, then you are most mistaken.

An Earth Pig is an Aardvark. You may call me Ms. Aardvark.

>You can. Of course, you'll need around $14 million, and about another
>$2 million a year to keep it up (excluding JP4 of course), and whne you
>buy it it will be without most weapons systems, no radar, and so on.

What I want is a fully equipped F16, to protect myself from those EL
AL cargo planes. As drieux pointed out, by living above ground I have
apparently consented to having a cargo plane crash in my living room;
drieux notes that anti-aircraft defenses would revoke that consent, and
it seemed to me that scrambling fighters would be much more fun than
firing AA guns...

>If that is too expensive, and you must simply HAVE supersonic flight,
>then there are used F-104's coming on the market. However, better be a
>real good pilot there -- its a tricky little mother.

Actually, I planned to use one of those model airplane remote control
radio transmitters. I wouldn't want to get hurt playing with one of these
babies.

>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
>Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
>Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
>Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.


Thank you for sharing. Since when was technology solely a preserve of
white males?
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:17:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct15.023035.15907@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.221354.17808@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...

>>> But you do force the woman to justify her reasons for aborting.
>>>
>>> You say that a woman can kill a human being as long as that 
>>> human being is inside her body.
>>>
>>> Since you ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting
>>> an abortion, and you concentrate only on the location of
>>> the fetus relative to the woman, you have managed to 
>>> reduce pregnant women to fetal containers.

>> So then, by ignoring a woman's reasons for getting an abortion, we're
>> forcing her to justify her reasons?!?

>Allow me to rephrase: But you do force the woman to justify
>her reasons for killing a human being.  Pro-aborts say that
>a woman can kill a human being as long as that human being 
>resides within her body.  

>They ignore the woman's actual reasons for wanting an abortion.

>This treats women like fetal containers.

I find this a strange twist of logic. Because I feel that any
woman who finds herself with an unwanted, or potentially
harmful pregnancy, should be able to decide by herself (or
in consultation with persons of her own choosing), you say
that I have reduced her to a container?

Funny, if there happens to be any containers about our home
that have something unwanted in them, either Florence or me
must dump that unwanted 'whatever'. Now if you can come up
with something that will do it all by itself, it would sure
save me a lot of work on garbage collection day.

Sorry, Mr. H, but I can't buy your logic. Everything that I
have learned in my modest number of years tells me that my
approach is simply giving women the respect that is their
due. And since I am married to a woman who tells me that I
always honor and respect her, I am certainly much more
inclined to believe her than a stranger. Of course, she
could be predjudiced :-).

REB
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: HEY!  IT'S IN THE BIBLE!
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:41:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Yep!  That's right!  I found it in the Holy Book of Wholes, in
book one, chapter one, "...and he knew not his ass from a hole in
the ground."
   So there!  The Bible even predicted Steve Chaney!

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:14:26 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct14.141758.15740@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
Overpeck) wrote:
> 
> In <lefty-131092110616@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com 
>    (Lefty) writes: > 
> In article <1992Oct12.215528.3631@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>    (Bill Overpeck) wrote: >
> 
> >> Based on your incisive analysis, it probably wasn't a good 
> >> analogy.  How about this:  When a drug user buys and ingests a
> >> substance cut with rat poison and subsequently dies, are the
> >> anti-drug laws to blame? 
> >
> > In point of fact, I believe that they contribute substantially 
> > to the blame.
> 
> "Lefty" wouldn't, by any chance, be a reference to your 
> political (rather than neurological) orientation, would 
> it?  :-)

No, in point of fact, it would not.  If you're interested in my political
orientation, I'm an anarchist.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:53:31 GMT

In <1992Oct8.014617.5072@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes ...
>>	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
>>human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 
>This is a blatant and obvious lie.

	I guess when you have no way to prove your point, you must
resort to calling me a liar eh? Come over some time and I will show
you my dictionary.

>As has been pointed out enough times for even the stupidest person,
>murder is the _unlawful_ killing of one person by another.  Putting it
>in quotes does not make it less of a lie or more correct.

	My dictionary says exactly what I have in quotes. That is the
purpose of the quotes. If you have something to say, other than making
baseless claims that I am a liar then say it.

>>	Neither am I trivializing the notion of murder. Murder is
>>a horid and despicable act. It should not be allowed - this is
>>why I get so upset that the slaughter of innocent, defenseless children
>>has been legalized here.
>Please spare us the self-serving sanctimonious bullshit.  I don't
>believe for an instant that care even the slightest bit for people or
>children, innocent, defenseless, or otherwise.  Your obvious use of a
>trite emotional ploy is disgusting in its trivialization of the issues
>and revealing for the lack of any substance you provide to back it up.

	I have backed my position up countless number of times. If you
wish to point out some real flaws in my reasoning that you see, then
do so. But if all you can do nit-pick at semantics, then shut up.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!!!!!
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:41:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.043948.14316@newshost.unh.edu>
ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>rocker:
>>Rink claims to refute the following argument:

>>>	 1.  A woman should have a choice.

>>Ah.  So you feel you've definitely established that a woman
>>_shouldn't_ have a choice.  

>>I suggest to you that you would be happier living in a country such
>>as Saudi Arabia, where women have few choices in anything.

>I don't believe a woman should have a choice to kill her child any more than
>I believe a man should have a choice to kill his child.

>Don't you have anything better to do than go quoting people out of context
>and twisting their arguments into crap like that?

Your quotation of the Bible.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: No Reply Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:41:42 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.719175981@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
#In <1992Oct10.011344.152909@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
#
##In  <BvtBy8.Gs8@news.udel.edu>  roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
### I posted this article on Monday, now it's Thursday. 
#
#Your post up there is dated Oct. 10, which was a Saturday.  What's going on
#here?

I think what's going on is that there's a pro-force conspiracy
to deny Larry Margolis his own identity.  First, Dennis misread
attribution lines and claimed that he was Larry.  Now, Petey Honey
is misreading attribution lines anc claiming that Scott Roby
is Larry.

I'm buying a "Larry Margolis is Only One Person" tee shirt
tomorrow.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: The Forgach-Nyikos duet
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:30:39 GMT

From article <6739@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
> 
> Can you document any of those things that you said about
> Adrienne, Suzanne?  I seem to recall you getting rather
> indignant about some comments that Gordon made about *you*,
> and that you demanded documentation.  (Of course, I
> also remember that Gordon documented each one, and you
> were strangely silent after that.)  

As Peter has so diligently pointed out, each one of Gordon's
"proofs" was a non-proof.   Obviously, net.readers can read
that for themselves, and so I felt I need say no more.  I
even e-mailed Peter that he need say no more either, but
he has wished to continue pursueing Gordon for his own
reasons.    Even Kevin Darcy, with whom I have little
in common politicaly, saw the farce in Gordon's "proofs".
Do you wish me to operate as if you were all stupid?  Seems
to me that not only do you get angry when I do treat you thus,
you also get angry when I don't, so why should I waste my effort
on you?


> Is this just the
> latest installment of pro-force hypocrisy, or will
> you be supplying evidence that Adrienne will kill anyone
> who gets in her way,                              ^^^^^^

I made a point of not using the word "anyone".   I said
"other human beings".  And unless you are stupid, Susan,
you know exactly who those other human beings are.


> that she devalues motherhood, and
> that she's the most twisted person on the net?

Adrienne herself proves these with every post she makes.


> Susan

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:02:19 GMT

> = mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael Stroucken) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
> what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
> at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
> at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off.
> LOOK INTO THEIR FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!

Abortion may be right or wrong, but simply because you are emotionally upset 
by an icky, bloody mess is a pretty shallow reason to conclude it's wrong.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion