HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pregnancy Vaccine
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:44:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Madeline Leigh) writes:

>Ortho Pharmaceutical Company is developing a contraceptive
>vaccine that will work by making a woman immune to sperm.
[...]
>The vaccine, invented by Dr. John C. Herr of the University
>of Virginia, uses the immune system to create antibodies to
>a protein found on the head of sperm.  The antibodies destroy
>the sperm's ability to fertilize the woman's egg.  Unlike the
>pill and Norplant, the vaccine does not use hormones to prevent
>conception.

Quite interesting, Madeline.  More than that: given that many
pro-lifers abhor what they term "abortifacient" birth control, this
seems an acceptable method and, if its effective rate nears 100%, a
general boon for mankind.

Now, all we need is a vaccine for AIDs, neurological diseases,
mental illnesses, hunger, poverty, hopelessness...not to mention
Republicanism, homophobia and misogyny.

Seriously, I find this exciting news.

What does the anti-abortifacient crowd think?

>The vaccine, still being tested, will be administered by pill
>or injection and could last from two to five years.  Dr. Herr
>estimates that it will be at least two years before the vaccine
>can be tested on humans.

Any information on its effectiveness in test animals so far?  Like,
does it seem better than the 98%+ rate of the Pill?

>Thought y'all might be interested in this tidbit.

Extremely; thnx muchly.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Reflections on the March
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:05:53 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Apr9.040654.25512@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:

Thank you Sarah for sharing your views of the march.  It does seem that
for many years the pro-life movement has been the better organized,
financed and vocal group in this fight.  But now that there is a very
real threat to a woman's right to control her destiny, those days are
coming to an end.  In this election, we are going to see many more
pro-choicers vote single issue just as pro-lifers have done for years.
We are going to see bigger and better organized marches like the one
in Washington.  And as the issue moves away from Washington and to
our state capitols we are going to have to force local politicians
to take a stand.  I am confident of the future.  I think pro-lifers
have had the fanatics for a long time, and its now time for the people
to speak.

>Sarah McCabe
>(who's feeling mighty jealous of Muriel and Susan and Cathi and Nora for
>having all these cool ex-boyfriends)

I would be thrilled to tears to be your ex-boyfriend.  Sure Gordon is
racking up them ex-girlfriends like crazy, but Dean and I are the
originals.  I'm sure if my buddy Dean hasn't already responded, he
would also groove on being your ex.

Dan King
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Still No Still No Still No Comphrension (Was: March in D.C.)
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:32:01 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.234037.16946@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.192542.16639@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr13.171055.8243@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...

>That's very true.  It's _so_ much easier to just make up the figures, Steve.
>According to some pro-lifers, this is called "Research".

    Why do you in your narrow minded effort to argue, try and place all of
the crap on pro-life? You say that only pro-life individuals distort
their points? You say only the pro-life group has it's embarassing
eccentric INDIVIDUALS who carry out rash and violent acts? Grow up
and start being a little more self-analytcal.
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Big news!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:43:11 CDT


In article <1992Apr14.151858.28846@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <JBATES.92Apr14092456@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
> 
> >	MY GOD! You're right! I never noticed that before! On careful
> >observation, and with Matthew's inspired guidance, I have discovered
> >that abortion seems to be used EXCLUSIVELY by PREGNANT WOMEN!
> 
>    Actually - this brings up an interesting point. If a 13 year old
> has a child, is she defined as a woman or a girl in your eyes?
> I would say that seeing that she has a mentality of a younger adolescent
> should be sufficient to treat her as a child. Any disagreements?

If she should be treated as a child, with her parents able to decide
what's best, and they decide that she should have the baby,
should she be compelled to have the baby (dennied an abortion)?

If she should be treated as a child, with her parents able to decide
what's best, and they decide that an abortion is in her best interests,
should she be compelled to have an abortion?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 19:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.012907.4934@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.195148.3935@sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>Well, (a) no one here has successfully established that a fetus HAS
>>a 'right' to 'live to birth', therefore (b) you can hardly argue competing
>>rights until you have accomplished (a).
>
>You can fit that into the argument....  You can balance two rights
>even where the value you assign to one of the two rights is "zero".

Well, I'm not too anxious to do that.

In order to 'balance' a zero right (the fetus' right) we'd have to reduce
women's rights to zero.

I have a problem with that.

Adrienne Regard
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:07:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.170708.11821
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

> *knock*knock* Helooooooo... DORKHEAD! 8) You're wrong...
> YOu see, in The book of St. Luke, 1:38 it says :
> 
>       "And Mary said, "behold the handmaid of the Lord..."
> 
> (she herein shows us that she completely understands the task that
>  has been set before her...)
> 
>       "be it unto me according to thy word."
> 
> (voila - she accepts her calling. She concedes to the request
> Gabriel has put before her...)

Excuse me, DORKHEAD (no smiley), Gabriel did not phrase his
message in the form of a question.  I don't have a Bible with
me, but I remember Gabriel's announcement being phrased in terms
of "You Shall."

Of course, Mary, being a God-fearing woman, only had to recall the
example of Jonah to understand which side of the bread her butter
was on.

Actually, the _point_ of this debate is whether or not Gabriel's
announcement was a _request_ or a _command_.  I (and several others)
say it was a command.
-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:18:06 EDT

> Considering that a casino just opened in Connecticut, and Iowa and
> other Mississippi River states allow casino gambling, and that many
> sovreign dependent states (AKA "Indian Tribes") run gambling operations,
> along with minor gambling operations run by the Catholic Church (Wednesday
> night bingo), and the eternally present office pool, I don't think that 
> people always travel quite so far.  Besides, we aren't talking about
> entertainment, but abortion.  
I was unaware that a casino had opened in CT or IA. The Mississippi River
gets away with it since it is only on the Mississippi and hard to get
jurisdiction on it, so they ignore it.  But all states allow some form
of gambling.  My point was that people will travel across state lines to
get what is illegal in their own state.  It was an analogy, nothing more.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig E. Smith      "Life is a fulltime occupation" -- Gene Kallman ::
:: Columbus, Ohio                                                      ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:43:20 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <Udu8nWW00WBM42mKEj@andrew.cmu.edu> ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman) writes:

>> Joy Haftel writes:

>>The question I am asking myself and all of you, is this:  Is it better to
>>be alive or dead, and why?

>How can anyone answer this when they have no way of knowing? In order to
>compare life and death, I would have had to experience both, which I
>obviously haven't. I have no idea what death is like, therefore I can't
>say. I get the impression that people think death is "bad", based solely
>on their fear of the unknown.

	True. However, I'm sure most people would prefer being alive.
 
>>I think it is better to be alive.

	Me too. #:->

>How do you know?

	Because I have experience life and know what it's like being alive.
To walk in the rain, to see a rainbow, to smell the flowers, ... get the idea?

							Mikeey

Today's advice : When your friend's face turn blue from over-drinking,
		 immediately move him out of your room or else you'll
	  	 have to identify his previous meals. (disgusting!!!)

>Alison C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:15:41 GMT

In a previous article, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) wrote:

> A child is a born person.

A child is not necessarily a born person. 

Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Edition:

child: 1. an infant, baby
       2. an unborn offspring

>_Dictionary of Contempory American Usage_

You can always find a dictionary that will give you the usage that
you prefer. I guess it's easier for some pro-choicers to deny their
opponents the use of certain words, rather than to engage in an
argument of substance.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:16:10 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr9.051812.14632@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

  (stuff deleted)

>PS Can anyone tell me if the meaning of life is indeed a banana float? :)
>   (I got into a big debate with a girl about this today after dinner)


     Either you mean a woman, or the U of R is admitting minors again...

                                                          MP

>
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:08:37 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr07.195721.7883@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

>>...in answer to my questions, "Even *if* the foetus was identical-bar-location
>>to a baby...", they still said that they would condone abortion.

>HORSESHIT.

I don't think so Adrienne.  I received at least two replies answering in the
affirmative.

>A fetus isn't identical-bar-location to a baby.
>A fetus is defined as a fetus BY VIRTUE of it's location.

You are contradicting yourself.

You are saying that the thing that makes a foetus a foetus ("BY VIRTUE")
is its location - simply its location - only its location.

So it is entirely possible, that late-term foetuses are in fact identical
to born babies in everything EXCEPT location.

>LOCATION, dickweed equals WOMAN.

I think you left out a comma...

>A fetus OUTSIDE of a woman is no longer impinging upon a woman and therefore
>is not restricting the woman's use and access to her own body and therefore 
>isn't within her jurisdiction.

The entity outside the women still has some rights by the mother.
She cannot leave it lying in a hospital bin to die for example.

She cannot starve it to death.  She cannot strangle it or pump it
full of saline.

SHE CANNOT EVEN IGNORE IT.

>Now, Tommy, I happen to have a pretty good idea that you aren't a complete
>idiot, 

Why Adrienne!  That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Quite frankly, you have made my day!

>Tommy, I'm really worried about you.  

I am stunned - not just compliments, but blatant care and concern!

All of a sudden, the world is a luvverly place.

BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS:

Adrienne.  I want to make laws which may affect you - if you were pregnant and 
if you decided to procure an abortion.

Now I do not pretend that those laws don't affect your right to choose.

BUT, since all other laws also affect your right to choose, I don't
see a problem with that.

The problem is simply one of consensus.  If due democratic principles
say I can't have my law - I'll abide by that.

If due democratic principles say I can - will you abide by that?

tommy
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:01:25 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr8.224428.10301@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> various studies
> were carried out at one of the Ivy League schools which showed that in
> the 6th month the fetus is capable of reason and logic (deciding between
> two options, it conclusively, with results greater than 90% repeatability,
> could decide in a predictable and logical manner).

A 6-month fetus capable of reason and logic?  BULLSHIT!  Let's see some
documentation.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:19:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

(stuff deleted, but in response to the point that humans are engineered
to be sexually interested even when they are not fertile).

>   That is our own free will. YOu will find that this argument is easily
>encompassed by the fact that we have mastered our environment. Did you
>know that the Inuit natives still have a Gestation period (not in 
>all cases, but on average). This is the case for us because there are 
>no environmental factors to include. Mammals have a specific gestation period
>to accomadate the changes in mother nature.

     Gestation: the period of carrying developing offspring in the
uterus after conception; pregnancy. (Lat. gestatio -- a carrying).
      The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed).

     And those Inuit natives (on average at least) still have not
eveolved out of having a gestation period? Shame on them! Steve, of
course, leaped fully developed from his mother's womb immediately after
conception (that was S.A.R.C.A.S.T.I.C., Steve).
     But honestly, you've posted such ridiculous ideas of biology
recently that I'm having problems deciding which is most outrageous.
 

>   steve




>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

How about skipping one of them that physics classes and signing up for
Biology 101?

                                    MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.abortion.inequity
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Oh lets do theology... and lets have some fun
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<c9037544.702261354@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au>
	<1992Apr6.043825.9859@wetware.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:19:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.043825.9859@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

   but to understand this argument we will need to discuss the
   distinctions between 'homoiousian' and 'homoousias' and the
   relevant implications there upon in regards to the ordering 
   and context of the ontological nature of 'the god head' of 
   a 'trinitarian' theology. 

The most amusing thing I heard recently was the statement "there's an
iota of difference between Arius and Athanasius."  I laughed for
several minutes.

--
Michael Innis Bushnell	  | This is a virulent meme.  Whether or not you place
Email: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | this into your signature file is irrelevant.  You
Phone: (617) 625-4518	  | have already participated in its further trans-
			  | mission, and will doubtless continue to do so.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: return of the flying pigs (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 17:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.031847.9225@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@ukulele.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >-> And pigs might fly, too...
>-> >
>-> >interesting comment kebbie. do you know what infamous t.a.
>-> >poster used to write this? you should. you and he have a lot
>-> >in common.
>-> 
>-> Try to imagine how little I care for your tenuous connections
>-> and guilty-by-association, Keegan. Really, is this childish
>-> crap the _best_ you can come up with??
>
>oh don't be coy kebbie. if you cared as little as you imply,
>you'd simply ignore the post(s).

The obvious corollary being that your only reason for continually 
posting this crap is to get my attention.

Message received loud and clear, Jimmy.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: just another view
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:13:17 GMT

etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge) writes:

> Some may argue against this, but I see no way that a fetus can be 
> considered a member of society. 

At one time in this country, blacks were not considered members of 
society either. Women could not vote. Judging the value of human
life has always been our downfall.
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:48:32 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
-> keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
-> >well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of
-> >the fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an
-> >agruing point. the issue is a woman's right to
-> >self-determination, her right to control her body. those who
-> >try to make the issue something else usually do so because
-> >they have no way to deal with the issue of controlling women.
-> 
->     I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the
-> abortion argument is one of competing rights - where the right
-> of a woman to decide what happens with her body is balanced
-> against the right of the fetus to live to birth.

what "right" of the fetus are you talking about?

->     If the fetuses rights are minimal in respect to the
-> womans, then any reason to abort is sufficient, while if the
-> fetuses rights are roughly equal to the womans, the expected
-> death of the mother is probably the only good reason for an
-> abortion.

what! you want to restrict the right of a living person, a woman,
and grant a portion of this person's rights to something else? i
don't have any problem with your bequeathing or granting in some
form any of your rights. i have a big problem when you propose to
limit the rights of others. i find it particularly distasteful
when, from what i read here, i see that 90% of the people who
want to restrict women's rights are men.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.