HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Barry Goldwater
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:20:11 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Aug10.084205.10505@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug8.131224.22830@crd.ge.com>, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:
>> -> Goldwater's been pro-choice for a long time.  I'm glad that
>> -> he's speaking up about it, but I agree with Jim - it's too
>> -> late.
>> 
>> i'm glad that it is (too late). i think the choice issue is the
>> sigle-most important factor which will swing the election to the
>> democrats.
>
>I think the most important factor in the election is Bush's (mis)handling
>of the economy.  In the last 3 years, real GDP has grown only .8%, the slowst

	Very few of Pres. Bush's economic programmes got past a Democratic
congress, contrary to what the media believes and reports.  It is
unconstitutional for the president to emposs any domestic programme without
the consent of Congress.

>
>The real key to the abortion debate (at least on the national level) is that
>the side ("pro-choice" or "pro-life") that is associated with the party that
>can best handle the economy is the side that will control the abprtion debate.
>Most of Reagan's support was because of economic issues, not the abortion 
>issue.  Likewise, most of Clinton's support comes from economic concerns (or
>concerns over Bush's economic bumbling), not his pro-choice stand.
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Again you are incorrect.  A demo congress and pres WILL spell the
end of America.  We will become a state of government controls on
everything.  Boy, sounds a lot like communism (pure Marxism, not the Soviet
crap).

	Personally, I do not feel that abortion will be outlawed.  The
issue is not choice, because even if abortion were illegal, women would
still have a choice!  We all have choice.  Even in dictatorships, there is
a degree of choice that everyone has.  We are just more free to make more
choices.  If we chose to do something illegal, it is still our choice.  The
"titles" for the two sides of the abortion issue should be any of the
following:

	Pro-Abortion/Pro-Life
	Pro-Abortion/Anti-Abortion
	Anti-Life/Pro-Life
	Anti-Life/Anti-Abortion

	And any other combinations I have forgotten.  But not pro-choice,
not pro-/anti-abortion rights.  We will always have choice, and it is not
our right.

>
>Of course the media will portray Clinton's victory as a great ideological
				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	He will not win.  He wants to raise taxes way too much.  His record
sucks.  Gore's environmental record is so bad, that Tennessee is the third
worst state for water and air pollution.

Bryon Lape
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your laundry phosphate free?  Help stop global pollution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.180446.4640@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Only about 30% of Americans support unrestricted abortion on demand,
>which has been defined by Keegan et. al. as the only position which
>is truly "choice".  Your 71% figure is obviously way too high. 
>Many Americans do support abortion in certain restricted instances
>(for example, life of the mother, rape, early abortion), and that's
>where I believe you got your figure from.  So your claim is pure
>bullshit as I had originally suspected.   

Dear Old Dougie, the *majority* of Americans are pro-choice with regard to
first-trimester abortions.  "Unrestricted abortion on demand" means all the
way through the ninth month, and you are correct that only 30% of Americans
support that -- but you seem to assert that 70% of Americans are against all
abortions exept for rape, incest, etc., and you are wrong.

The Republican platform, and George Herbert Hoover Bush, specifically says
they are against abortions, EVEN IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER, except in the case
of rape, incest, health risk to the mother, or if the pregnant woman is
a daughter or granddaughter of the President or Vice-President (in the case
of Quaylee and Shrub).  (Actually, the Republican platform is more restrictive
than Shrub claims to be.)

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's
supposed to do.
		-- R. A. Heinlein
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:36:12 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
moses@convex.com (John Moses) writes:
|    If you drive a car, you run the risk of hitting someone and suffering
|the consequences.  If you have sex and end up creating a child by accident,
|you suffer the consequences.  

Ayup, dammit.  We all know that drivers who get into car
accidents have NO RIGHT to seek medical treatment for their
injuries.  Only wimp liberals would attempt to treat their
lacerations, broken bones, etc., and try to weasel out of
their GOD-imposed responsibility to take care of the injuries
they CHOSE to create, through their WILLFUL, CONSENSUAL driving.

Amen, brother.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Smileys are subtitles for dolts.  People who write them have too much
sympathy and too little taste." -- Dan Hoey, in news.admin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: politics
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

cj@sgi.com writes:
[...]
-> "Choose" is a political code-word in this election.
-> Everyone knows what it means

is "Choose" a code-word for wanting legislation to
restrict some abortions, cj?

is "Choose" a code-word for jailing women for obtaining
banned abortions, cj?

is "Choose" a code-word for enshrining fetal rights, cj?

	"Don't hypocrites disgust you?  They disgust me."
	cj@eno.corp.sgi.com 	<ntja4jc@fido.asd.sgi.com>

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:51:42 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au


In  <1992Aug12.194144.28416@csus.edu>  chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>
|> P = privacy
|> A = invalidation of parental consent abortion laws
|> S = legal consentual sex between adults & minors.
|>
|> The judge ruled:
|>
|> (P->A) -> (P->S)
|>
|> I know this will mean a big discussion over logic,

In <1992Aug12.214730.14136@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>You claim that the above proves that A -> S, and you call that logical?

I think that the tautogy aluded to is:

	(P -> A) -> (P -> S)
	<->
	P -> (A -> S)

As to whether classical proposition logic is applicable? I think that
the jury is still out on that one.

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:34:37 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>> However, *in practice* I think the right of a woman to control her
>> own body outranks the right of any purely potential (no matter how
>> strong the potential) person to live.

> Whose body is being controlled in an abortion?

Whose body is being controlled during oral surgery?

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mark Russell (was: Re: Another good reason...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:39:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1992Aug17.031732.2262@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>I have no idea what kind of a "pro" Mark Russel is except that he is a 
>"pro"fessional comedian, and, as such, is probably more concerned with 
>laugh potential rather than deep philosophical content.

Mark Russell is a lame piano comedy hack who is not fit to touch Tom Lehrer's
dirtiest toenail clippings.

--Teddi
"First you get down on your knees
 Fiddle with your rosaries
 Bow your head with great respect, and
 Genuflect!  Genuflect!  Genuflect!"
	-Tom Lehrer "Vatican Rag"
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31527 alt.flame:12049
From: levin@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: without even being asked ....
Date: 13 Aug 1992 18:40:36 GMT
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|In article <l8iuokINN2e1@news.bbn.com> levin@bbn.com writes:
|>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
|>|In case Pat Roby didn't notice, the point was, no, there was no way I
|>|could have had any form of a bad childhood at home. 
|>
|>But please don't ask him about his hatching.
|I take it you didn't know I'm from the human species? 

Yet to be proven.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Did Arnold wimp out?
Summary: When the going gets intellectual, the pro-lifers get out.
Keywords: wimp
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:28:02 GMT

Funny, I've posted and then re-posted my questions for Steve
Arnold regarding his views. 

I have scanned the entire group for replies to me, and found
nothing.  I scanned the entire group for postings from Steve,
and found nothing addressed to me.  I found nothing from him
at all this week.

I guess he just couldn't take the heat of intellectual inquiry.
Stating conclusions is one thing, reasoning through to them and
justifying axioms is another (and apparently too difficult).

A pity.
-- 
	Arrogant?  Of course I'm arrogant; the best usually are.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:35:06 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>  "I am opposed to abortion." -- Bill Clinton

We love it.  Bill Clinton IS personally opposed to abortion.  He is,
however, strongly pro-choice.

 
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:08:39 GMT

In <23522@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>In article <23461@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write

>#In article <23423@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) wri
># It really begins with the creation of the particular sperm and egg,
># which of course, begins with the creation of the being from which they
># are created by, etc. If you mean that the building blocks of the individual
># have been brought together to allow an individual to come about, then
># yes, it is at conception. But why stopping this is a problem, I don't
># understand, as it is only stopping another one of many that have already
># been stopped by nature, and why should it make any difference whether
># man or nature terminates a conceived entity?

Murder is wrong, yet nature terminates grownups very efficiently (fire, 
flood, disease, volcanoes...)

>>> 2/3 of fertilized eggs never make it past the fetus stage. What else
>>> I need to clear up, you'll have to be specific about.

I've heard a lot of loose figures bandied about.  This 2/3 far outdoes the
others.  A reference to a published paper in a medical or scientific 
journal would be appreciated.

>A line must be drawn somewhere, and what I've seen, you're a fairly
>reasonable person, so you should be able to see the validity in birth
>as that arbitrary point. It is the point where the infant (it is after
>birth) does not directly impinge upon any one particular person, although
>mothers generally tend to care for their newborns, as any person can
>take care of it after that point. Before birth, the z/e/f relies entirely
>upon a single woman for everything, 24 hours a day, causing her harm
>and hardship. (for those who would say pregnancy is wonderful, I've
>never heard a pregnant woman say that,

How many pregnant women have you talked to, and at what stage?  Feeling
the late-term baby move around inside can be a very meaningful experience.
Even just feeling a faint "echo" by putting my hand on my wife's abdomen, 
which is as close as I can get to this, was very rewarding.

> only that the *results* are wonderful,
>a big difference) Birth seems the earliest time that this line can be
>drawn, and not encroach on another's rights.

So you don't classify babies about to be born as "anothers", I see.

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Compassion (was: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because: )
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:46:28 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug12.162915.1837@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <tgreen.713578667@pv1788.vincent.iastate.edu> tgreen@iastate.edu (Todd Greenfield) writes:

[...]
 
> Compassion without antecedent suffering is just a mind-game. Clearly, 
> concretely, a woman burdened with an unwanted organism growing within her is 
> suffering. Equally clearly, that organism is INCAPABLE of suffering during 
> most of the pregnancy -- it can't even feel physical pain, let alone the full 
> dimensions of pscyho-social suffering which the woman experiences. The only 
> "suffering" of such a z/e/f is the abstract, imputed "suffering" of not 
> realizing its full potential. But in the same way I feel no "compassion" for 
> a hunk of marble which fails to be sculpted into a beautiful statue, or 
> "compassion" for an egg which ends up on my dinner plate instead of becoming 
> a chicken, neither do I feel "compassion" for an unwanted z/e/f which fails 
> to become a human child. Unrealized potential may be regrettable, but it's 
> hardly a basis for compassion. You cheapen compassion when you try to extend 
> it that far.
> 
> 								- Kevin

He didn't cheapen compassion because he holds beliefs in which the fetus
is something which you can have compassion for.  If you had said the
same as he did about compassion, then you would be cheapening compassion.
Learn to bend a little for the sake of arguments with other people.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: More Holtsinger lies about abortion on demand.
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:18:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <28732@option.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
}DOD is pursuing the strategy of repeating a lie more frequently as it
}is challenged.  

I think the Reagan administration proved just that, by doing it.   I don't
remember the exact circumstance, but they found that a lie, repeated often
enough, would somehow gain the "ring of truth" with the public.  I am not
convinced that Doug is anywhere near even like that, but he does repeat
lies fairly often...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
  chinaware from China, indiaware from India, and underwear from down under
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Do All AntiAbortionists Support SnuffPorn?
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:36:52 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper


WARNING: this post contains elements of Graphic VIOLENCE.
Those Persons who are Unwilling or Unable to stomach the
thought of what Modern technology Can do to a Human Body 
are Advised against reading to the End. The 'KiddiePornFreak'
stuff is up at the top where Warren tells about showing
video about naked children....

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee) writes:
] 
] > I have seen, and have the video called Hard Truth.
] 
] > It has no voice over.  There is music during the scenes.  It's about
] > 5 minutes long.  I showed it to my fiancee, and she lasted about 2 seconds
] > before she burst into tears, and asked me to turn it off.
] 
] > The opening seen was something like tongs pulling out what seems to be 
] > a roundish hunk of flesh, but then it turns a little, and you can see the
] > eyes, a nose, and a mouth.  There is blood everywhere.
] 
] > If you haven't actually seen what the "choice" is in pro-choice, I think
] > you should.  It will change your life.
] 
] If abortion is murder, doesn't that mean that 'Hard Truth' is snuff porn?

Good Point there....

Never Understood why folks like to Watch  that sort of stuff...

guess one needs to be a FetalIdolator to get the full 'kick' out of it.

] 
] Or do people like you say 'abortion is murder' just because it sounds good?

while we are on down this way,

anyone up for a happy evening of vidio on
how to deal with your friend the sucking chest wound....

Maybe a little 'traumatic amputation' and how to 
keep your budy alive after a 7.62mm round has decided
to do a little reconstructive surgery.....

Come On now Guy....

Show the Little Woman Something that will be useful....

How about the major Artories, and How to Stuff anything
that is available into them after an 'improvised munnition'
has decided to open most of them....

Come on now Warren, don't be squimish, 
watch the BLOOD go squirting out of the 
side of the Head as an American Made 5.56mm
round opens the Left hemisphere of a Head....


How about We skip past the neat and simple stuff
and go for the apeseotomy, and the surgeon as
he applies the sutures, what with COLD STEEL
ripping through the Flesh, and tailing 'cat gut'
behind it....




ciao
drieux


ps: for those who made it this far, the point to warren is:
'so what is your point?'

-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:27:53 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug10.184036.10321@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:


Hey Kaufman! Avoiding things again? 
 

>In article <1992Aug10.142558.24943@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>
>>   One of the hallmarks of Judaism is that it holds that one does
>>not have to be Jewish to get to heaven.   Jewish belief maintains
>>that ANY good person, regardless of his or her faith, has a place
>>in eternal paradise.  Christianity maintains that if one does not
>>accept Jesus as one's personal savior, then one is doomed.  There
>>is no notion in Judaism that God loves a good Jew any more than a
>>good Christian.  As a matter of fact, in Judaism, God cares for a
>>good Christian more than a bad Jew.  The phrase, "chosen people",
>>does not mean prefered.  It means selected for a task.  Those who
>>claim that their way is the only way are not Jews.  If a Jew ever
>>claims this, he does not know what he is talking about.
>
>One question, Mark Humphrey/Kaufman/Novak: 
>
>For one who yaks all day about keeping religion and politics apart,
>why is it that you have devoted an ENTIRE talk.abortion article to
>religion? 
>
>If you _really_ are intent on separating Church from State, it does
>not look well to plug an entire article based solely on religion, into
>a newsgroup which is not about religion, but rather, a political
>issue.
>
>In short, take this to a *.religion.* newsgroup, Mr. Kaufman. This is
>not a net-cop message, just a reminder that you are being grossly
>inconsistent with your own standards. 
>
>Now, now, don't get mad and start foaming at the mouth about how
>you're going to chase yourself down for violating Separation of Church
>& State, and beat yourself to a pulp. Just try and fulfill your threat
>to Suzanne Forgach and in all likelihood, she might do it for you. :)
>
>
>===============================================================================
>			I only battle the strongest. 
>===============================================================================
>===============================================================================
>BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
>B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
>BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
>BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
>BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 
>
>	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: He makes it so easy! (was Re: The Red Button Scenario)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:01:02 GMT

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Steven Arnold) writes:
# kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
# > What if I don't agree that having sex = waiving my right to bodily
# > autonomy?
# 
# 	Then you are mistaken.

Wow. How come nobody makes me sign a waiver?

What is this -- one of them there `implied consent' kind of things?
Kind of like how I consent to having my body searched for intoxicants
when I exercise my driving privilege granted to me by the State?

You mean sex is a privilege?




(Oh dear.)

-----

# 	Sorry, it does.  It is a medical fact that a new member of the human
# species begins at conception and continues until death.

Do they get a membership card and everything?

Hey! I didn't get one! This better not mean I don't have a right to
life...


	...not to mention a right to control my own body.




(Ooops. I did it again, didn't I?)


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"I am fully prepared to anoint myself with the rancid fat of a feral
sow and run naked through town while the villagers throw pot-stickers
at me."
                                                     -- Michael Rigler