HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.021606.20245@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.185328.27343@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, David Knapp writes:
>|Jay T Stein writes [about the great Wriggling Semanticist, Kevin Welch]:
>|>Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
>|>might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
>|>one who thinks that you're acting like a child.
>|Maybe time to vote on just not debating with him. Personally, I give up.  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(I only wrote the last line.)

>
>You might have a point.  How can one have a meaningful
>discussion with someone who uses semantics to wriggle
>away from every point you make?  Consider the slippery
>sophistry of a boy who would rather argue that "there's no
>such thing as accidents" rather than admit that some
>women don't deserve their pregnancy-punishment, or
>who would say something like this:
>

We have the oppurtunity to learn new slang words here.  Perhaps I was too 
hasty.




-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: My sincere compliments to the non-abrasive article
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.180916.2329@leland.Stanford.EDU> yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU
 (Ernest Hua) writes:
>I would like to pay my sincere compliments to "Bill" who posted one of the few
>non-abrasive articles I have seen in a long time!  Please keep it up and help
>encourage others to do the same!

I do indeed try to encourage people to post along these lines, though I have 
come to see much of the present discussion among "core" members as calculated 
aggression designed to score debating points and "win" for one's point of view. 
Abortion, like any other debate, will not be solved in a zero-sum, win-lose 
manner; we will only agree when a concensus is reached, and that can only 
happen in non-hostile environments.

Don't be afraid to jump in to the discussion because of the levels of hostility
.  There CAN be civilized, non-aggressive, non-abrasive discussion - if we 
create it.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
From: morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: proposal and request for comment.
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:29:44 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <Apr.8.19.05.28.1992.10926@romulus.rutgers.edu>  morrow@romulus.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) writes:
>> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>> >The term 'parasite'
>> >fits a fetus amazingly well, since its presence is not symbiotic.

>> Actually, the fetus DOES do something for the woman but not immediatly.
>> It carries her genes into another generation so they will, theoretically,
>> survive her demise.

>I see no way that that could benefit the woman.  Once she's dead, she's dead.

Natures way of doing the "immortality" thing.  Actually, one COULD argue
that we are simply glorified machines for the purpose of replicating 
ourselves.  I will instead say that some people see a benefit in passing
their genes on and others don't.  

John Morrow
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: johne@tule (john elliott)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:04:25 GMT

>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
>>... -- after all,
>>isn't it no worse than abortion and all those other things we don't
>>care much about, so there's no need to worry? AKA people who claim
>>to be pro-life are hurting some people's chance for survival, while
>>not saving even one fetus by this tactic. This is not being passionately
>>pro-life, this is being at best stupid, and at worst, as in Kellmeyer's
>>case, actively and deliberately genocidal. 
>

You may not be aware of the facts, but a number of people around
the country are working to SAVE BABIES LIVES.  My church sponsers
a local Crisis Pregency Center which helps women to deliver their babies 
and if they desire to put them up for adoption.  From personal 
reports I really have to disagree with the statement 
  "...not saving even one fetus by this tactic."  Some people really
do put their money where their mouth is.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>What a load of self-serving slop.  But obviously just another emotional
>stab at justifying your Pro-Death stance.  "Hurting some people's chance
>for survival..."???  What about the slaughtered babies upon which this
>whole discussion is based.  But of course the only way to appear rational
>is for you to ignore the issue (best defense is a good offense, right?).

Oh, G-d; another idiot Kevin. Where do we find these assholes?

Will somebody please explain to this person (a) that I'm not particularly
pro-choice, let alone pro-death, and (b) that telling someone who is un-
certain of their position that stating openly that you do not care if 
they are enslaved and murdered and that if *they* care about their own
safety they are "ignoring the issue" is not going to score any new pro-
lifers for you?

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:00:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Davin
>Kevin
>>Larry
>>>Kevin



>>>> Abortion has the purpose of killing the fetus.

>>>False.

>>>   purpose 1(n)
>>>   DEFINITIONS:
>>>   1a  something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION
>>>   1b  RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION

>>Exactly.  I intend to kill the fetus by suction.  I intend to kill the
>>fetus by salt poisoning.  I resolve to extract the fetus through suction.
>>I resolve to inject this into your womb to kill the fetus.  I am determined
>>to kill the fetus.  I am determined to suck the fetus out of your womb.



>What is your purpose in doing this?

My purpose in doing this is to kill the fetus.  The doctor kills the fetus in
all this process.  That is the purpose.

>Knapp

Kevin


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:833 talk.abortion:15392
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:08:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Apr15.170835.17550
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.124446.20160@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> >"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
> > life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
> > masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."
> 
> *knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
> until AFTER conception fool...
>    *sigh* don't they ever learn?

Indeed, a question I sometimes ask as well.

Are you trying to tell us that sperm and egg cells are dead during
masturbation and menstruation, respectively?  You ought not to
call others fools when they are correct.  Sperm cells survive
for approximately 72 hours in many cases after ejaculation.
I'm not sure what the life expectancy of egg cells are.  I refer,
in this posting, to human sperm and egg cells.  In both cases
the cells under discussion are alive.  Since you have concerned
yourself with the definition of "child" in a separate thread,
I take it that the precise meanings of words holds some significance
for you.  If so, and if you wish to be clearly understood when you
post, you might try understanding the meaning of the term "alive"
and how it applies to egg and sperm cells.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:08:55 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr15.002958.13441@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

>Haha Bonehead.  My quote referred to someone claiming to be neutral
>while arguing the Pro-Death position.  Pay attention.

If you recall, I was flaming a pro-choicer using the Nazi analogy in
the article that started that thread. I don't claim to be neutral, I
claim to be undecided, in that my opinion is fairly changeable with
the introduction of new arguments or information. But I wasn't arguing
on abortion at all when I torched you for the Nazi analogy -- I was
arguing a completely different point, and one on which I flamed both
sides of the abortion question with about equal intensity.

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:18:34 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- I will not flame... I will not flame...) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr12.182622.15304@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>> = me (Jay)

>>>Typical of you to attack an "emotional stab" and then
>>>use the phrases "pro-death" and "slaughtered babies."
>>>By the way, Kevin, Nora is undecided.
>>
>>I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
>>unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
>>people as Anti-Abortion. 

>Except that anti-abortion is legitimate - you are against the availability
>of abortion.  It might not be your term of choice, but it is nonetheless
>accurate.  And it is not in the least insulting.

>Pro-death, on the other hand, is not accurate.  I am not for death, nor do
>I think anyone here is.  That *is* insulting.

Oh yes, the old "you're wrong, I'm right" arguement.  It's no problem 
turning tables there:
"Anti-Abortion" is inaccurate because I am FOR abortion if the woman's
life is in danger.
"Pro-Death" is accurate because you are FOR the death of the fetus.
(of course there are holes both ways, that's what I've been pointing
out from the start)

>>The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
>>I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional". 

>No, I *was* referring to your use of "slaughtered" as emotional.  If you
>want to say "killed," fine - but when you say slaughter, which implies a
>hatred of children, then I will continue to accuse you of invoking
>emotionalism.

The problem then is your assumptions.  "Slaughter" has never (to my
knowledge) connotated "hatred".  I used it in the sense of "en masse"
killing, which it is, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:531 talk.abortion:13906
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: origins of morals
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:20:36 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:

] Knapp
] 
] Morals come from society.  What does a people think of a general ideal?
] Ethics come from reflection on the limitations and rights of humanity.
] Can humans play God?  Can humans do this or that?  Are they permitted
] to do this to others?  What are the natural and philosophical limitations
] of man?  Those types of goals.  Ethics are set by philosophers and confirmed
] by law givers.


1. interesting confluance here, but if there were no philosophers
would there then be no ethics?

2. if one is on a deserted island, alone, does that make one immoral, or amoral?

3. given some of the 'creative' interpretations that AntiAbortionists
have tried to stuff into the bible, it should be clear that they are
not at all afraid to play god.

] >-What property of the fetus, if abortion is murder, makes it thus? Because
] > it is "human", a "human being", a "person", has "potential" to be one of these?
] 
] Well, it's genetic tie to the human race affords it human rights.  

obviously You have had neither an apendectomy, nor a tonsilectomy,
as their genetic ties to the human race afford them human rights....


and thus such actions would by your definition structure be MURDER!

It likewise follows that any form of Organ Donor Program is a process
of BlatantGenocidalWarfare against body organs.....

Or is there some other criterion that you wish to utilize,
other than birth, since we both know that you do not wish to
oppose the roman catholic church on the point that the unborn
are soul less beings.

] >-What are the poperties of the fetus that justify its being termed one of the
] > above? Fingers, rational thought, language, myelination, potential etc.
] 
] Human likeness in form and movement.  DNA structure.  Unified innerworkings.
] Resemblence to the human species.  Life.  Potential.

Your tonsils have far and aware enough genetic coding to be 
Very definitely a Potential Life. As you well understand the
amusement of 'fractels' is that they are a good way of dealing
with DNA. Get one chunk, anywhere, and you can reclone the person.


ciao
drieux



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: abortion protest
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:16:17 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr8.035352.18321@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Russell W Ayres writes:
|Your Christ comment confuses me further.  Clearly this is not the sort of thing
|Christ would do.  He had more pressing things on His mind than picketting 
|houses - things like minstering to the sick, the outcast and the poor.  Why 
|this comment?  What purpose does it serve?  What are you implying?

I think Chuck was implying that "Missionaries to the Preborn"
is not behaving in a Christian manner by harassing
the wives of doctors it thinks performs abortions.
You agree, I think.  I find this behavior hypocritical
in the extreme.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."
 -- George Washington and John Adams, Diplomatic message to Malta
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding Jennifer's suggestion
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 07:41:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <q7NaJB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>  orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>
> My point is, make people understand that sex is for marriage and
> reproduction. Is is not for pleasure, pasttime, warm fuzzies, or
> anything else.

Umm, is this an attempt at satire, or are you simply insane?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: why Kevin Welch is uncomfortable in t.a (THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:44:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><71967@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin) said:
>>CJ "I don't respect anyone's privacy" Silverado writes:
>>>Kevin

>>>get lost before I stomp on you, you bug.

>>Okay, maybe this is a threat.  Could anyone see me actually stepping
>>on Susan when she's God knows how long away from here?

>I don't know, what shoe size do you wear?

Gotta be pretty big clompers to fit in that mouth. :-]


Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:19:47 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- proud ex-boyfriend of Alison Colman) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr13.221834.29894@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>>   = me (Jay T Stein)

>>>No, I *was* referring to your use of "slaughtered" as emotional.  If you
>>>want to say "killed," fine - but when you say slaughter, which implies a
>>>hatred of children, then I will continue to accuse you of invoking
>>>emotionalism.
>>
>>The problem then is your assumptions.  "Slaughter" has never (to my
>>knowledge) connotated "hatred".  I used it in the sense of "en masse"
>>killing, which it is, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

>I stand by my assumptions.  Slaughter does indeed refer to killing en masse,
>and in addition, connotes a hatred for those slaughtered, particularly
>when it is used (as it often is) with he word "innocent," as in
>innocent slaughtered babies.  You're blind if you don't see the
>implication of hatred being made here.

This really is fun.  You're almost as easy as Ron.  You "stand by your
assumptions."?  Well, since you were referring to MY quote let me make
it clear:  YOU'RE WRONG.  Simple enough for you?  Bet you'll even find
it hard to find a dictionary to prop up your stupid arguement.

I'm not blind.  I see YOU making a hatred insinuating statement.
Come on baby, let's do the tWiSt.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:53:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.015757.22479@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- ex-boyfriend of Alison Rebecca Colman) writes:

Re: kwc posts:

>Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
>might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
>one who thinks that you're acting like a child.


Maybe time to vote on just not debating with him. Personally, I give up.  


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:56:38 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <73802@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
>Nora
>>Kevin
>>>Nora
>
>>>>Oh, G-d; another idiot Kevin. Where do we find these assholes?
>	^
>	o

Uh, Kevin; I didn't mistype that lack of an "o". It's prohibited by
my religion to write out the name on anything that's going to get
thrown away, so I use the conventional Jewish usage. Why does it
bother you?

>Assholes?  Come on.  Logic is twisted here.  Does Kevin => asshole ?  NOT.
>Neither does asshole => Kevin.

No, it doesn't; that's why I said "another idiot Kevin". There is a
Kevin or two on the group who doesn't fit into the category, but yonder
Brawley fellow ain't one of them.

>>>>Will somebody please explain to this person (a) that I'm not particularly
>>>>pro-choice, let alone pro-death, and (b) that telling someone who is un-
>>>>certain of their position that stating openly that you do not care if 
>>>>they are enslaved and murdered and that if *they* care about their own
>>>>safety they are "ignoring the issue" is not going to score any new pro-
>>>>lifers for you?
>
>>>Asshole?  Thanks for the assessment, bitch.  
>
>>No problem. It fit so perfectly....
>
>Look, people.  Lets watch the name calling here.  (Hey, did I say that?)
>Nora, This is a little unjustified coming from you.  Let's not judge
>people.  There are words offensive to YOU and there are words others
>don't particulary want to hear either.

Right. And he's refused to respect mine. If he starts behaving in a
civilized fashion, I will stop treating him in an offensive manner.

>                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:19:26 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <28934@brahms.udel.edu> roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
##that force the animal to have to gnaw off its own leg. Well,
##in society, we must remove the stigmas and concepts of the unwanted
#                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
##child so that a mother doesn't feel pressured into an abortion. 
# ^^^^^
##
## - SteveFranklin
#
#I thought those stigmas and concepts were removed permanently in 
#the 60's.  I can't think of anyone I respect who would look down 
#on an unwed parent and their child in the 90's.

We've had a few cases of infanticide around here lately.
In one that happened in Pennsylvania, the law used to
prosecute the woman specifically mentioned "infanticide
by an unwed mother."  I haven't heard any more, and I don't
know what law this is.

They found a dead baby in the locker of a middle school
in Steubenville, Ohio this winter.  The news stories
about the case all covered the attitudes towards unmarried
women who had babies in Steubenville.  The police
theory in the case was that these women were treated with 
such scorn that the teenage mother chose to kill the baby 
rather than face public ridicule.  (Steubenville is, of
course, home of the Franciscan University.  The Human
Life Center (an anti-abortion library) is on that campus,
and students from that school are frequently arrested
in clinic blockades.  One can minor in "pro-life"
there.  There has been no effort by the university
folks to educate their city.)

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity