HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- proud ex-boyfriend of Alison Colman)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:45:21 GMT

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.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: THE RATIONALIZATION OF ABORTION
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:49:20 GMT

In article <92100.151951IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42) writes:
>For some inexplicable reason, my last commentary was erased.


Haven't we seen this before?

>  Oh well, I'm new
>at this, maybe I didn't do it right.  My point again:  The only way that
>abortion advocates can rationalize their position with no sense of guilt is to
>look upon the baby as a lifeless lump of tissue. 


That is the *only* way? How would you know, are you "pro-abortion"? 
I didn't know we *needed* to 'rationalize' our position. 

The reason an 8 week FETUS is indeed a lump (not lifeless, they are indeed
live cells, who told you they weren't?) of tissue, is because it doesn't have
a functioning brain.



> Only then can the conscience
>be ignored, and abortion remain legal. 



You assert, unsupported as usual, that we ignore our consciences, and that
there is something we are somehow repressing. You are incorrect; I know 
how I feel and I feel no pain or guilt of conscience for using my brain to
decide what is right and wrong, instead of listening to dogma.


> If the pro-abortionists looked at the
>truth: that it is human lives that are being ended, then perhaps there would
>be quite a few less pro-abortionists.


If you are speaking about (or to) pro-abortionists, you are speaking to a 
*very* small minority.  The rest of us here are pro-choice.

Would you like to be called 'pro-fascist'?


Please support the assertion that an 8 week fetus is a human life.

You seem to assume we have not considered what is happening.


>  Roe vs. Wade will, given time, be
>overturned.


At which time I will leave the country and go to a democratic country which
values personal freedom.





>  One can only ignore the conscience for so long before they give
>into its voice of reason.

Ok, you seem to have a great grip on the voice of reason yourself.  Why don't
you show us how you make such  conclusions as you do above?

Prove I have something going on in my conscience that I need to address and
then 'give into' the voice of reason. 

Let's hear the voice of reason.




-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty)
Subject: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:31:22 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

[writing to nora gayle rivkis]

>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?).

Pot: f(Kettle)="Black"

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.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:06:22 GMT

In article <72803@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>
>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?
>

Not to mention the billions upon billions of unborn children due to
masturbaton and menstruation. I mean if we are going to talk about the 
UNBORN, let's talk about the *unborn*.

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:22:07 GMT

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>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

Asshole?  Thanks for the assessment, bitch.  BTW since you know
exactly how to recruit pro-lifers pleeeez share the wealth.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: scobbie@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:02:43 GMT

Presupposing a pro-abortion stance:

How about

if abortion is to a baby of an age 'capable' of independent life
	(given current(-ish) medical technology) it is illegal
unless
abortion is self-defense and delivery is not a possible defense.

This sounds too restrictive to me, since 22 week heavily
disabled babies could not be aborted unless the mother is threatened.

I'm not proposing this as legislation, or as watertight, but as
an expression of my feelings about the mother-blob seesaw. It seems
to me that 'age' of the blob is crucial to most pro-choice people,
where 'age' is defined in terms of the blob's internal development or
its ability to survive. Perhaps 2 cut offs here, one for on-demand,
one for 'approved' if people think 'survivability' results in cruelty
to the blob.

I'm not really expecting 'debate' on this - I'm not surte why
I'm posting. Please don't send me email in response to this,
posts only. 




-- 
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
                  scobbie@csli.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: taking a stab at it ...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:50:04 GMT


I can't possibly respond to your entire post, it's far too long for my 
presently limited attention span.  :-)  However, there is one point on which I 
think you are gravely mistaken.

You mention, at least twice by my (possibly erronious) count, that religion and
logic cannot comingle, since faith in God cannot be used to "support" a logical
position on anything except the specific precepts of that religion.  Perhaps 
what we need here is a refresher in logical reasoning.

There are two kinds of reasoning, deductive and inductive.  The former is what 
we usually (colloquially) refer to as "logic".  It involves deriving, via a set
of strict rules, propositions from other propositions.  The truth of the 
derived propositions rests SOLELY on the truth of the premises.  In other 
words, deduction alone cannot prove - or support - anything by itself; you've 
got to start with premises SOMEWHERE.  Everyone on this board does it; it's 
just a question of where you get them.  Religion is one place; blind 
existentialism may be another.  Makes no difference; the fact is YOU"RE ALWAYS 
ASSUMING SOMETHING.

Inductive reasoning, the process of observing things empirically and 
generalizing, is also sometimes used here (for instance, in citing sample 
results).  Induction is very nice for examining trends, but cannot by the 
strict rules of logic (read: deduction) PROVE anything; it merely suggests 
trends.

The point of this is that you are just as guilty of committing "acts of faith" 
as I, who believe in Christianity, am; we simply get our base assumptions from 
different places.  We are, therefore, on the same level from the point of view 
of logic.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:00:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>
>The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
>of happiness.
Where?
That's the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of
life liberty or property without due process of law."

>Now the real question is:
>
>are these 3 words in this order because they sound real SPIFFY together
>or is that the order of priority???
Actually, I suspect so. The DoI is a rhetorical document.

>Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
>guaranteed?
to "persons." Fetuses are not "persons." cf. RvW.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
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: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.210425.14697@aus.intel.com> johne@tule (john elliott) writes:
>>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.

You weren't reading carefully. I said "BY THIS TACTIC" and I meant by
that tactic -- the tactic in wuestion, if you'd read the rest of the
article, was the specific one of calling people who perform abortions
or support abortion rights Nazis, or comparing abortion to the Holo-
caust. I doubt very much that your church manages to save any fetuses
by the use of that particular tactic, and I fervently hope that they
do not use it in the first place. If they manage to help out women
who don't want to have abortions, I'm glad of it; but that had nothing
to do with what I was saying.

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 12:06:40 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: To all you inequity people:

I'm assuming that you found this group, primarily from having posted to
such groups as talk.abortion.  But, if any of you don't normally read
that group (or soc.men or soc.women), would you mind looking at the
article entitled: "You want to win."??  (I caught some people's attention
with the title, ;-) )  If you've seen it already, then...nevermind.
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Time, existence, personhood...
Organization: Encore Computer
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:45:02

>Kevin
>>John
>>>Kevin
>>>>John

>>>>	An infant is self-aware. It just hasn't learned what is and what
>>>>is not self.

>>	An infant can not know that its stomach is empty, because it does not
>>know what a stomach is. It can not tell what is internal/external, because
>>it does not know the distinction between the two. These are not necessarily
>>because of a hardware defect, but because it has not learned these things.

>And learning is a process called the attainment of personhood.  It is not
>aware of these actions, hence it is not a person.

	By my definition it is. And don't throw MAW's definition at me, 
because I don't agree with it. That's the wonderful thing about thinking
for yourself; you don't have to agree with someone if you don't think that
they're right. (Not intended as a direct slam at anyone, although, if you
were offended by that remark, it was meant for you.)

>>	This is my basis for claiming that "minimal functionality is there".
>>Even if the infant displays no self-awareness, according to your standards,
>>the capability is there. All that is lacking is the learning, which is a
>>software problem.

>There may be capbility there, but one exists in a state or it doesn't.  All
>that lacks in a dead human being is living material.  All the organs and
>everything sufficient to maintain life is there, there's just no life...so
>I don't think capability is sufficient to warrant personhood.  

	Um, it's dead, Kevin. Dead things are incapable of life, let alone
self-awareness.

>>>>>>All right, let's try this one. (F v P v PP)=>R, R=>(F v P v PP)

>>>>>yes...that will work.

>>>>	This seems to be more of a patch than anything else. You will admit
>>>>that a z/e/f is not a person,and does not have the capacity to be a person,
>>>>but still grant it rights based on its future status?

>>>Yes.

>>	What is your basis for this belief? Please provide details.

>My basis for these assertions is that I believe them to be Constitutional
>persons.  I believe them to be alive human beings (genetic) and that fact
>alone affords them rights.  This is what I believe. If I existed on personhood
>being the basis for rights, I would be pro-abortion/ pro-choice.

	This explanation is still unclear to me. What is it about a living,
genetic human being that affords it rights equal to and in some cases 
exceeding those of a "moral" human being? From whence does this belief come?

>kcw

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:45:10 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>> Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the
>> argumentation you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not
>> understand the the 'other' is coming from.

> I understand perfectly.  Pro-Death people are being extrememly selfish, 
> power-hungry and barbaric.

This, from an individual who wrote the following about C J Silverio:

>|CJ has just made himself a candidate for the 
>|first experimental post-partum abortion.

Aside from the offensiveness of the 'CJ' remark, let's see what else Kevin has
hung himself with...

       Selfish?		Like 99.44% of the rest of the human race.
       
       Power-hungry?	It's the pro-forced-breeding-mare people who seek to
       			control women.
       			
       Barbaric?	It's the pro-forced-breeding-mare people who want to
       			take abortion away from clean, antiseptic clinics and
       			competent medical professionals and put it in the back
       			alleys with "practicioners" who don't know or care
       			what they're doing.
       			
Look, Kevin, almost everything you've posted for the past couple of days
indicates that you're more in the mood for a flame war than a discussion.
Would you care to prove me wrong at least once?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:45:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.174532.2927
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr12.234158.5135@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Matthew A. Lewis writes:
|In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:
|>Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
|>she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
|>question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
|true........pregnancy is a viable consequence of ANY sexual activity.

Oh, really?  Even sexual activity when birth control
is used?  Even sexual activity when one or both of the
participants is sterile?  Even sexual activity which does
not involve contact between penis & vagina?

|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.

Oh, boy.  I love it when pro-lifers say things like this.
You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
car accident."  It would be irresponsible of you to seek
medical treatment for your injuries.  You've just got to
accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
Use your brain.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the real 
labor of thinking." 	--Sir Joshua Reynolds
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: emotion
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:42:00 GMT

talking about emotional stabes parasitic life forms? in case you failed to
catch it the majority are only for abortion in extream cases. Not because
she doesnt want the child or cant aford it.

ELF-KIN 	on the side of the majority saying take your own advice
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- I will not flame... I will not flame...)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:39:32 GMT

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.

>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.

>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ drivel alert

(tee-hee) whatever you say. ;-)
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother."    -- Doug Holtsinger
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity