HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:00:46 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

[semi-irrelevant stuff about priestly celibacy deleted]

>PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON"T MAKE A WAR OF THIS. We should be working
>TOGETHER to help the victims. YOu see the women as a victim, we see
>the fetus as a victim. CAN WE NOT WORK TOGETHER so that everyone is happy?
>I don't think you guys give a shit... All I see are the pro-lifers here
>begging to work TOGETHER, and you guys are so busy trying to hack away
>at our faith and pride, that you don't spend any time thinking about
>a solution.

What do you have in mind?  If your idea of an acceptable compromise involves
denying living, breathing, conscious human beings their constitutional rights
then we have nothing to talk about.  On the subject of civil liberties, no
good citizen can allow government any more power over individuals than it 
already enjoys (says me, the unapologetic hard-line libertarian (small 'l')).

If, on the other hand, you want to reduce the number of abortions by reducing
the factors in our society that contribute to their demand, read on.  Poverty, 
unreliable birth control, and just plain ignorance all add to the demand for
abortion in this country.  Preaching, "rescuing", firebombing clinics, and
stigmatizing sexual information in the form of "abstinance education" do 
nothing to stop abortions or their underlying causal factors. 

As for "trying to hack away at [your] faith and pride", I would die defending
your right to exercise your particular faith.  I also hope you realize I 
would die defending the right of others (myself included) to be free from
your faith and its stipulations.  *IF* your goal is to codify the stipulations
of your faith into law in order to impose it on others, count me among your
obstacles.


-- 
Curtis M. Compton                                    compton@plains.NoDak.edu

The computing field is always in need of new cliches.
		-- Alan Perlis
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:34:09 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <ls2t=1g@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes...

>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
> 
>>This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to self-determination 
>>is self evident.  I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
>>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
>                                                                ======
>>I feel I have to.  You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
> =================
>>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
>>truth.
> 
>Don't you understand, John, that your small caveat there makes your
>entire statement meaningless?  I can absolutely guarantee you that I
>won't get out of bed tomorrow unless I feel I have to.
> 
>Don't you see why you frighten me?  Many horrible things have been
>done in the name of "I had to".  It frightens me that though we've
>never met and probably never will, someday you might feel that you
>"have to" stop me from doing something that I have chosen to do.
>Welch feels that he would "have to" stop me from having an abortion
>_even_if_not_having_the_abortion_would_destroy_my_mind_.  Destroying
>my mind would effectively end my life, but Welch feels the potential
>life of any random fetus is more important than my mind.

I think you missed the beginning of the thread.  We already covered 
this ground.  Anyway, one sentence at a time...

The caveat doen't make the statement meaningless.  The point being 
that under certain circumstances we, as a society, *have* to place 
limits on a persons behavior.

You're not going to get out of bed unless you *have* to?  I kind 
of suspect that most (at least many) days you get out of bed 
because you *want* to.  I don't take infringing a woman's rights 
lightly and I don't do it because I want to.

Don't be frightened.  I'm quite rational and with good enough 
arguments you may persuade me.  

Many horrible things have been done in the name of "I had to"?  Right, 
and usually we say "Well, okay then."  The trick is to be really, 
*really* sure you really did "have to".  The more horrible the thing 
the more we have to be sure we "have to".

We've never met yet I feel I have to stop you from doing something you 
may choose to do?  The fact that we've never met is not relevant.  
You are in favor of stopping people you've never met from doing lots 
of things.  Need I give examples?

Welch?  I am not he.  I suspect that I would disagree with many of his 
beliefs.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
[Undecided and so open minded that my brain is drafty.  :-) ]
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: b r a w l e y withdraws? (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:25:51 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

in a demonstration of just how fast the net can overcome someone,
kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rages:
-> keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >in a post devoid of reason, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
-> >-> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
-> >-> >kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rants to muriel:
-> >-> >-> Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion
-> >-> >-> while trying to shut others out.
-> >-> 
-> >-> >it's odd you'd say that. i don't believe i've ever heard
-> >-> >a single "Pro-Death" person scream. no doubt, this is
-> >-> >because i don't know any "Pro-Death" people, which is
-> >-> >also odd. because i've been around this newsgroup a long,
-> >-> >long time while you have just arrived.  still, you
-> >-> >deserve the benefit of the doubt i suppose.  so, please
-> >-> >list the name of the people you call "Pro-Death" along
-> >-> >with some evidence that they are "Pro-Death." then we can
-> >-> >move on to this screaming business.  once you take care
-> >-> >of this wee matter, i'm sure any questions as to your
-> >-> >integrity will be answered.
-> >-> 
-> >-> Glad to oblige.  
-> >-> 
-> >-> 1. The fetus (human or not) is a life.
-> 
-> >human or not? are you proposing some protection for mammals,
-> >plants, viruses, fish, insects, cancer......
-> 
-> I'm devoid of reason?  You have refuted nothing.  The issue,
-> bonehead, is abortion of human fetus'.  The parenthetical
-> phrase was in deference to twits like yourself.  (human or
-> not)

well then sonny, rewrite your phrase and resubmit it written in
such a way that it clearly represents what you want to say.

-> >-> 2. When you terminate the life you bring death.
-> 
-> >-> 3. Hence people wanting the ability to bring death (ie.
-> >-> so-called Pro-Choicers) are Pro-Death.
-> 
-> >have you had your tonsils removed sonny?
-> >have you ever had a haircut, trimmed your fingernails?
-> >you'd better try again.
-> >and don't forget to include your list of names this time.
-> 
-> Well, seems your whole post is nonsense (since you couldn't
-> even comprehend the premise).

i take it then that you shall be withdrawing your nonsense which
began this discussion; that is this nonsensical statement:

	"Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion
	while trying to shut others out."

don't feel too bad kid. people like you pop into t.a. a couple of
times each year. most don't last.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 05:36:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Okay, about a new name other than Nazi, about just dumb pigs?
Here are some other facts thatmake the pro-lifers live up to
the old name and the new name. First these pigs bring terror
to every doctor who moves to North Dakota, unless they pledge
to these pro-life pigs that they will not ever give a woman
a abortion. Second more proof that these pigs like to outlaw
abortion even when the woman's life is in danger the case was
in somewhere in new york state a woman who was in coma, and her
family was going to let doctors to abort the fetus, and to
bring out the woman of coma and save her life, most dcotors
say that the only way this woman can live is to abort. All was
fine until a pro-life pig and his pro-life group got wind of this
and when they did they use a loop hole in new york law, which
made this pig overule the family, and he stop the abortion
which was going to save the woman's life. Well lucky for the woman
and her family a judge block this pig, and the abortion went out as plan
and in few weeks the woman came out of coma and is doing well. to this
day the woman's doctor say that she would have died if she did not
have this abortion.
-- 
Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
----------------------------------------------
 Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 05:04:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.223336.17428@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>
>Isn't that neat?  I've sat back and watched this debate for quite a 
>while, and it's another perfect example of the abortion controversy.
>Someone ejaculates a letter to me, [etc....]

Running low on analogies there, Steven?

							- Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15531 alt.flame:6933
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was Re: Multi-lateral Abortion Decision (was Re: Women in bondage?))
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to larry margolis:
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> It's not "obvious" [sic] at all. As long as
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> the possibility exists that the potential
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> father, and/or the state, might get an
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> abortion veto-power, then certainly the LESS
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> RADICAL possibility of giving this power to a
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> neutral adjudicator is far more likely, as a
-> >-> >-> >-> >-> compromise position.
-> >-> >-> >-> >
-> >-> >-> >-> >this is a bit excessive, even for a pro-control
-> >-> >-> >-> >freak like you kevin. now you seem to want so
-> >-> >-> >-> >badly to lessen women's control of their bodies
-> >-> >-> >-> >that you want to give that control to a "neutral
-> >-> >-> >-> >adjudicator."
[...]
-> >whose rights do you want to compromise away, kebbie?
-> 
-> Please point out the part where I claimed the authority to
-> make such a compromise.

can't you read your own posts?

-> >kevin, you don't talk about issues. you lie about people. you
-> >carry on net.vendettas. you accuse people of doing what you
-> >do.
-> 
-> A clear case of projection if I've ever seen one.

your experience with observing projection has a quantity factor
just about the same as your ability to deal with truth, eh
kebbie?

        "No Mr. Darcy, any opinions I have about you are based on
        what YOU write.  Trust me when I say that you do not need
        help from anyone in looking like a fool, this appears to
        be one area that you are very competent at all by
        yourself."
				Linda Birmingham
				<91147.144514ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:35:11 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

someone posting as
	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

[...]

cut it out chaney.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:27:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

Well said, Dean!

Matthew did have one thoughtful article that I saw and responded to.  
However, he almost ruined it by once again bringing up his 
ZOO TV fetish.   :-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Mikeey Seeks Cheerleaders
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 23:41:30 GMT

In article <1992Mar30.064531.19497@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu writes:
>> Mikeey Lin
>>
>>If the two parties involved created life, should
>>not both parties decide what they should do?
>
>Face it, Lin, the man does nothing but enjoy one lucky orgasm.  If he walks
>away, he risks nothing but a slight chance of a paternity suit.  

A "risk" which is imposed by the woman's unilateral choice, and enforced
(yes, ENFORCED, Larry, with chains, if necessary) by our current legal
system. Not a natural risk at all.

>She risks
>everything she has, everything she hopes to have, and everything she is
>(including, often, being alive).  

Assuming she aborts at the first available opportunity after discovering
the pregnancy, how much of a risk is this, really? Statistics welcomed.

>He faces no such risk.  While most would
>advocate that she seek his opinion, the final, irrevocable choice is hers.

Regardless of what BIOLOGICAL choices people are granted, they generally don't 
get to "choose" not to pay their debts, Kathi, except in this odious little
exception which has been carved out of the law.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 23:03:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.162639.27291@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.045148.5912@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>You wrote:
>>She created an ORGASM, which had a use.
>[Note:  Emphasis mine.  The original is just a dozen lines or so up there^^^]
>
>James suggested that you talk to a woman or two privatly about this matter.
>
>I would suggest you do the same.  While I can certainly understand the uses of
>an orgasm, I fail to see what it has to do with pregnancy, or abortion.

Which was PRECISELY my point. Glad you're finally catching on...

								- Kevin
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr7.191443.15704@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes ...
>>In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing of persons.
>>That law is based on a belief that it is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable"
>>for people to go around killing other people.
>
>It is more likely that murder is illegal because most people don't
>want to run the risk of being murdered.  People don't want killers 
>wandering around free because they're dangerous - not because
>they're bad & wrong.

Thats what I said ... "undesirable".

>>To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder force them
>>to behave in a certain way.
>
>In order to live within society, one must accept the rules of society.
>Right or wrong is irrelevant - numbers count.

Precisely.  So when it comes to proposed anti-abortion law, why do we hear
all this nonsense about it focring ideas onto people.  

Since the rightness or wrongness of "forcing" is irrelevant - why not
let the majority (or a Constitutionally sufficient majority) decide?

>Making abortion illegal won't stop abortion unless people agree that
>abortion is wrong.  In the current social climate, it is more likely
>that it will cause additional suffering among women and families.

But it may reduce substantially the number of killings.

And what is the current climate - vis a vis the morality of abortion?

tk
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:11:42 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr9.122141.11483@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>            morals on others. 
>>
>> If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>> can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

> Nonsense.
> I could have premise A: No human should force a woman to carry a
> pregnancy to term.

Yes, and what does that prove? 

> Premise A has several fatal flaws. The first obvious one is that
> you should substitute "person" for "human life."

I also could substitute "flying pigs" for "human life". What does that
prove?

>> Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>>            the right to determine its own set of morals. 
>>
>> Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 

> If you make the substitution I suggest, you need to postulate
> that a fetus is a person. I won't do so.

Yes, but only if I make that substitution. I won't. 

>> Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies
>>            the fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
>>
>> Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>> of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>> premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>> pregnancy to term.  

> Nonsense. Take a course in introductory logic.
>
> The thrust of your basic argument is:
> A-->B
> ~A-->~B.

No, the last line is incorrect. I said that if you disagree with 
premise A, then you must agree that humans should be able to 
force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (or perhaps more correctly,
it is not immoral to force a woman to carry to term). Hence ~A->~A .
I did not say that if you disagree with premise A, then that implies 
that abortion is not wrong (~B). 

> -Ekr

Doug Holtsinger
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14703 soc.men:8335 soc.women:8866
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:29:15 GMT

>In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

 [ deletions ]

>>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

 Let's see, by your statement above :   Magic Johnson is a slut.

 In my opinion, I may not have forgiven him if I was his fiance,
 but I would not call him a slut.  I would not call him a role
 model, either.
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 2: Life begins at viability
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:43:27 GMT

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

>In <1992Apr1.175718.29402@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>If prematurely born, then I believe the family
>>should have the right to NOT give permission for the heroic measures that
>>_might_ enable the newborn to continue living.  It is a private decision
>>and should remain so.

>Then you agree with the fundamentalists that refuse the benefits of
>modern medicine for their children. 

Please read what I said.  I don't think that parents (regardless of their
religious beliefs) should be compelled by law to give their prematurely
born child heroic measures so it might live another day or two.  If, however,
it is _certain_ (or reasonably close to it) that the heroic measures would 
not only preserve the premature baby's life, and that life would be within 
the realm of normalcy, then I believe that it is their duty as parents to 
do as much as humanly possible to help their child.

If you take this as a "okay" for certain religious sects to categorically
deny medical aid to their sick child, then you are the one who can't read.

>What constitutes "heroic" measures depends on your level of technology.

You're right, of course.  20 years ago, fetal testing was probably considered
heroic, now it is commonplace.  However, I live in the real world of today.
I think it is reasonably safe to believe that most people agree what heroic
measures are in this country.  Repairing a broken leg or undergoing a blood
transfusion is NOT heroic; I would believe that massive life-support for a 
dying premature child WOULD be.

>For the most part, parents should decide things for their children, but
>the position is clouded in cases when the parental choice is
>dramatically inferior to other possible choices. You know, choices like
>sending your child into the coal mines or refusing to have a broken bone
>mended.

I think you are deliberatly twisting my words, Brendan.  Nowhere have I
stated that I think that parents should have complete control of their
child's medical care over what is obviously in the _child's_ best interests,
long-term.  However, I would be hard-pressed to believe that parents should 
be forced to undertake massive efforts to sustain a premature infant's
life for a short while just to satisfy some other person's belief system.


Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion