HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:30:07 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>I stand up for life too.  When I heard that a woman was 
>arrested in Greensboro NC for robbing several banks so she 
>could buy food and clothing for her children, I stood up 
>for legalizing bank robbery.  That woman should not have
>had to face the risk of being shot and killed during the 
>bank heist.  While bank robbery is immoral, I can't force 
>my morals onto bank robbers by making bank robbery illegal.
>That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
>just like abortion. 

Gee, Nathanson must have transplanted fetal brain cells from
ChaHallney into Holtsinger.

Sorry, but the analogy doesn't work.  Society _provides_ money
for food and clothing to poor women and children.  No one
has to rob a bank to care for their children.  On the other
hand, the only way currently available to end an unwanted
pregnancy in a reasonable amount of time is to have an abortion.
If a woman wants to feed her children, society provides her
with the resources to do so.  If she doesn't want to continue
a pregnancy, however, society says "Hey, we'll pick up the tab
for the birth."

In fact, if society _didn't_ provide help for the poor, I doubt
we'd see all this silly talk about outlawing abortion.

                             -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 23:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.131015.2412@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.020302.7897@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>>From article by sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu:
 
>>>>> Since when did any suddenly get the right to tell anyone else
>>>>> what to do with their bodies??  If my fiancee got pregnant at this point
>>>>> in time she would definately get an abortion.  
>>>>> Why? You ask?  Because of the fact that she is an important source 
>>>>> of income in our relationship..  
                  **************** 
>> I would expect a pro-"choicer" to blast the original 
>> poster for insinuating that he would exercise some 
>> control over his fiance's decision to abort. Is that
>> expectation not applicable when the man's financial
>> situation is at stake?  

>What's surprising about a fiance having an effect on the woman's
>decision?  The financial situation at stake was *the couple's* not
>just the man's.

Let's it put it another way. In a pro-choice couple, both participate
in decision making. In an anti-choice couple (either anti-abortion or
pro-abortion) the male of the couple (yes, usually the male) demands
that the woman cater to his desires. Pro-choice couples recognize that 
the decision will be  the woman's in the end since she is the one
who takes all the risks in this situation; but there is a lot of room
for negotiation to make a less immediately acceptable option more likely.
As in - "I'll take a year off grad school while you finish up. You aren't
likely to be hired by an employer while pregnant, and after the baby is
born, I can go part time and work full time until the baby can be in
daycare while you support me for a while." Or, "I guess we can't afford
a baby right now, so let's keep using the rubbers."


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:58:53 GMT

In <Bvq88E.9B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>A woman's rights with regards to abortion are protected by the Fourth 
>Amendment.  An unborn child's rights with regards to abortion
>may be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  If that is the
>case, then it becomes a question of whose rights take precidence --
>the born person's or the unborn person's?

	Which could also boil down to:
Which is more important, right to privacy, or right to live. I certainly
can't think of any other case where you are justified in killing someone
because they have "invaded your privacy". 

		Bruce
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:22:35 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
]> This was once again validated in a medical tape I watched recently of
]> women who'd just delivered newborns.   The black woman's baby was, you
]> guessed it, white.   (Yes, her husband was black.  The baby did have
]> black facial features, so of course it turned black later on.)

>You can't be serious here.  I've seen pictures of black women
>who have just given birth (holding the infant) and those
>babies were black.  I can't believe you could make such a
>statement.

DOD finally gets a glimmer.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 08:24:22 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Sep27.204329.5372@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>Loose the sarcasam please...it's rather childish.  I have a low tolerance
>for
>people who enjoy acting this way in a serious debate...

Of course, it entirely escapes Eric that many of us here have a low tolerance
for people who cannot/do not support their arguments, and ask other people
to prove postulates put forth by Eric himself.....

Adrienne Regard
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Date: 1 Oct 1992 07:41:45 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct1.064658.28775@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1acrgbINNr2s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>You are pretty goddamned disgustingly stinkingly free with somebody
>>else's rights, buddy.
>>> [accidentally deleted line]
>>>be ignored and looked down upon.  I'm just saying when the choice is between
>>>the life of a human and the mother's situation, the life of a human being
>>>must be protected.
>>No, what you are staying, you pile of turd, is that the process to gain
>>something that *you* value is worth trampling the humanity of other people
>>whom you DON'T value.
>I value all people, blacks, whites, and everybody else. 

Not noticably.

You value them to serve you, perhaps.  You value them to live their lives
as *you* dictate, perhaps.

Martin, let me just illustrate the point for you.              

We should perform all drug testing on men.  We'll *only* do it for 9 months,
and most of them won't die.  And it will save lives!!!!


>In fact, Jews, blacks, etc. are often viewed as people with no rights.  Not
>only people with no rights, but people who should be removed from this
>country or any other country in any way possible.  They don't value them.

Yep, and you just added all women to the list.  Gee, thanks.  NB one of the
primary ways that Jews, blacks, etc. have been reduced to subhuman in this
country is just as you say -- they become people with no rights.  And this
is PRECISELY what you are proposing for women -- to remove their rights
as human beings in order to 'protect' a blob of cells.  One cell.  Two cells.
4 cells.  YOU are proposing going down the road you have stated to oppose.
That makes you stupid in addition to offensive.

>But if I start "trampling" over people by putting laws, and trying to create
>a change in this country for the better, does this make me a pile of turd?

Yes.

>BTW, yes, I do value both the mother and her child(s).  But just because
>I would protect the human life within the mother doesn't mean I hate or
>don't value the mother.  I can stronly suggest to my wife (If I had a wife)
>not to have an abortion yet completely and unconditionally love her.

Heck, Martin, if you had your way, you'd FORCE her to bear a child through
the laws you figure are 'for the better' and turn her into your breeding
animal.  How 'loving' of you.

>>ASSHOLES always end up exposing themselves without any need for help from
>>the viewing audience.
>Adrienne, why the hostility? 

Because, Martin, you are proposing to this net to pass laws where my
complete humanity is negated for *your* value set.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK.

Are you really *surprised* that some people would have a problem with
being enslaved?  Haven't given it much thought, huh.

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170250.14130@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Oct6.053306.27154@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>What is so wrong with the fact that a human life is dependent on its mother?
>
>Nothing, nothing at all!  What's _wrong_ is that you say that it's
>always unpermissible to kill the human life.  You're conveniently
>ignoring the fact that the mother may have a very good reason to not
>want to play host to the fetus.

Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?

>
>>Being dependent does not mean not existing.
>
>I never said it did.
>
>>As for your above statements concerning pigs and z/e/f, I am saddened.
>>I can understand how some people can justify abortion when they compare
>>human lives, real human lives, human lives who actually exist, to pigs.
>
>And I'm saddened by your position, too, but I can understand how some
>people want to try to compare my life to the life of a fertilized egg,
>and say that we're both equal (which is something of an insult to me),
>but that the fertilized egg is more important than the woman who
>carries it (which is an insult to the woman).

The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
whatever.  

You are special.  Peter Nyikos is special.  Adrienne Regard is special.
All our human lives began in a very delicate and very fragile state from
the time of conception.  We grew from that point on and developed to our
present state today.  At each point of the way, we are essentially no
different.  In whatever way you put it,the one year old newborn, the
ten year old boy/girl, and the present day you is essentially the same 
individual.  You, are one with yourself.  That includes, of course, 
every stage of your life from conception onwards.
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:24:43 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 28-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
by Bruce Varney@sage.cc.pur 
> Laws are made to protect people - in some cases people that are incapable
> of protecting themselves. Laws about child labor etc are such. Why is
> it that no one is crying that those are "legalizing a set of morals"?
> Simple. It's not. It is protecting a segment of human society that cannot
> protect itself. The same is true of abortion laws. 

This is the only time that I'll really disagree with Bruce. Most
of what he's said I agree with completely.

There are many religions in this country. And not all of them believe
that the child has a soul from the moment of conception. It is often
considered the 'soul' that makes us uniquely 'human'. To deny these
people the right to abort is to infringe upon thier religion. I'm not
saying I agree with their beliefs. But I am saying that it is possible
for someone to have a moral stand for abortion.

This is the only reason why I think nothing about whether to have or
not have an abortion should be legislated. I find it to be a distinctly
moral issue rather than a civil rights issue. 

ag
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38949 rec.food.cooking:17079 talk.bizarre:31979 alt.religion.computers:802
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,rec.food.cooking,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers
Subject: An Authoritative Answer to: Nykios on Dieting
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:01:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts) writes:

] >] Fetal tissue harvesting involving elective abortion is a form of 
] >] cannibalism.  
] >
] >I will defer to others more knowledgeable on the
] >culinary merits of cannibalism, but I had thought
]  ...........more respsonses, etc., down to....
] 
] May I ask what this is doing in an innocent little newsgroup on cooking? 

Seeking an Authoritative Response on what is Nuvelle Cuisine...

] Cannabilism, abortion, and Le Cruset just don't mix.  Thanks.

Can We presume that this is an Authoritative Answer?

Or is there a DNS - DietaryNameServer - that can
offer a Authoritative Answer.

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:12:57 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Sep24.231634.1010@wdl.loral.com> Cranius Sphinctus posing
as bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Correctus :) ) writes:
># garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Bogus aka Susan Garvin) writes:
>
># Prove 
># 1) That this is my "gay pride" .sig. 
># 2) That I even have anything to do with "gay pride." 
># 3) That I am Dennis Hall.
>
>Relax, Mr. Chaney -- no one cares what your sexual orientation is, so
>you don't need to expend any of your precious chi defending against
>phantom threats to your manlihood.

Who started this bullshit attack? Clue: Bogus was one key instigator.


>However, if indeed you are gay, which I note you haven't actually
>denied, you should know that I, for one, would support any honest
>efforts you might make to promote gay pride -- even though, all other
>things being equal, I would probably still regard you as a fascist
>running dog tool of the diabolical pseudo-Christian cabal led by Pat
>Robertson, Rev. Lou _Weasel-boy' Sheldon, Rev. Donald _Wildman'
>Wildmon, et. al. and actively oppose you in your esurience for the
>abolition of reproductive rights.

Then you are as dumb as I thought. I already noted I'm not gay. At least
when last I checked, my gender radar picks up a good looking woman and
tries to screen out the men around, both consciously and subconsciously. Of
course in the age of AIDS, most of the time I just look. (Any sexual
activity on my part never goes without protection - I don't want to die of
AIDS or feed one of your abortuaries.) Any homosexual tendencies that seek
help in my subconscious have as much of a chance of taking root as a seed
on a hot, dry rock on the bright side of the moon.

I have said, however, that since I can't find anyone who dies as a result
of homosexuality, I see no need for laws against it.

And really, if you can prove that I am a part of the coalitions headed by
Sheldon, Robertson or Wildon, etc., go ahead and show those posts. I am a
part of the coalition headed by Wanda Franz, PhD, though - a non-sectarian
coalition that opposes you in the name of abolishing discrimination.
Non-sectarian organizations automatically are not under Robertson's,
Sheldon's or Wildon's jurisdiction. 

In a word: BZZZT! You're wrong.

When discrimination is totally gone, legal abortion will be a thing of the
ancient past.

=============================================================================
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39437 alt.rush-limbaugh:6211
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:43:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:|lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
:|=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
:|=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
:|=> "1987
:|=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
:|=> each abortion clinic."
:|=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
:|=Not especially.  Did you have a point here?
;
:|Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
:|financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
:|government. 
:
:I'm afraid I'm unable to parse this sentence.  Are you referring
:to some kind of choice about how gov't uses our tax dollars?
:About a choice to abort our gov't?  (I could get into that.)
:Do you somehow feel that taxing a clinic is "anti-choice"?
:Please clarify.

Well somehow having the government "profit" from abortions, and the
argument that abortion should be kept available for the poor women to
have abortions while the costs of the procedure rise due to some
artificial means, such as an increase in licensing fees, by the
government. But by no means do you have to follow my interpretation; I
do post to listen to other people's perspectives.

:|Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
:|of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
:
:How does an abortion exploit a woman who freely chooses to obtain it?
:
:And what babies are there that are being murdered?  This is
:horrible!  And against the law!  What are their names?  You
:really ought to report it.  Of course, it has nothing to do
:with abortion.

The point of my post wasn't that abortion exploits women (although I
leave that line of discussion completely open for those who think that
way) but that government exploits on women who want abortions. 
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Sadomasochist extraordinaire.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Threats?
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:28:05 GMT

In article <6748@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>>> Okay, DOD, you just said that you "don't normally" do it.

>> Thanks for correcting yourself.  One nitpick though: I said 
>> nothing about criticism, only "substantial disagreement".  

> Do you criticize "pro-lifers" publicly, DOD?  You haven't,
> for example, criticized Chaney for making some rather 
> personal and insulting comments about people on t.a.  You
> have publicly criticized Patrick for his comments.  Should we
> all assume that you approve of Chaney's actions?

Do you criticize "pro-choicers" publicly? You haven't,
for example, criticized Humphrey for making some rather
personal and insulting comments about people on t.a. You
have publicly criticized Mr. Chaney for his comments.
Should we all assume that you approve of Humphrey's
use of term "fat black ass"? 


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:19:04 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <QemkVNy00VI=Q190kf@andrew.cmu.edu>, Elizabeth Cornelia Green <eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> Guess who's lecturing at Carnegie Mellon University Friday night?
> 
> Yup, Sarah Weddington.  The woman who defended Roe in Roe vs. Wade in
> 1973.  That's one woman who's gonna have a lot to answer for on
> judgement day!  Can you imagine the guilt of being very influential in
> the deaths of millions?!

If I were her I would feel no guilt, but I guess you can feel free
to judge her, seeing how your values are the ones that are right and
strong, and everybody else's are meaningless and wrong.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:43:57 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep27.054945.28826@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:

>1. Has anyone seen a fetal pig in a comparative anatomy lab, or a picture
>of one used for dissection in comparative anatomy courses, that looked
>like anything but a pig?

I've dissected one, Peter, completely, including removing the lens from
the eye (pretty neat thing, a lens) and removing and studying the brain.
It pretty much looked like a fetal pig. Dimensions of a pig are a bit
different, and also have eyes that open.

>2. Has anyone come up where a context where the fetus of a pig was called
>anything but a fetal pig?

Peter, this contradicts your statement below directly. Here you're saying
that a fetus of a pig is only called a fetal pig (iow, not a pig) yet
below you state that a fetal pig is a pig (indicating that it is the
same as a full-grown pig. It isn't.

>**** Fetal pigs is pigs, but fetal humans is only potentially human. ***

I do believe I started it when I commented on your statement, but that's
ok. I didn't read all the posts, and you may have been barraged. :)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion