HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:38:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.133209.20757@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
(dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>Paul Lebow is now answering his own strawman argument.
>He, curiously, deleted my demonstration of how he is
>completely wrong in his statement of what Heather's
>question assumed, and responds instead to his own
>remarks of what Heather's question assumed.
>
Dean Kaflowitz objects to my interpretation of a question posed by Heather, "Do
you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights from
the pregnant woman?"  I pointed out that the question has an obvious answer:
one can not. To me, a question with an obvious answer is, by definition,
rhetorical.  It is a statement rather than a real question.  There's nothing
wrong with that, but I feel totally justified in my interpretation.

If the question were, "How will the rights of a the pregnant woman change if
the unborn is given increased rights?"  I would consider this a meaningful
question.

As I said before, I think your reinterpretation of Heather's question and
invalidation of my inferences to be quite presumptuous.

- Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Edward Simmons reveals true colors (was: Blackmun calls the Roe... )
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:50:02 GMT


In article <C0FBv6.DnF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
|history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
|preborn.  The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
|protect their atrocities.  

Did everybody see this one?  Edward Simmons doesn't care if
women die-- the "preborn" are far more important.  I think
"misogynistic twit" is far too mellow a label for Edward Simmons.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and 
history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the 
preborn." --Edward Simmons, a "pro-lifer", in talk.abortion
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:29:07 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
-> Guess what I'M BAAACK....

mind-boggling the way everyone leaped in elation,
isn't it?

-> 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
->    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

faulty logic. [rest of argument based on first
flawed premise deleted.]

back to the drawing board, jeffrey.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:31:54 GMT

> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>> = (rocker) writes:

>>When you use the term "absolute ethics", do you mean a single,
>>comprehensive moral or ethical code which defines the ethical
>>action in every situation for every person?

>That's what *I* mean. 

And how have you determined this single, comprehensive code?  From
whence has it come?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:17:50 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.726881290@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.182838.11208@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>Consenting to
>>sex is NOT consenting to becoming pregnant.  
>But it IS consenting to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy.

False. 

Consenting to sex is consenting to sex.  And consent can be withdrawn before
sex is accomplished.  One would presume that adult human beings ACKNOWLEDGE
the *risk* of pregnancy, but I don't think that acknowledgement goes any
further than just that.  There are all kinds of risks in life: some we buy
insurance for, some we don't.  Some we mitigate, some we don't.  Someone with
a background in contract law could jump in here and let us know about legal
requirements to mitigate risk, and upon what grounding they are based...

And, of course, there are always the unthinking human beings who don't even
acknowledge the risk.  They bear the risk, sure.  But they may not even be
aware of it.

Seems a pretty flimsey hook to hang a hat on.

I acknowledge all kinds of risks daily, and some of those risks are potentially
fatal.  But I'll be damned if I let someone else ASSIGN risks to me willy
nilly.

One acknowledges that one can become pregnant.  One therefore keeps $500 on
hand to abort the fetus.  Done.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: You had to encourage me... (formerly: Let me state my view...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:26:05 GMT

>Every one thought Columbus was crazy because he thought the world was
>round
Everyone thought Columbus was crazy, but for different reasons. The
uneducated peasants thought the world was flat. Those who knew of
Eratosthenes (I can't spell these #^&@# Greek names) thought
Columbus's measurements were off--and they were right.

>and you think I'm crazy because life begins at conception.
That's not why we think you're crazy.

>BTW Elvis is alive.
THAT'S why.

>Are you willing to kill 1.5 million people based on your
>reasoning...I sure as hell aren't...each fetus is a unique individual
>and has a unique genetic code(twins are twins) that will not
>happen again it is an endangered species and 1.5 million are being made
>extinct each year.

Failed biology, J.J.? Individual human beings are not species (good
thing, too, otherwise we wouldn't be able to mate with each other).
_Homo_sapiens_ is a species. J.J. Price is merely in a class of
idiocy by himself.
Each sperm has a unique genetic code. Each egg has a unique genetic
code. Which means, J.J., that every time a woman menstruates, she is
killing off genetic code. Every time you jerk off, you're slaughtering
hundreds of millions of potential humans. I'd say abortion is the
least of the human race's problems.

[rest of really embarrassing post deleted to save J.J.'s feelings]

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:03:06 GMT

In article <7JAN93.16540373@vax.clarku.edu> 
hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:

>> There's another article in the Jan. 3 edition of the Chicago Tribune
>> about the killings of children in the Chicago area during 1992, some
>> of them newborn babies killed shortly after birth by their parents.  

> I'm glad you posted these tragic stories.  Imagine how many more of these 
> stories there would be if abortion were illegal and millions of women were 
> forced to give birth children they don't want.

Yet another person who hasn't heard of adoption.  And we don't have 
to "imagine" if abortion were illegal--we can examine our history 
before Roe v. Wade, and we can see that children were not brutally
killed like they are today. 

It's only after Roe v. Wade has the respect for human life degenerated
to such a point that a woman could stab her newly born son to death
with a pair of scissors.  You know, it would have been legal for a
physician to stab that little baby boy to death before he had been
born. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:23:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0q3oG.KJz@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.021048.2261@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>Nonsense. She has a fetus removed from her body. That it dies is
>>simply a fact of it's inability to survive as anything other than a
>>parasite, at this stage.
>How many abortions are performed simply by removing the child from the womb
>without harming it?  What about "vaccumming" and saline abortions?

Dunno.  How bout you tell us how many abortions (up to, say, 2 million, to
give us a margin, per year) would be AOK with you if they were performed
in the mere 'removal' manner?

>Requiring the use of the body need not require blood/tissue/organs.  

Not only "need not" but quite clearly DOES not.  There is no law in this
land that REQUIRES a father to give a perfect-tissue-match kidney to his
ailing child.  Yet some would have a law that requires a woman to give 
her womb to a perhaps/maybe/potential child.....

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Date: 5 Jan 1993 07:58:08 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan5.040648.23244@fuug.fi> an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:
>For a long time I was pro-choice because I thought pro-life people were
>crazy religious nuts. I thought they were trying to impose their religious
>beliefs on the rest of the nation.
>Then I began to think about my abortion beliefs. I didn't have any! I just
>despised the culture of the pro-life people. They were the enemy to me.

Well, I think pro-life people who would impose their beliefs on me are
crazy religious nuts.  The other kind are ok.  

Of course, you don't have to worry about the other kind imposing their beliefs
on you, so they don't fall into the 'enemy' camp.

And, of course, there are other just plain crazy nuts who join the religious
crazy nuts in the enemy category because they would impose their personal
beliefs (whether 'religious' or not) upon me, and I don't like them any better.

Both of these crazies come under attack.  Because both would reduce my
freedoms and my individuality.  And I'm not going to stand still for that.

I think that motivates a lot of people.

However, there are also plenty of folk who have, like you, actually done
some research and some thinking about abortion *itself*.  And, while their
opinions don't march with yours, and while they may still hate crazies,
it's not because they are uninformed, ignorant, or thoughtless.

Try again.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:57:21 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
->>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
->>>sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->>>>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
->>>>her extremely credible.  
->>>
->>>Do you believe her informed claim that she is "pro-choice"?
->>>
->>Certainly. She states quite plainly that she is pro-choice early in
->>the pregnancy, and in favor of restrictions for late term abortions.
->>Given that she doesn't try to lie about or hide her views, I have no
->>problem viewing her as pro-choice.

->"i think anyone who would ask if someone who openly supports anti-choice
-> legislation (and who would go as far as imprisoning women who have abortions) 
-> as ms. bartley does is pro-choice is a complete and utter fool."
->				James G Keegan Jr, keegan@pan.crd.ge.com
->				5 Jan 93 12:48:50 GMT
->				<1993Jan5.124850.10173@crd.ge.com>

->So now you're a "complete and utter fool", eh, Mark?

mark didn't ask the question, kevin. you did. see your
question above? you are the "complete and utter fool."

-><snicker>

snicker indeed.

---------
'Mr. Darcy may I suggest that you enroll yourself posthaste in a
remedial english programme, your lack of reading comprehension is
astounding.  However, until you are able to secure such a class,
I recommend that in the future you read very slowly, saying each
word out loud as you come to it.  It is possible that this
method will help to override your megalomaniacal, paranoid,
"there's a sychophant behind every bush", thought process and
maybe, just maybe, you will stop presenting yourself as such a
complete and utter imbecile.'
					Linda Birmingham
					<91147.150725ADMN8647@Ryerson.CA>
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An example of Mark Cochran's "reasoning" abilities
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1993Jan10.204849.23116@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:
|  "Lack of proof in favor of
|   existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
|   true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
|   many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."
|
|       mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
|       <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu|

Have you heard of the null hypothesis, Doug?  Of Occam's Razor?
While Mark Cochran doesn't word this as rigorously as I would,
his reasoning is still correct.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:26:53 GMT

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

>In article <C05BwG.Gnz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>#Sources please.

>As I said, I'll post them next week.

>#Regarding Nathanson... of COURSE no other NARAL members are going to
>#support his statements.  Would you actually think they would? 

>So, you were lying when you said "They have since admitted they were
>lying through their teeth?", weren't you?  Did you think it would 
>help you in the debate to simply make something up?

WHAT?  Since when did I state I was lying?  If Mr. Nathanson WAS a member
of NARAL, which he was, then any statements he makes about their actions
and motives are just as credible as their own statements.  For anyone 
in NARAL to admit that even a small portion of Mr. Nathanson's statements
were true would be tantamount to your admitting you were kidding all along,
and that you were really an active Operation Rescue member.  

>(The whistling sound you hear is your credibility flying out
>the window.)

.... pot calling the kettle black? .....

>#Let us not forget that even sources don't mean much.  Statistics can
>#be manufactured to support almost anything.

>Are you speaking from experience?

*shrug* Perhaps.  We can see, however, from your extensive mendacity on
this net, that you pioneered the skewing of facts and statistics.  

>Susan
>  


Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: dodie and suzanne?
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:44:50 GMT
Reply-To: keegan@crd.ge.com
Organization: "T.S.A.K.C"

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
[my comment refers to stephen matheson's criticism of
the following remark by suzanne forgach to patrick
humphry]

   "Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been
    with your wife.   I hope it drives you crazy."
             forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
             <1993Jan7.224312.5846@noao.edu>

|>> that's ok. you did quite nicely here. 
|>
|>Hey moron

are you feeling a bit defensive, dodie, for having
defended suzanne? as others have suggested, your
therapy seems to be failing.

|>we haven't yet heard your opinion of the
|>pro-choicer who wished rape on female pro-lifers.
|>Why so silent on the subject?  Maybe you approve
|>of such remarks?  

what remarks are those, dodie?

can you prove i didn`t comment? or is just another
of your lies?

                
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:47:16 GMT

In article <adams.726592808@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>No problem.  Now, look at the liberty interest of the woman.  There *is* a
>conflict here.  Between the liberty interest of both the unborn child and
>the woman.  Before the fetus is viable, the liberty interest *must* remain
>with the woman.  Why?  Because it is her body, mind, etc, that are involved,
>just as much as the unborn.  When the decision has to be made, it is not
>for the government to decide who can and cannot exert bodily autonomy, and
>for what reasons.  The governemt should not be able to force carrying to
>term any more than force organ donation.

Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
killed.  

There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  

>>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
>Of course it is.  And Christ had absolutely NO intention of setting up an
>earthly kingdom, or forcing his views by law.

There are several prophecies to the contrary that remain to be fulfilled
when He returns.

Christ taught that we
>should follow the spirit of God's law, and leave secular ruling to our
>leaders.  Paul said we should bow to secular authority.  In Acts, we see
>the exception : when we are personally commanded to violate God's law.

Those who excercise civil disobedience to protect these young human lives
obviously feel that by doing nothing they would be violating God's law to
protect the innocent.  

Link Hudson.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:17:45 GMT

In article <markp.726678225@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan10.143953.14541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <markp.726547273@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan9.001443.13479@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu
>>>(Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <markp.726532818@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com
>>>>(Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>In <1993Jan8.205944.28139@Princeton.EDU>
>>>>>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>>>>>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com>,
>>>>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged
>>>>>>>persons: I hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high)
>>>>>>>value as any lives.
>>>>>>*Any* lives? Let me guess. You're an anti-death-penalty,
>>>>>No; I value murder victims' lives too highly for that.

Hasn't anybody figured out yet that murder victims don't have lives?

>>>>>>anti-euthanasia,
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>So you not only wish to control a womans right to control her own
>>>>body, but you wish to control the right of an individual to end
>>>>his/her own life. No doubt the "pro-force" label fits you just fine
>>>>then.
>>>The term "euthanasia" is ambiguous; let me clarify. If a person
>>>suffering
>>>a terminal illness, and in full possession of their faculties, chooses
>>>death, I don't think the law should interfere -- although it's a
>>>deeply misguided choice. Most of what passes for euthanasia these days
>>>(hypothetical and actual) falls well short of this standard.
>>Euthanasia: From the greek "easy death"
>Come off it, Big Swinging Dictionary. I know etymology as well as
>you do. It's not often useful for precise determinations of meaning.

Kebbin would probably disagree...

>>The pracitce of killing individuals (as persons or domestic animals)
>>that are hopelessly
>Ambiguous.

Killing people who are too ambiguous? Uh-oh, Suzanne, wave bye-bye.

>>sick or injured for reasons of mercy.
>"Mercy"? Also ambiguous.

I guess it would be, to you. See below.

>Further, even if you cleaned up this cute copybook definition, it
>would still leave ambiguous the applicability of the definition to
>real-world cases.

All the more reason why it should be legal, so everyone involved
in a particular case can come to some sort of decision that is
proper for _them_.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54865 talk.religion.misc:25666 alt.atheism:25505