HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <lkrbakINNihu@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking) writes:
>In article <uct7dvs@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>You should try doing some reading on fetal development.
>
>Well, I may not know everything, but I don't think there's *any* way
>an aborted fetus could be construed as a vegetarian dish.  I'd like to
>see your research.
>

True, true. But just add a little A1 and sprinkle with garlic. Yum!

Try not deleting the entire relevant part of the article next time.
It might be easier to reply in a somewhat serious manner.

>drew
>banta@abingdon.sun.com

Robert Johnston
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54924 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12086 alt.rush-limbaugh:13496 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:106
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:54:52 GMT

In article <markp.726678225@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Mark Pundurs inability to understand the definition of the word
"euthanasia" deleted]

So basically the problem seems to be your lack of comprehension. Try
remedial courses at the local Jr. College.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:58:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.045542.6022@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> wendymas@gnu.ai.mit.edu (hell here) writes:
>maybe god allows abortions because he truly recognizes
>the fact that the real reason (as it seems to me - a woman who was raised
>in a society who was busy telling her what she should be and using guilt
>to do it) women are prohibited from having abortions is cuz men don't want
>us to. just maybe. i realize not all are control freaks, but i also realize
>that not all men want women to be self actualized.

I heard a feminist on television say that the reason the government opposed
importing ru486 was because the leaders of this country did not want women
to have control over their own bodies.  As a man, the reason I am against
abortion is not because I don't want women to have control over their
own bodies- its because I don't want women to destroy their children's
bodies.  

If women were tatooing ugly pictures on their bodies in the same proportion
that they are having abortions performed (which may be the case, I don't know)
I doubt there would be a single protest.  Most people don't care  very much
what someone else does with his/her body.  If women were having their 
gallbladders removed, who would protest?  

The reason abortion has such passionate opposition (by men and women) is
because it destroys the life of the child.  Most politicians are men,
and abortion is legal.  This really has little to do with men wanting 
women to have control over their own bodies.

Link
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion (again)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:29:13 GMT

referring to abortion,
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

->There is absolutely no other situation in which
->an individual is inside the body of another.  Think about
->it a minute.  There is no useful analogy.

i agree fully with galen's comments.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: NRL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:00:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.184709.27691@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com
( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>> = Dean the K:
>

>TRANSLATION: He trashed me so badly, I'll ignore his entire post and
>instead put out a posting so goddam boring it can bring one to tears.

>
>Give it up, Lebow.  Damn, you're a downer.  I leave in just enough of
>your droning to make my point...
>

>Gads.  Can you believe this garbage?  
>
>BTW - your paragraph's point is oblique, and that's being kind.
>
>[another ~4000 lines and umpteen attribution nestings removed to save 
>reader's sanity...]

>| Steve Novak |   


Steve - 

These are all of your words from the referenced post.  The remaining excerpts
from my post constitute about 80% of your post.

Don't you think the people in this group can decide for themselves.  
Why did you feel it necessary to rub their noses in such garbage?  If it looks
like, smells like, feels like, why go on and taste it?

- Paul


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:46:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan6.055047.14767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
> In article <1993Jan5.211703.20856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:

> [Lots of deletions, since I'm not goin to comment on it all.]

>>Our 7-week-old son Joseph is quite a noisemaker
>>but seems largely incapable of "meaningful communication".  

> You have not yet learned how to tell if he is using a "feed me" cry,
> or a "change me" cry, or a "hold me" cry, or a "damn, that hurt" cry?
> Take a vacation and play with the kid. I consider that meaningful
> communication. :)

"Take a vacation."  Is that doctor's orders, Mark? :-)  My intent was
to ask 1) whether Joseph's crude "communication" skills could be nothing
more than responses to certain situations (i.e., not deliberate attempts
to communicate) and 2) whether Joseph's ability to "communicate" was
significantly different from that of certain fetuses.

>>Death is a reasonable end
>>to personhood.  Can we accept others?  Are we really prepared to live
>>with the logical consequences?

> Let me guess. You've never had to pull the plug on a ventilator have
> you?

No.  If you have, then I must express my admiration and my appreciation
(seriously) to you for being willing to do this.  But Mark, I'm not
sure what this has to do with the point I was making, namely that
certain ideas of personhood seem to lead to temporary and conditional
personhood.

>>> And since when do only
>>> people's lives deserve respect?  If I run a live cat through a wood
>>> chipper, I'm breaking the law against cruelty to animals.

>>How about if you anesthetize it first?

> Or at least hit it on the head with a hammer...

Question:  Do you like cats?
Answer:  No, but then I've never really found a good recipe...

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54802 talk.religion.misc:25627 alt.atheism:25465
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Summary: Godwin's Rule
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:47:09 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <C0Jyxx.L4H@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>Suppose you had been born under the Nazi government.  Replace "abortion"
>with "exterminating the Jewish race" and replace "fetus" with Jew.  Or

This is the tiredest rhetorical ploy on Usenet.  There is absolutely
NOTHING, other than your linking them in personal disapprobation, that
is a common ground between abortion and the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

If one were dealing with a state policy/demand/program of abortion
(as has been charged against the Chinese, I do not know whether truth-
fully or not), some degree of comparison might be allowed.  That such
a policy -- and most especially an extra-legal paramilitary goon-squad
or (worse still!) a segment of "legitimately constituted" armed force
engaged in carrying OUT such a policy -- is not present in the USA is,
I hope, obvious to all but the crackpots.  Introducing such shibboleths
into a discussion of OUR laws is evidence of a bankruptcy of ideas.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Equal rights
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:13:46 GMT

In article <1298@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.021250.25307@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>#In article <1276@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>##In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>##[deletions]
>###BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>###willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?
>##
>##I just wanted to see this again.  I think it's the best response
>##I've seen yet (closely followed by those who support a man's
>##right to have an abortion) to those who would ignore biology
>##in their quest for absolute equality.
>#
>#Um, Susan...
>#This *is* possible...
>#All you need isa surrogate mother, and an in vitro fertilization, and
>#a little luck in the implantation...
>
>Sorry, Mark, I've decided to be ridiculous about this.  Your reply
>makes perfect sense, so I have to reject it.
>
>You've involved a third person.  I want to see support for a woman's
>right to have her biological child with only the help of a willing
>SO.  Otherwise, things wouldn't be exactly equal.

Well, this is pretty far fetched, but...

Take a lesbian couple.  Extract the DNA from one woman.  Implant it into an egg
from the other woman.  Place the egg back into the other woman...
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=Ex-Boyfriend of Scott.  Ex-Girlfriend of Lynn, Sarah, James, Larry, Linda,   =
= Susan, and Rocker.  Space Reserved For Patrick, Gordon, and Druiex... (FWA!)=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Porphyria & Forgach (An argument for better sex ed)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:02:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.171616.9365@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>>> haven't seen any such activity -- 
>
>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
>
>Jesus Christ, you snotty bitch.  Did you and Chaney contract the same
>case of rabies?  What's this strange hangup you two have with Patrick's
>wife?
>
>If your "god" actually existed, it would be "Forgach Flambe'" the
>instant you died.
>
>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...
>
>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.
>

Again, Suzanne, you have shown the world your methods of infinate caring.  
Obviously, you care not for the human race, only for the ones who may
become part of the human race.  Once they are born, you care nothing.
So you hope it "drives" a man "crazy" to have a step-child?  Do you
think how that step-child might feel if he/she knows her/his existance
is "driving" the step-father "crazy"?  Do you CARE?  Again, your
remarks prove just how much of the Catholic philosophy you actually
endorse.  It's unfortunate that you, like most other "christian" folks
I know, pick and chose among the tenants of their "religion".

And you want MORE children?  Haven't you proven just now that you are
unworthy of even ONE child?  If I were on an adoption board, I wouldn't 
approve you!  It's sad that natural parents don't have to go through the
same rigorous proceedings that adoptive parents do.

And, for your information, my father doesn't give a damn that he's
not my natural father.  Not everyone is as screwed up as you are.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:23:28 GMT

In <1993Jan11.022306.14508@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>>Seriously, do you believe that we are all just slaves to our bodies, and
>>>shouldn't avail ourselves to medical, psychological, and other help when
>>>we feel it is necessary? 
>>
>>Of course we should -- but we shouldn't violate anyone else's right
>>to life in the process.

>In case you haven't been paying attention, terminating a pregnancy
>does not necessarily imply violating anyone's right to life.  

I've been deliberately avoiding the question of the z/e/f's right to
life, as it's logically independent of the "womb eviction" argument.
(at least, so say many pro-choicers on t.a, who have rejected
the right-to-life issue as irrelevant.) But I have been paying
attention -- and have yet to be shown that the right to life doesn't
begin at conception.

>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:14:55 GMT

In article<1993Jan9.113651.26973@fuug.fi>, an anonymous person writes:

>I would like to explain why many of us (the majority) whom you call
>"anti-choice," take a pro-life stance on the abortion issue.

>[loooooooooooooooooong, tedious article deleted]

If you're so unsure of your stance that you must post this anonymously,
why should I bother to read it? Post it again with some kind of
signature and I'll take it more seriously.
-- 
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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:24:13 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>Analogy: If I altered your biochemistry to make your survival dependent
>on transfusions of my blood (nobody else's would do), then I would be
>responsible for providing such transfusions. 

But what if you did so accidentally?  What if you served me a vodka
martini, which had the side effect that I became dependent on you.
Would you still be thus obligated?

>General principle: One who creates a human dependency incurs an 
>obligation to meet that dependency.

This depends, at the very least, on the circumstances of creation.

>>Says who?
>>And why should I take that person's reasoning as my own?
>>Just asking some fundamental questions here, as I don't agree that a woman
>>has "obligated herself" to anything except having a good time in bed by
>>having sex!  Please tell me in what rule book this "obligation" is written.
>>And who wrote it and why. 

>I hope the above also answers these questions. 

Not for me.

>(Otherwise, they're 
>expressions of ethical relativism, which is incompatible with ethical
>debate.)

You seem to be holding the idea that if people are going to hold a
debate over ethics, they must all agree on an ethical code beforehand.
That's ridiculous.

>Mark Pundurs

                 -rocker
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: March for Life
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:47:50 GMT
Followup-To: world
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY
JAMES PRICE WRITES:

>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>you wind up losing yours.

Hmmmmm... we can't use the organs from an anencephalic fetus to save
many others... a supporter of "life" wishes someone would die...

You know, I am SO GLAD I woke up and finally realized "pro-life" is a
moral oxymoron. (Used to be one, ya know, until I heard about that
pickled-fetus tactic. Showed me that they really didn't care about life
all that much.)

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:07:07 GMT

In <1993Jan11.021904.21103@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?) writes:

>What: <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>
>Who:  markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)

>>> = Tep

>>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>>the conception. 
>>
>>Which IS an important difference.

>Not if the right-to-life is of paramount importance.  And if it isn't,
>you'll have a much harder time demonstrating why *your* subjective
>value of life is any better than anyone else's.

Non sequitir.

>>>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>>>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?
>>
>>>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
>>>does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this right
>>>to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for. 
>>
>>Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality 
>>where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete 
>>assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of non-genital/genital
>>sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.

>This only reinforces what I said above.  You're invoking a subjective
>standard for the value of life, one where that right depends upon the
>circumstances of conception.  

No; the extent to which the mother's rights may validly be exercised
depends on the circumstances of conception.

>Why is your subjective view better than
>mine?

My view more closely approximates the absolute truth to which we're
all subject. :-)

>     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>   |   |      |  \    /        
>   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

Mark Pundurs
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:17:17 GMT

In <bob1.726860519@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <29568@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <29531@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>>>Abortion is either wrong, or it is not.

>>>Here's your mistake. No serious ethical questions are this absurdly
>>>simple.

>>I made it simple so there would be no mistakes in interpretation. You
>>seem to move about in absolutes.

>>>Compare: The use of force is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong,
>>>you may not use force to prevent someone from killing you. If it is not
>>>wrong, then anyone who wants may use force however he wants.

>The point, Mark, is that taking nothing else into consideration - the
>use of force may be wrong. However, not all functions are of equal
>priority. The right of self preservation takes precedence over most
>others, therefore I may use force to protect myself from a murderer.

>A general failing in t.a, discussing a single point as if it existed
>in a vacuum. Rights, responsibilities, laws, etc. are all intertwined
>sometimes in ways no one intended.

Right! Which is why abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest,
or grave threat to the mother's life. Glad we finally agree on this!

>REB

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: anti-choice morality
Originator: jjprice@c00076-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:33:14 GMT


In article <ny!38-_@rpi.edu>, keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

|>just in the past few weeks, we've seen an anti-choicer,
|>admitedly a disturbed personality, post repeated sexual
|>and personal slurs about an adversary's spouse and
|>family.
|>
|>we've seen another anti-choicer, a roman catholic, post
|>that she hoped one of her adversaries felt pain and
|>discomfort that his spouse was the parent of a child
|>fathered by another man.
|>
|>i've seen not one single anti-choicer criticize either
|>of these attacks. that seems to suggest there is
|>nothing unusual about these attacks, from the
|>anti-choice perspective, of course.
|>
I personally condem these attacks...and am anti-choice...

You may say...is this the person that just wrote in an article he
hoped that somebody would get seriously hurt...yes it is but that
was a typo and I feel that I will probably forever pay for it on this
net...but I apologize for that and feel sorry for those that wish
harm to others


-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|