HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:19:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <markp.726853035@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> In <1993Jan11.160227.28948@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> 
> >In article <markp.726770340@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> >>In <1993Jan11.015320.11854@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> >>>And until you also
> >>>start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
> >>>going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
> >>>hypocrisy.
> >>
> >>If I got pregnant, I would feel an ethical obligation to carry the
> >>child to term. (Since you can't read my mind, I'm the only person
> >>able to evaluate the truth of this statement; so don't bother flaming.)
> >>
> >There is some arrogance inherent in the belief that
> >even you are 'able to evaluate the truth of this
> >statement'.
> 
> Well, yeah ... but not nearly as much arrogance as anyone else
> evaluating the truth about my state of mind.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Pundurs that there is no one
better able to determine his own state of mind than himself.
By the same token, I take this opportunity to point out that
much of what the abortion debate is about is the matter of who
is best able to determine what is best for the woman involved:
the state by fiat or the individual woman (with the best advice
she is able to obtain)?  There is a certain arrogance inherent
in the belief that women are unable to make a correct decision
for themselves when they are facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: 56 hours and counting...
	<PATRICK.93Jan7210135@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan8.153140.5606@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:51:11 GMT

On Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:31:40 GMT, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) said:

>In article <PATRICK.93Jan7210135@lampasas.is.rice.edu> patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>[...]
>>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.
>>
>[...]
>>>> --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.
>>
>[..]
>>Meanwhile, keep on being the hateful, sleazy bitch you like to be in this
>>newsgroup -- you're doing a bang-up job of convincing people that pro-life
>>is a big sham.  I like it when folks like you are too damned stupid to
>>figure out you're doing the leg work for the *other* side...
>>
>I left in some of Forgach's nasty comments just to emphasize the
>point.  But consider:  someone like that would probably be just as hateful no
>matter what her political/social opinions were. Her petty spite reflects badly
>on her, but it doesn't particularly make the pro-life movement a "sham".  I
>think it's pretty much a phoney argument to attack a movement based on the
>personality characteristics of some of it's more vocal members.  The ideas
>should stand or fall independent of the character of those espousing them.

Very true, but if the ones who get the lion's share of the attention are the
most obnoxious in the group, that *will* color others' perception of the
group.  Maybe that's not how it should be -- but like it or not, that's how
it works.  If I was on the other side of this discussion, and a pro-life
advocate, I'd be just the least bit upset with the actions of people like
Chaney and Forgach.  

>>--PLH, does anyone else get the impression that Suzanne's a couple of cans
>>short a six-pack?

>Which reminds me of this famous interchange:

>In article <1991Dec13.192700.20802@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
>Forgach) writes:
>(btw - Don't think for one MINUTE, that Kimberly Bergalis' dentist didn't
>DELIBERATELY pass the AIDS virus to that pretty young virginal girl,
>injecting it into her as she lay anesthesized at his feet.   Of
>COURSE he picked a virgin, just to prove the hot political slogan
>that "everybody gets it".)

>from Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu), to Suzanne Forgach:
>"If you truly believe that, then you
>really *are* a couple of pinouts short of a chip...)"

Thanks for unearthing that one -- all I can say is, the Muse doesn't work by
a set schedule...:-)

--PLH, if the Muse had any sense, she'd be abed at this hour, too...
--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:59:44 GMT

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,
anti-euthanasia, non-leather-wearing fruitarian.

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
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:48:09 GMT
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

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> UNRETRACTED LIE
-> ---------------
-> 
-> "Darcy has been consistently criticized for labelling
->  himself 'pro-choice' while arguing for restrictions on abortion."
-> 				    Susie Garvin
-> 				    Sun, 18 Oct 92 20:37:06 GMT
-> 				    <1992Oct18.203706.21850@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

>From talk.abortion Tue Oct  6 18:37:18 1992
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:46:47 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
>private email between us, to USENET. 

It was pretty funny, too.  That bit about the rainbow dick was a bit
far-fetched though, since we all know you don't really HAVE a dick.

:-)

(To everyone else: yes, I know it's rude, but the little airplane boy
 just BEGS for this kind of abuse.  Besides, I had fun. (-: )

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:15:48 GMT

In <29611@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>You're half-right; at this point, it's vital (no pun intended) to
>>ask whether the z/e/f has the right to life. New thread, anyone?

>Have already started that in this thread. I have stated that no such
>right exists. Why don't you prove there is in one short post?

>:)

Glad to see you concede that the "it's my womb, I can kill ANYONE I find
in there for ANY reason" argument is tommyrot.

As to the z/e/f's right to life:

A first stab at defining what makes us human is "reasoning, free-willed
individuality." (From this follows our rights: right to life, right
to free speech, etc.) But we also regard newborn infants as human (I
hope!); and they sure aren't reasoning. We can reconcile this fact 
with the above definition only by expanding that definition of 
humanity (and the possession of human rights) to include the potential
for reasoning, free-willed individuality. Newborns have this potential --
and so do z/e/f's.

Fire away!

>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.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:59:35 GMT

Can you belief the evasive non-answer of this brainwashed dolt?

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = (Ron Bense):
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> = ( Steve Novak):

>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

>>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....

>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Suzanne, what does this STUPID statement have to do with Ron's comment?
Gawd, you are dingier than a bell.  

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Suzzie gets confused about sex...
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 16:33:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.235442.10422@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.230127.21550@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>> Hey Larry, that sounds to me like a proposal, if ever I heard one.
>>>
>>> Can I be matron of honor?  huh? huh?  Can I?  Can I?
>>> Or how 'bout best man?
>
>> Despite your evident confusion about your sexual status, it is safe to
>> say you could not be "best" man or woman.
>> If your current sex is still in doubt, I suggest you check your mucus
>> again. That always seems to reassure you.
>
>
>Hey Steve Matheson!  Here's an excellent example of the pro-choice
>game of "enrage the opposition" that I was talking about.   Ms. Forgach
>makes some innocent comments, and right out of the blue, Mark Cochran
>blithers out some trash and insults!  Of course, she'll get hammered
>for being "wicked" if she responds with even the smallest flame.
>
Hey DODie! Here's an excellent example of the pro-idiot game of
"babbling without thinking" that you always play.
When have I ever said there was anything wrong with flaming? If
Suzziewants to be a twit, she'll get flamed for it. If she wants to
claim to be a follower of the One True Religion (tm) and then flame
people, she can expect to get flamed for that too.
I doubt you see the hypocrisy invovled, but that's simply because of
your lack of incite and intelligence.

--
                  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,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:04:27 GMT

In <1ir2sqINNgio@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

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

>>Now, there is no law that says that I (as a man) cannot elect to
>>have a fully functional kidney removed, assuming I can find a
>>surgeon willing to perform the operation. I imagine I would have
>>about the same chance as a snowball in hell. 

>Poor example.  Such "removals" are not infrequently performed for 
>kidney donations. 

OK, try liver then. Yes please, I'll have mine with fried onions.

>-- 

>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  

REB
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: What The Supreme Court Said
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 06:50:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220938.6270@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.200300.1575@news.columbia.edu> 
>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>> Therefore, a woman who wants an abortion during the last trimester of
>>> her pregnancy need find only one doctor, the abortionist himself, who
>>> will say that the pregnancy endangers the mother's health, using the
>>> meaninglessly broad definition of health quoted above.  
>
>> What illusory world do you live in? Do you have any idea how few
>> doctors there are who will do third trimester abortions? There are
>> several states that have none. 
>
>Do you have any idea how few murders of people named "Robert 
>Johnston" have occurred?  There are several states where no "Robert
>Johnston" has ever been murdered.   Why do we need laws which 
>protect the Robert Johnstons of this country from being murdered, 
>when it hasn't been shown to be a problem?  
>
>Furthermore, it's clear that murdering a person named "Robert 
>Johnston" is not wrong because it's rare for such a person to be 
>murdered.  And even if such a person was murdered, it would be a
>waste of taxpayer's money to prosecute the murderer.
>
Clever of you to delete the portion where Robert mentioned the little
fact that none of the physicians who perform late-term abortion will
do it "on demand".

--
                  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
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:42:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.173331.8098@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.030056.16855@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>>>>> in a way that women aren't?   
>
>>>> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
>>>> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
>>>> custodial parents.
>
>>> Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
>>> burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.
>
>> Well, no court has ever considered the equal protection implications
>> of abortion laws, so the point is mostly moot, 
>
>So why did you raise the point in the first place? 

Doug, Ted was just responding to a call for information on Constitutional
arguments for abortion (from Michael P. Noonan), and a subsequent call for
elaboration (from me). Since the EP argument HAS been made, albeit not in
a court of law (yet!), it was perfectly valid for him to mention it, in
response to the requests. No-one was directing comments at you or your
views.

								- Kevin
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan6.162256.4767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):

> In article <C0FAKM.1rE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>Let me make this plain and simple.  If you start with the premise that
>>the preborn baby is a person, then all other considerations are moot.

> Let me make this plain and simple. It you start with the premise that
> the z/e/f is not a person, then all other considerations are moot.

Right.

> This premise, unlike yours, has been repeatedly backed up by evidence.

Wrong.  The premise is that certain abilities are requisite for
personhood.  The evidence for the absence of some of these abilities
is nonexistent, but even if it were forthcoming and scientifically
viable, it wouldn't affect the arguability of the premise.  The 
evidence, at best, enables one to arrive at estimates of the
onset of personhood, AS DEFINED BY THE UNPROVABLE, PHILOSOPHICAL,
PREMISE.

>>For example: if you had a choice between sacrificing your leg, or
>>sacrificing your mother, which would you choose?  I'd sacrifice my
>>leg.  Murder is wrong.  
>>It is my contention that the preborn baby is a person, and that it deserves
>>all rights implied by that label.  

> Yes, it certainly is your contention. Of course, you have yet to
> provide a shred of evidence that it is anything more then so much
> mindless blathering.

Mark, why on earth does he need to provide "evidence" in support of
the contention that a preborn baby is a person?  He's admitted that
this contention is not *legally* supported in 1993.  Clearly, he
is contending that personhood can be defined in such a way as to
include at least some preborn children.  What sort of "evidence"
do you expect?  What sort of "evidence" can you provide for your
own contention?  The best I can grant you is that your opinion is
that of the majority.

[rest deleted cuz I have to go]

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Waiting for an appology from Peter Ny
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:44:32 GMT

In <PATRICK.93Jan1082958@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1993Jan01.095853.29086@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> Larry Margolis (margoli@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
> : In <1992Dec28.032026.15533@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark
> A. Cochran) writes:
> : >Disinformation from me? Petey, I insist. Either provide some proof of
> : >this "disinformation" or appologise. I'll stand in line behind
> : >Adrienne waiting.
> :
> : Don't hold your breath - you're also behind me.  I asked him to provide
> : some evidence for untrue claims he made about me a while ago.  Naturally,
> : he was unable to do so, so he ignored my post.
> :
> : >I hope your newsserver is stable...
> :
> : Or maybe his newsserver went down again.  Yeah, that's the ticket...

> On alt.atheism Peter Nyikos also insulted me without justification.  I too am 
> waiting for an appology.
> 
><sigh> Looks like you'll have to take a number and stand in queue.  The
>number waiting to be served is 1, and your number is...106. :-)

Or you could take the view I hold. Namely that an insult from the Doctor
is almost like getting the Congressional medal of Honor.	

>--PLH, where's the express line?

>--
REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Fetus as viewed by the bible
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:37:11 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

I know that somewhere in the old testament there is a passage that says
if a man strikes a pregnant woman, resulting in a miscarriage, that the
penalty for the man is to be a monetary fine. This would indicate that
the bible does not view the fetus as a person. I would like to be able to 
quote this passage to the pro-life fundies, so any information on where 
it could be found would be appreciated.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:30:19 GMT

From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
>> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes
>>> 
>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>
>>Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>>
>>Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
>>
>>How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>>fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  Or are you saying you
>>really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>>really did that.)
> 
> Maybe Heather was visited by an angel, and when told she would be pregnant
> by a god she shouted "YES!"  Whatya think, Suzanne?

Mmmmmm, Could be.  Could be.   But in this day and age the other way is much
more common.

 
> Gordon

Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:08:42 GMT

<1993Jan7.004633.19382@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
>In article <1ickh8INN200@meaddata.meaddata.com> 
>johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>> Abortion, among other things, reflects and contributes to the cheapening of
>> human life in society, the natural consequence of which is that individuals
>> become more likely to take or abuse the lives of others when others are in
>> conflict with the individual's other desires.  Please read the article by Bob
>> Greene that I have attached.  Although it has nothing to do with abortion, it
>> has a lot to say about what is happening to the value of life.
>> [.. article deleted ..]
>
>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.  
>Here are just a few stories:

[Stories deleted to save space]

Excellent reasons for abortion to remain legal and affordable, and
encouraged.  Unless, of course, you think that these were examples of
proper parenting.  Tell me Doug, would you rather a brainless fetus be
aborted at 8 weeks or wait until it's born and old enough to feel the
scalding water cooking it's flesh?  For my money, and opinion, I'd rather
the woman had had an abortion.  But then, your preference may vary.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), Beth 
"CJ", and Nadja, and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
[space reserved for alternate ex-girlfriends Eric R. and Drieux]
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.