HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Greetings, Mr. Noonan
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:09:21 GMT

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>Here it is once again assumed that all anti-abortionists are religious
>zealots.  I am an atheist, anti-creationist, and anti-abortionist.

An interesting departure from the norm.

Given this, and the relatively calm tone of your reply, I must admit
that I would be very interested in hearing a brief description of
your position on abortion, why you believe as you do, and what led you
to these beliefs.  I have a few questions in mind to ask, but I'd
just as soon avoid having people jump in screaming that my questions
are leading or inflammatory.  You seem capable of rational discussion,
and I really would like to see an explanation of the anti-abortion
position that doesn't rely on faulty Biblical premises or "moral
absolutes".

>Mike Noonan

                 -rocker
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Lets String 'em up
Date: 4 Jan 1993 13:05:29 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan4.195541.12488@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>Loren has lost the vote.  Despite the fact that he has apparently
>already found a suitable hiding place away from T.A., the reader ship
>of T.A. has decided it is suitable to strap the bugger down to a 
>chair.  The final tally is:
> 
>13 Yes votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.
>2  No  votes for Strapping Loren to a chair.


Thank you, Dan, for tallying the vote.

Now, is Loren going to consider himself bound by the will of the majority,
or is Loren going to recognise that the majority vote has diddly to do with
strapping an individual to a chair?

I know what MY guess is:  none of the above.  Loren's going to keep his
head in the sand.

Though, if I were optimistic, I'd hope that Loren has left off posting in
this group because he's actually READING that copy of the Bill of Rights
sent to him, and MAYBE even READING some history of the formation of this
country, to boot.

MAYBE!!!



Adrienne Regard
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:55:58 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan6.051903.13849@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.032836.24345@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>
>>>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>>>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>>>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>>>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.
>>
>>In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
>>people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
>>personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
>>journals, by all means do so...
>>
>Kevin, in the common parlance of t.a, you are a hypocritical lying
>twit. Since you consider common parlance to be sufficiently accurate
>for this forum, then you will, of course, stop trying to deny the
>labels you have been given, correct?

This is about the flimsiest, most contrived excuse I've ever seen to get
in some cheap name-calling. Very disappointing, Mark. Surely you can do
better than that.

The opinions of a few idiots on t.a about Kevin Darcy doesn't constitute 
"common parlance", Mark. The very notion is absurd.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Clark University
Date: 7 JAN 93 14:30:03 GMT

In a previous article, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
>In article <C0CsEs.6GB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S.
>Parker) writes:
>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>>                                                        In an ideal world,
>>>say in 100 years, where all of society has accepted that babies are alive
>>>and "human" from fertilization, we could THEN impose punishments on women
>>>who pay for abortions.  In that society which has accepted abortion as
>murder,
>>>where that is taught in school and by parents, then your contention would
>>>apply.  As it stands right now, most women are victims right along with their
>>>babies that are killed.  
>>
>>Maybe you should have yourself frozen for 100 years so you can come out into
>>this wonderful society you predict.  
> 
>Heather, you don't have to stoop to name calling to make your point.

Excuse me, but where exactly did I do that?  Maybe you should learn to read 
attribution lines before you make accusations.  I'll be watching for your 
apology.

>>I love the way people have to be *taught*
>>that abortion is murder.  I guess even you realize that it is not natural to
>>feel so, but must be specifically taught that way for people to believe it.
> 
>I don't find this so contradictory, Heather.  There is a tremendous ignorance,
>still with regard to human development.  Gut feel is not a basis for life and
>death decisions.  

Well, maybe you should ask Robert S. Parker why he feels the way he does.  
After all, he wrote the paragraph you are refering to.

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:14:39 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article <29411@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( 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.

No, most of the time it brings unconsciousness, and usually the return of
breathing.  (discounting cases where they are *forced* to stop breathing by
obstructions, fluids, drugs, etc)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: consenting to sex is surrendering rights? (was: Blackmun calls...)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:26:40 GMT

In article <markp.726627427@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.215544.3567@nwnexus.WA.COM> 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.
>

No one's "right to life" is violated by abortion.  If the Constitution is
changed, giving the unborn a "right to life" then abortion as we know it today
will be made illegal.  however, at this time, the unborn have no such
"right to life" and therefore abortion is indeed legal.

Try another argument.  The unborn do not have a right to life as yet.
Whether they should or not is arguable, the fact that they don't isn't.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Not Nice things to say about DooDie
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:30:33 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
] I know Doug's profession. I believe that it has been determined to
] be Research Subject, ncsu Genetics Lab.
] 
] Robert Johnston


Oh bummers....

We had hoped that:

1. it was really a case of SonOfRassMuffinMan.

2. The Return of the RassMuffinMan

3. Proof that Inbreeding In Certain Backwards Cultures in the USA
was not a good thing.

4. The Bride of RassMuffinMan Meets Abbot and Costello on Acid.

5. A new and Improved AI follow on Series to the RevengeOfRassMuffinMan.

6. The RassMuffinMan Strikes Back: The Return Of the JihaudKnight

7. Proof that when all else fails, one can always go to NCSU.

8. Proof that Attending NCSU would not degrade one's ability
to hold a position irregadless of the Facts.

9. Facts are a Flexible thing, and should Not require that they
be read in context.

10. That RassMuffinMan has learned how to crack a new account
and carry on as ever.


ciao
driuex




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <bob1.726860519@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

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

>>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!

With the use of force, it is permissable against a subject that is harming
you. Why is a fetus resulting from rape or incest physically more harmful 
than those conceived through consensual sex? (Or emotionally, or any 
other way, for that matter)

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
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from Propeller Boy?
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:43:17 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <am023-d@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>>And of course you know I do not threaten people
>>
>>This statement is not correct.

>Oh, there's the PROOF! Oh, gee, I have been proven wrong! She SAYS it is
>not correct. 

Sorry, Psycho Boy, but I deleted the email where you threatened my life,
and I would have no desire to post it in any event.  You're just not
important enough.

You at least had the good sense not to email me again.

>Oh, gee, my butt is on fire now. I better go bang my head
>on a guitar and be just like Rocker. 

It could only be an improvement.

>>    [racist .sig deleted]
>>
>>I bet you're getting love letters from the KKK, you appear to be
>>their biggest supporter on the net.  (though "Nyikos" is contending
>>for the title)

>No, PatricKKK is getting their love letters. After all, HE made the
>statement. 

Funny, but I'd venture to guess that out of all the posters to the net,
you refer to the KKK more than anyone else.  I notice that Patrick never
felt the need to express his admiration by sitting and drawing pictures
of them.  Now who did that.....?

And as someone, Susan I believe, said, it's not racist to treat a black
psycho the same as you would a white psycho.

    [more tedious bullshit deleted]

>  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
>  USENET Warlord 

You know, you are one desperately confused puppy.  I feel like the
person who explained the SAT question to "Nyikos", but.....

It's an INSULT to be warlorded on usenet.  (That would be UNIX, to you.)
People LAUGH at you when you are warlorded. (and you have been, repeatedly)
People are laughing HYSTERICALLY that you would actually put this in your
.sig.

Sad, sad, sad.....

              -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:49:38 GMT

In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>
>
>Mark Pundurs


In other words, the woman got caught doing something she shouldn't have, and we
need to punish her for it.  If she wasn't "doin it" voluntarily, then there's
no need for punishment.

If there was an effecient, effective, low-cost alternative to abortion, like
some form of embryonic transfer, would you still be against it, if the woman
chose it?  Or does your punishment theory extend that far?

Face it, anyone who advocates "they woman had no choice in rape or incest"
has absolutely no grounds arguing the "fetus is a person" theory and in
only outfor revenge against the perfectly willing woman.  No two ways around
it.  The argument is so thinly veiled it's pathetic.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:41:42 GMT

In <1993Jan8.164506.8882@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> = hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?

>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>right to life.

>Great.  So since women have the right to avoid conception, then you'd
>allow abortions in cases of failed birth control. 

No; contraception only decreases the likelihood of pregnancy. It is avoided
through, e.g., celibacy.

>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:28:10 GMT

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

>>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.

Help me out here.  The fetus is a person like you or me, with a right
to life.  Ok for an axiom?  So to me, this is what you're saying:

There are three people in a room - a man, a woman, and a third person.
If the man kisses the woman, and then the other person begins fondling
her genitals, she can do nothing.  But if the man slaps the woman, and
the other person begins fondling her genitals, she can kill the other
person.

Do you see why this looks funny to me?

Now, in my scenario, it's a man, a woman, and a goldfish.  If the man
slaps her, she can kill the goldfish.  If the man kisses her, she can
kill the goldfish.

Seems to make more sense to me, but perhaps you can point out where I'm
"wrong".

>>Tep

>Mark Pundurs

                   -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- abort, retry, ignore?)
Subject: What Would Jesus Do (formerly: Christian Pro-Choicers)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Wash. Area Clinic Defense Task Force (WACDTF), Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:32:52 GMT

[talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism dropped from distribution]

What: <1993Jan9.055403.19129@noao.edu>
Who:  forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)

>>   = Galen J. Hekhuis
>> 
>> By the same token, can you honestly picture him an advocate of any 
>> secular law to attempt to ban or restrict abortion?

[...]

>He had no problem with earthly authorities.   He even submitted himself
>to trial and execution by them.

Which would seem to imply that He would have a major problem with groups
such as Operation Rescue, yes?
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:13:17 GMT

In <1993Jan11.021351.13617@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>In <1993Jan9.075521.10717@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>>>>   walking down dark city streets; but
>>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>>>>   right to self-defense.
>>
>>>A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of pregnancy by
>>>   having sex (if you're a woman, of course); but
>>>B. This in no way weakens your right to your body, or your consequent
>>>   right to an abortion.
>>
>>Try again, Ray. The parallel conclusion here is
>>
>>B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent right to 
>>   an abortion if your life is imminently imperiled.

>So you're arguing that unless a woman's life is threatened, rape is
>acceptable?  

No.

>After all, her life isn't necessarily being _imminently_
>threatened; 

But often, it is.

>many women (even the greater majority) survive being
>raped with no long-term physical injuries.  And since you apparently 
>feel that women do not have any rights with regard to their own bodies,

No, I don't.

>why not legalize rape?

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

Mark Pundurs
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: PatricKKK needs a friend!
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:33:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Chaney Annoyers of 77036-2409

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:39:41 GMT, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:


>Someone, please be PatricKKK's friend so he will stop emailing me! It
>seems that he absolutely HAS to chat with me whenever something
>bothers him, and he is causing me grief because of he resulting email
>pollution.

Well, you're not threatening to "take care" of me "once and for all" any
more, I see -- so maybe there *is* hope for you...but I'll believe that when
I see it.

(I've made more friends in the past month than you'll have in your miserable
lifetime, son.  Add that to the other 450 months' collection, and I'd say
there are an awful lot of people -- some of whom you may well know in person
-- that you must really hate...)

[usual racist slur, deleted -- I think he gets off on posting it]

--PLH, yawn.  Someone wake me up when Dennis Hall does anything rational...


--
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:20:17 GMT

In article <markp.726854558@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan12.041116.6449@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726772250@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <1993Jan10.161604.3155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <markp.726627079@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>>>In <1993Jan9.075154.10306@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>>>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>>>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>>>>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>>>>>
>>>>>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>>>>>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>>>>>
>>>>>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>>>>>
>>>>>which is perfectly true.
>>>>>
>>>>And since you oppose the womans right to medical intervention to alter
>>>>the outcome of her sex act, you will decline medical intervention to
>>>>alter the outcome of your auto accident, correct?
>>>
>>>No -- because medical intervention into the effects of an auto
>>>accident doesn't violate anyone else's right to life.
>>>
>>Then you are either a hypocrite for exempting yourself from the
>>restrictions you place on others, or just too stupid to realise that
>>you will need to prove a fetus is a person before your rationale for
>>seeking medical treatment is valid.
>>Are you going to attempt this feat?
>
>Pro-choicers have argued in t.a that the humanity of the fetus is
>irrelevant to the abortion debate, since the mother is free to
>evict unwanted occupants -- human or not -- from her womb. If you'll
>concede that that pro-choice argument is horseapples, I'll gladly
>turn to the question of the fetus' right to life.
>
Hardly. I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of your right
to avail yourself of medical intervention when you would deny the
right of the woman to the same.
Or are you just going to dodge again?

--
                  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