HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:14:43 GMT

tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes ...
>In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing of persons.
>That law is based on a belief that it is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable"
>for people to go around killing other people.

It is more likely that murder is illegal because most people don't
want to run the risk of being murdered.  People don't want killers 
wandering around free because they're dangerous - not because
they're bad & wrong.

>To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder force them
>to behave in a certain way.

In order to live within society, one must accept the rules of society.
Right or wrong is irrelevant - numbers count.

>Similarly, anti-abortion laws won't take into consideration that a person may
>not accept the belief that killing foetuses is "wrong" or "undesirable".  But 
>it will force him (sic) to act according to that belief - or face the 
>consequences.
>
>So in this way, there are laws which force belief.

No.  Laws enforce behavior.  (Well, actually they don't even do this.
Laws are a formal expression of rules of behavior.  The goal is to express
society's rules for behavior, but as everyone knows, some laws don't
even do this very well.)

Passing a law that makes abortion illegal does not mean that abortion is
wrong any more than the absence of a law makes abortion right.  And
passing such a law does not ensure compliance and certainly does not
imply belief.  Stupid laws (those that do not express society's rules) 
generally get ignored or worked around.

Making abortion illegal won't stop abortion unless people agree that
abortion is wrong.  In the current social climate, it is more likely
that it will cause additional suffering among women and families.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:22:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr15.230111.26101@midway.uchicago.edu>  rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>
> And I thought I was going to get a chance to acquire another net.ex-
> boyfriend... ;-{

Looking for volunteers?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:21:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.160950.8203@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>You seem to conveniently forget that conception is ALSO a physical aspect of 
>pregnancy. And as long as we are going to look beyond conception for a
>"rights stream" (for the woman), then parity demands we also look beyond
>conception for any "responsibility stream" (for the man). To do less would
>be to hold a double-standard.

What the hell does this mean?  Presumably, expecting children to be supported
by their parents kinda sort of DOES 'look beyond conception for any responsi-
biloity stream (for the man)'.

Have you gone completely nutty?  BTW, that's a rhetorical question (-:.

>>>Who's talking about specific performance? We're talking about child support
>>>liability here (read: $$$) not specific performance....
>>WRT child support liability, BOTH parents have it.
>I assume from the non sequitur that you have dropped your line of reasoning
>wrt "specific performance" then??


Kevin, Kevin, you dimwit.  Think about these lines here.  You say that 
we are NOT talking about specific performance.  You say we ARE talking
about $$$.  I respond, obligingly, to what you _just_ _said_ and you
say that's a "non sequitur"?

And THEN You say you are going to make an assumption, which is something
you have an obviously TERRIBLE track record at, being wrong some incredible
percentage of the time.

Does this look like a good line of debate to you?  Do you honestly think
this looks like good debate to anyone else here?  Is it any wonder we don't
bother taking you seriously?

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mommy! They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:00:56 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <EJONES.92Apr13160022@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jones) writes:

>You equate your movement with those of great leaders like those?
>How dare you, when Operation Rescue fanatics firebomb clinics and
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
>spend their time shouting and cursing and damning women outside
>abortion clinics.

   You idiot. I wasn't referring to the fanatics. I was referring to
the heros. The women who have the pregnancies. The women and men who
spend much of their time and money supporting those through a pregnancy.
Those who help educate on other optiosn available to the women


>Do you consider yourself a real man, Steve?  How many children
    yup

>have you fathered?  Have you ever married?  Are you talking from
   I'm 19 fool. It would be pretty damn responsible for me to
have children this early in lifewouldn't it?

>any concept of experience or is it all just a lungful of air?
   Hey - I've learneda hell of a lot more in real life than
I have on Internet. While you spend all you frigging time posting,
I'm out educating myself. Not just in school either. You should
try it sometime.

>Let us know if you are ever become a real man, Steve, so we can
   Too late. you missed it. 

>see how you cope with the expieriences you so blindly name.
   Who is the blind fool here? I can see the fetus as the child.
You seem to be the one with 0/20 foresight. Open you eyes man

>Every child a wanted child, Steve.  That's our goal.  When
>you find out what Fatherhood is like, let us know.  When
>and if.
   If? heh... 
In any case- we want every child to be a wanted child too. There should
be no such thing as an unwanted child. Only an unprepared and immature
parent(s). We must work on the problem of the parents, rather than
victimize the unborn/child.




   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:08:47 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

In article <1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu>
	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
-> In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
-> >Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?
-> Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 

cut it out chaney.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Where do they Get their Theology?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:48:13 GMT

spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz) writes:

>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr11.222040.10539@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux
>>) writes:
>>
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>
>>2) judge not lest ye be judged
>>3) He who has not sinned may cast the first stone

>Think about these two statements; then think about what you have been
>doing.  Do you honestly mean to say that you have not been judging other
>people by implying that those of us who are pro choice are not Christian?
>You do not think you are judging other people when you say that women
>who have abortions are murderers?  You are certainly entitled to your
>opinion that abortion is wrong - however, forcing it on other people,
>especially in the guise of it being religiously correct, and telling
>everyone who disagrees with you that they are wrong, it judging. Which
>is not only wrong (see #2), but also means you should take a hard look
>at #3, even if you do believe the rest of us are sinners.

#2 refers to not judging PEOPLE, it does not refer to not judging ACTIONS.
The difference can be easily demonstrated by remembering the FULL STORY
which generated 3#, 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

As you may recall, the woman remained behind after the crowd left.  Christ
asked her why she stayed.  She said that know one had judged her.
He replied "Neither do I judge you, go and SIN no more."  Indeed, the very
phrase, 'let him who is without SIN cast the first stone" shows quite
clearly that it is perfectly acceptable to judge an action sinful, wrong,
and not to be indulged in or repeated.  It is not, however, acceptable
to allow this judgement of an action to be made into an attack on the
person.  Each person may ALWAYS be able to attain redemption, no matter
what sins that person committed.  We cannot impose OUR judgement on a 
PERSON, since that judgement is reserved to God alone.  However, we must
judge action or there would be no point to any of the Mosaic law.
And the Big Guy appeared in order to fulfill that law, not to make it
meaningless.  

I realize that those of you who don't believe in a soul cannot distinguish
between the actions a person undertakes and the person themself.  You think
that ACTION=PERSON, that a person is defined by her/his action.  
Christians, of course, know that we are more than just our
actions, we are also immortal souls.  Our actions imprint upon our soul,
but the extent to which that occurs is known only to ourselves and to 
God, and God can remove the stain of wrongful action if we sincerely
repent the action.  Sincere repentance means we promise not to repeat it,
and we do our best to keep the promise.

SK

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Chaney the Ineptor bungles again.
Organization: Some place Chaney couldn't find with a map and a flashlight
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.163131.17384@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
>> = cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>>> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
>>>Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?
>
>>Chaney? What is this, a practical joke that won't die? 
>
>Indeed you are, Incestor.
>
>>...but to insinuate that I am Chaney [sic] is a gross mistake on your part,
>>and you owe me an immediate retraction.  
>
>:-)  Oooh.  I can hear Patrick shaking all the way from Texas.

That was probably the cats, who were yowling because I was rolling around on
the floor, Chaney was so funny.  (It made *my* night, for sure -- after
coming back from lunch to find the mainframe out for the count because of a
hardware failure, and dodging IBM CEs the rest of the evening, Chaney and
his "alter ego" gave me just the laugh I needed.)

>>And seeing as that the proof is that I am not Chaney, and seeing that
>>someone who's tried to imply that I am, has been busted by their
>>sysadmin,...
>
>Who would that be, "Dennis"?  (Hee hee)  This jerk ain't _serious_, is
>he?

Nah.  He's only serious when he's doing his paper-airplane impression...

>>I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next person
>>that gets brought down.
>
>BWA-HAHAHAHA...hee hee hee...oh, what a MEAN little boy.  Heh heh.
>
>You wouldn't be a big bad BLOWHARD, wouldja, "Hall"?

Why would you say that?  He's made that threat to two people, and nothing's
happened...:-)

>>- Dennis Hall
>
>R-r-r-right.  Sure thing.  Uh huh.  Yup.  Oh, hey, *I* believe you,
>Insipid <*winkie, wink*>

Yeah, I knew someone would come along to buy that beachfront property we
have up in South Dakota...I knew the Ineptor wouldn't let me down.

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:44:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: s1.1992Apr15.214437.20671
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr14.124943.22730@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr14.052741.23560@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

::	I think a personal religion is one that one has that one has
::constructed oneself. It is NOT necessarily self-worship.
:   No. I dont' agreee... Society is full of self-worshippers and if 
:I knew how to spell Narcissist I would use it in this post. 

	1. You just did.

	2. You spelled it correctly.

	3. How can you demonstrate that someone is a self-worshipper?

::disagree; I believe in voluntary motherhood.
:   Voluntary? Did anyone FORCE you to have sex? Don't have sex if you
:can't finish what you started. Or is taht what you believe in. You
:truly want to FINISH what you started... interesting...

	Why is there a necessary connection between sex and producing
children?

	The lack of such a connection is what birth control, abortion,
artificial insemination, and _in vitro_ fertilization is all about.

	Steve Franklin, I know you believe abortion to be wrong. But
what if your position on the other three things I mentioned?

::affect the vast majority of abortions performed. I can see why
::anti-abortionists are fond of citing the 3rd trimester; then, the
::fetus definitely looks like a baby. The same cannot be said of an
::embryo that is only a couple of weeks old, and which has gill bars and
::a tail.
:   WHere the hell do you draw the Line then? You're going to give
:a date to the 3rd decimal place and after this time no abortions, but
:before this time, you will permit abortions? That may have worked
:for SOlomon, but it just doesn't cut it in the 90's.

	The "line" here is just like the "line" between black and
white. When does gray stop being white and start being black?
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:42:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.214208.9678
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr13.185646.15354@cs.dal.ca>, Steve Franklin writes:
|If you can't have responsible sex, then you had better 
|be responsible with the end result...

That's right, people.  Be responsible for your orgasms!
Orgasm is, after all, the #1 end result of sex.

Pray tell, what *is* responsible sex?  From reading
your last series of posts, I get the idea that you think
abstinence is "responsible sex".  I'm afraid most of
humanity rejects abstinence, because most of humanity
experiences normal sexual drives.  Abstinence is not
sex.

Please tell me two things:
1. What do you think "responsible sex" is?
   - sex with birth control?
   - sex with the intent of procreation?
   - sex without a penis contacting a vagina?
   - masturbation (mutual or otherwise)?

2. Why should your sexual opinions have anything
   to do with me?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what it
does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is painful
and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts."      - Kevin Welch
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 04:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.103313.4156@crd.ge.com> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE her
>-> pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.
>
>pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two privately
>about this matter.

Why? Is it your position that every pregnancy is wanted?

Try making sense sometime, Keegan.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:05:26 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>So basically you're saying that it is so because you believe it to be
>>so and because the church says so.
>   No... I'm saying that you haven't given the unborn fetus a chance
>to decide. Forget the church's say, forget my say, but listen to the fetus.
>You know what? You can't... So, I say it is not our position to judge the
>status of the fetus. The fact that the population is so divided on the

Neither do I ask my computer whether is wishes to be left turned on.
The computer has about 10 million switching elements and responds to 
stimuli, but although this is rather more capability than a human 
embryo, abortion foes would have me believe that said embryo is 
equivalent to a thinking, feeling human?  Excuse me?

I can accept that you choose to bestow humanhood to a fertilized egg.
I have no problem with this.  My objection is to your arrogance
in deciding that you know what is best for each pregnant woman
and fetus.  When did God put you in charge?   Can you walk on water
as well?

>Ahhh - here we go - Just what I was waiting for. A hack at the church's
>credibility. Don't bother tackling arguments and concepts, but go for
>character assasination. I'm starting to feel a bit like Clarence Thomas...
>Character assassination is one thing, but lowering an entire group 
>by it's beliefs from hundreds of years ago, and even by other individuals 
>in the past decade is pathetic. I truly thought it was beneath you.

Try not to be SUCH an idiot.  You said that abortion is wrong 
because the church says so.  I pointed out some of the errors
the church has made in the past.  Rather than show me why I should
accept the word of the church, you start going on about character
assasination.  Do you deny any on the events?  Are they not facts?

I agree the church has changed in the last 2000 years, but I'm not
willing to concede that it has suddenly found The Truth in the
20th century.  Can you tell me why I should believe one iota of
what the church says?

>   So, if I could show you all of the corruptible evidence within
>the American government, would that prove to you that democracy is
>not any good, and should be done away with in the American society 
>as we know it? Let good ol' anarchy reign? My friend, judging a 

1) Democracy & Anarchy aren't the only two alternatives.
2) The US isn't a true democracy.
3) The jury is still out on democracy.  It is not without its problems.
4) Democracy presumes people are intelligent enough to decide for
   themselves.  Is this not rather similar to the pro-choice view?

>         Although I must say, my macintosh seems to be a little
>more intelligent than some of your remarks...hmmmmm

You've complained about the insults and jokes you've
received.  Ever wonder why you get insulted?

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Adobe
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:46:24 GMT

In article <oeR4iB4w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:
>I see a lot of paranoia in regard to the idea that Roe vs. Wade would
>be overturned by the Supreme Court.
>
>Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
>overturned? NONE! If Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still
>be legal in all fifty states until such time as the individual states
>decided to outlaw it (and many have already gone down on record as
>stating that they will NOT outlaw them. New York, for example.).
>
>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>travel to any state that still allowed them.
>
>What is the problem with that?
>
> This is from
>     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
>who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet


 A desparate woman can travel to any state that she wants?  Not if she's
 poor and her car won't make it, and she doesn't have enough for bus fare,
 plus, who'll look after the kids she already has?  And if it's a long
 distance, where can she safely stay the night?  With little money?
 Or if she works and she'll risk losing her job if she takes time off
 (maybe the doctor will give her a written note).

 Utah has already passed a law to outlaw abortion.  The state supreme
 court is waiting on Roe-v-Wade to determine constitutionality.
   
 Janice Kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
From: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:59:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
>right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
>to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
>should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>unless their own existence is threatened. 

This is what we call "truth by blatant assertion" around here.

>The fetus either has rights, or it does not. If the fetus has any 
>rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
>equal to that of any other human being.

Try this on for size: The fetus does not have any rights. OK, now
you can go away.

>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
>of the fetus to exist.

You never demonstrated that the fetus has a right to exist.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion