HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Re: Excuse Please While we have Small Family Argument
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:18:35 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>peterd@polari.com writes:

>] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] 
>] >] Committed to faith in God
>] 
>] >Does anyone else remember the line:
>] 
>] >"praise God and pass the ammunition!"
>] Or the old admonition "Gott hilfen und wir leiben"
>] 
>] 	Lord willing and the Creek don't rise.
>] 
>] Or my all time favorite: Put your Trust in God boys, 
>] but mind you keep your powder dry."  (The Lord Protector
>] back when he was merely a New Model Army commander.)
>] 
>] Of course there is the admonition for those without a sword
>] to go and buy one, that he came not to bring peace but 
>] division and so forth.

>Greetings Oh revisioninst Capitalist Raoder Pig,

>But you fail to stipulate which 'division' it is that
>God came to bring forth....

>Pray tell, the 34th? {dear old Dad would Love to KNOW that
>he was in god's OWN Division. }

>the 25th {before or after it became a light division, or
>	do they call the 'lite' divisions, More MegaDeath
>	but Fewer Calories, for the Warmonger on a diet?}

>the 101st, Mort the Tort's old home town team????

>Or are you still a victim of the Feeling that the Army is
>in some way Divine???? In Lieu of the OneTrueKorrectFamilyUnderstanding!!!!
>Please Kindly remember that The OneGreatHerrHampe who first brought
>forth on this continent the Great and Glorious Family GenePool was a
>Sailor and NOT, as the revisionist ideological deviationalist
>Propogandizers have sought to imply, a ground pounder and a bullet biter!!!!! 

>REPENT You ScallyWagOfMorallyKorruptedNess!!!!

>ciao
>drieux

>ps: we return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of obviously
>degenerate NON_Family Issues.....

I would refer you to _The Desert Peach_ issue 14, pg 11, 
second row, third panel, for a number of References to the
'occupation' that your were release from durance vile from.
{and besides: Honroable ancestor was a MERCHANT sailor and 
not a tar stained defiler of other peoples livestock. 
And since then, since Coming to the New World where old
errors are forgotten and undone, the Manly Men have Embraced
The Inherent Wisdom of Never Being Stationed Where One Cannot
Dig Foxholes, and have worn Army Blue (khaki, grey, gren or
OD.  Nyaahh!}

We now return you to what passes for Serious around here.

chus
pyotr

ps love that sig |
                 V

pps: write your mother.

>-- 
>EOT 
>No More Written InPut 
>Why are you Looking Here?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: life
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:07:44 GMT

How does taking medicine end lives?
How does reciving surgury end lives?
I thought that taking medicine helped to save the life of the person taking
it. Gee if taking medicine ends lives then maybe I shouldnt use my Ventolin
Inhaler. So what if an Asthma attack can and oftin times does (deaths do to
related to asthma in smallchildren incresed by around 50% in the last 10
years) kill.Maybe you should explane how my using an inhaler ends lives. 
You know I also thought that surgery was suposed to save the lives of those
receving them I did not know that they ended lives. The only cases that I can
think of were death is even remotly involved is 1. abortion  2.the patichint
dies on the table  3. transplants- the way I understude this was that the
doner had already died of something else and requested that there orgins
go to someone who neaded them.
finly, let see, hmmm. Killing for food. A mater of servival. I dont eat
eventualy I die. A part of nature. Abortion. Usualy killing for convenence.
Not nessasary. Not for servival. Also it seems to me that those whose lives 
are most likly to be ruened do not make a the majority of abortions that 
accure, probly cant aford it, most of the people who are gitting abortions
are uperper middal class white. At lest thats the way I understand it.

ELF-KIN	A Rose By Any Uther Name--Must Still Be Handaled With Care!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Im gonna piss you off!!!!
Summary: Wrong.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:29:24 GMT

In article <92100.133237IO20413@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO20413@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>I think a woman has no right to her body no matter what she thinks.  She should
>stay in the house and have the punk and just shut up and take it.  If she was
>willing to allow some man place his ******* into her then she has no right to
>kill that inocent sweet child.  Any woman who thinks otherwise deserved to be
>aborted herself at birth.  Never thought of it that way before have you???

No, but then I've never answered it out of a pure Pavlovian reflex like
you're doing either...a woman's got a right to her body, whether you like it
or not.  (Take your sentiments and tell them to a woman, to her face, and
see how much of you is left for donating to science...:-)

-- 
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 opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:03:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr12.230306.21847
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr12.182622.15304@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:
>
>>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp>
>>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
>
>>[writing to nora gayle rivkis]
>
>>>What a load of self-serving slop.  But obviously just another emotional
>>>stab at justifying your Pro-Death stance.  "Hurting some people's chance
>>>for survival..."???  What about the slaughtered babies upon which this
>>>whole discussion is based.  But of course the only way to appear rational
>>>is for you to ignore the issue (best defense is a good offense, right?).
>
>>Pot: f(Kettle)="Black"
>
>>Typical of you to attack an "emotional stab" and then
>>use the phrases "pro-death" and "slaughtered babies."
>
>>By the way, Kevin, Nora is undecided.
>
>I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
>unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
>people as Anti-Abortion.  The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
>I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional". 

Um, Kevin; I've never referred to Pro-life people as anti-abortion. Some
other people do; I don't. So even stipulating your theory that it's a
deserved "eye-opener" (and you're right -- it's an instantaneous clue
that the person using it is an idiot who need never be taken seriously)
put it where, by the rules you just set up for yourself, it's deserved.
Not at me.

>Kevin Brawley

	-Nora

-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

CJ
>Matthew
>|Kevin B.


>|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
>|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
>|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.

>Oh, boy.  I love it when pro-lifers say things like this.

Oh, boy.  I love it when pro-choicers go off on this car accident
mess.

>You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
>you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
>sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
>of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
>car accident."

There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.

When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
faulted in decision making.

There are crucial differences in car wreck and the result of pregnancy.
When we are in a wreck, we can receive treatment because we do so to save 
life/lives.  Aboriton is done so to end a life.  Big difference.

>It would be irresponsible of you to seek
>medical treatment for your injuries.

CJ, I don't know HOW many times you've argued this one out.  It ALWAYS
failed.  It always will fail if you're the one arguing it.

It would not be irresponsible to seek attention.  It would uphold all ethics,
rules of self-preservation, fulfill the State's interest in preserving life,
get your money's worth in all the premiums you've payed, benefit from that
insurace you've been receiving, blah blah blah.  THere are many ethical and
moral reasons to get treatment from a wreck.


On the other hand, receiving an abortion is not ethical:  it destroys life
and does not fall in line with self-preservation, and all the rest I stated.

>You've just got to
>accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
>the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
>have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
>Use your brain.

How ironic coming from you, CJ.  "Use your brain."  Use your brain and fathom
the differnces between morals and ethics.  Use your brain to realize
the inequties in the car-fetus analogy that you have so piss poorly laid
out.

Use YOUR brain.


>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720



kcw







--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:854 talk.abortion:15450
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:54:18 GMT
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO

------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> = kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:
>  = dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> If you look at Ammendment XIV, it says
>>
>>	"Section 1.  All persons BORN [emphasis mine] or naturalized
>> in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
>> citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
>>
>>	The ammendment then goes on to say that no state shall make
>> laws infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States.  Since
>> someone has to be born to be a citizen, it seems that fetuses are not
>> guaranteed these rights.
>
>Your reasoning is flawed. 
>
>Your argument is basically:
>
>(1)  Born Person => Person has rights 
>     A => B
>
>(2)  Not born person => Person has no rights
>     !A => !B
>
>(2) does not follow from (1). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right, up to a point, but you're also twisting phrases:

o you replaced "not guaranteed these rights" with "has no rights"
o you introduce the term "unborn person", appearently on the assumption that 
  (in the constitution) "born" modifies "person", giving rise to 
  "unborn person".  This doesn't make sense in context.  And even if it did, 
  there is no hint of what consitutes (no pun intended) an "unborn person" 
  or any rights it might have.
  "Born in the US" modifies "person", giving rise to "born in a country 
  other than the US", which make sense in context because naturalization 
  is specifically for persons born in a country other than the US.
  Note: "naturalized" => "born".

Thus we get:
(a) Person was BORN IN THE US or 
    person was BORN OUTSIDE THE US 
    but NATURALIZED IN THE US        => person is a citizen
(b) person is a citizen              => person is guaranteed these rights

from which we can only conclude:
(c) Person NOT born in the US 
    AND NOT naturalized in the US    <= Person NOT guaranteed these rights

The constitution does not say 
(not born) => (not a person )   or   (born) <= (a person )  or
(not born) => (not a citizen)   or   (born) <= (a citizen)  or 
(not born) => (no  rights   )   or   (born) <= (rights   )

Since the constitution doesn't explicitly address the rights or existance of 
unborn-persons or unborn-non-persons, we can slug it out.  
The crux of the biscuit is: 
  o what rights should an n-month-old fetuse have?
To answer this question we *should* consider:
  o in what sense is an n-month-old fetus like a person (or non-born person 
    or a citizen) 
  o how should an n-week-old fetus' (possibly a non-born person) rights 
    compare to the rights the consitution explicitly guarantees to certain 
    born persons?

-Brian
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:08:06 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>Where, oh where is that passage relating to the flood and Noah's ark?

>>What a wonderful pro-life stance your god has...

>Did you say anthing here?

ignorance is bliss....

so is total lack of reading comprehension in a written debate....

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:15:40 GMT

In article <73935@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.013321.6128@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>>> I can see no exceptions to this
>>>>"non"-purpose other than war or self-defense.  Without these two incidents,
>>>>there should be no reason to take life (human).
>
>>Ah, you are *still* assuming that a human life (which an 8 week fetus *sort
>>of has in that it is "genetically tied to the human race" and it is "alive")
>>means it is a person. You have *still* not used any amount of reason to 
>>convince anyone here that that is true.
>
>Hey, Dave.  Like I've said a million times:
>
>HUMAN BEING DOES NOT IMPLY PERSONHOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I have NEVER said that the fetus is a person.  
>

Person, human, person, human, human *being*, person being, human person.
I have a hard time rembering which is bad to kill. I assumed all so I find
them to be synonymous.

Is it the fact that the fetus is a human being or a person that makes it bad 
to kill it. Pick one, and stick it in the above paragraph, then answer the 
question.

>I have ALWAYS said that it is a human being in all genetic form, it IS human
>and that it HAS rights!!!!!!!!

Human? Or human *being*. I never saw the list from you that described the 
exact terms we were going to use.

>crack open your cranium and let some of that flow in.
>
>>>>Bar the death penalty too.
>
>>Irrelevant. Stick to one issue at a time.
>
>No, it was to avoid the flames coming when I said "What purpose is there
>in killing [human] life?"

Don't try to avoid flames. They aren't part of the issue.

They really don't matter for what we are discussing.

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:07:25 GMT

[ Some Discussion Deleted ]
>
>    Wonderful and lalala. If the conditions of society could be changed
>so that there was plenty of food everywhere, no one would be hungry. Sorry
>to sound a little snotty, but but you seem to be making a moral judgement
>that any sort of abortion is a bad thing, and you don't provide any basis
>for that argument. Why is a first trimester abortion bad?
>
>>--Bill
>>Committed to faith in God
>>Searching for answers to difficult questions
>
>John

John, I'm disappointed.  Firstly, I do not mean to state that abortion should 
be illegal is the life of the woman is threatened by abortion; ALL surgery is, 
to some extent, life threatening.  This is a Medical decision, not a legal 
decision, and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  Birthing should not 
be made illegal on the same principles.  You are trying (unsuccesfully) to draw
me into a reductio ad absurdum, which I will not buy.

I am perfectly willing to let the woman decide what's best for her; if you read
carefully, that was the original position: pro-choice.  The conditions I set 
are not meant to be legal ones; I believe (and this is taken on faith, with no 
evidence to back it up) that if many of the conditions that push women towards 
abortions are taken away, so will the demand for them.  I may be wrong.

It is NOT safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term, provide 
the woman has access to good medical care all along the way (including before 
she becomes pregnant).  I suspect that figures that state otherwise are 
reflecting the sad state of medical care to poor, single women in this country.

I am uncomfortable with abortion, not only because it is an invasive medical 
procedure, but also because I have not been convinced either way that the 
removal of a fetus is a moral wrong or not.  It may be that a fetus has a soul 
(not a proveable point, but a possible one); it may be that the removal from 
the world of that potential life represents a wrong.  Who can say for sure?  I 
am also cognizant of the wrongs committed against women who might be forced to 
have babies that they cannot care for, and this is why I support pro-choice.

Finally, I am disappointed at your general willingness to discard large 
portions of an argument with "wonderful and lalala".  I have encountered a 
great deal of cynicism, and I have found it universally to be of little use.  
Hunger and poverty are HUGE problems, and are closely tied to abortion, since 
it is the poor who get many of the abortions, and who often stand to be the 
most strongly effected (usually for the worse) by change.  My willingness to 
entertain the notion that the poor can be adequately fed, housed and cared for 
is a part of my position because, in my view, it is part of the problem.  Your 
response is not what I would view as constructive discussion.

Let's keep talking.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:28:15 GMT


>>OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
>>in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so 
>>is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to 
>>me.

ok.....then what is it? A sunspot? A lemming? A zit? It sure as hell
isn't the woman's body. 

Gee.....with people like YOU, I can't wait till I'm elderly.
Nursing home here I come......


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Brawley thumps Bible! (Film at 11)
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:49:36 GMT

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- not the mamma!  not the mamma!) writes:

>> I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to 
>> start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>> stance.

> Don't call it *my* Bible, please.  I'm not a Christian.  If you want to
> argue over what the Bible says, do it with someone who agrees that
> said Bible has any authority over them.

Kevin, we've been over this before.  There is nothing in the Bible that
indicates the God is pro-life.  In fact, for every passage that you can
"interpret" to mean "pro-life," I can produce a passage showing God taking
bloody vengance against innocent people.  Read II Kings 2:24 for openers.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:01:57 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.170509.2722@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>In article <ku79ckINN4eb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
>>>>also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
>>>>for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
>>>>population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.
>>
>>Ridiculous.  Although it's not PC to admit, anyone who attempts to affect
>>legislation in any way, is ultimately forcing his/her beliefs upon others.
>>It's not necessarily "wrong".  It's part of Democracy/Republic ways.
>>

>There is forcing (fascism), then there is voting. 

So appointing and using Supreme Court Justices is "fascism"?  I'll bet
you didn't say that when it was firmly "liberal".  heh.

>Let's vote on it. I am all for it.

Me too.  You'd lose in a big way.  Just consult with the "feminist" 
movement.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty