HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:48:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Oct9.215426.3759@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>>mg> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>mg>Just remember exactly what abortion does: Abortion is active, forced, or
>>>mg>induced death.  
>>> 
>>>No it is not.  It is the safest way for the woman to have a fetus removed
>>>from her body.
>>> 
>>And certainly a great way to get rid of our fellow humans.  Unfortunately,
>>abortion is not entirely efficient.  Some of those aborted are alive 
>>today.
>
>You dipping to new depths of sleaze, jerk.  Nobody (nobody) wants to
>kill embryos or fetuses, and to imply otherwise betrays your
>prejudices.

If nobody wants abortion, then why do so many people have abortions?

>  The point of abortion is to terminate pregnancies; people
>don't get pregnant just so they can kill fetuses.
>

You can also terminate pregnancies by letting the unborn child be born.

If you mean to terminate the pregnancy early, then abortion becomes the
main means of doing so.  

Now I know that women don't get pregnant to kill their fellow humans.
However, the fact remains that they do so in record numbers.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:30:21 GMT

In article <7186@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>#Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>#bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>#in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>#that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>#this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>#being
>
>Please tell me just where in the B of R a right to life is granted.
>
>Susan

It's not in the B of R. I think s/he has confused the pre-amble of the 
Declaration of Independence w/ the B of R. The D of I, of course, is not
law and has no power. However I believe the pre-amble to be what our entire
society is based on.(In the broadest sense)Our laws and courts would seem to
agree. One might argue that since it calls for the Right to Life that it
could be used as an argument against abortion. But the Right to Liberty and
Happiness part can just as easily be used as an argument that the government
has no right to dictate to any citizen how they must live their lives.(As in:
You may NOT have X medical procedure)

Stan Knight
|We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,|
|that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, |
|that amoung these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.       |
|			--Pre-Amble to the D. of I.--                    |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: God's wonderful Plan For Your Life Revealed
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.flame 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:55:19 GMT

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
] In article <26195@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
] > In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
]      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] 
]    Why does this keep ending up on alt.atheism?!?  If I 
] wanted to read you morons arguing I'd have a lobotomy and
] read talk.abortion.
] 
]    And why the hell doesn't my kill file work?

Have You ever stopped to think that this MIGHT
just be God's way of Showing you that Abortion is WRONG?

Aborting News Articles is MURDER!!!!

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:48:20 GMT

In article <wpzz-kr@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>->I don't remember CJ admitting that she lied about Suzanne Lucia.
>->Please post where she did this.
>no. you responded to it earlier today.
That's funny. I don't remember posting anything where CJ admitted
that she lied. I guess we'll just have to add this to the stack
of your unsubstantiated assertions.

>->Jim, you admitted that you had asked for support from the list.
>
>and i had also stated that my admission was an error,
>but you knew that before you desperately clutched at
>it.
I see. Let's consider this logically.

You made statement X. CJ made statement X.
I'll grant for the moment that statement X was false.
Statement X referred to a statement Y that YOU had made.
Yet you maintain that when YOU made statement X, you were
in error, but that when CJ made statement X SHE was lying.

What circumstances make CJ's statement of X a lie while
yours is merely a mistake?

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
        "God gets off on a technicality. Film at 11" --CJ Silverio
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:23:22 GMT

>> = spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:
>  = sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[stuff deleted]
>> the Oracle at Delphi, Ronald Reagan and his handlers were able to pull
>> the wool over the eyes of a substantial fraction of the dwindling
>> American electorate for eight years.  The fact that Ronald Reagan was
>> elected twice by landslide margins speaks not so much for the
>> rightness of his cause but the laziness of the American press in [...]

> The perception that RR was elected twice by landslide margins is
> evidence that the big lie works. He was elected in 1980 by the
> slimmest of margins but took every opportunity to claim that he had
> a mandate from the people. [...]

Hear! Hear!  A    50.0001% to 49.9999% win in the popular vote can easily
translate into a 100.0%    to  0.0%    win in the electoral college vote.
Sure, RR had a "landslide" in the electoral college, but it's an unabashed
lie to declare a mandate from the people.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: The Mendacity of Gordon Storga
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:28:19 GMT

The post to which I am following up is not the original post along
this thread, but one with some additional features, such as restorations
into Gordon's post that make it easier for someone reading it on a
monitor to see just how mendacious Gordon's comments are.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41196 alt.politics.clinton:8948 alt.politics.bush:8074
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:45:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct7.165726.11030@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

>No Bruce, I think you are the one lying.  But just to make sure, why
>don't we go to some addoption centers (I'm on the same campus) and
>find the relative time for addoption based upon various stats (race, 
>birth defects, etc).  Come on Bruce, I'm willing to take time out from
>my research to do this.  How about sometime after Oct. Break.  

>come on boy, put up or shut up.

No problem. Lessay how about the first thursday after Octoberbreak?

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Do We really Have conesnsus on 'murder'
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:29:21 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
]  
] Murder is an issue on which there is a consensus.  It also violates the
] generally recognized rights of a human being.  Can you think of anyone
] who seriously advocates the repeal of murder statutes?


Well lets Pause a Little Here Before we Jump Head Long
into Bed with the ModernSeXularHumanistScum.

you and I will both Agree that 'murder must be outlawed.'

Now Comes the 'ugly part' - do you or do you not accept
that Dueling is God's Divinely Appointed Extension of
the Common Law Notion of Trial By Combat Based Upon 
the Holy Faith in the Justice of GOD, and that Truth 
will Win out against EVIL!

Or are You some Idolatrous Pagan Devil Worshipper?

Please to Note that it was not until 1819 that by 
act of parliment, the right of trial by combat 
was made null and void.... We need not address the
fact that by then England had Twice Struck out
its Arm Against God's Holy Light Upon the Hill,
the NEW JERUSALEM, Which is to Say the USA, so
we need not worry about the Details of that collection
of Pagan Idolators....


Now What was that you were saying about Consensus?


ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt your for a little while" - "Prince"
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct7.032421.12078@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct05.071916.158227@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >
> >No, I cited New York State law, as *quoted* from a legal section of an
> >NYPD training guide.  I also quoted the Model Penal Code:
> >  Section 2.04.  Use of Force in Self-Protection.
> >   (2)  Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
> >     (b)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this Section
> >          unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to
> >          protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping,
> >          or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
>
> Okay, Larry, now that you've finally cited at least ONE legal authority,

1.  I consider the NYPD's legal guidelines to be a valid citation.  The
    language might have been simplified, but it *does* tell you what the
    laws are.
2.  Perhaps you missed the use of the past tense above.  I quoted that
    back in May, in article <1992May03.002856.38494@watson.ibm.com>.

> you've sowed a seed of doubt in my mind. However, as I have noted before,
> I do NOT have the resources to resolve this question one way or another.
>
> I'd really like to see you ask this in misc.legal. They should probably be
> able to give you a solid answer.

As far as I'm concerned, I've had a solid answer for over 10 years.  You
can ask over there if you like.

I'd still like to see the list of states you implied you know of where
the use of deadly force is *not* justifiable to stop a forcible rape.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:22:14 GMT

guest@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Guest Account) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Supposing, for the moment, that anybody actually believes that the
>>inherent rights of a pregnant woman and a fetus are equal, just what
>>might those rights be?  How are the two equal?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean.  I've seen some long convoluted threads discussing
>the fine points of 'what is a right, anyway?'.  Here I am referring to the
>juxtaposition of the right to continue to exist verses the right to decide what
>to do with one's own body.

Does one person's "right to continue to exist" outweigh another 
person's right to bodily autonomy?

If the answer is yes, then you can be _required_ to donate a kidney or
blood to someone who's life depends on it.

If the answer is no, then a woman has the right to evict a
fetus/embryo.

The only way one can protect a general right to bodily autonomy while
requiring a woman to give birth is to create a special case for
pregnancy, one that either gives pregnant women less rights than
everyone else, or one the creates more right for a fetus than anyone
else.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Human Worth in Unborn
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:04:16 GMT

In article <Ueqjq=S00WB=4siH0U@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Larry Margolis writes:
>> So if a fetus can survive outside the woman at 7 or 8 months, how can you
>> say it's not born if it's still inside her after this point?
>
>I think you misunderstood my question. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't really
>understand your question. If it's still inside her at 7 months, then, yes,
>it's not born. If the mother, a day later has complications that cause
>her to go into early labor and she has the child, what makes that child
>so different from a day ago where some people are calling the child in
>the womb a 'potential human' or 'potential person' and will call it a
>human/person outside the womb?

Maybe because one day it's inside a pregnant woman, and the next day it's
not, and the woman isn't pregnant?

>
>Put the situation at 5 months. Same thing. 

Same response.

>
>So if the child has a chance at survival, being born early, how can 
>people call the child in the womb at that point 'a potential person'?

Because it resides completly inside a pregnant woman?  I dunno.

>
>How is this 'potentialness' determined? Birth just doesn't seem to be
>the distinguishing factor to me. Especially since children survive 
>who aren't carried to full term. 

Please show me a child who has survived never being born.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
# wdo@TEFS1.acd.com writes:
# |(Susan Garvin) writes:
# |>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
# |>When abortion is illegal, women die.
# |When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.
# |Shall we legalize them, Susan?  
# 
# I'm not Susan, but I answer yes.
# 
# And yes, some of my reasons for supporting drug legalization are
# parallel to my reasons for supporting legal abortion.

Neither am I Susan but I agree with CJ and Steve Adams on this issue
as well.  Is there someone counting or something?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:18:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.062449.8215@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Martin writes:
>>Problem: Man is dying (cause could be anything)
>>Proposed Solution: Force someone to donate parts.
>>
>>Problem: Mother doesn't want child.  No one is dying, however.
>>Proposed Solution: Kill the human life within the mother.
>>
>>Check out the two problems and the proposed solutions.  I think you may
>>agree with me (at least partially) that the relationship between the two
>>cases is not very strong.
>
>Okay, let me try to clarify this.
>
>A man is dying for lack of a kidney, and although he desperately wants
>somebody to donate the organ to save him, he's unable to get one from
>another person by himself.  Therefore you say that he's not allowed to
>have that done.

I am not saying anything whether it should be allowed or not.

However, let us just make a mental note that someone is dying here.

>
>A woman is pregnant with a fetus, and although she desperately wants

A pregnant woman is not dying.

>somebody to cut off her support for the fetus, she's unable to do it
>by herself.  Therefore you say that she's not allowed to have that done.

I don't think you just "cut off" support.  I believe abortion methods
require killing first.  I don't think you starve the unborn child from
the womb.  I could be wrong about this.

>The situation isn't so much "the woman wants to kill the fetus" as
>"the woman refuses to allow her body to support the fetus" and wants
>it _out_ of her body.  When you look at it this way, I still assert
>that the two situations are very similar: does a person have the right
>to refuse to donate resources from his or her body to sustain the life
>of another person?

The mother is not dying.  Neither is the unborn child.  In order to upset
the situation, you first need to actively kill the unborn child.  All 
gov't does is to "prevent" someone from actively taking that human life.

In the earlier situation, someone was already dying.  What gov't does
in this situation is to "force" people to donate parts.  

There is a difference even in the job of government.
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Heather, Heather, Heather...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:03:18 GMT


{ no silly comments about wuthering heights, PLEASE! }

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
] In a previous article, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) wrote:
] > 
] >	When you have sex, you know you might become pregnant...
] 
[ deletions ]
] 
] I'm not a mother.  Does this mean I can have sex without consenting to protect 
] any fetuses that may come along?
] 
] And where does the man involved fit in to all this?  What has he consented to 
] by having sex?


HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU SILLY CLOSET HETROES!!!!!

If there is NO Gestationality, There is NO SEX!!!!

You may engage in FUN, but You are 
surely NOT engaging in SEX!!!!!


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:19:51 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <1992Oct10.013251.9252@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) wrote:
> 
> Rush is on all over the country.

Heh.  Enjoy him while he lasts.  The way things are looking right now, I
give him about five weeks.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: My Rgdnnus can beat up your Rgdnnus with one hand behind his back!
Summary: One has to wonder how Peter keeps his job... 
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.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:17:19 GMT

In article <nyikos.719093792@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>Are there no laws against ATTEMPTED suicide?  I must admit laws punishing
>someone who is SUCCESSFUL at suicide are an exercise in futility.  On the
>other hand, there are good reasons for trying to deter someone from
>attempting suicide.

Gee, PH, like what?  Let's say that I'm tired of being wacked out on pain
killers 24 hours a day, I'm tired of the pain of chemo and the agony of
bone marrow implants.  The extra 6 weeks of life I'm going to get just
*ISN'T WORTH IT*.

Please name one good reason why you should "deter me from attempting
suicide".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:55:44 GMT

In <1992Oct7.043438.14241@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>>WITH RESPECT TO:

>>  Quote from Deuteronomy
>>   - I question the relevance
>I'm a Christian -- it has relevance to me, as it does (or should) to any other
>Christian out there.  And it's Old Testament, so it should have relevance for
>Jews, too.  Or were you questioning the relevance of the verse itself?  If
>that is the case, I'd ask you to explain more -- for I fail to see how it
>CANNOT be relevant.

In the present discussion, which concerns the laws of the United States
of America, quotes from the Bible, New Testament or Old, are indeed
irrelevant.  Principles of action may be based on religion.  The laws of
this country are subject to the separation of Church and State.
Furthermore, we cannot base laws on Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim,
principles, because we are then violating the beliefs of those American
citizens who happen to be Buddhists, pagans (gasp!!! horrors!
SHOCK!!!!!!), or animists (huh??????? Mommy, what's an animist?  Shut up
and finish your rosary) or atheists (who despite what George Bush was
quoted as saying about them, are just as much citizens as anyone else).
No matter how strongly you may believe in your Christian principles, if
you truly consider yourself an American, you will honor this tenet of our 
governmental system, and not try to argue law on the basis of quotes
from the Bible.  (And they say liberals are not patriotic?  Humph!)

							Beth
-- 
"This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
	-Arthur Dent, on being told that the Earth is about to blow up.