HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fire and Ice second half, from a newbie
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 3 Nov 92 22:53:25 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Oct29.211735.2658@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

> Why?  What makes you think that killing a zygote is murder?  Just because

Killing a zygote is as much a murder as a pimple treatment.

> it is human, does not mean it is a person, or even a human being which
> deserves rights.  Explain yourself.  Are you horrified that each month
> millions of sexually active women on the pill are murdering zygotes? 
> Or is this even an argument you prescribe to (sorry am sleepy tonight)

Please, no, not again!...

I said that it's the only reason I could think of for a ban
on abortion. I EXPLICITLY said in that SAME POST that I DID NOT
subscribe to that.

BTW, if you had read some posts I had brought over from aus.religion
you would have read that I had taken reductio ad absurdum on that
point to show that sex amounts to genocide.

Please, people, read all of the article before posting.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: poor DODie lies
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:43:37 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->James Keegan has disqualified anyone 
->from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not oppose all restrictions
->on abortion. 

like most of what DODie writes, this statement is not
correct.

i suppose i should take it as a compliment that he is
so incapable of disputing what i write that he is
reduced to lying about what i say.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: prakuser@KUB.NL (Algemene practicum User)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 09:12:53 GMT
Organization: Tilburg University

In article <1992Nov7.003620.9584@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:

>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>NA> If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

>>I'd be willing to bet that for every man who leaves a pregnant woman, there are
>>(almost) EQUAL numbers of women who abort a child wanted by the father.  (There
>>is no study on this at the moment...yet).  So don't be so willing to take the
>>moral high ground by declaring men to be unwilling to be parents.

>>And BY THE WAY, to start off this little survey...  (and to disprove your
>>outrageous claim that men would choose abortion en-masse if they could get
>>pregnant)...  I don't consider it unreasonable for myself to represent not
>>only myself, but Don Beaver, Michael Rivero, John Stevens, and the HUNDREDS OF
>>THOUSANDS of men who have gone through this experience and have been kept silent
>>by counselling professionals who consider only women's feelings to be important,
>>and by feminists who declare men who break their silence to be "bible thumping
>>pro-life patriarchal oppressors," by saying:

>>IF MEN COULD GET PREGNANT, WE WOULD *KEEP* OUR CHILDREN!

>I'm a male and I can think of plenty of guys who would abort if men could
>get pregnant and they did.  As for me, I've got two great little boys and 
>another on the way.  If all of this had happened 10-15 years ago (when I
>was 18-23), I don't know if I would have been able to make the decision
>to have a family at that time in my life.  I know that the Mug which has
>the "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament" saying is somewhat
>of a joke, there is, in my view, lots of truth in that.  I'm really not all
>so sure all men would keep their children, 'course since I don't have any
>research or numbers, I can't back up this statement, but I do have some good
>references for my making this statement.

>allen
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------
>  Allen Warren 
>  TSSI -- Beaverton, OR 
>  Disclaimer:  My ramblings are NOT those of TSSI          









*******************************************************************************
* Jeroen Bosters            * Student of Information Management & Technology  *
* Schoolstraat 363          * at Tilburg University, the Netherlands          *
* 5038 RL  Tilburg          ***************************************************
* The Netherland            *   " The prince of darkness is a gentleman ...   *
* SBITCSC@KUB.NL            *        ... Modo he's called and Mahu   "        *
* jbosters@nyx.cs.du.edu    *                   Shakespeare,  King Lear       *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Conservative Position
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:30:10 GMT

eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
] In article <1992Nov7.221350.2733@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
] >The Conservative Position, and Why it's Morally Correct
] 
] >     Generally speaking, the conservative position on abortion, or
] >pro-life position,
] 
] Uh....  Brian, there is no one conservative position on abortion.  I
] think most people would consider The Wall Street Journal editorial
] page "conservative".  But their opinion on abortion is basically that
] allowing abortion until quickening is a good enough compromise / close
] enough to accurate for them.  Ye olde "pro-life" / "pro-choice" labels
] may evoke emotional reactions, but at least they're understood to mean
] the positions you're assigning to them....


I will agree with Beth here on the matter of the fact that
conservative is a useless term.

When the US Senator Barry Goldwater stood against the
AntiAbortion Plank in the GOP party, it was a breath
of fresh air! Someone in the Grand Stature of the Party
had awaken from the Slumper Years.

ciao
drieux

ps: Personally I still think that beth is a LIBERAL on
the matter of the right of Privacy, and that the 
state NEED SHOW JUST CAUSE for violating that right.

pps: but we KNOW all about those BleedingHeartWimpLiberalTypes.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:53:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov6.190814.27317@ncar.ucar.edu>,
by kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman):

>>   = sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>  = ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
>>>> = frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>You're a science fundie then - why do you believe the brain to be related
>>>>to sentience/consciousness/awareness/intelligence?
> 
>>> Strong correlation between brain function and intelligence.  A damaged
>>> brain with few exceptions leads to an impaired/altered intellect.
> 
>>Ack.  <cough>  Um, if we could define "brain function" and "intelligence"
>>we could begin to dissect the first statement, which is at present
>>hopelessly vague.  [...]
>>       But I guess the point is that it's not so obvious that the
>>brain is the seat of personhood, much less "consciousness" and other
>>fluffy stuff.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It's not necessary to *completely* solve a problem (resolve an issue) in 
> order to gain some benefit.  Often times *partial* solutions are very useful.
> 
> *Obviously* there will always be some areas of contention wrt to what 
> constitutes a "person", but I think it's useful to narrow down the points 
> of disagreement.  Is anyone interested in doing this?  Or are we only 
> interested in wholesale acceptance/rejection of other people's ideas?
> 
> To that end, I challenge you to provide concise answers to the following:
> 
> Q1: Do you agree that the physical presence of a brain is necessary, 
>     although perhaps not sufficient, for "personhood"?  <yes xor no>
> 

A very qualified "no" (see response to Brian Kendig's post).

> Q2: (I'm trying to establish that we agree that "persons" actually exist)
>     Do you agree that being a "normal, adult human" is sufficient, although 
>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>  

Yes.

>     
> Q3: Do you agree that being a "normal, human infant" is sufficient, although 
>     perhaps not necessary, to establish "personhood"?  <yes xor no>

Yes.

> 
> 
> If no one is willing to make a *clear* statement about what they think are
> the broad parameters of "personhood", then this whole "personhood" debate 
> is pointless, not because the issue is intractable, but because the debaters 
> are intractable.
> 
> -Brian

Sorry if I've led us astray.  Lead on...

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: kimnach@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GREG KIMNACH)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:19:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <bob1.720812792@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes...
>In <1992Nov1.185359.4577@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
>>In article <Bx0002.Koo@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
>>v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson) writes:
> 
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes...
> 
>>>>> What's worse IMO is people who are willing to stomp all over the
>>>>> rights of others in order to impress their morality on others.
> 
>>>> Yeah, those people who support murder and rape laws are scum.
>>>> How dare they impress their morality on rapists and murderers!
>>>> Anarchy all the way!
> 
>>> Try again Doug.  I don't accept logical fallacies as arguments.
>>> In this case, you've slid down the slippery slope.
> 
>>You object to abortion laws because they are based upon morality.
>>Murder and rape laws are also based upon moral principles, and
>>so it follows that you must object to murder and rape laws.
>>There's no slippery slope in that reasoning.
> 
>I fail to see why you believe this. Murder and rape cause physical
>harm without the consent of the victim. This directly interferes
>with the victim's rights attested to by the Constitution. Where
>does 'morality' enter the picture?

Ah, so herein is the answer to the abortion issue!  You've convieniently 
dehumanized the fetus to reduce the your own guilt of "physically harming 
without the consent of the victim."  (Since when do victims consent to be 
brutalized or murdered?)  Yet, when it comes to pre-natal care, the pro-
choicers are vehement in their support for the healthy development of the 
the child.  Human in one instance, not in the other.  Interesting!

This is much like one-third the population, when the Constitution and 
Declaration of Independence were written.  They weren't considered to be 
human.  That segment was acceptable enough to perform much of the labor or 
care for the kids, but not protected by law, which was meant for "man."

Unfortunately, the American attitude of confusing "rights" and priveledges" 
has displaced individual responsibility and accountability (not just in 
this area).  And no, it's not John Public and Jane Taxpayer's responsiblity 
to care for the child that has been conceived at an inconvienient time.



> 
>>>David
> 
> 
>>Doug Holtsinger
> 
>REB
> 

Greg
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:39:56 GMT

In article <lefty-111192113534@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.160837.7443@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> >
>> >So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?
>> 
>> What business is it of yours?
>
>How about _me_, Kevin.  Is it _my_ business?
>
>So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?

I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Diversionary tactics
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:45:56 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
->I think that Petey Honey knows that he made a big mistake when he
->incorrectly accused Adrienne of forgery.  I think that he hopes
->to distract the other readers of t.a. by posting obvious flamebait
->in other threads.  

i think you're right.

i also think that petey honey's efforts to divert
attention will fail.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:42:53 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov11.160837.7443@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> >
> >So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?
> 
> What business is it of yours?

How about _me_, Kevin.  Is it _my_ business?

So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Mondo Target Analysis there Nykios....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:28:41 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] 
] I've never been offended by the thoughts of fetuses. 
] Also, I had no trouble identifying my youngest daughter on a
] sonogram when she was 13 weeks old.
] 
] Peter Ny.


Now next minor technical question....

You were of course able to tell gender?


or is this another one of those hand waves at
how a circle is two sided as it has an inside and an outside,

and that a triangle is two sided as it has an inside and an outside, 

and that a Square is two sided as it has an inside and an outside,  


REPEAT TO INFINITY


ciao
drieux


ps: is infinity plus one a three sided figure?




-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.080322.1006@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
> [Doug, Keegan, Doug, Keegan, etc. ad nauseam] 
>
>Am I the only one who thinks this infantile bickering could be
>more efficiently dealt with via email?  Does anyone else resent
>having to sift through this refuse in search of meaningful
>debate and discussion?  Do these folks have *anything* better
>to do than chant, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Trouble is, at least one of the participants *REFUSES* to use email
for this crap. At least, he has a long history of refusing to do so. 

You're lucky he hasn't started calling you a "net.cop" just for merely
_suggesting_ email...

							- Kevin
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise (was Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:57:23 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>In article <1992Nov6.150607.26064@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
> 
>>Do you have any idea how broadly mental health/illness is 
>>defined,

Hell, yes.  Sure he does.  Why, mental health/illness is broadly
defined on this net DAILY!!!

(Of course, we also notice that *you*, Bill, usually object to
such broad definitions, and now you are implying that these broad
definitions will be AOK for other doctors.  Is that the left or
the right side of your mouth???)

Adrienne Regard
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Quote from ME
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:29:45 GMT
Distribution: usa


"What any person chooses to do with their own body is
their own business!!!"

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:24:42 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>:But both frogs and cancerous growths both have unique DNA.  If you
>:define personhood solely on genetics, how can you exclude either of
>:these?
>
>Are they human?  People are human, and have unique DNA.

Two errors.

1) People do not necessarily have unique DNA (e.g., twins).
2) This begs the question: what is human DNA?  And don't answer by
   saying that human DNA is found in humans, since that's just a
   circular definition.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: public funds. financing abortions. why not.
Keywords: abortions and public funds.
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:49:31 GMT
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: jjprice@c00090-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu


In article <markts.721113885@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:

|>  why not publicly fund abortions? 
|>  here is an answer. here is _the_ answer.
|>
|>  it is too fair and the right thing to do.
|>
|>  our laws give most people the option for abortion.
|>  it should be federally funded as long as the other
|>  options are sponsored. 
|>
|>  two choices: give birth, have an abortion.
|>  we will counsel you on the birth, prepare you for
|>  the birth, assist in the birth, provide care after
|>  the birth. choose abortion, you are on your own.
|>  entirely. 
|>
|>  there is no choice. 

Here is another reason against tax-payers money going to abortions.
I am sure we will all agree that there are deep rifts between Pro-life and
Pro-Choice and many politicians want to do their best to keep both
sides at bay.

Now if tax money went to abortions the Pro-life crowd would be in an uproar.
Can you image that they would be helping to pay for one of the things
they detest the most.But none of these Pro-lifers would deny a mother
the right to give birth.

Now Pro-Choicers may be unhappy that funding would not be provided for the
abortion but if she wants it bad enough pay for it out of her own pocket.She
can always have the child and be provided for if it is a money issue

-Jeff Price

	"What is legally permissible rapidly comes to be seen as
	 morally acceptable" 
			- Cardinal Cahal Daly of Ireland
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (LYNN ALFORD)
Subject: On Frogs!
Summary:  comeon children, get it right!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: lalford@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Organization: Florida State University
Date:  5 NOV 92 14:54:45    

In article <1992Nov4.170452.15265@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes...
>In article <1992Nov4.152704.17296@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com 
>(Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
>}Those same words could be used to argue that frogs are people too.
>}How would you distinguish between frogs and humans?
> 
>Easy.  Frogs croak every night.  A human croaks but once.

Tisk, what untruths get unleashed in this newsgroup.  Female frogs don't 
croak, only males do.  And males do it only certain times of the year.

Besides, frogs are people too.  Ask a herpetologist 
(zlraa@marlin.jcu.edu.au for one).

This message has been brought to you courtesy of the frogophile association 
of nowhere. Membership in the association is 2 and we are growing fast.  
Join now, and be introduced to the wonderful world of frogs.

Lynn
  _____      The Darwin fish
\/     \
/\_____/
  bb bb
I had an opinion just a moment ago.  Now where did I put it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: a mr. intellectual thread: live by the sword...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:16:25 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to linda
birmingham:
->[...]Yet, at the same time, you conveniently look the other way 
->when Susie Garvin states, as a matter of FACT (not opinion), that I, Kevin 
->Darcy, have been arguing for abortion restrictions, where in actual point of 
->fact, I have NOT argued for any such abortion restrictions, Susie Garvin has 
->not _cited_ any post where I argued for any abortion restriction

there was no need for susan to cite a post where you
argued for abortion restrictions. you have argued for
abortion restrictions. proof of your arguments has been
posted several times. here it is again, complete and
unedited so you cant pretend you were making a
hypothetical argument. you might, like DODie say you
were joking or, like nyikos, claim your newsfeed is
down.

stop lying kevin.

post proving kebbie argued for abortion restrictions
follows:

----------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Is everyone in soc.men like this?
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:18:52 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

> The following scary excerpt from an article that appeared here (and
> had followups set to soc.men) just chilled my spine.  I repost it here
> in case some of you are still confused about the motivations behind
> this whole spousal notification silliness.

> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>  [...]
>> Knowledge is the issue. Trust is the issue. Indications of the depth of 
>> the relationship with the spouse is the issue. And respect of fatherhood,
>> even potential fatherhood, is the issue.

>> I wouldn't have a funeral, but then I wouldn't make love to that woman
>> again, were I someone who wanted children. Why waste time attempting to
>> make one woman pregnant when all she'll do is abort it without telling me.
>  [...]

Oh, maybe just maybe you _love_ that woman... guess not, huh?  No, Mr.
Hentrich, please please don't waste your time on such an unproductive
activity.

And if the love of your life actually blesses you with children, and you
grow old together, will you stop making love with her at the onset of
menopause?

> Surfs up!

Fergit the surf, it's time for a luau!  Somebody get the coals going and 
let's find a spit we can roast this pig on!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
 "Republicans run on a platform that government is bad.  And when we
           elect them, they prove it!" -- Phil Harbison
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Who to listen to?
Keywords: nyikos and juries and guilt
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:00:26 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes to
patrick:

->I think the jury is still hearing evidence on this one.

whereas, in the case of your lie about adrienne's
"forgery," the jury's decision is clear.

so when are you going to post your apology petey honey?



Newsgroups: talk.abortion