HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Annoying rhetorical habits
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:56:25 GMT

	The following paragraphs rather jumped out at me from a recent post
by Mr. Martin Guerrero:

>Once people realize that that which is killed during abortion is a human
>life, then there is a much better chance that that person may change his/her
>mind on abortion.  Of course, not everyone knows that.  Some people still
>think that the unborn is just a bunch of human tissue.
> 
[...]
>Educating people about the existence of human life at conception could
>be seen as a first step.  For once people know that, I am hoping that
>our fellow brothers and sisters general sense of social responsibility
>when it comes to the dignity of human life everywhere will realize that
>more is at stake here than just the mother having a "mere medical procedure."
 
        I abstracted these to illustrate one of the rhetorical habits of the
anti-abortion crowd (well, *some* of them, anyway) that particularly gets on
my nerves:  the assumption that if you don't buy the idea that a zygote is
*exactly the same* as a born child, you're simply ignorant or misguided.  If
you only knew the Truth(tm), like Martin here, you'd naturally agree with him.
You simply need to be "educated"!
	It's simply not possible that you might see things differently or that
you might have perfectly sound reasons for believing that z/e/fs aren't people.
No, you're only allowed to be ignorant, foolish, evil, or selfish.  People of
good will who simply see things differently just don't exist.  Case closed.
	I don't know this person at all, so I don't know whether he's as smug
and self-congratulatory in real life as he seems on the net or not.  I hope
not.  I just wish he'd take a look at how his posts come across to the rest of
us.  It's hardly the sort of attitude conducive to civilized dialog.
	Yeah, I know: a lot of the regulars here aren't the least bit
interested in dialog of any kind.  The Forgach/Nykios/Chaneyhall types are
mostly interested in reasserting their own notions of righteousness by
scorning the UnGodly; ditto for some of their analogs on the pro-choice side.
But some of us would still prefer some intelligent discussion, and would
prefer not to be treated as idiots in need of "education", thank you very much.
	We now return you to your regularly-scheduled food fight.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40571 talk.politics.misc:49560 alt.sex:31938 alt.rush-limbaugh:6543 alt.politics.elections:15174 alt.politics.clinton:8494 alt.politics.bush:7733
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:11:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <9464@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <Oct04.222555.96000@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>>"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
>>the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
>>TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.
>Where do you get your definition of murder.  My copy of Webster's says
>that murder is the killing of a human being.  No mention of borned.

Well, killing of a borned human being is murder too.  You gotta look at the
"among other things" phrase right.

Big Al.  Who ain't borned yet.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Where's the majority? (Was:Re: rights and responsibilities)
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:29:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <BvCwBn.2wx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <k-jzy+=@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>
>>>>In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:
>>>>This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
>>>>abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
>>>	Oh PLEASE!!!! Such blatently false statements are absolutely
>>>inexcusable.
>>Here, have a data point.
>>American Life League:
>>I have a magazine dated 1991.  It gives the ALL officers.
>>The president is female (Judie Brown).  Of the remainder, 7 are
>>male (including a Rev. and a Fr.), 3 are female.
>>And they list "Medical and Legal Writers and Advisors".  The
>>Chairman is male.  Of the other names 15 are male, 1 is female.
>>There are 12 articles in the issue.  3 were written by females,
>>9 by males (including Randall Terry preaching yet again why
>>Christians should not use contraception - any contraception).
>>Just a data point.
>	
>	You're right. Just a data point. It proves nothing. Poll
>statistics have been posted time and again on this issue. Maybe you
>should read them.
>
	Also one more data point than we've seen from you.  It proves more
than your evidence-free assertions to date.  
	Please note what the original poster said: "The majority of people
working against abortion are male."  Not: "the majority of Americans who 
stated that they were anti-abortion in polls were male."  So far you have
produced no evidence to support the contention that men do *not* constitute
a majority in organizations actively opposing abortion rights.  
	In terms of evidence to back up claims, it's rocker 1, Varney 0 so
far.
	[Please note revised Followup-To: line and newsgroups list; I really
don't think this needs to be cross-posted to every political group on the net]

>		Bruce

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: The Federal GuideLines Gambit
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:24:52 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

] In  <nyikos.717802175@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
] > In <1992Sep24.160401.18867@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) wr
] >
] > >Did you know, Peter, that federal guidelines presently prohibit the
] > >use of fetal tissue from elective abortions?
] >
] > Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Federal guidelines only apply to FEDERALLY
] > FUNDED research.
] 
] Why would that make Chris' statement wrong?

Larry,

How many times do we have to go around this....

If there is a Federal GuideLine, then it obviously
means that it applies to Federally Run things,
and in Nykios's world, this is a complicated
emotional problem....

The vast majority of research facilities are tied
to academic institutions, and hence are dealing 
with federal money all of the time, student loans,
GI Beni's for us Vets, Etc, etc, etc....

And its important to clarify that these Institutions
are truly Academically Free, and not controlled
by the Central government... 

Or is it the case that we should allow some things
to be done by individuals independent of the Federal
Government, and those things might not be the
things that we would like, and so they should be
mandated to follow the Central Committee Party Line....

Or is it....

Well anyway, its a clear proof that Chris,
Lap dog lackey of the Millitary Industrial Complex
is an Ikky Yukky Wrong person either way....

ciao
drieux




-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.peeves,soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Another Answer from Miss Drieux
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:47:20 GMT

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

] sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] ] Well, that answered that question, I guess.
] ] 
] ] Now, the next problem I have to drop in your lap is the
] ] question of women and killfiles.  Can we use them if we
] ] have permission from our RealMan[tm], or is it denying
] ] our feminity to use something with such a butch name?
] 
] dear susan,
] 
{Traditional Family Values Deleted}
] 
{Point Clarification Necessity Deleted}
] 
] Women should NOT engage in DickSizeWars,
] it is NOT Lady Like at all.
] 
] They can, however, engage in JaneSizeWars,
] but the criterion for these are completely different.
] 
] ciao
] Miss Drieux

Dear Miss Drieux

You are absolutely correct that women should refrain
from engaging in DickSizeWars.

However, from Personal Experience I can tell you that
Women CAN engage in a PeterSizeWar.  What's more -
they can WIN a PeterSizeWar.

Signed
ProblemOlderWoman
(with a Bigger Peter than her ProblemYoungerMan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Kevin "C is Cum in my mouth, Daddy" Welch (again...)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:03:13 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  <1992Sep25.175757.7149@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
> :      What I really find interesting is the way that the Moral Majority
> : treats Humanity. A Human has more rights while developing in the womb
> : than while growing up and living in the world. It's too bad that many
> : of these people shut things out because they think everything is Satanic.
>
> What I find interesting is that you seem to believe
> that a fetus has, (or should have, you're not real specific),
> MORE rights than other humans?

No, I'm pretty sure that he's referring to the way that the so-called
Moral Majority treats humanity.

> Which rights do/should fetuses have that other humans don't?

They would give the fetus the right to use a person's body against that
person's will, which is a right that no *person* has.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:47:49 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

from the archives .......

        "All fetuses _are_ white.  "White" means lack
        of pigment.  Black newborns are born white, and
        turn black shortly thereafter."
		Suzanne Forgach <1991Jun13.232919.9128@noao.edu>
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos (was: THE SUFFERIN
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:36:05 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) auditions for Non-
Sequitur Dinner Theatre:
> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:

>> My comment here would be that excellence in a field does not necessarily
>> translate into excellence in another field, even though there may be a
>> few skills that are shared between the two fields.

> And you're real skilled at religious bigotry, but nothing else that
> is of any value to humanity.  Remember that insult against Catholics
> re "Vatican Rag"?

You mean that song that was written by a Catholic, Tom Lehrer?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:26:38 GMT

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Sep29.033302.27751@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>>I am upset at the fact that there are instances where an abortion takes
>>place simply because a child would be an inconvienience to the parents.

>It's all well and good to say that you don't want fetuses dying for no
>good reason, but there's no way at all for anybody except the woman
>involved to decide just what a "good reason" is.  That's why I feel
>that the woman has to be allowed to use her own judgement.

Besides, if you are going to pass a law forbidding abortions for
matters of "inconvience", you should also *require* woman who seek
them for no "good reason" to give the kid up for adoption.  After
all, do you really want a woman who suddenly 8 months into a 
pregnancy who says "nayh, I don't want a kid, think I'll have
an abortion" to become a PARENT???  "Gee, I want to go out tonight
and can't find a babysitter, oh, well, s/he will be fine alone for
a couple hours."                     

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

my opinions....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Female Contraception: Article References
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:45:05 GMT

"Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I recently asked why pro-choicers generally don't include education
>of the risks of abortion when talking about education. Someone felt
>that I was using scare tactics and that I should back up my assertions.
>Not remembering who it was, I told him 'fair enough' and that I would
>try to post some data. 

Isn't this ironic that ye who claim there are so many important risks
to abortion can't find any data on it? 

In your next visit to the library terminal, see if you can find anything
which conflicts with the statement from Our Bodies, Ourselves which says 
that aspiration abortions are safer than tonsillectomies and circumcisions.
I'm interested.

This time, try using the key word "abortion" instead of "contraception"...
it might go faster.

rini
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:09:15 GMT

Galen writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>
>}I'll meet you halfway on this.  I'm all for letting women know what
>}they're really doing when they go in for an abortion; I'm in favor of
>}showing them a chart of the development of a human fetus and letting
>}them see what they're un-making by having an abortion.  But I DON'T
>}want to see people feeding them subjective propaganda like so many
>}pro-lifers seem to like doing.
>
>Halfway?  You're going to meet this guy halfway and confer upon
>women some special knowledge that you seem to think is known or
>discovered only by those with a Wand of Wonder?  Shoot, let the
>women figure it out for themselves.  They can, you know.  

I don't see your point.  Is there something wrong with letting women
know exactly what's inside them before they kill it?  I disagree that
women in general know much about the developmental stages of a human
fetus; heck, too many of them don't even know that sex can lead to
pregnancy!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:39:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Karin Brennan (kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:

: Oh Please!!!!!!  You had better keep an eye on all of the Major
: Television Network while your at it!  They are way out there on the
: Moon. Why is Christianity this big threat to free America?  Are we
: afraid of having our care free lifestyles cramped?  Stop and think about
: how Christian Parent's lifestyles are being cramped when their children
: are being taught ideals COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what they believe. And 
: they can do little about it!   

i don't think it's my job to teach your children morals. if you are
secure and honest in your beliefs, you should have no trouble passing
them on to your children or explaining to your kids why a lot of the
rest of the world doesn't follow the same beliefs. if you can't manage
this task, there is no obligation on my part to do it for you.

i don't try to convince you to live by my value systems. all i ask is
that you extend the same courtesy to me, whether you're a christian,
moslem, buddhist, atheist, whatever. 

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
your beliefs are arbitrary, mostly a matter of chance and upbringing. this
makes them no less valid for you, but might affect their validity for others.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Third Trimester Anti-Abortion Laws
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.205911.1082@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>You don't think there is any room for preventitive laws, Cathi? You're
>willing for the blood of unnecessary late-term abortions to stain your
>hands BEFORE you would allow (overdue) restrictive legislation to be passed?
>Isn't this the same "retroactive social planning" that has made such a mess
>of our government already?

I mostly agree with the above.

>Look, the situation is quite simple:

Hardly.

>	*IF* there are so few late-term abortions, and *IF* they were all for
>	good reasons, then it doesn't cause any harm to pass restrictive 
>	legislation, since in practice there would have to be reasonable
>	exceptions, e.g. mortal risk to the mother, severe fetal deformity,
>	etc.

Don't kid yourself, Kevin -- there's a cost to restricting
third-trimester abortions.  Even if nobody was denied an abortion,
everyone would have to get court/doctor's approval for their abortions
... this at a time when the women getting abortions can *least* afford
additional hassle.

>	And it could do some actual good to pass such laws, if they could
>	be traded for a _permanent_ guarantee of the Right to Choose for non-
>	late-term cases, which make up the vast majority of all abortions.

Kevin....  Oh, PLEASE!  A significant minority of Americans (though by
no means all of the pro-life movement) think that abortion is murder
because to them a z/e/f is a person.  Many of them *can't* compromise
on this....  And to be truthful, I respect them for that.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:38:06 GMT

In article <BvK8Fs.9sn@rice.edu> 
patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:

>Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>> Surely nobody could take offense in
>> regards to the suggestion that the posterior of a black person is, indeed,
>> black?

> Well, nobody with more than a single functioning neuron could, anyway...:-)


People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
objection to Patrick Humphrey's use of term "fat black ass": 

   Steve Chaney
   Doug Holtsinger
   Scott Roby
   Suzanne Forgach
   Galen Hekhuis
   Will Steeves
   JH Woodyatt
   Peter Nyikos
   Elizabeth Bartley
   A. Werling
   Ren and Stimpy's Love Child
   Stephen J. Mezias


>--PLH, and we don't have white sheets, either

Denying it?  It must be true.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:15:14 GMT

In article <6803@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>	ABORTION IS MURDER

Since when?  Where?  How many women have been arrested and prosecuted for
such?

>	FETUSES ARE HUMAN CHILDREN

Under what authority?  Did they change the constitution and not tell me?

>	JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR CHILDREN INSIDE YOU, DOESN'T MEAN
>		THAT THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.
But you can see a fetus inside the woman, and just because we have ultrasound
technology that doesn't mean the fetus is worthy of legal protection above and
beyond the woman's right to reproductive freedom.

>	THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NINE MONTH OLD FETUS AND A NEWBORN BABY
>		IS THAT YOU ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY NOURISHING A NEWBORN.


Well, having been pregnant twice now, I can tell you differently.  And, there's
a WORLD of difference between a fertilized egg and a newborn.

>	A FETUS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTHER, IT ONLY RECEIVES FOOD AND OXYGEN
>		THROUGH THE UMBILICAL CORD.

Who told you that lie?  Where does its waste products go?  How come babies
are born addicted to cocaine if it can't go through the umbilical cord?
Just about EVERYTHING passes through that cord.  Viruses can't, because
they are "too big", but almost everything else is fair game.  I suggest 
that you look that one up in any book on the subject and learn quite a bit
about human gestation, especially if you intend to post here again.
>and
>	WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ENJOYED HAVING YOUR BODY SUCKED OFF LIMB
>		BY LIMB, HAVING YOUR SKIN EATEN BY SALT SOLUTION, OR BEING
>		DUMPED INTO A CAN, AND SUFFOCATING TO DEATH BECAUSE YOUR
>		LUNGS WEREN'T FULLY DEVELOPED YET???

What does this ranting have to do with anything?

Are you even capable of rational thought?  You haven't given one logical
argument, only emotional shoutings.  Go somewhere else, we already have
enough idiots like you around here.>


>I suggest you go to your nearest fucking abortion clinic, and take a look at
>what goes on behind the illusionary scenery of safe abortion. Take a look
>at the bloody pulp that was a child go through the suction hose. Take a look
>at the buckets of baby parts, skin eaten off, limbs ripped off. LOOK INTO THEIR
>FUCKING FACES AND SAY THAT YOU ARE STILL PRO ABORTION!
>
Such lauguage from an obvious religious fanatic.  Surely you must have learned
_something_ in church besides all these lies.

I'd mention some logical arguments, but I don't think you're capable of
reason.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.consciousness,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers