HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Bring On That RICO
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:50:08 GMT

rh0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Warren Harris) writes:
] 
] The assertion is that abortion is murder, and thus should be
] illegalized along with other forms of murder.
] breathing and die overnight.  Are instances of those investigated?)
[some deletions] 
] 3.  If a woman has one performed on her by another, then they both be
] charged in a manner analogous to that for a paid assasination.  I'm
] not sure, is the assasin and 'employer' both charged with murder to
] the same degree, or what?


well lets just say that when the FEDS go after the
head of a 'crime family' they tend NOT to worry that
the 'GodFather' did NOT PULL THE TRIGGER, but merely
that the 'GodFather' ordered the 'HIT.'


We are thus back to the fundamental problem of what
AntiAbortionists REALLY want 'murder' to mean. Is it
a 'substantive' term denoting a morally outraging act
that needs to be addressed. Or is it just a BuzzWord
Used for either the purpose of deluting the substantive
meaning of 'murder' and the moral outrage against those
who commit those ACTS; OR is it that they like the semi
moral high ground that one appears to get with decrying
against Morally Reprehensible Acts.

Steven Kellmeyer has time and again tried to warn us that
he understands the NEED to delute the substantive value of
the notion 'murder' so that the AntiAbortionists will be
allowed to construct DeathKamps to Silence AntiStateElements.

It would seem a logical conclusion therefore that the point
of the AntiAbortionists using 'murder' to speak of abortion,
without the Call of the DEATH PENALTIES against those MURDERERS,
is specifically a CASE of their Playing out their Hand that they
wish to delute the word MURDER, and bring on their DeathKamps.


ciao
drieux

ps: we have watched what they will do to the bible, which
they allege to hold as sacred, should we wonder what they
will do with mere secular documents like the constitution.


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.230053.15012@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>   Incedentally, I probably picked on this post more than I should have
>>but I'm so sick and tired of the jokes, insults, bites, jabs, and of 
>>course, the nazi comments.
>And I'm sick of being called a murderer and a Nazi too, so what?

That maybe both sides should quit it with the Nazi comments already?

>-Ekr

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:02:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <18180@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
> writes:

->Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
->and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would
->logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

>   No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
>are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
>increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as
>we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
>cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
>population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but
>once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
>like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
>the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.

Can you produce some evidence of this claim? 

Have you considered the implications of what will happen if population
growth continues unhindered?

Stop these damn blatant assertions.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Where do they Get their Theology?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:57:12 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18085@oasys.dt.navy.mil> spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz) writes:

>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>2) judge not lest ye be judged
>>3) He who has not sinned may cast the first stone
>Think about these two statements; then think about what you have been
>doing.  Do you honestly mean to say that you have not been judging other
>people by implying that those of us who are pro choice are not Christian?
   I haven't done the judging Sue. I left that up to God and the 
New Testament. I only abide by God's word. But I am not a strict
bible-thumper as so many seem to think. Instead, it so happens that without
the bible I would arrive at the same conclusion, so it is nice that the
two coincide(my opinions and logic, and God's word)
                             ^^^^^ unless of course you feel I have none...

steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Organization: Dewey Decimal
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 16:53:19 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion

In article <1992Apr15.055321.19702@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) says:

>Pro-Choicers : Would an adoption be a resonable alternative for an abortion
>               to you?

>Pro-Lifers : How would adoptions actually help the situation? Wouldn't
>             it just create more "unwanted" babies?
>

It depends on the reason the woman would want an abortion.  If it's
because she can't afford to keep the child, or doesn't want to bring
it up, then adoption is a good alternative.  The most responsible thing,
when you've bitten off more than you can chew, is to make sure someone
does what needs to be done, even if it isn't you.  However, if the woman
needs an abortion for the sake of her health or life, adoption isn't
probably the solution she needs.  As for unwanted babies...well, what
is better, to be unwanted or dead?  Blamed if I can answer that with
100% certainty.

Joy Haftel               "How fit to employ
JKH107@PSUVM              All the heart and the soul and the senses,
                               for ever in joy!"--Browning
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:52:46 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:


>> BTW, abortion is obviously legal.

>But not for long >:-)

  I can't believe there are women around who are against abortion. Stop
being unrealistic. The world has far many people than it needs. I'm not saying
we should kill but with birth control and available abortion facilities we
should prevent population. Sitting in front of your computer screen does not
help you to see the world. Look around, talk to people. If you don't like
abortion, fine, don't abort then, but I'd like to have my right if I ever need
to.
					Pinar



>> -Jennifer

>Suzanne.
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:17:57 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
>Does the bible not claim that we are made in this god's image?  What
>exactly does that mean?  Does it mean that we all look like him?  I was
>taught that it meant we share the same spiritual outlook and the same
>reverence for life.

    Heh heh heh. A thought I had a while back (yes, I do occasionally have
them):

    If we are made in God's image, even if only the mental image [I assume
that a spiritual being has either no need of a body, or at least no need for
feet], the question arises - what percentage of God's time is spent thinking
about sex? And with who?

    Makes you go 'Hmmm...'

    ;-> for the smiley impaired.

                                                       kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.sex,alt.peeves,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Desperately Seeking a Domain Mapping function for Sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:34:03 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

] In  <1992Apr6.234039.19399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
] >
] > Sex may be a PART of your relationship, but a relationship based purely on sex
] > is doomed (IMHO, of course).
] 
] Perhaps, but it's fun while it lasts...  :-)


I do hate to break up this MOST amusing aside here about 'sex' and all...

but It MIGHT help if we could arbitrate what the domain of 'Sex' was,
and what events are truly IN, and what events are truly 'out' so as
to clarify whether or not one's relationship is based purely ON sex.

Is ForePlay a part of 'sex' - and is ForePlay strictly a 'physical'
event_structure? If ForePlay is a part of 'sex' does this invalidate
the notion that 'sex causes pregnancy' - or was that broad sweeping
generalization invalid to begin with as it merely referred to a
specific subset of Sex?????

If ForePlay is not directly in the Domain of Sex, does there exist
a function f() that will advise one, "here we ain't foreplaying, 
but have clearly driven the ball down the fairway towards to the
sand trap and most likely sliced it off into the rough." { to use
a 'sports' metaphour so as to avoid being pornographical. }

eg: should one shout "FORE!" when one has finished ForePlay so
that one's partner knows that one wishes to 'play on through?'

ciao
drieux

ps: Do we NEED a partner to have 'Sex'????
is 'Sex' a simple binary operator or will it resolve
polynomial progressions? 

next week "If a HetroSeuxal Female does to a HeteroSexual male
		what a HomoSexual male would do to a HomoSexual Male,
			does this define the act as hetro or homo Sexual?"






-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:09:49 GMT

In article <92105.121056JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>,
>ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com says:
>>
>>In article <1992Apr13.215858.14639@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu
>> (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>>> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
>>> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.
>>
>>Suzanne, have you heard of an event called the Immaculate Conception?
>
>The Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that
>Mary was conceived without sin.  Perhaps you are referring to the
>incarnation and virgin birth?
I suggest you go back and reread the article, Joy.

The argument is quite coherent and one I had not thought of(good call,
J.J.) It also shows quite clearly that he DOES know what the
I.C. is.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:46:59 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr15.045654.7846@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>No, the pro-choice stand is not valid even if the fetus is a human being. 
>Killing a human life, and refusing to support that life, are two totally
>different moral concepts. You cannot deny that an abortion kills the 
>fetus as a matter of convenience, the mother does not simply refuse
>to support the fetus. Oh sure, the outcome is the same, but killing a 
>dying person also gives the same results. 

What gives a fetus the right to demand sustenance from another's body?  A
fetus gets no rights than a born person and I don't have that right.
Neither do you, so why should the fetus?  To grant the fetus rights other
humans do not have is the same as saying the unborn are MORE important than
the already born.  Is this your view?

>If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be 
>transferred from one person to another without being killed, then 
>your entire argument would fall apart. Are you prepared for that 
>possibility?  

Yes.  If one of the members of the pro-life faction wanted to step forward
and pay for this operation, provide the fetus sutenance for the remainder
of the term, raise the resulting child as her own, pay for the child's
braces, college, etc?  I would have no problem with that.  Just so long as
the fetus is not granted the right to sustenance from an unwilling host.


>If you grant the fetus any rights at all during pregnancy, then by
>your own argument, that is tantamount to slavery.  

I already said that if one human extracts toil from another, unwilling
human, that is a form of slavery.  Thus, an unwanted forced pregnancy is a
way to enslave that particular woman.
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Curtis hits the nail on the head
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:04:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: kscdl1.1992Apr17.130412.1
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL


|In {Message-ID: <16851@plains.NoDak.edu>}  
|Curtis M. Compton, compton@plains.NoDak.edu,  sez:

{OTHER STUFF LEFT OUT}
|The point is not to obtain the property of the fetus.  The point is that two
|people (the futus and the woman) are competing for resources that belong to
|the mother (her body).  She can choose to share those resources, or she can
|chose to withold those resources, even if the fetus needs those resources
|for survival.
|
|In order to justify making abortion illegal, you must bestow rights upon the
|fetus that other humans do not have.  No human has the right to force
|another to be their slave.  No human has the right to use your resources
|without your consent.  To say that a fetus has these rights is tantamount to
|saying the unborn are a superior class of people to the born. 

Curtis has my vote for monarch of the universe.  You have hit the nail on
the head Curtis, and I am groveling at your feet, oh Elvis Kingship userper!

Your loyal follower, Susy
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I need this like I need a butt implant."     |
 | EG & G Florida           |                                                 |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |                                        Opus     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:49:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>[Now some other airhead pro-abortionists here are going to ignore the
>undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions which are
>performed in the U.S. are quite simply for the sake of convenience and
>disingenuously raise objections concering rape.]

If your going to address pro-abortionists, why don't you email your
statements to Gordon Storga? He's the only one who claims to be pro-abortion.
And he will probably take exception to you insulting him personally,
however, by calling him an airhead. :)

As for the overwhelming majority of abortions being for the sake of
convience, I say so what. Who are you to judge? As has been stated before
(by me) I have'nt met a woman who has had an abortion who didn't agonize
over it first, and through strength of will and mind, made a difficult
choice for herself. I never met a woman who just waltzed in, got rid
of that fetus, then went out and got pregnant again to go through that
sheer joy of abortion again. :)

Ron
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:47:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <18156@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
[Chaney's bluster deleted]
#
#Wow, this sounds a lot like the David J. Rasmussen that was boycotted.
#
#
#Eric, any comments? I just read your file, but I wasn't around at the
#time, whoever was can be the judge.
#
#It sure sounds like his tactics, however.

(I'm answering all sorts of questions addressed to other people today.)

I realize that it would be hard to tell a Rasmussen post
from a Chaney post if you weren't familiar with their
styles.

You saw how djr was from Eric's boycott statement.  However,
Chaney is also known for complaining to people's sysadmins when
he doesn't like the content of their articles.  He has only
a passing acquaintance with the truth, too.  The main difference
in the two is that djr's spelling is beyond bad.  

Susan
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:59:51 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr13.170223.10279@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

(stuff deleted)

>   In any case Adrienne, I know what you mean. Abstinence is tough,
>but it is a hell of a lot more responsible than abortion. Although,
>after being with your partner for 9 years, your love must be so strong
>that you could never terminate an unborn baby which represents 
>50% of your spouse/husband/lover/whatever. So, clearly you have nothing
>to worry about because you are a responsible woman.
     Now hold on a minute. An unborn baby represents 50% of one's lover?
I don't know about you, Steve, but the majority of us sexually active
folk have lovers who are multi-cellular, and we reproduce by sexual
means, not by
neatly dividing in two. Did you ever get past the section
of your biology text that dealt with amoebas?> 


>   heh
>steve
>-- 
>aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
>sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
>qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
>zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA

     "My head is in my butt"         Steve Franklin

                             MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:50:42 GMT

In article <14APR92.03201184@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
> When someone is pregnant we say that she is "With Child?"  Hmmm.

We also refer to a "bun in the oven."  So, is my friend
Melissa expecting cinnamon rolls?

Dean Kaflowitz

And if she doesn't get a yeast infection, will they still rise?
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:12:18 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr07.191535.4975@sdd.hp.com>
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.012907.4934@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr06.195148.3935@sdd.hp.com>
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>>Well, (a) no one here has successfully established that a fetus HAS
>>>a 'right' to 'live to birth', therefore (b) you can hardly argue competing
>>>rights until you have accomplished (a).

>>You can fit that into the argument....  You can balance two rights
>>even where the value you assign to one of the two rights is "zero".

>Well, I'm not too anxious to do that.

>In order to 'balance' a zero right (the fetus' right) we'd have to reduce
>women's rights to zero.

Whoa!  Translation error here, partially due to the loss of the
original context.  By 'balance' above, I meant measure one against the
other and see which is greater (like using a balance scale).  One side
can be zero, or even negative, and you can still see which is the
larger side....

>I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with reducing women's rights to zero, too....

--
"Can man be free if woman be a slave?"     - Shelley

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:39:30 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

The problem with equating child-support laws and anti-abortion legislation
is that there is a fundamental difference between a child that is alive and
physically seperated from its mother and a fetus that is neither.  A fetus
represents only a potential life.  A child is a life.  Parents should have a
responsibility to lives they create, but not to the potential of such life.
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion