HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


ag>In article <weo87J200WB=4VJvdD@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
F>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 3-Oct-92 Re: That Responsibility Thi.. by "Faustus"@psilink.com 

F> Well.. Teddy.. Its sure is nice you aren't a woman.. You never will 
F> experience doubts, fears or trepidations of not being able to afford 
F> an unwanted child..

ag>Question. Why is that your assumption? That if his girl got pregnant or
ag>even if his wife got pregnant unexpectedly, that he wouldn't go through
ag>doubts? Why assume that he isn't honorable. Maybe he believes that men
ag>should marry the women they get pregnant. Did you ask him?

So we should ask the man, but force the woman?  Seems to kind of be
lacking in equal rights and responsibility here.
 
ag>Just because he's a man doesn't mean that he won't go through some
ag>turmoil if an unwanted pregnancy becomes part of his life.

He may go through some turmoil, then again he may not.  The woman
will always go through some turmoil with an unwanted pregnancy.  
Notice the difference?

ag>ag
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: PRO "LIFE" IS B......T!
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:10:16 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>Did somebody make those starving in Africa starve intentionally?  Is someone
>>>diceing and slicing those people in Africa right now?  
>>
>>So because they were unfortunate enough to be in a situation that is 
>>killing them, you feel no obligation to save them.
>>
>>What's your excuse for getting involved with pregnant women, then?
>
>Interesting way you want to lead me into:
>
>   If you can't save the world and all its problems right now, today, soon,
>     then what gives you a right to try to help people in your society?

Two options:
1) Help people who are dying, can and do ask for help, and can be saved
   with little objection from anyone and at relatively little cost and
   without impacting anyone's rights.
or ...
2) Try to help those who cannot even understand your help, with 
   considerable objection from others, and considerable expense, while
   infringing on the rights of women.

You want to go for option 2?  Why?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:26:34 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>to life.

Except for maybe injury, battery, and assault on the mother? These are
allowable reasons for killing in self-defense, you know.

And I did note your "we will force them [employers]" wrt to making them
shape up their views towards women employees.  Sounds like you really
support Clinton more than Bush, except for the abortion issue. How does
it feel to be a one-issue, all my other principles be damned voter?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:15:38 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>be dead?)

Since when? Do you see it granted or stated anywhere? I see lots of
other rights granted, but not the one to life. We are granted other
rights (and yes, that is granted, because they can be taken away, and
have been throughout history) that we can claim while we are alive.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Question for Eric Gorr
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:35:02 GMT

From article <Bv7u1z.LEp.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
> 
> The protesters at the local women's clinics spend a good
> part of their time praying at the top of their voices for
> various things - an end to all abortions, conversion for
> all who are not supporting them, etc.  Do you think that
> there is Biblical support for this activity?


Of course.   It's called "praying for one's enemies".


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Morons abound! (Yeah, Patrick and Steve)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:54:40 GMT

In <BuxyCx.GJt@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>In article <1992Sep21.154925.12348@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (CORRECTUS to you, PatricKKK)  writes:
>>In article <1992Sep18.090650.2075@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> dylan@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Dylan) writes:

>>PatricKKK Humphrey came to this newsgroup and has harped at me. 
>>I continue to show him up where he is DEAD wrong. 

>I guess that explains the deafening show of support for you, then...:-)
>(never mind that you're a newcomer to a.f.r-l, anyway...)

>>PatricKKK Humphrey is the one you need to talk to. 
>>I didn't come here looking for war, but unlike you, I am fully
>>equipped to fight when the PatricKKK Humphrey's of this world decide
>>that verbal terrorism is the order of the day.  

>Ah, yes.  You're *so* peaceful.  Like Dzhugashvili was with the Baltic
>states in 1939, maybe.

You keep getting the dates wrong.  He took them over in 1940 and again
in 1944 when he pushed the Nazis back out.

I'll admit Chaney is not exactly peaceful, but I HAVE tried *very* hard
to be diplomatic with you, and you pulled that same Dzugashvili
comparison on me. 

Son, you wouldn't know a diplomatic approach if they hit you over
the head with it.

[I know that doesn't make sense, but does it at least make Zen?]

>>Go and deal with the instigator, and that is PatricKKK. 

>Typical Chaney to the last -- *never* take responsibility for your own
>actions.  You can't blame it on me, Steve -- it's not MY fault you're a
>hateful, twisted, bigoted little child.  You might want to talk to your
>parents about that, assuming you can without them spending your
>inheritance...:-)

Chaney is simply being biblical.  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,
and all that.

>The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
>                            what we have now...

Another example of Zen?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Face it: the pro-lifers have won the flamewar.
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:11:40 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
# For you to get kicked in the ass, tripped on your own clumsy feet, and
# as far as PatricKKK is concerned, being exposed just as you're trying to
# take off your Klansman hood in that closet. (But of course we could assume
# you're not a Klansman, but that would mean you are racially sensitive,
# which would mean you would not refer to African Americans as "fat black
# ass.")

Could Mr. Humphrey have reasonably known that you were African
American?  If that's true, then I suppose his demand that you ``march
your fat black down'' to Houston could be taken as more than an
innocent faux pas.

Further, Mr. Chaney, you logic is fallacious.  p->q does not imply
~p->~q.

Don't quit your day job.


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

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:12:23 GMT

In <1992Sep24.151734.14352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:

>As the subject line says, I had an abortion on Tuesday.  I guess I was about
>8weeks along, I don't know.  I went to the clinic two weeks ago to have it
>done, but the pregnancy was so early that my urine test was negative.  I had
>failed two home tests, so that's how I knew.

I have saved this post.  There are a great many lessons in it for us, 
pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, and they are not quickly digested or
assimilated.  I will be following up to it for a long time to come, I
think, and may even re-post the whole thing at a future date if the 
discussion seems to call for it, although I will not use Karen's name
in these re-posts unless she assents to it.  

A preliminary comment: from the description below it would seem that
anesthesia was not given.  I wonder whether this was a Planned Parenthood
clinic, and how much they charged for a miserable little urine test.  
At the rates Planned Parenthood charges for these, one would think it
could give a blood test, reliable as early as two weeks after fertilization.

>I am not pleased with myself.  I am not posting this to brag.  For one
>thing, the abortion itself was the most physical pain I have ever felt in 
>my life (I'm sure there are some of you who are satisfied by that). 

I sure am not, it is one of the things I am angry at abortion mills for,
not offering anesthesia as a matter of course.  As one can gather from
my SUFFERING OF SOME... post and follow-ups, I care very much about
women going through abortion, and this post only reinforces that 
attitude.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink)
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Organization: Turkey Hall
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:06:59 GMT

>You're missing the point COMPLETELY.  Stealing software and not
>getting caught has _nothing_ to do with leaving an infant home alone
>all day and not getting caught.  And I'm not advocating abolishing any
>laws; I'm just saying that if a woman does't want to have a baby
>because she needs to be able to work all day to earn money, then
>forcing her to give birth might leave her in a situation where she has
>no choice by to leave her infant home alone all day, which is an
>abyssmal way to grow up.  This is one of the reasons why I support the
>current Roe v. Wade ruling.
>
>...
>
>Again you demonstrate an ignorance of the issues involve.  I know a
>fetus exists; I know it's human life.  But if a woman wants an
>abortion, and if by forcing her to give birth you would cause her
>child to be raised in such poor conditions, then your act of forcing
>her to do this against her will is morally irresponsible.

Yeah?  Really?  Well, I just discovered the solution to the homeless problem!!

KILL THEM!  KILL THEM ALL!  Leaving them to be raised in such poor conditions
is morally irresponsible!  Encourage suicide as a way for them to escape their
fate!

"Well, I'm sorry, kid, but if you live long enough to see the outside world,
you're going to have to live at home alone, so hold still while the nice man
pokes a needle through your brain."
-- 
*****  The Rink  *****   Programming is an art form that fights back.
***                ***
* ss1@kepler.unh.edu *   "But that no man is justified by the law in the
***                ***    sight of God, it is evident:  for, The just shall
*****  Cheers!!  *****    live by faith."  --  Galatians 3:11
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:02:34 GMT

In article <dq+p6gh.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) wrote (in article <1992Sep29.082752.1337@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>):
>>The pro-life movement (I can't speak for it though) and I are concerned
>>about HUMAN life BORN and UNBORN.  Human life begins at conception.  A 
>>discussion on "PERSON" (a fight over semantics) may not even be that
>>relevant.  It's a human life.  Doesn't that count for anything to people?
>

>
>If you've thought a great deal about the situation and weighed the
>alternatives and you've decided on a pro-life stance, then so be it; I
>look forward to hearing your reasoning for choosing your position.
>But asserting that "human life" is enough reason to put a woman
>through nine months of pregnancy and possibly a lifetime she never
>wanted tends to be looked on as an irresponsible and ill-thought-out
>decision.
>

Sorry, but I am afraid that I won't be able to provide you with a long
response.  I want to cut down a bit on talk.abortion.

To keep it short:
Things that are to be wieghed:
1) "enslaving a woman"
2) killing a human life

Now both are probably "evils."  Having a mother go through the birthing
process is no easy task.  It can often be painful and a big change from
being so unencumbered.  But when we look at the alternative, killing/
destroying a human life in order to "solve" the problem of "enslaving a
woman," we will tend to prioritize with the protection of human life
(both mother and child) as being more important than "enslaving the woman."


BTW, there is another thread which has a very similar response.  I may 
forget one and just stick with the other instead.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:41:28 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.231304.26123@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.193904.18811@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>"Most Americans?"  I may be an optimist, but I think the average level
>>of intelligence in the country is higher than that.

>Ah-hah. So the majority of Americans believe that we should NOT stop
>people from discriminating against others and impinging on their rights
>to life? 

>Then you've thrown out everything that Martin Luther King, Jr., stood
>for. 

How does what the majority of Americans believe lead to Ray Fischer's 
throwing out everything MLK stood for?

>Are you a racist? 

I doubt that Ray is a racist, but you're a better PR man for the KKK
than anyone I've ever met.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we feed the poor?
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:36:48 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.145035.8003@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> Suzanne lives in the sunbelt, where shelter and fuel are
> largely irrelevant, and clothing is optional.
> I think they have fig leaves, anyway.

Just some extra food for thought:  There isn't a great deal of
homeless people wandering the streets in Manitoba.  The main
reason is because once winter comes along, they die.  You
need cash to live up here, and yes you do need central heating
if you wanna live a normal life.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Attention!
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 15:35:59 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  <1992Oct3.064647.5038@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.115540.3572@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (
> >> >{...} At an early age I knew that black
> >> >people could spot racism pretty quickly, and that one need not
> >> >say "nigger" for a black person to realize he was being called
> >> >one.  But then, I also learned at an early age that one need
> >> >not say "kike" for me to know when I am being called one.  The
> >> >smell of anti-Semitism and racial hatred are easily detectable
> >> >to the experienced.  [...]
> >>
> >> So, just kiss reason and benefit of the doubt and due process and civility
> >> aside, and just go by your "nose", huh, Dean?
> >
> >Usual blather from you, Kebbie.  When you are Jewish or black,
> >you come tell me about reason and benefit of the doubt.
>
> Am I supposed to apologize for being a White Anglo-Saxon Male, is that it,
> Dean?  [...]

Where did he suggest that?  Nobody should be expected to apologize for
what they have no control over.  I believe that the point was that,
unless you've lived your life as a victim of racism, you're unlikely
to be as sensitized to it as someone who has.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:20:01 GMT

In article <SCOTTS.92Oct2120812@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>She is a freshman.  What do you expect?
Actually, andrew seems to think she's a sophomore:
name:  Elizabeth Cornelia Green
affiliation:  Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering

login name:  eg1o

-Ekr
                            


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:23:00 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <c+_p76#.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >In article <_vfzvqn@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> >> One of the strongest points for choosing birth is that WE ALL KNOW when
> >> birth happens.  It's there, it's visible, and there's generally a good
> >> deal of noise involved.
> >
> >Much to arbitrary.  Especially when it can happen at any time, either 
> >naturally or unnaturally.  Do you see a problem with it being
> >arbitrary.  If not, why?
> 
> Not.  There is _no_ point which is not, in some measure, arbitrary.
> Human life started billions of years ago.  Birth, conception, 
> myelination, sex, puberty, are all steps along the way.  Each is 
> necessary, none is sufficient. 

I can point directly to when something starts the process which will
eventuall lead it to develop into an adult (unless something happens along
the way).  At conception.  Not arbitrary.

> Given that arbitrariness is not a very useful distinction, we must select
> some other measure.  I like my distinctions to be reasonably unambiguous.
> Birth is certainly that.  There is no misunderstanding the when and what 
> of birth.  I also find birth to be a reasonable compromise of possibly
> conflicting rights and responsibilities.

But given that birth can happen at almost any point for a human, it is
to arbitrary.  If this notion of arbitrariness bothers you, please
respond via E-mail and I will try to explain why I feel it should.

> >> When were you conceived?  Not, "on a camping trip" or "after a few
> >> bottles of wine on Mom and Dad's anniversary", but the day, hour,
> >> and minute.  You don't know, and you can't find out.  
> >
> >Not now, but what happens when this does become possible?
> 
> Please present a plausible scenario that shows how one might determine
> the exact moment of conception.  For bonus points, create a scenario
> that is feasable.

We invent some device that is capable of detecting this moment.  Very
possible.

> >> Not to mention the blatantly obvious fact that once you are born, you
> >> are no longer bodily dependent on another human being. 
> >
> >Yes, you are.  The child needs to be fed by someone hand.  Need to feel
> >the loving touch of another human.  Need to be spoken to....I could go on,
> >but you get the point.
> 
> So then, you are a child?  You depend on other people for your food,
> for your water, for your clothes, etc.  Does that mean we should be
> treating you the same way we treat, say, a 2 week embryo?

I am also a person.  IMHO, so is a 2 week embryo.  As a result we should
both
be treated in the same way.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:54:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.045702.14711@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
>
>I stand up for life too.  When I heard that a woman was 
>arrested in Greensboro NC for robbing several banks so she 
>could buy food and clothing for her children, I stood up 
>for legalizing bank robbery.  That woman should not have
>had to face the risk of being shot and killed during the 
>bank heist.  While bank robbery is immoral, I can't force 
>my morals onto bank robbers by making bank robbery illegal.

After all, don't we have a fundamental right to control our own bodies
against the ravages of hunger which would kill a person far faster
than any pregnancy? I mean, with that awful monster Ronald Reagan and
Reaganomics, putting all those hard working Americans out of work, we
have no alternative but to grant them this fundamental right. Banks
are not persons, you know. 

Why, we could make it so that the hungry could make withdrawals on
request. No informed consent or parental consent or any of that. 

And then after that, we could improve towards TOTAL SOCIALISM! Yeah,
that's the key! 

>That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
>just like abortion. 

Aw, Doug! You forgot the :) :) :) for the humor-impaired.


=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.