HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:36:16 GMT

cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>---
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () recommends this course for a 
>impoverished couple faced with an unwanted pregnancy:
>|>>They should put it up for adoption and then be reimbursed the expenses
>|>>of pregnancy and childbirth if the situation you proposed actually occurred.  
>|mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|>You're a truely cold hearted bastard aren't you?

>Then vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>|By your definition, perhaps.  I'm sure you consider it cold-hearted to
>|be more concerned with the needs of helpless, desperate children than the
>|irresponsible, uncaring desires of their parents.

>This is a spectacular case of Blame the Victim.  

Since when am I blaming those kids (the victims) ?

>Dad gets laid off from his auto mfg job because the company 
>closed the factory in Michigan & reopened it in Mexico.  Mom 
>can't make ends meet in her job as a waitress.  Dad can't find
>work which uses his skills.  And how would
>"vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" solve this sad problem?  RIP THE KIDS
>AWAY FROM THOSE HORRIBLE UNCARING PARENTS!  Do ANYTHING other
>than use "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu"'s tax dollars to support
>those parasites!

Mom and Dad should have gotten an education or trained themselves to 
increase their marketability on the job market.  Mom and dad would
not have their kids RIPPED away unless they showed NO WILLINGNESS to
improve themselves to increase their job skills.  Mom could learn to,
God forbid, TYPE! (or Dad for that matter).  A run of the mill 
secretary rakes in 20k a year, plus benefits.  

Unemployment compensation is good for 12 months.  If you can't find
SOME kind of work in 12 MONTHS, you are incompetent.  It's not that
dad COULDN'T find work, but that Dad insisted on ONLY looking at jobs
he WANTED.  A responsible adult would take any work he could find if he
was in this situation.  If my kid needed food, I'd take absolutely
any job I could find to feed him.  

>And if "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" gets its way, and abortion is
>made illegal, there'll be lots of people in pickles like that
>for "vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu" to go all frothily rabid over.

Stop it!  Your towering intellect is blotting out the sun!

Oh, by the way, you may not have noticed but this is talk.abortion not
talk.imbecile.

>---
>cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>"Just saying no prevents teenage pregnancy the way 'Have a nice day' 
>cures chronic depression."  -- Faye Wattleton


Edward Simmonds


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: "Absolute Ethics" (was Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:44:16 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:


>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards

Which "absolute ethical standards" are you referring to?  If you refer
to your own ethics, are you certain that they are as absolute as you
claim?  When I was young, I thought homosexuals were that way because
of a single-minded desire to be as evil and perverted as possible.  I
no longer believe this.  Are you saying that you have never changed 
your mind about whether something is ethical or not?  If you have, are
you saying that your ethics are now correct and have ceased to evolve?

As for the existence of some absolute ethical standard for everyone
that's floating around out in the universe somewhere I say hey, why
not?  I've never seen an extraterrestrial, but I don't discount the
possibility that they exist.  I've just never seen any evidence that
any human is privy to that information, if it exists.  I really don't
believe you could get any two people on the planet to agree on a 
comprehensive ethical code.  Some people believe it would be ethical
to kill if necessary to protect 50% of the population of the planet 
from being wiped out.  Some believe it would be ethical to kill to
avoid physical or emotional pain, i.e., self-defense against rape.
Others believe that it is never ethical to take
a life.  The Jains sweep the path before their feet to avoid killing
any living thing, even bugs.

But if you want to take a crack at delineating a set of absolute
ethical standards, hey, I'm more than willing to listen.  However, I
asked this question just last week in regard to "moral absolutes".
I got exactly one (1) "moral absolute" from this guy, which was 
"Murder is wrong."  I pointed out the tautological nature of the
statement, as "murder" is "wrong" by definition, and then asked if he
actually meant "Killing is wrong", and presented several situations
for his comment.

Hmmmmm, no answer.

>get involved in debates over ethical standards? 

I wasn't aware that there was debate involved in your statement.  You
presented it as a statement of fact, I merely pointed out that your
"fact" was relative.

Now, _this_ is a debate over ethics.

>Isn't it either pointless or self-contradictory?

If you feel that debate between persons of differing ideas is either
pointless or contradictory, may I expect that I won't see a reply to
this?  After all, _I_ feel that the _only_ interesting debate occurs
between people of differing opinions.

But maybe that's just me.

>Mark Pundurs

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:58:10 CST

In article <C0Jxtu.L5L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>
>This is where I differ.  If there is no difference between the fetus/baby
>I need to consider the rights of the fetus/baby balanced against the rights
>of the mother.  It's not a pleasent choice but I think
>society has an obligation to consider this when they determine
>abortion policy. IMO the fetus/babies life should be the overiding concern
>even though this may cause emotional or psychological harm to the mother.
>(I guess that sounds cruel but whenever conflicting rights are involved somebody
>is hurt.)

What about physical harm, and risks to the mother's
life or health?  What about placing pregnant women
in a category of individuals who have fewer rights
to their bodies than all other born persons?  Do you
think that women could ever acheive equal status with
men in a society where their rights were subject to
suspension on the basis of your, or society's, concerns
about the fetus?

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:30:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <29563@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>>WHere is the implicit consent to the possibility of lost bodily autonomy?
>>Another free clue: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy

>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

More word play. A logical extension of this "thinking" would be the
following:

Crossing the street = possibility of Mark Pundurs running me down
Consent to crossing the street = consent to Mark Pundurs running me down

Do you see the problem with your simplistic ideas?

I can truthfully say that were I to cross a street, with my consent
or not, and you happened to run me down, I would sue you till the cows
came home. (A small note, you'd lose, too, on any residential street,
assuming, of course, I were still alive)

>>The fetus has no right to life. As a matter of fact, no one does.

>So I can ethically kill you for disagreeing with me?

The converse of this is I could kill you, for any reason I like, regardless
of any circumstances. (Maybe I just don't like you, or think you're
half-baked?:)

>Fine. Now, where's the irony?

Since you insist on asking, I guess I'll have to explain it to you.
These are the type of bumper-stickers found on the religious right's
cars. In addition to this, remember that they think god is great; a
beautiful concept, and the thing to aspire to (heaven is, anyway). Now
also remember that hell is suppossed to be a rather unpleasant place,
torture and all that, you know. On top of all that, recall that the
bumper-sticker proclaims that the road to hell is bumper-to-bumper,
while the one to heaven is implied to be empty, indicating that all
the people would rather go to hell, and wait in traffic for it, than
kowtow to god. This implies that there must be something rather unpleasant
about god, and his heaven. If the irony still escapes you, I'll give
up and let someone of greater oratorial skills, and much more patience,
explain it further. Perhaps drieux is made of such stuff, and could
also make it quite a bit more humerous to read.

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: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:09:37 GMT

In <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.143250.8078@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
>writes:
>>In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>Townsend) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan4.205628.11758@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>|> In article <1ia3g9INN4nb@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John
>Townsend) writes:
>>>|> >
>>>Ergo, the right to live is contingent upon where one lives and receives one's
>>>nourishment.  Hitler couldn't have said it better.
>>>
>>Ergo, a woman's body is just a place.
>>And you'll probably think I'm a 'bitter person' if I
>>point out the inherent misogyny in that POV.  But you
>>_do_ get extra points for comparing a pro-choicer with
>>H_____.  For more extra credit, you should reinforce
>>your credentials by posting your SAT scores.
>>
>>
>>muriel


>Muriel - 

>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>mother's value?  At best, you can only conclude that the mother's inherent

Fine words, and agreed that the z/e/f would have some value to someone. The
one simple problem that seems to escape most people is that, in order to
have any value at all the z/e/f must occupy some woman's uterus and get
all of its nutients from her body and use her body as its sewage system.
Now, you could remove the z/e/f, and then debate the intrinsic value of
it and the woman to see who's is greater. Just make it a very quick
debate.

>value outweighs that of the fetus - one factor may be that the unborn is inside
>her.  For me, in some cases, say where the mother's life is threatened, this
>may be sufficient.  To say 'he call my uterus a place, that woman hater!' is
>hyperbole.

>- Paul

REB

	When men can carry to term, we'll let them make the rules - Me.



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55420 alt.magick:6770 alt.pagan:15293 alt.drugs:20892
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: OK, it time to put your money where your mouth is (was: Abortifacients)
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:49:12 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

I would appreciate it if any persons interested helping out in regards
to this issue email me directly. 

Thanks,

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:24:36 GMT

aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:

>People (men and women) who do not want to have
>children should abstain from sexual relations
>(if they desire to curtail their children
>for a time) or undergo sterilization (if they
>decide they are finished forever).

Imagine how heartwarming I find it that you have unilaterally decided
that I should not be allowed to consummate my marriage, or that I should
have to undergo major surgery, because I would find pregnancy to be a
terrible burden at this time.

Imagine how warmly my spouse would react when you mention that my spouse
is not permitted to have sex, either.

>A IDLER

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:13:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.002801.8664@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article <29411@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):
>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>> 
>>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
>> 
>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....
>
>
>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Are you *really* this stupid?
I've dealt with no less then 8 people in the last 2 days who, at one
point or another, ceased to breath. None of them are dead. Gravely
ill, perhaps, but not a one is dead.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 03:16:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.232819.14083@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>"Is a sleeper sentient?"
>>Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>
>Useless answer. A pro-lifer could just as easily say
>
>"Is a fetus sentient?"
>Certainly. Just give birth to them if you doubt it...
>
Could say? Looks to me like one just did...
To which I could reply
*You* give birth to it and ask it yourself.
Of course, this overlooks the simple fact that by the time you give
birth to it, it is no longer a fetus.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Garvin's attempts to tell only half the story
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:34:15 GMT

In article <C0B1Lz.MMt@world.std.com> rissa@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <nyikos.725159376@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> Does Susan Garvin ever return these big favors Kaflowitz does for her
>>> and the rest of the talk.abortion inner circle of women?
>
>Excuse me, but Kebbin Darcy owns the sycophant.flame franchise
>in these newsgroups -- you'll have to check with him before you 
>trot out this sexist nonsense.  

Sexist? What do you suppose is "sexist" about it? Or did "sexist" just sound
like a cool word to throw into your invective at that point?

>After all, Kebbin wouldn't want 
>you to mistakenly surpass his own talent for spotting a sycophant 
>behind every tree to say nothing of his ability to create inner
>circles or clubs where none exist.

Oh, right. I'm FORCING folks to append "TSAKC" .sigs to their articles, or
to put it in their Organization: lines. Uh huh. And I FORCED Keegan to confess 
that he flatters you "overtly". Right. Yeah, looks like I'm really making up 
that sycophancy/club stuff... 

NOT!

								- Kevin 

---

Darcy, to O Tuama> Just a few minutes ago I detailed how, as one example, 
Darcy, to O Tuama> Jim Keeeeegan subtly flatters you. 
					<1991Mar9.011454.11993@cfctech.cfc.com>

Keegan> there's no subtlity involved kebbin; it's overt. 
					<17469@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:40:42 GMT

In article <aidler.726435845@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.726345716@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>However, the least the both of you can do is agree to
>>>accept responsibility for your progeny.
>>>
>>I'm certain they will. You *do* know that abortion is aresponsible
>>method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy don't you?
>
>Abortion *may* be a responsible medical treatment for
>a pregnancy.
>However, any decision needs to recognize that there
>are now two lives to consider and that the mother and 
>father agree to some parental responsibility when they
>consent to sexual relations.
>
Unless you are going to claim that sperm and ovum are not alive, there
has never been a point in the process in which more then one life was
at issue.
However, given that only one of those lifes is capable of having an
opinion on the subject (the z/e/f can't. No brain, ya know?) and that
it is her body that is sustaining the z/e/f, the final choice in
abortion lies with the mother. You have yet to show any reason why
this should be changed.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:56:21 GMT

In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>
>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>right to life.
>
Why?
How?
Says who?
And why should I take that person's reasoning as my own?
Just asking some fundamental questions here, as I don't agree that a woman
has "obligated herself" to anything except having a good time in bed by
having sex!  Please tell me in what rule book this "obligation" is written.
And who wrote it and why.  It just plain doesn't make sense to me.

>
>Mark Pundurs

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:14:26 GMT

In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <C04xGM.Cpz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>>>
>>>>>Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>>>>>dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>>>>>
>>>>If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>>>>I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>>>>certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>>>>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>>>>difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>>>>*another persons* body.
>>>
>>>Hacking a baby into pieces I think qualifies as attacking another person's
>>>body.
>>>
>>I agree 100%! But what does this have to do with abortion? The issue
>>was Jeff D. hacking and eating his *own* body, not some baby.
>>Oh, let me guess... You're one of those who claims without any
>>evidence to support it, that a z/e/f is actually a person?
>>How sad...
>
>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>
When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
*not* a person. As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?

>>>Edward Simmonds- Sick of ignorance
>
>>Good, I hope you're getting cured of it then.
>
>Yep.  Every time I don't know if something you pro-aborters claim is true, 
>I look it up to cure my ignorance, and to prove yours.
>
I see that in addition to not being able to define the limits of your
own body, you don't under stand the difference between pro-choice and
pro-abortion. Gordon is pro-abort, I'm pro-choice.
But since you claim you're looking things up and curing your
ignorance, then post some of this mythical evidence that shows that a
fetus is a person.

>>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>
>Edward Simmonds
>
>P. S. How come nobody hazes Mr. Cochran for his userid Merlin?
>
Perhaps because the userid Merlin does not carry any vindictive
overtones. Quite unlike, say, vengance.
--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.