HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:42:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct8.021141.23687@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan
King) writes:
>
>P>In article <1asb31INNcmg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>  psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:

>P>     Its unfortunate that to make sense of the world, you have to first
DEFINE
>P>it under you own limited terms, and then throw a tantrum when reality
doesn't
>P>quite fit.
>
>So why don't you explain to us how a group that claims to be pro-women 
>has an agenda that will use force of law to prevent women from exercising 
>a right they currently have.  This is a right that currently 1.5 Million
>U.S. Women choose to exercise every year.  While some of their points
>are indeed valid about abortion, I fail to understand why they insist
>on using the force of government to attempt to eliminate that option.
>It at least seems to me that there are many other ways to reduce 
>abortion that would not require harming so many women.  How is forcing
>1.5 million women every year to do continue pregnancy's against
>their will, pro-women?  I have asked people who claim to represent
>FFLA, and I have yet to see and answer.
>
>P>Paul
>

>Dan King


Dan-
  I can't understand why you haven't gotten an "answer" from FFLA people you
have asked.  One's position on every other women's issue, eg.pornography and
violence against women,  sexual harassment, the 'glass ceiling' in employment, 
etc. are left intact regardless of one's belief on the rights of the unborn.  
Members of FFLA sincerely believe that the unborn fetus shares equal rights
with the rest of society and should be accorded the same protection using the
same "force of government" to use your phrase.  They take on all other feminist
positions as well as an anti-capital punishment stance which I find wholly
consistant.

FFLA members were jeered at and physically accosted during a recent Take Back
The Night rally here in Washington, DC.  This just doesn't make sense to me. 
Why do people have to resort to such vilification of others in an attempt to
bolster their own position?  While I have sensed frustration coming from FFLA
members I have never seen the type of vitriolic posturing that can appear from
the "establishment" feminist organizations. 

Paul





>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:59:25 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>|> >Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
>|> >Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
>|> 
>|> Sanctimonious hypocrite.  Why don't you give all of your money to save
>|> the lives of people who are starving?  After all, getting an
>|> education, reading t.a., watching TV, and the like are also just
>|> "social" reasons.  Do _your_ social reasons take precedence over human
>|> life?
>
>This is a particularly ignorant posting from Ray...he must have smoking
>some bad dope or something...

Never touched the stuff.  Stopped molesting children yet?

>	Ray, neither Martin nor I nor anybody else proposes that we all are
>responsible for the health and safety of all other human beings on earth.  But if

There where do you get the notion that you are repsonsible for
preventing abortions?  Sounds to me like you're proposing that you are
responsible.

>I particularly bring a human being into this world, THEN I am responsible for the
>life and safety of that person.  You've been involved in this argument for a long
>time; you should know better than to say something like what you said above.

Well then, you'll doubtless agree that if you weren't responsible for
bringing a particular life into the world, then you aren't responsible
for its life and safety.  I hadn't realized you also were pro-choice.

>|> >The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
>|> >out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
>|> >whatever.  
>|> 
>|> Unmitigated bullshit.  To suggest that there are, or ever have been,
>|> embryonic pianists is too ridiculous a claim for even this forum.
>
>	Martin is right.  You have missed his point entirely, whether
>intentionally or out of ignorance I cannot tell.  Beethoven at 30 was the exact
>same individual human being (biologically speaking) as Beethoven at a month after
>conception.  The earlier Beethoven had the same potential to be a great musician
>as the latter Beethoven.  If you deny this you're simply denying known facts.

Nonsense.  There is pratically nothing a zygote has in common with a
40 year old adult.  One of the most obvious differences is that there
is a roughly billionfold difference in mass.  There is also a very
significant 40 years worth of environmental influence and experience
involved.

To infer that the proto-Beethoven zygote had the makings of the 9th
symphony in it is flat out wrong.  Environmental influences count for
a lot.  Beethoven's music may well have (and quite likely did) come 
from his upbringing and his environment with only a small part of it 
facilitated by his genes.

And a last observation:  identical twins have different fingerprints.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: kwelch@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts raising the issue of religion AGAIN (was Re: Authority
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:34:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct8.061020.25114@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>The fact is, most pro-lifers see anti-abortion in their bibles.  It's not
>there, but they see it there anyway.

Most pro-lifers who use the Bible as their witness to the abortion issue
do so because in the Bible, God/Jesus/Whoever talks to individuals
about the "fruits of their mothers' wombs" and how God knew them
before they were born, etc.  The Bible is taken to be the authority and
what is stated in that is taken to apply to all.

However, you are right in saying that there is no SPECIFIC reference
saying aboriton is wrong.


>Gordon

kcw



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch		      | Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | vniversitas pennsylvaniensis
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: LifeStyle Choices and Personal Responsibility
Organization: i represent myself
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:31:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.185636.9226@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> there seems to be some confussion about what Lifestyle
> choices are to be attributed as requiring personal
> responsibility. I would Like to present another note
> from the news, and consider how the persons involved
> made a lifestyle choice, and have suffered the consequences
> of that lifestyle choice, and HOW it is really the fault
> of the wimp liberals.....
> 
> Recently an El Al cargo plane fell out of the sky on top
> of apartment buildings in the nederland. This lead to an
> estimated death of some 200+ persons.
> 
> Given the form of the argument:
> 
> Consent to X implies Consent to Y:
> 
> consent to 'live above ground with out clear AntiAircraft Defenses'
> implies consent to 'having aircraft fall on you.'
> 
> 
> The prudent person would have, of course, knowing that it
> is possible that aircraft might fall from the sky, decided
> to either:
> 
> 1. build a safe dwelling with 3 metres of earth on top of
> about a two metres of reinforced concrete, [1]
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. Had an automated air defense battery active in the backyard.
> 
> As Long as the Wimp Liberals will not allows us to set up
> Hawk, Nike, or Patriot batteries in our backyards, and people
> continue to live above ground, they just need to learn to
> be responsible for these things....
> 
> 
> ciao
> drieux

considering the frequency of aircraft smashing into buildings vs
the frequency of endesired pregnancy ...

yes, i make a lifestyle choice to live near an airbase. i control 
that, i take the risk. i also control exactly where my dick is at 
all times.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 16:26:23 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Using the Bible with non-Christians?

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 8-Oct-92 Using the Bible with
non-Ch.. by Warren Lavallee@pws.ma30 
> They don't believe in Jesus Christ.  They don't believe the Bible.  They will
> argue using the Bible because we believe it and they think it gives
them power
>  
> over us. However without being a Christian, they can NOT understand
the Bible.
>  
> The Bible is a spiritual book that you can only understand fully when you
> have the Holy Spirit.

I'm a christian and I wouldn't state the arguement so strongly. 
Yes the Holy Spirit helps us understand the words set down. But
I don't believe that anyone can understand God's Word fully. It
would be arrogant to believe otherwise of myself. I don't study
nearly enough for what I'd like and often let other things take
precidence. Even ministers and biblical scholars would not call
themselves 'fully' understanding.

I will agree that it is often difficult to argue a religious
point of view with those who are atheist or agnostic or have
not become learned in thier choice of faith. And that means
it's difficult to argue with me for I'll admit that I don't
always agree with the Church, nor do I always understand why
certain things are done either in the Church or in the rest
of Christianity.

As far as abortion is concerned, I think the point can be
argued without ladling a great deal of religion onto the
meat of the subject.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Don't push your morals on me.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:31:06 GMT

In <1992Oct2.234914.18064@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM 
   (Nadja Adolf) writes: >
In article <1992Oct1.131015.2412@brandonu.ca> 
   mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes: writes: >>

>> What's surprising about a fiance having an effect on the woman's
>> decision?  The financial situation at stake was *the couple's* not
>> just the man's.
>
> Let's it put it another way. In a pro-choice couple, both participate
> in decision making. In an anti-choice couple (either anti-abortion or
> pro-abortion) the male of the couple (yes, usually the male) demands
> that the woman cater to his desires. Pro-choice couples recognize that 
> the decision will be  the woman's in the end since she is the one
> who takes all the risks in this situation; but there is a lot of room
> for negotiation to make a less immediately acceptable option more likely.

What is this?  Politically Correct Sociology?  These may be your 
provincial observations, Nadja, but please don't present them as 
a set of sociological facts, unless you have reliable sources to 
substantiate them.  (BTW, you didn't deal with the decision-making
dynamics of "mixed couples" - or are they rare enough so as not to
warrant stereot^H^H^H^H^H analysis).

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41191 talk.politics.misc:50124 alt.sex:32241 alt.rush-limbaugh:6793 alt.politics.elections:15516 alt.politics.clinton:8944 alt.politics.bush:8068
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
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
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:31:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
>is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
>middle of the night.  In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
>who is sexually assaulting you.

	Those crimes are not invasion of privacy crimes - and the laws
against them, which justify the killing you mention, are NOT based on the
4th amendment.

	Good try though.
		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:26:34 GMT

mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.024829.24681@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>> 
>>Sure seems like your in pain little guy.
>> 
>How can you not be in pain, knowing that uncounted MILLIONS of children
>were murdered since RvW

Children murdered?  No punishment?  Call 60 Minutes!  It's a scandal!  A
cover-up!

Millions of fetuses were aborted.  That is tragic.  But there were not
millions of children murdered.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:20:24 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> According to these pro-aborts, pregnant women do not need to offer 
> any justification for aborting -- these women might as well be
> non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply house a fetus.

What magical abilities do you have, DearOldDoug, that enabled you to conjure
the silly assertions above out of thin air?  Have you actually read or heard
'these pro-aborts' (unnamed at present) say these things?

To put it another way, shall we attribute these assertions to A. Strawman?

> They ignore the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion, and instead focus
> all attention on the fact that a fetus resides within the woman's body.

Seems like a very bad case of projection to me.  What do you think, Bill?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
BULLWINKLE: "You just leave that to my pal.  He's the brains of the outfit."
GENERAL:    "What does that make YOU?"
BULLWINKLE: "What else?  An executive..." -- Jay Ward
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sex education in schools (extra long)
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:40:54 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<AepQRbe00UzxQ1zJ5L@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Here are a number of article references calling for education in the
>schools and others showing the effects of school education is positive
>in reducing pregancies/abortions.
....

I'm sure Suzanne shares my feelings when, after reading this authors name,
I say... AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

>Author       Pauker, Susan; Gordon, Suzanne
>Title        If There's No Choice after a Prenatal Test ...
>Source       Boston Globe,  Jun 5, 1989,  17:1
>Features     Illustration
>Abstract     Susan Pauker and Suzanne Gordon comment that little has been said
>             about the impact overturning the Roe vs Wade case would have on
>             millions of women who want to conceive normal, healthy babies and
>             carry them to term.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41111 talk.politics.guns:21817 alt.conspiracy:11035 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5026 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6384 talk.bizarre:33159
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:54:24 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>> = Steve Novak:
>>> = (Rich Lund) writes:
>>>: = (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>It never fails to amaze me to see the frustration that liberals will
>demonstrate almost on cue when someone dares to disagree with their drivel.

It truly amazes me how Adkins can totally ignore what "his" side posts,
and instead paints all "liberals" with the same paintbrush.

>The intelligent will notice that no substantial issues were raised. 

It's true, Lund was simply raving.  Luckily, I replied in kind.  Ya
gotta have some fun sometimes.

[...]
>As to the charge
>that all these people that have the "gall" to disagree with the politically
>correct are "near fascist", is that like being sorta pregnant? 

Hardly.  Sorry if you're confused; take a look at the word "fascism" in
the dictionary:

  "A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
  race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
  government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
  regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

There.  "Near-fascist".  We have no dictator yet.  Do you see tendencies
toward the rest of the definition?  I sure do.  Talk to me about
Buchanan et al if you see something in Buchanan, Robertson, Gramm that
I'm missing.

>Make your point.  Take your shots. 
>But please try and keep the discussion a notch above gutteral
>ramblings.

Also, please be honest.  I responded in kind to the raving Lund; for you
not to mention him seems the tactic of an apologist.

>P.S leave your address, I'll send you a dollar so you can buy a clue.

Boy, that's a new one!



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:21:33 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
	<1992Oct8.231053.6704@netcom.com>

Mr. Fischer writes:

= >>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
= >>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
= >	   ^^^^^^^^^
= >
= >This question has my nomination for "pro-choice understatement of the 
= >year," even though it is phrased as a question: it certainly makes a strong
= >statement, especially about the state of mind of the one who wrote it.
=  
= And the consistent inability of any pro-lifer to answer it is even
= more telling, Mr. Nyikos.  Care to give it a shot?

I'm not quite sure of the question here. Is someone arguing that some of the
rights of two year olds are presently eliminated? If so, what rights are those
constitutionally?

Personally I have a problem with the way this country deals with the 'rights'
of minors as I've seen in the past. But that's a different can of worms.

ag
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Eerie, isn't it?
Summary: must be the Twilight Zone
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:40:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <Bw0ECs.2DL@rice.edu>, patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

[other stuff deleted so I could get down to the part I want to respond
to]

> >>>>What you feel about sex is your business -- so it's your job to find someone
> >>>>who shares your view.  It's not your job to try to force everyone else to
> >>>>share that view by law.
> >>>>
> >>>>--PLH, lived with my wife for two years before I married her, and I'll be
> >>>>damned if anyone will force me to apologize for it -- especially some
> >>>>wet-behind-the-ears brat at a cookie-cutter school...
> >>>>
> 
This is really a coincidence! I lived with MY husband for two years
before I married *HIM*.  Do you think there's something strange
going on here? :-)

Patrick again:

> That's pretty freaking obvious, by now.
> 
> --PLH (it *has* to be something in the water at Sea World...)
> 
> -- 

Yeah, but you gotta remember that's SOUTHERN California (and
airplane boy oughta be down there too).  

Katy

.......childless by choice.....
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:34:07 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
->Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
->>As the Net probes ever deeper into the question of Jim Keegan's private
->>e-mail, I have another -- what business is it of yours to ask?
->Jim accused CJ publicly of lying. That made it public.

you're lying, rescorla. cj accused me of asking support
from a private mailing list. that made it public. my
subsequent calling her a liar for lying simply
continued that which cj had already begun.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:01:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Rest assured that making abortion illegal _will_ kill women.  
>
>Huh?   Let me get this straight.  Abortion will kill women?  I didn't
>know abortion killed women.  Oh, I take that back.  Abortion does kill
>unborn females directly.

Read it again.  Carefully.

>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.

Your level of compassion strikes me as being more than a little
hypocritical.

>>The Serbs believe that they are defending the lives of themselves and 
>>their people from the Bosnians and the Croats.  They don't think they 
>>are doing what you've called "ethnic purging", they think they are 
>>removing hostile enemies from their land in order to protect 
>>themselves.
>>^^^^^^^^^^
>The protecting THEMSELVES argument from invaders, unwanted elements, etc.
>Now who is more likely to use this argument in trying to justify the
>destruction of human life?

The Serbs are justifying their atrocities by their belief that they
are defending themselves.  You don't even have THAT justification for 
imposing hardships upon women.  

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh