HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: PRO-LIFE SEASON'S GREETINGS
Keywords: super-Grinch, life, death, hope, fear, Birth
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:32:45 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>I wish a happy Christmas season to everyone, including the abortionists,
>those super-Grinches who steal EVERY Christmas from the little ones they
>abort.  

Y'know, it's interesting that "Nyikos" uses the Grinch in his mostly
pointless imagery here.  Let us all stop and remember for a moment that
in the end, the Grinch returned much more than he had taken, and 
Christmas was much better in Whoville for it.  Perhaps "N" is saying
here that abortionsists are responsible for a net _increase_ in the
world's happiness due to their actions.

At least, _I_'m going to take it that way.

                 -rocker
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:42:23 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>still play a large role in every life. Rape takes away choice;
>chance does not.

Word choice, what a wonderful concept, isn't it?

chance ==    contraception failure    == acceptance of getting pregnant
rape   == security precaution failure == acceptance of getting pregnant

See where I'm going with this, Mark?

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,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: speaking of: dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:19:02 GMT


There is a Hot Court Case here in California
in which the Ring Leader of a Gang that Killed
a boy is 15 years of Age, and the Child will
be tried in Juvie Hall.... His two Co_Conspirators,
who were NOT trigger persons, will be tried as
adult and face Life in Prison.

Also on the winners List:

An East Palo Alto Case in which the Actual Shooter
plea barginned the case down to a misdeamenor after
a hung jury.... But the co_defendents in the case,
also Not shooters, were Hung with the Murder rap....

Sorta goes to say that when in California a smoking
gun in hand is a Better Legal Position.....


ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Let me state my view
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:42:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.025210.9017@Princeton.EDU>, datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
> (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>|>Have you been to alt.folklore.urban lately? Just wondering. Now prove
>|>to me that a fetus is a human being. Go ahead. I'll wait.

>My corollary is that you can't prove that a fetus isn't...Are you willing
>to kill 1.5 million lives each year just because there is no proof that
>they are alive....?

I've kept myself from responding to your nonsense about as long as I
could take it.
I can't prove there is a god, or that he is/is not human. I can't prove
there are ghosts, demons, and evil spirits (should I outlaw exorcisms
to prevent these non-entities from being killed?:) I can't prove that
the speed of light is the limit of travel speed. I also cannot prove
that it isn't. Nor can I prove that man really stepped on the moon,
except for words and pictures and such, nor even that the earth is roughly
a sphere. (Didn't you know? It's flat. The edges sag.:)

Anyway, as for your further nonsense, the ovum/sperm are alive, as is
a z/e/f. No one in their right mind would deny this. As for classifying
them as a human being, endowed with sentience, that I can go two ways
on. Either they don't, as they have none of the prerequisites, or they
have the potential (pro-lifer's favorite arguement) and should be saved.

On this note, let's look back at what we evolved from. (I take it you
subscribe to the theory of evolution, and not some fairy tale) If you
go back far enough, you could say we evolved from some simple single-
celled creature. Logical deduction would then bring about the conclusion
that if we sprung from a single-celled creature, then that single-celled
creature had the potential for sentience. To make matters more complicated,
this would then mean, that to save a fetus because it could potentially
develop sentience, we must save all life (clearly nonsensical, like
your arguements) because they might potentially lead to sentient life.
Hope you haven't had any steak, plant life, or anything else lately.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:43:46 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Regardless of who your "scientist" friends are, there's just as many
>who hold the opposite position.  Always keep one thing in mind, scientists
>need money just like the rest of us.  When funding time comes around,
>they'll say whatever it takes (like all this Ozone hole garbage).
>Experts are human, just like the rest of us.  They need to survive in 
>our capitalist, free market society.  

You can say this, and then quote Wee Willie Willke with a straight face???
This is the only source I've seen for your ridiculous claims wrt illegal
abortion.  Just who do you suppose pays Willke's bills?  Somehow, I doubt
that he maintains a thriving medical practice.

You need a bandage for that foot there, pardner?

>Edward Simmonds- Honest, but getting depressed about it

                 -rocker
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:31:00 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <tb+32ab@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>Allow me to clue you in to a little game that the pro-choicers
>>like to play.  The game is called "enrage the opposition".  The 
>>idea is to hurl as many insults and hurtful remarks at Ms. Forgach
>>as possible so that she'll respond in kind.  When Ms. Forgach
>>does respond with small flames, she gets accused of being
>>"hateful", "sick", etc..  
>
>Why does this remind me of someone beating their spouse, screaming
>"Why do you make me do this to you??"

Or, for that matter, some low-lifes who dredge up a sleazy flamewar from 
alt.flame to t.a, and then blame the original flamer for inflicting it on t.a.

							- Kevin
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 20:00:46 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan5.052233.8902@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan03.063756.22258@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1993Jan3.023825.10611@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>>>>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>>>>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)
>>>
>>>Grudging support is still support. If Karl has stimulated some of the
>>>undecideds or the borderliners into thinking through the issue, and
>>>realizing how unfair the current system is, then maybe it has been worth
>>>the risk, don't you think?
>>
>>No.  See where she said "*still* support"?  I.e., she hasn't changed her mind
>>about supporting it (but *is* "more hostile" because of Karl's threats).
>>I think that Karl's approach will lose more support than it gains.
>
>I never implied that Elizabeth was one of the "undecideds" or "borderliners",
>Larry. Your quibblemania is careening out of control. What I implied was that
>the number of people whom Karl has shocked out of their dogmatic slumber
>or convenient ambivalence, who think through the issue, and end up on the side
>of male choice, MIGHT conceivably outnumber the previous converts who
>backslide because of Karl's stridency and/or the particular tactics he uses.

Might, or might not.  Both numbers I think will be dwarfed by the number of
people who hadn't thought about it previously and *would* be for fairness if
the issue were presented evenly, but instead fight Karl because of the
threats.

Note that I'm distinguishing those who haven't thought about it at all from
your "undecideds or borderliners".
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:31:06 GMT

markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>> Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>> fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.

>> Which is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.  James Woodyatt
>> built a pair of syllogisms regarding this not too long ago.  I think
>> it's time to pull it out of mothballs:

>> --- begin James Woodyatt's article ---
>> A.  Assume: It is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and
>>     subsequently abort a resulting pregnancy, on the grounds that she
>>     implicitly consented to the possibility of the grave matter of
>>     pregnancy when she consented to sex, and abortion would
>>     demonstrate her decision to have sex was careless.
>> --- end James Woodyatt's article ---

> Here's the weak link. Compare: It is iresponsible to use lethal force
> to defend yourself against an attack made on a dark city street, on the
> grounds that you implicitly consented to the possibiltiy of attack by
> walking down a dark city street.

> In fact:
> A. You certainly DO open yourself to the possibility of attack by
>    walking down dark city streets; but
> B. This in no way weakens your right to life, or your consequent
>    right to self-defense.

Right on.  James' point is that if you begin with an absurd assumption
(it is irresponsible for a woman to consent to sex and subsequently abort a
resulting pregnancy ... ),your conclusions will be equally absurd, even if
your reasoning is sound.

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Killing newborns
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:55:44 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

Well, dougie, have you ever considered that if abortion is made
illegal, there would probably be an increase in killing of newborns?
After all, its a lot easier and safer to kill a newborn than to 
perform a self induced abortion.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:04:18 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

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?

I mean, not even mentioning that using various forms of birth control
hardly makes her conception 'voluntary', or that some states in this 
union still don't have spousal rape laws, and therefore her sexual parti-
cipation may well not have itself been voluntary....

Why do *you* decide 'she has obligated herself' in the above manner, and 
why should we care?

I have decided that she has obligated herself to make an intelligent decision
that responsibly addresses her economic, social, financial and mental
states, and that decision may well *very responsibly* be to abort.

You've decided one thing, I another.  Nobody died and made you king.
You keep your decision making to yourself, and I'll be happy to keep mine
to myself.  Deal?

Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:06:46 GMT

In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>the conception.

>Which IS an important difference.

Not to the z/e/f it isn't!

>>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?

>>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby she
>>does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend this
>>right
>>to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for.

>Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality
>where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete
>assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of
>non-genital/genital
>sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.

Mark, you can't just _say_ my logic is faulty. You've got to prove it
too. So I'll ask you again: Why is abortion okay in the case of rape
or incest, but not in other cases?

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55041 alt.flame:17829 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:692
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: chaneyhall one-ups darcy
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:45:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

poor kebbie. chaneyhall posts a clearly called for
apology after only a few days while kebbie spent
scads of time and more than twenty-five posts
defending himself before he apologized. then, 
less than 48 hours adter he posts his apology,
chaneyhall retracts it, while kebbie could only post
an additional twenty-five articles blaming others
for his fuck-up

sure, kebbie's a veteran idiot. stephendennis
out-idioted him this round though.

c'mon kebbie, don't let these new kids on the block
invade your turf.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:46:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.060855.15946@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

}Ha, you fell into the same trap that Galen did.

All this time I thought Kevin was attempting to rationalize his use of
"viability" as a crucial dividing line.  Now he admits he was merely
digging traps...
 
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54828 talk.religion.misc:25648 alt.atheism:25487
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:42:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>And second of all, since some folks were claiming that accepting abortion
>was a perfectly legitimate "Christian" position, my point at the top here
>was that either Christianity is about emulating Christ or it isn't.  I
>demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
>in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
>and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.

While Christ would probably not assist in any abortion, nobody is
suggesting that _any_ Christian be required to do so.

Nobody.

And were Christ to meet someone who had had an abortion, or felt that
an abortion was necessary, do you think he would forgive that person?

>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.

Hmmm.  Right.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: March for Life
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:35:32 GMT

In <1993Jan11.171307.9379@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


>In article <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|
>|>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>
>|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>|>>you wind up losing yours.....
>|>
>|>
>|>My, my,
>|>what a positive, nay
>|>                      pro-life
>|>                                sentiment.
>|>
>|>Adrienne Regard
>|>
>Please Adrienne....

>Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up getting hurt.
>I am very concered that he not accidentaly cross with the wrong por-lifer and
>wind up getting hurt.I am sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
>Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.
>-- 
I did look at it again and the word *not* is not there. I guess the EOS
project has no requirements for proper use of language.

>-Jeffrey Price

REB

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:54:34 GMT

In article <C0K0Hy.ME4@athena.cs.uga.edu>, hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu
(Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>But seeing
>a real dead human body in a jar with hands and feet that was killed in
>accordance with the laws of this country does do something to me.  It
>shocks
>me-that's right.  The clips from Nazi concentration camps are graphic.

Well, Paul, that's the question we have to face. It may derive from
_Homo_sapiens_, but is it human? My mother had a miscarriage the year
before my sister was born. The OB, cad that he was, waved the remains
in her face. It looked like a piece of liver. So if the z/e/f didn't
have hands and feet, it would be okay to do away with it, is what
you're saying.

And will someone tell me about this pro-life fascination with the Nazis?
Does it derive from their need to control as much as possible, or is
it something else?

[deletia]

>I think
>I would have to hear from God to practice civil disobedience except in
>regard to practicing the Christian faith.  But I can't condemn others
>who do.  They may be obeying God.

Quick reality check. Not everybody here is a Xian. It's really nice that
you believe in G-d and all, but this has nothing to do with the
rightness or wrongness of abortion.

>>Others have explained RvW to you; I suggest you get a copy of the
>>decision
>>and read it yourself.

>I don't claim to be a lawyer.  I heard that from a lawyer who takes
>cases
>to the Supreme Court (he has his own tv show.)  But I think the original
>descision is up to the last month of pregnancy.

Hearsay is not argument, Paul. Try again.

>>What forms of killing are murder?

>It is murder for us to kill the innocent.

But it's okay for G-d to do it, vis a vis miscarriages?

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:50:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.002801.8664@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
writes:

}But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.

Er, no it doesn't.  Ceasing to breathe doesn't bring instant death
in even .000000001% of the cases.  It may lead to death in a fairly
high per centage, but the death is hardly instantaneous.  In fact,
it may not lead to death at all.  Has Suzanne really not heard of
the mammalian diving reflex, or is she just pretending not to?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism