HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why 100 years?
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:22:27 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


sf>In article <1992Apr15.120210.18673@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
dk>In <1992Apr14.214340.16062@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 Franklin) writes:

dk>By any chance are you a white male somewhere between middle and upper
dk>class?

sf>   Heh... Dan, you're amazing. YOu must be psychic. First of all, you KNOW
sf>I'm male. Second of all, most males on Usenet are white and middle-upper
sf>class, because of the distinctions of upper employment and education.
sf>It's a sad but common fact. But, your intuitive sleuthing is exceptional.
       
The reason I assumed you were a white male somewhere between middle and
upper class was because of your desire to go back 100 years.  Well off
white males have been in power for a long time.  Over the last 100 years
or so they have seen the (in my opinion too slow) erosion of this power.
The power existed at the expense of other groups who are now insisting
on their fair share of power.  It makes sense that you would be
un-willing to allow them their rights at your own expense.  Unfortunately
for you, but lucky for them, your willingness to give up power doesn't
matter.  You've already lost power and you're not getting it back no
matter how much you whine about those long lost days.  As a matter of
fact, you're going to be losing more and more power in the near
future.

dk>Steve, why don't you tell us what your ancestors were doing 100 years
dk>ago to make you so nostalgic for this by-gone time?

sf>   Ummm. Well, maybe it is what they WEREN'T doing 100 years ago that makes
sf>me nostalgic. 100 years ago, morals and law were strongly intertwined...

Your organized religious morals and laws may have been intertwined, but
it was at the expense of many groups that your organized religion has
traditionally ignored.  Lucky for them, those days are coming to an
end.

sf>Without people like Abraham Lincoln, Blacks would still be suppressed
sf>by the likes of you. But, we already got rid of that problem,

You appear to be as poor at history as you are at logic.  Slave holders
used the bible to justify slavery just as you currently use the bible
to enslave women.

sf>so you
sf>take on the fetus instead. What's the next group you'll pick on
sf>dan if abortion was ever legalized?

Abortion is legalized.

sf> Oh, lemme guess... all tall,
sf>pro-life, catholic males like myself?

Yes, all tall, pro-life, catholic males inside a woman against her
wishes I will take on.  I will fight with them, and any others that
feel they have the right to inhabit a woman's body against her will.

sf>   steve


Dan King
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: RIs this guy pro-control, or what?
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:31:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr16.153121.9827
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

> I have read Rasmussen's posts, and I can assure you
> we have little in common. Although I can see how people
> like you drove him to post as he did...

Ok, Steve, I confess.  I made life miserable for DJR; didn't
allow him to graduate for years and years and years; kept
him locked in the computer room until he developed that
'clicking' tic; made him listen to Rush Limbaugh and Paul
Harvey.

And he turned on me.  He wrote:

"Your last statmentment has the stench of 'Jew Lover' all
over it."

How did he know that one of my ex-girlfriends was Jewish??

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
             /  "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything."
T.S.A.K.C.   /                                      -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:43:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.172645.797@nas.nasa.gov>, Dan King writes:
|cj>In article <1992Apr6.164847.2826@shinobu.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|cj>Uh, I think Dan King speaks for the unborn on
|cj>this group.
|I think you confused two intelligent, witty and good looking T.A.
|posters here.  It is Galen who speaks for all those born, yet to be
|born and dead.  Galen has been absent from this forum for some time,
|but that is no reason to usurp the wonderful job he has done.

My deepest apologies to Galen of the last name I dare
not spell, for confusing him with Dan.  And my deepest
apologies to Dan, for confusing him with Galen.
 
---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"My living thoughts have now become nothing but dead signs, a mass 
of little black strokes and dots, which would not mean a thing, say, 
to an Eskimo." --Helm Wotzkow, in The Art of Hand Lettering
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:46:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr8.184637.2419
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <8APR92.16582442@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

(Naive oversimplifications deleted)



And if any of those other groups ever started saying they had the
>right to kill other people, you can bet your sweet ass that we would try to
>stop them. 

     Really. Do you try to stop the Pentagon, the CIA, state law
enforcement officials, Schwartzkopf,(sp?) Powell, etc.? Thought not. Our
 sweet pro-choice asses remain firmly attached.

>					Loren Finkelstein

                    MP              (Too sexy for Pro-life)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:37:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.18127
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>In <18037@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>>>world would be a better place. Damn, I love the ME generation. NOT
								 ^^^
>>>Another juvenile clueless....
>>>Matthew, if we didn't work for ourselves first, we never would be in
>>>a position to help others.
>>>The ME generation


>gee Ron.....your generation has done a whole fuckin' lot to
>make the world a better place. Now I have to deal with drugs,
>abortions, teenage pregnancies, etc.

As I said, another juvenile, clueless, immature twit (sorry about the
redundancy, everyone.:)

Just what generation do you think I'm actually from? The ME generation,
FYI, is alive and well even in college today. Their primary focus is
still to get themselves settled in a good position, although I like
to think most of them don't try it at all costs anymore. All this self-serving
bullshit about I work for my fellow man disappears real quick, you little
pissant, when you discover that 43% of your salary dissappears before
you ever see it, and rent costs you a minimum of 35% of what's left
to live in a little apartment in a neighborhood you wouldn't put your
in-laws in, no matter how much you hated them. (You'd still have to
go see them until they got shot, at least :) All is nice and well while
you're in college, and you can be as idealistic as you please, but be
mature enough to realize that the outside world is not that caring entity
it appears to be.

>What a GREAT inheritance!!!!!!

No sh*t, I don't like it either.

>When do you know when to stop working for yourself????
>Please.....show me someone who isn't just a little bit selfish.....

I haven't reached that point yet. I just give when I can.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields)
Subject: Re: "Dances with MorallyQuestionableOnes"[1]
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:27:46 GMT

In article <17612@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew Fields) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.215620.9119@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Ly
>>man) writes:
>
>>>Or perhaps you are still trying to sort out the difference between newborns
>>>and management types???
>
>>Take that difference and shove it way up.
>
>My, My, a management type speaks... or makes noise, anyway
>
>Ron.

Poor Ron.  His top shelf is empty.  He just can't seem to shove things
up there.  By projecting management-type-ness on a classical musician,
of all things, he shows his true colors.

Well, do try cheese spread, Ron.

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14609 alt.abortion.inequity:650
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: How to do a Tautology
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:39:02 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

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

] 
] Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
]            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
]            morals on others. 
] 
] If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
] can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 
] 
] 
] Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
]            the right to determine its own set of morals. 
] 
] Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 
] 
] 
] Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
]            fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
] 
] Follows from premise A and B.
] 
] 
] Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
] of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
] premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
] pregnancy to term.  

Please NOTE: 

1. premise B does NOT derive from Premise A.

Premise A is in regards to the matter of a class of entities 
not defined in the proposition. Hence one can not deduce from
proposition A anything in regards to the class of entities to
whom Proposition A applies.

eg: p1: "All Warriors are bound to a code of Honor."

    p2: "You have a Sword thus you are honorable."

to assert that p2 is derivable from p1 is AMUSING!

2. what is needed is the function f() that will map all x
of the set of Entities into the class of 'Human life' or warrior
so as to establish by this function f() who is obliged by the
first proposition.

3. This mapping has not been resolved by doug, but presented
as being hopefully there, so that he can develop an argument 
that in essence is tautologically true because one of the premises
is in essence the conculsion:

	p1: Spot is Blue
	p2 Fred is a Blob

therefore There is a Blob that is Fred.

a lovely tautological syllogism.

ciao
drieux



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: VOLUME ON TALK.ABORTION
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:48:47 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>Plain and simple... Am I wrong

A Clue?!?! A Clue?!?!

>or has the volume of talk.abortion surged recently? I think I owe people 

Damn, I thought he had a Clue.

You've been wrong so many times, I don't know where to begin. So start
with this post and go backwards about fifty or so posts and read all
the ones with your name as the first message ID, You'll then see some
of the many times you've been wrong, and not even pointed out only by me.

>an apology for this, as I am partly to blame.
>   Sorry. I'll tone down.

Actually, not really IMO. Your ignorance has brought many new people
into the net, who post because they simply can't believe anyone is as
ignorant as you these days.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 04:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.141443.12655@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.160221.8122@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
>>>SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
>>>the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.
>>>
>>>However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so 
>>>obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
>>>non-duck. 
>>>
>>>You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.
>>
>>You are telling him that the legal status quo is morally acceptable, and
>>that it is OkayFineHunkeyDorey for the state to enforce this schema of
>>rights and responsibilities upon all involuntary fathers.
>
>Horseshit, Darcy, and I notice you don't manage to support what you claimed.

Horeshit yourself, Adrienne. The original claim was that you were arguing 
against reform. By arguing for the status quo, you implicitly argue AGAINST 
reform. I have therefore supported my statement in the preceding paragraph.
Do you have an answer?

>I have in fact made my *OWN* proposals which I've mentioned both in this
>group and in other groups over the past few years.  Not that I'd automatically
>expect you to have read these gems, of course, but it just goes to show
                               ^^^^ (and they talk about *MY* ego. Sheesh!)
>that one cannot ASSUME one knows what each and every poster on the net is
>doing/thinking/posting.

I do know what you _said_, Adrienne. That's all that matters. I'll leave
the mind-reading attempts to you, since you seem to enjoy them so...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.005835.1403@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>
>>>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.
>
>>The end result of an egg that doesn't meet a sperm is also death.
>
>An unfertilized egg dies from a lack of support, it is not killed.
>
>
>>The end result of a fertiziled egg that doesn't implant is also death.
>
>A fertilized egg dies from a lack of support, it is not killed.
>
>
>>What does the 'end result' have to do with it?
>
>An aborted fetus is killed, it does not die from a lack of support.

I don't believe it.  Somebody who manages to type out complete words without
the vaguest understanding of the English language.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:45:37 GMT
Reply-To: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu
Organization: Ferrari International

> Franklin

>You see, the liberal views of the Usenet audience mean that
>the pro-choice to pro-life ratio is well below that of national
>polls. 

I don't agree with your contention that there are only a handful
of "pro-lifers" on t.a. because the entirety of Usenet tends to be
liberal.  I believe that there are only a handful or "pro-lifers"
on t.a. because "pro-lifers" tend to be educationally and
socioeconomically downscale.  Fewer "pro-lifers," in general,
have a college education as compared with pro-choicers, therefore,
those posting on Usenet from college or from a company they work
for because they have a college degree are not part of the "pro-life"
norm.

The fact that "pro-lifers" as a whole are downscale as compared with
pro-choicers has been borne out by numerous polls.

-- 
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts.  It is only nine months."
-- Kevin Welch in talk.abortion
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
SEND MAIL TO: mills@rolf.stat.uga.edu, NOT uga.edu, YOU PINHEADS!
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: On Quitting being Sexually Active
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:23:09 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
>From article by mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis):
>>
>> Funny....ever met someone who was sexually active, then decided to
>> be abstinent till marriage or whatever???
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact, I know at _least_ one! :-)  A very dear
>friend of mind did exactly that.  One of the sweetest guys I know
>too.  (And I do not even mean anyone I am married to either.)
>
>> Nope, doesn't happen.
    Actually, I know a woman who has done this - she's getting married in
July. The two of them have been abstinent for a couple of years now, I think.
They both seem reasonably happy about the decision, as one which fits with
their beliefs.

    Their choice. Not one I would make, certainly not one I would want forced
upon me. That's why my partner and I use birth control. And that's our choice.

                                                  kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof/Solution
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:50:44 CDT

In article <1992Apr13.153534.2036@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) says:
>
>>If this does not require the mother to be responsible for what
>>action the fetus takes after being removed from the uterus, is
>>this not the same as allowing for abortion. Both remove the
>>fetus from the uterus, one simply recognizes that once that
>>action is taken, the fetus typically responds by dieing.
>>
>remove the uterus while you're at it.
>
You really are extraordinarily fond of women, aren't you?
Another suggestion of violence.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist 
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:11:53 CDT

In article <1992Apr7.155502.12298@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The right to exist is supreme above all other rights. Without the
>right to exist, no other rights are possible, including the right
>to freedom. Without existence, freedom is not possible. All humans
>should have an equal right to exist, and since the right to exist
>is supreme, no human can deny another human the right to exist,
>unless their own existence is threatened. 

In order to hold this position consistently, you must also affirm 
that an individual has no right to use lethal force to defend
against a rapist unless it is clear that the attacker also intends
to murder.

This follows if you believe the right to exist takes precedence
over the right to the freedom of bodily autonomy.

I might add that your premise, as worded, would also preclude the
use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer in protecting
an innocent victim from attack, as long as the officer was out
of the line of fire.

I take it you are anti-war, under all circumstances?
You would rather be enslaved than violate the right of another 
to exist?
>
>The right to exist includes the right not to be killed by others, 
>and the right to receive support from others, but it does not 
>necessarily include the right to expect support from others. 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
>The fetus either has rights, or it does not. 

Since a fetus is not a person, and it poses a risk of terminating
the existence of the woman (who IS a person), it has no rights.

>                                              If the fetus has any 
>rights, then it must have the right to exist, and this right is 
>equal to that of any other human being.
>
You make quite a leap here. Why would its rights be equal to a born
human being? Nature itself destroys around 30% of all fertilized 
eggs. The fetus is contained within a _woman_, whose pain and risk 
should be considered in assigning any rights to an entity which
resides within her body.

>Abortion kills the fetus, and it prevents the fetus from receiving
>support from others. Therefore, abortion violates the right 
>of the fetus to exist.
>
You still haven't addressed the woman in this picture. Until you
show that bodily autonomy is subordinate to the right of others
to exist in all circumstances, and prove that a fetus should have
rights equal to any other human organism, you've proved nothing.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:44:05 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>In <m4zth0a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:

>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>>So how many kids have YOU carried, Steve?
>   What a garbage question. I have had no children, and carried no
>children. Does that mean I am not in a position to care. 
             [etc]

Again, Franklin practices the "insidious delete".

The statement I was responding to was your statement that you were
"equal" to Muriel.  As Muriel has carried children and you have not,
you are not her "equal".  Look it up.

>steve

                           -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Where do they Get their Theology?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:20:40 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

] In <1992Apr07.201614.8936@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
] 
] >I guess that means we can't/don't/shouldn't stop rapists, killers, or
] >enemies of war by means of lethal force, huh?
] 
] Heck, didn't you know? Christians are against capitol punishment too.
] Man shall not ever empower another man/womans life but to defend his
] own. 


I can understand that you are most likely NEW to your
understanding of 'christianity' and it would serve you 
well to actually learn to READ the Bible before you 
make blanket statements that are Patently False.


ciao
drieux

ps: which is in short to say, upon what do you base
your delusion that 'christians' are against capital punishment,
or is this just more Defamation of Christianity?



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rape, Incest, and Abortion
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:22:43 GMT
Distribution: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Fuck off, Kellmeyer.  If I'd been forced to have the child of
the animal who raped me, I would have killed myself.  It 
was not because I felt dirty, it was because I had been
hurt in a way that you cannot understand.  I sincerely 
doubt that you want to understand.  

Your assumption that those of us who support legal
abortion are as driven by the need to control the choices of
other as you are has steered you wrong yet again.  No one 
is saying that women who are raped should abort.  I say that 
denying them that choice is obscene.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion