HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:04:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Kevin w
>>David
>>>Kevin W.

>>>>The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
>>>>do anything she wishes with her body.


>>>That was the final blow to your credibility.

>>Mary Anne Warren:

>>"It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her property,
>>since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from
>>her property..."


>Are you Mary Anne Warren or are you Kevin Welch? I don't know her. Does 
>quoting her imply some kind of truth or support?

I am Kevin Welch, do you think I am someone else?  By quoting a well respected
abortion defendant and respected philospher, I have proven that you, David, 
are quite ready to flame and discredit ME when those words are actually those
of a well known philosopher.  In striking down my credibility, you have
struck down hers as well.

My words are hers.  She says specifically that body is not property.  I
fairly backed you into this corner, David.

>>Face, David.  I was waiting for you to send that one.


>Face what, Kevin?  The statement is absurd, whether you say it, or Mary
>Anne Warren says it.  Her affiliation is entirely irrelevant to me.

Face is short for "In your face".  Those aren't my words.  They are hers.
Advocate of abortion.
>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************


--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Medicaid and abortions of the poor
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:16:47 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Susan Garvin
>>Welch is using a non-standard definition of "therapeutic" when
>>he discusses therapeutic abortions.

>Crowd, I use a medical standard definition of therapeutic abortion which
>includes life saving abortions, abortions performed on the mother
>for the purpose of preventing damaging health problems, and abortions that
>are done to keep a mother's inevitable health problem from arrising (ie if
>the doctor thinks that if the pregnancy continues, the mother will get
>cancer or a fetal induced disease).  These are therapeutic abortions.

Hate to bring up the same arguement, but health problems can and do
include vomiting, and by your definition of therapeutic abortions, this
would definitely fall into this category. (Your examples I take to be
extreme cases only, although consistant vomiting can be life endangering
as well)

>>He doesn't mean "serving to heal or cure",

>Oh, but I do.

>>he means "to save the life of the pregnant woman".

>And this is just part of the definition.  I use this ALSO.

And we finally got this cleared up after a mere 3(?) weeks. About time.
Kevin finally admits that he actually does believe that there is a reason
for abortion other than to save the life of the 'pregnant woman' (which
he also has finally admitted exists :) by effectively stating:

1) His definition of therapeutic includes to heal and to cure.
2) WRT abortion, a therapeutic abortion includes saving the life of
   mother, leading to the inescapable conclusion that if this is only
   a part of therapeutic abortions, then there are other reasons that
   don't fall into the category of 'saving the life of the pregnant
   woman
3) He has indicated support for therapeutic abortions, which he had
   a restricted definition for earlier for what I can only see as debate
   reasons.

Welcome to a life of (some) enlightenment. :)

Ron

>abortions.  When those synapses fire in her brain they misfire greatly and
>often the neurotransmitters just completely fail to deliver anything that
>the post synaptic cell might find uselful.  Consequently, her brain is forced

Get a new insult, this is the third time in two weeks I've read
this inane insult, (to spell it out, it was sort of witty the first
time, but lost any charm it might have had with repetition)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: next
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:21:53 GMT

In article <73886@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>
>There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.
>
>When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>faulted in decision making.

But would'nt you say practically *all* "accidents", car or otherwise, are due to
a fault in decision making?

>
>There are crucial differences in car wreck and the result of pregnancy.
>When we are in a wreck, we can receive treatment because we do so to save 
>life/lives.  Aboriton is done so to end a life.  Big difference.
>

No, you are using kwc logic. The women I know who got abortions did so to end
a pregnancy.


>>It would be irresponsible of you to seek
>>medical treatment for your injuries.
>
>CJ, I don't know HOW many times you've argued this one out.  It ALWAYS
>failed.  It always will fail if you're the one arguing it.
>
>It would not be irresponsible to seek attention.  It would uphold all ethics,
>rules of self-preservation, fulfill the State's interest in preserving life,
>get your money's worth in all the premiums you've payed, benefit from that
>insurace you've been receiving, blah blah blah.  THere are many ethical and
>moral reasons to get treatment from a wreck.
>
>
>On the other hand, receiving an abortion is not ethical:  it destroys life
>and does not fall in line with self-preservation, and all the rest I stated.

Again, destroying life is not the issue. If it is, everytime you eat, you are
acting unethically.

>
>>You've just got to
>>accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
>>the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
>>have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
>>Use your brain.
>
>How ironic coming from you, CJ.  "Use your brain."  Use your brain and fathom
>the differnces between morals and ethics.  Use your brain to realize
>the inequties in the car-fetus analogy that you have so piss poorly laid
>out.
>
>Use YOUR brain.
>

Why don't you  both get off the cheap shots?

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:50:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.170509.2722@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>In article <ku79ckINN4eb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu writes:
>>>
>>>	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
>>>also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
>>>for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
>>>population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.
>
>Ridiculous.  Although it's not PC to admit, anyone who attempts to affect
>legislation in any way, is ultimately forcing his/her beliefs upon others.
>It's not necessarily "wrong".  It's part of Democracy/Republic ways.
>

There is forcing (fascism), then there is voting. 

Let's vote on it. I am all for it.





-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- ex-boyfriend of Alison Rebecca Colman)
Subject: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: _W_A_C_D_T_F, Washington, D.C.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:57:57 GMT

I would like to point out to the net readership that Kevin Welch insists
on deliberately misattributing my posts and (imo deliberately) attributing
things to me that I have not said.

I present the following:

article <73855@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President):

>Ron
>>Kevin B.
>>>Judi
   ====
   ====  I've asked you on the net.  And now I've asked you by email, to stop
         playing this game.  The name is Jay.

>>At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.
>
>No, at about 10 days it's pretty much a blob.  At 8 weeks, it looks pretty
>human...maybe that's...because it IS human.  I dunno, Judi.  What do you
                                                       =====
                                                       =====
Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
one who thinks that you're acting like a child.

Not to mention the fact that you're responding to something I didn't write
anyway.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:02:36 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>That would be fine, but as one group is helping out at educating students,
>the other group is working to push laws that will limit individual freedom.

I presume you mean the Pro-Death faction and their limiting (destroying) the
freedom of the unborn child to live.

>Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the argumentation
>you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not understand the the 'other'
>is coming from.

I understand perfectly.  Pro-Death people are being extrememly selfish, 
power-hungry and barbaric.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 23:13:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>  lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>      Medically, life begins at conception.

Really?  I always thought that the sperm and egg were both living cells.
Thank you for bringing back the theory of spontaneous generation.

> Once conceived, a human fetus will be a human,

Assuming that it makes it to birth, of course.

> Murder is the premeditated taking of a human life.

No, "murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: life
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:14:59

In article <1992Apr15.220744.20050@news.iastate.edu> 
xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

>How does taking medicine end lives?

	Why, it causes the death of millions of germs and bacteria.

>How does reciving surgury end lives?

	Why, it causes the death of millions of human cells.

>I thought that taking medicine helped to save the life of the person taking
>it. 

	It may do that, but at the cost of the lives of all those germs.

>Gee if taking medicine ends lives then maybe I shouldnt use my Ventolin
>Inhaler. So what if an Asthma attack can and oftin times does (deaths do to
>related to asthma in smallchildren incresed by around 50% in the last 10
>years) kill.Maybe you should explane how my using an inhaler ends lives. 

	Why, think of the potential lives of all those parasites and bacteria
that could live off of your rotting corpse. Don't you think that they have
the right to life?

>You know I also thought that surgery was suposed to save the lives of those
>receving them I did not know that they ended lives. The only cases that I can
>think of were death is even remotly involved is 1. abortion  2.the patichint
>dies on the table  3. transplants- the way I understude this was that the
>doner had already died of something else and requested that there orgins
>go to someone who neaded them.

	So, when people receive appendectomies, the surgeons have a separate
support apparatus set up to preserve the life of the appendix? People take
them home and care for them, since they are indeed lives, and human to boot?

>finly, let see, hmmm. Killing for food. A mater of servival. I dont eat
>eventualy I die. A part of nature. Abortion. Usualy killing for convenence.
>Not nessasary. Not for servival. Also it seems to me that those whose lives 
>are most likly to be ruened do not make a the majority of abortions that 
>accure, probly cant aford it, most of the people who are gitting abortions
>are uperper middal class white. At lest thats the way I understand it.

	Oh, so what you're saying is that you're only pro-life when it's
convenient. When it's *your* life at stake, you're willing to sacrifice
other lives. When it's someone *else's* life at stake, you want to tell
them what to do.

	If you get the feeling that I'm making fun of you, it's because
I am. It is not at all constructive to say "It's a life, and therefore it's
murder" or even "It's a human life, and therefore it's murder". Please
share with us what it is about the fetus that makes it special. Please
share with us what it is about the fetus that gives it rights equal to or
exceeding the rights of born, living human beings. And please tell me how to
parse the last two sentences in your post.

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: To all you inequity people:
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:08:53 GMT

I've got to say, Jennifer's right.  In the months that I have been reading this
board (and the weeks I have participated in it), I have seen raging arguments 
and counter-arguments, but very little in the way of attempts to RESOLVE 
anything except by verbal force.  Whenever people bring up other issues related
to abortion, their arguments are strained down to "Are they pro-choice or 
pro-life?"  Someone suggested that we should all do something about pregnancy 
education; few people responded.  I suggested a while ago that abortion might 
be linked to poverty, broader availability of health care and other issues.  I 
got one response, and that was largely sarcastic.  Someone recently posted, in 
two parts, the most well-thought out and well-defended argument I have seen in 
a while for the position that abortion is a complex issue, and both sides have 
strengths and weaknesses.  I haven't seen ANY response to that one, though I 
thought it was very challenging to many.  It was challenging chiefly because it
offered a SOLUTION, a middle ground, a common area on which we could all agree.

The fact is that abortion is a terribly complex issue, and that it is a deeply 
personal one as well.  Many women who go through abortion are seriously torn by
the issues involved.  Some may believe that life begins at conception, yet have
an abortion anyway to protect their own health.  How does this debate help 
them?  How does it help the babies that ARE born?  I'm not sure . . .

I will continue to watch this debate, to see if anyone responds to these issues
and moves in a new direction.  I am doubtful, and I imagine that my own 
participation will drop off.  If things continue as is, so be it.  But the real
world always awaits.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God, and serving God's Kingdom on earth
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:32:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Pat
>Kevin
>>David
>>>Kevin

>>No, I am lecturing about crediting and accurate portryal.  Deception.

>Coming from someone calling himself "Geisha Dawn"?  And here I thought I'd
>already seen everything...:-)

Hey, Patrick....I could have sworn I saw you with a different attribute
once or twice on t.a  :)

>--PLH, who's been confused at times, but has at least known who he was all
>along...

I know who I am...how about a little variety for a change.


>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
>                  Support term limitations for politicians:
>                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.

(Only if they're democrats...:)

kcw




--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:37:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <ku469nINNdav@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>	Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
>fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
>premeditated taking of a human life.
	Isn't it odd, then, that the A.M.A. supports abortion rights?
true, eh?
	BTW, once conceived, the zygote *probably* will become a human being.
Spontaneous abortions and miscarriages do occur, you know.  Should these be
subject to legal investigation on the chance that they might actually be
"murder"?  And if not, why not?

>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Without life, there can be no choice;
>without choice, there can be no life.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck
No .sig, no fat, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:45:59 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <72803@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.011911.6285@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>
>>] This is true.  Hitler murdered about 6,000,000 Jewish people.  But what is 
>>] astonishing is that more children have been uselessly slaughtered in
>>] abortions than ALL the deaths of WWII.  During the winters in Russia, in
>>] addition to the massive troop deaths, Stalin cut off all supplies to the
>>] Ukraine, resulting in about 20,000,000 of their deaths.  In affect, WWII
>>] was more of a massive genocide than a war.  
>
>>1. the kill counts from the Death kamps was totalled at
>>a MINIMUM of six million jews, things got a little hectic 
>>at the end, and the noted efficiency broke down....
>>{note that these figures do not take into account, gypsys, gays,
>>roman catholics, protestants, trade unionists, SR's ..... }
>
>yes...that's why I said about 6000000.  I didn't say "exactly 6,000,000".

>>4. So KCW, now that you have lumped together a whole LOT of interesting
>>things and hoped to call them all WWII, albeit your time line runs
>>from the 30's into the 50's.... care to tell us where this fits in
>>with the flow of the abortion debate?????
>
>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?

Both of you, shut up. Reasons, if you want them, are over on the thread
"What the Pro-Lifers Don't Tell You" in about nine different places. I'm
sick of typing the damned thing out when you should know better by now.
This is not an appropriate analogy to abortion, or to any non-genocidal
situation.

Followups to alt.nazi.nitwits, or alt.jdl.actionline.

>>drieux
>
>kcw

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Amazing...
Organization: Encore Computer
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:43:56

In article <kur5ugINNltf@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:

> 	I am completly amazed at the lack of intellegent discusion on this
>group.  This is the same crap as is found in t.a.  Neither side cares to
>discuss the real issue; responsibility.  It is NOT responsible to have sex
>and erase an accidental pregnancy.  It is NOT responsible to spread disease
>(less than 1/2 are stopped by a condom).  So grow up and become responsible
>BEFORE pregnancy and BEFORE spread of disease!  Oh, I forgot, how silly of
>me.  That will mean people must control their lifestyles and that is
>"wrong."

	Ah, a beautiful, eight line post, almost poetic in its eloquence.
Truly, this takes the "intellegent discusion" on alt.abortion.inequity many,
many strides into the future.

	So tell me, why is having an abortion NOT responsible?  Has GOD
come down from on HIGH and spoken to YOU, BRYON S. LAPE?  

	So where did you get your statistics? Or are you discussing not only
STDs, but the more general problem of epidemics? I'll admit, wearing a 
condom will probably not prevent the spread of the flu, or the bubonic 
plague, or smallpox.

	Control your lifestyle all you want, Bryon. Just don't try to control
*mine*.

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Regarding Jennifer's suggestion
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:15:18


In article <q7NaJB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:

	[joke deleted]

>My point is, make people understand that sex is for marriage and
>reproduction. Is is not for pleasure, pasttime, warm fuzzies, or
>anything else.

>Now . . . rebuttals?

	Yeah, uh, who says? I mean, like, I've had sex many times, and I've
never married *or* reproduced. On the other hand, sex has been a pleasure
to me, a pasttime for me, and lots of warm fuzzies have been involved.
(No, not the goddamn puppies! You're sick.)

	That would seem to be directly in conflict with your point. Please
explain, without using blatant assertions, or references to religion.

John


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity