HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:50:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.115437.26551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <16721@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr13.003355.4672@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <16709@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>
>>The K of C is the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group that is closely
>>associated with the Church.  The K of C gets many tax breaks that go with
>>being classified as a charitable organization. 
>   The day society starts abusing and rejecting the good works of groups
>such as the Knights of Columbus, we'll feel it instantly. These groups
>do SO MUCH (at least up here where I come froM) for us that I couldn't
>begin to summarize. Yes, they are pro-life, but they have concerns that
>go beyond that. Obviously you judge them by their one belief, not
>by their wealth of goodness...
>
>>If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
>>them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
>>fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
>>and not in the domain of the state.  Period.
>
>   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
>One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another 
>sentient being...

I don't believe it.  Steve has just admitted that there is a WOMAN attached to
his Holy Fetus.

Next thing you know, he'll actually realize that the woman attached to his
Holy Fetus can actually think...
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:36:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.111819.7813@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> 
            ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

> How about these science facts: Sperm and
> eggs are composed of human cells, zygotes and embryos are composed of
> human cells, you and I are composed of human cells; Do you think the
> important difference is the amount of chromosomes or the ability to
> think? 

The sperm and the unfertilized egg are not potential human beings.
No matter how much nurturing support they receive, they can never 
become human beings.

A zygote is a potential human being, since a zygote has the potential
to become a human with sufficient nurturing. 

> Would you refuse to disconnect life support systems when the
> ability to think is gone?

Your question is too vague. Is this person related to me? Are they
in a coma? What kind?  

> One last question, if a zygote is an individual human being, should
> a woman be allowed to prevent it from implanting into her uterus, thus
> allowing it to seek implantation elsewhere? Thanks -J.J.

Yes, a woman should have the right to refuse to support the zygote.
But that does not justify abortion, since an abortion is designed 
to kill the developing human life. Killing a human life has greater
moral significance than refusing to support that life, in my opinion.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 00:51:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.164235.15490@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>nobody commented on what gaylord meant, only on what he said. 

What kind of sophistry is this? Since when is Gaylord responsible for
your ignorant, asinine interpretation of his words?

>he said, "Laws force beliefs." they do not. 

Yes they do. Laws don't (necessarily) force beliefs IN people, but they 
*ALWAYS* force beliefs ON people. So, there is at least one plausible sense 
in which "laws force beliefs". Granted, there was some ambiguity in the 
sentence, when ripped from context, but little to no ambiguity when context 
was considered. I understood his meaning, why didn't you?

I will note in passing that Gaylord has concurred with my clarification. 
So are you now going to tell -Gaylord- that he misunderstands HIMSELF??

Oh, wait, I forgot... you probably don't have a net.vendetta against him...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 18:04:50 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


In article <1992Apr6.153728.14448@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>If we want to discuss the 'cheapening' of sex, I think we need some
>documentation. Even anecdotal evidence from someone who's been paying
>for it!

Well I have on occasion paied for sex.  I personally, at times, like
to hire a professional rather than to rely on amateurs.  I would say
that sex has not 'cheapened', but has gotten more expensive.  In the
span of 20 years were I have occasionally gone to a professional, I
would guess the price as increased by approximately 200%.  However,
I would also say the quality has increased considerably also.  Quality
is subjective, so I can't give it a percentage for increase.  I would
guess once I factored in quality and adjust for inflation over those
20 years, the price of sex has remained fairly constant.  I am only
making this claim regarding local to my area professionals.  Any
professionals that I have visited in other areas, I could not say how
the price has changed.

The above will qualify as anecdotal evidence.  Anyone have any studys
regarding the price of sex?

>muriel
>standard disclaimer

Dan King
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: for Kevin Brawley
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:00:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.000050.6112
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)



hey.....I tried to send you some private email but your uucp
address bounced. Do you have an address that I could use to 
correspond with you???

And no.....I'm not going to auto-mail you 2000 pieces of email saying
die die die :)

Later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:37:00 GMT


In a previous article, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) says:

>Steve, clue #1 has to do with basic economics, a subject you're weak in.
>Except for cases where one or the other spouse is in the top 10% wrt to
>income,  it takes _two_ paychecks to maintain an acceptable standard of
>living in the U.S.  I'm not talking about ski trips to Vail or a power
>boat in a private slip, I'm talking about a non-leaky roof over one's head,
>food in the fridge, clothes in the closet, and bills paid.
>

not true.........America is not necessarily YOUR neighborhood.

If your statement were true, the poverty rate would go SKY HIGH
because there are TONS of single parents making ends meet.

Economic woes are relative. A relative minimiun is not necessarily
an absolute min.



-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:59:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.235950.25975
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)



>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.

What a GREAT inheritance!!!!!!

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



-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:42:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.060536.25602@liebe.uucp>
kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley

>Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.

I couldn't say.  I don't know any pro-deather.  Know any pro-enslavement-
of-women people, Mr Brawley?

--
"Let us speak plain: there is more force in names than most men dream of; and
a lie may keep its throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of
some fair-seeming name."         - J. R. Lowell
Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:00:34 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr15.161158.23873@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
                jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:
 
>>>> Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
>>>> would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
>>>> to life because it can't waive it.

>>> Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you have a theory
>>> that you would not want to present.
 
>> Why don't you come right out and say it? She's making an argument for
>> infanticide.

> Pardon me? A newborn, once it's outside the woman's body, is not
> conflicting with her rights. 

You just contradicted yourself. Above you say that the fetus does not
have the right to life, and so presumably, the fetus has no rights.
Now you say that the fetus' rights conflict with the mother's rights, 
which implies that the fetus does have rights. Make up your mind, 
does the fetus have rights or not?

> Here's my response to Dave (and BTW,
> why did you respond to his note and not mine?):

I am not obligated to respond to your posts.

> That I understand, but when it's out of the woman's body, its existence
> is no longer is in conflict with her rights.

Here you're implying that the fetus has a right to exist, since
conflicting rights implies that both parties have rights.
 
> I'm sorry, but again his/her life, whether s/he could or would choose
> to live it, is not in direct conflict with any other person's rights.

Again, conflicting rights implies that both parties have rights. 

> True. My point, which I'll try to make clearer in the future, is that
> unless we somehow knew whether a fetus would want to exercise any right
> to life, we cannot abridge the rights of the pregnant woman, whose
> wishes can be known. 

Now you reverse your position by saying that the fetus has no rights 
because we can't know whether it would want to exercise its rights. 
The same argument also applies to an infant, hence it is an argument 
for infanticide.  

> But do you not agree that the definition of a right includes an option 
> to not exercise it? For example, a government allowing me to bear arms
> is a far cry from one forcing me to do so.

Your argument is that an infant and a fetus should have the right
to kill themselves, not that someone else has the right to kill them. 

> And thank you for your flames, Doug.

What flames? I'm simply elucidating your position for the benefit of
other readers. If your own position makes you uncomfortable, that's
not my problem.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Money makes the world go round...(Was: The Voices of Women)
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: Sun, 5 Apr 92 18:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.220244.10820@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr04.192355.16079@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In  <1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>> In <1992Apr3.111600.12898@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>> >In article <1992Apr3.132019.2384@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>Maybe if you'd stop fighting against the availability of safe, legal
>>abortion, then we could stop fighting *for* it, and we could *both*
>>spend more time on other things.
>   Ahhh, stop fighting against abortio huh? If you can't beat 'em, join
>'em? No way... not till I die my friend. Heck the least I can do
>is donate a part of my life to saving millions... Seems like a fair
>trade to me. If you don't like my annoying yapping, then maybe you
>should try listening to what I say. I said LISTEN to what I say, don't
>read it with one eye shut simultaneously planning your attack...

Ok, then Steve, how many food packages have you sent to the children starving
in India recently?  Have you helped any inner city children get the proper
vitamins and enough food/sleep so that they can stay in school?

There's supposed to be a whole bunch of children (note:  Born Children, not
"WarmCuteFuzzyUnbornChildren") over in Romania who desperatly need your 
help.  Have you given it lately?

It's becoming increasingly apparant to me that you're another Holy Fetus
Worshipper.  Please prove me wrong.
--
=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 and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:27:46 GMT

garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>#In <1992Apr10.152706.408@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>#   Cj - someone mentioed you resembled a fetus, and i take strong objection to 
>#that. But I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you. Your 
>#tactics are embarassing to your movement. When I started to post here, the 
>#first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "blah blah blah...
>#   Nice - scare off any newcomer to the game before they get any
>#good ideas in... Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression
>#of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime. you are guilty
>#as charged dear...

>Why is it that the people who complain the most about 
>flames are also the ones who can't resist making them?

>I thought that you were taking a break, Franklin.  Is this
>a new pro-force tactic, to announce that you're leaving
>and then post a few insults the next day?  I see that
>you're honoring the old traditions of criticizing the
>people who post flames rather than those who post flame
>bait and of being condescending to women.  

>Susan

hahahahahaha.  Don't I detect a tiny little FLAME here?  BTW
Political Correctness is unbecoming in all it's forms.  
Condescending to woman appears theses days to mean 
"you don't agree with my Pro-Death stance.".  tsk tsk.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:53:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.000857.3382@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:
>
>>No, to illegally end the existence of a living human is called
>>murder. To legally do so is not. Abortion is legal.
>so if I were to introduce a bill to Congress that allowed vigilante
>groups to beat the f**k out of drug dealers and kill them, and by
>some miracle it passed, would that make killing them not murder?
Yes.

-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Another Perspective (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:26:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.003041.20704@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>[deleted the fair Nora's statements regarding sensitive email received
>from one K Welch. <snif> She never mentioned the sensitive email _I_ sent
>her - she probably never got over my indescretion with hat check girl and
>the maid on that weekend in Rio. :-(]

It wouldn't have bothered me so much if you hadn't woken me up...;-)

>>None of this excuses what Kevin did to Susan. And I do think she and the
>>people who have been supporting her have a right to suggest that Kevin's
>>ethics are problematic at best. But I can't let people claim that he is
>>incapable of ethical behavior, when I know differently.
>
>How about:  He seems incapable of *consistent* ethical behaviour,
>especially in light of his stated major.

I have no problem with this version.

>Gordon
>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.

Purr!

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
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 04:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.142630.13634@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.164121.8405@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>You have manipulated the question, and then thrashed away at a straw man,
>>Adrienne. I am not asking "if women have choice why don't men?". Rather, I 
>>am asking...
>
>Kevin, you will also notice, if you weren't just an egotistical twit, ...

Egotistical twit? Is this rational debate, Adrienne?

>...that
>this particular discussion did *not* begin with questions you posed to the
>net, but with questions someone *else* posted to the net, which was in fact
>"if women have choice why don't men?".

That's how it started. Do I care? That's not the central question, just some
little straw man you're flailing away at.

Can you answer the REAL question, Adrienne? Are you up to it?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:27:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.061030.25741@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
|> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
|> 
|> >Then again, what are you doing to defend the majority of fetuses 
|> >that died last year? There seems to be a great emphisis on the minority
|> >(abortions) but little on the more easily preventable deaths (at
|> >risk pregnancies). Any dedication to providing pre-natal care,
|> >pre-natal & pre-pregnancy education, or hospital care for at risk
|> >mothers?
|> 
|> What is being done?  Funding organizations like Birthright to aid mothers
|> -to-be in need of help.  Now smart guy, what are YOU doing?

I work with FGC & FWCC. I am a volunteer EMT, donate money & time
to Planned Parenthood. I've assisted in 32 emergency deliveries
in the past 2 years, donating my time & services.

Happy now?

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:21:57 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr08.061030.25741@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
#bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
#
##Then again, what are you doing to defend the majority of fetuses 
##that died last year? There seems to be a great emphisis on the minority
##(abortions) but little on the more easily preventable deaths (at
##risk pregnancies). Any dedication to providing pre-natal care,
##pre-natal & pre-pregnancy education, or hospital care for at risk
##mothers?
#
#What is being done?  Funding organizations like Birthright to aid mothers
#-to-be in need of help.  Now smart guy, what are YOU doing?


We know that some of you support Birthright.  Do any of you
support any groups which provide prenatal and pre-pregnancy
education or hospital care?

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion