HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Still New to talk.abortion, eh?
Keywords: abortion, immigration laws
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:19:13 GMT

markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
] 
]  i think i have seen enough scriptures pulled
]  out of context to support the anti-choice
]  movement.
] 
]  now i will turn the tables and pull a law out
]  of context to prove the us government does not
]  recognize a fetus as living.
] 
]  our laws do not see those born in other countries
]  (outside us property) as americans without 
]  substantial paperwork and proof. it is where you are
]  born that matters. not where you were conceived.
]  the point where life begins is where your
]  citizenship begins.
] 
]  that concludes this week's invention exchange.
]  what do you think sirs?
] 
]  mark.


can we please start NUMBERING this brilliant conclusions
so that we can all raise our cards and point out:


#347


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NBC News Blackout on Black Senatorial Candidate
Date: 7 Nov 1992 20:06:59 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: next07wor.wam.umd.edu

In article <nyikos.720712856@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> Alan L. Keyes, the Republican Party candidate for the U.S. Senate
> seat from Maryland that is up for election, is pro-life.  To make
> matters worse for him as far as media coverage is concerned, he
> is running against an incumbent who is a woman and is radically
> pro-choice.  
> 
It should also be noted that Mr. Keyes is a Republican running in a state  
where very few Republicans get elected, and that those that do are usually  
a bit more moderate than Mr. Keyes ( Connie Morella and Charles "Mac"  
Mathias come to mind). In addition, Republican support of Mr. Keyes was  
muted at best ( a point brought up by Mr. Keyes at the Convention, if you  
recall), probably due to the fact that Mr. Keyes paid himself a rather  
healthy salary from campaign contributions, not a good thing for a party  
that is running on trustworthiness to endorse. To top it all off, Mikulski  
is rather well liked. Even with enthusiastic assistance from the state  
Republicans, Keyes would not have had much of a chance. 
	Mr. Keyes was not given more press coverage 'cause he was going to  
lose. Badly. He knew it, Mikulski knew it, I knew it, and everyone else in  
the state knew it. The NBC types who work in DC probably live in Maryland,  
so they'd know it too.  The question then becomes, why waste videotape on  
an election that isn't in doubt? Oh, and one morre thing - the local NBC  
affiliate spent quite a bit of time covering elections for Representatives  
who happened to be minorities. Albert Wynn won in Prince Georges County,  
in case you're interested.

ciao
jeff

imagine the second verse of the Internationale in this space.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Victory is at hand for Pro-Choicers
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:24:16 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1dblmqINNc39@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
 (Clinton's election)

>But...meanwhile in other corners of the world the lights are still off.  

Yeah, it's one of those tricky things.  Other countries aren't exactly 
excited to hear what we have to say about civil rights, generally.  It's
politics as usual all over.  After all, many of your buddies in your Irish
pub wouldn't be all that happy to hear us talk about women's rights.

>If y'all get bored then take a vacation in Ireland, visit the pubs, drink the
>Guinness, mention that a woman has the right to choose - that kind of thing.

But it's a terrible tragedy to realize that all over the world, women who
cannot support children end up bearing children -- against their will, very
often -- because political organizations stand in the way of the distribution
of contraception.  Planned Parenthood has been continually stymied in it's
efforts to provide CONTRACEPTION because here, in the US, Planned Parenthood
provides abortion referrals.  

Is that nuts, or what?

I can't think of anything more devestating than for some poor woman, unskilled,
with few resources, who has already watched one of her children die from
malnutrition, and is struggling to provide for the remaining two to discover
she is pregnant again.  In many countries, a new pregnancy is a death nell
for the EXISTING children, as the mother suffers through her marginal preg-
nancy and loses the capacity even to eke out a miserable existance for her
existing dependent children.  That's the Sophie's choice millions upon 
millions of women face in their lifetimes, and have no ability and no access
to the technology to avoid.  They live in societies where husband's 'rights'
to sexual access of the woman is absolute.  They don't get to say no.  They
live in societies where the rest of their lives are pretty unhappy and miser-
able, and sex is one of the few free pleasures they have.  Only, of course,
it's not free.  And somewhere along the line someone dies.

In our country we may have the right to choose whether the living or the   
potential persons will survive.  In many countries, they haven't that choice.

>Sorry to be so glum and all while you celebrate...

It's a selfish celebration.  "We" won.  But a lot of people do recognise
how small this "we" is, in a global sense.  

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: DODie admits he lied
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:22:15 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->>>>> James Keegan has disqualified anyone
->>>>> from using the "pro-choice" label if they do not
->>>>> oppose all restrictions on abortion.

->>>> this statement is not correct.

->>>    "that is why i thought it important to point out
->>>     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
->>>     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
->>>     third trimester."
->>>             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

->> thank you for proving that you lied DODie.
->> please, as a personal favor to me, continue to report
->> that quote. thanks again.

->Certainly.

thanks. 

->    "that is why i thought it important to point out
->     that you are not, in fact, pro-choice as you do not oppose
->     legislation to restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the
->     third trimester."
->             keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
->             <1992May24.032109.20775@crd.ge.com>

btw, the attribution on that quote is wrong. rpi
doesn't use a numbering sequence from crd. but i'm not
going to accuse you of forgery. i'm sure it was just an
honest mistake on your part.

there is one point, however. since your evidence
contradicts your claim, don't you think you should
withdraw that claim?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: to the real peter nyikos
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:00:05 GMT

i think you should do something about those kids who
are posting from your account. really.

they've made you appear to be quite the fool, as well
as a liar.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The battle is won. So long for now.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:02:15 CST
 <lfg90uINNsor@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <lfg9tgINNssc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Nov4.220133.16130@ncsu.edu>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Nov4.220133.16130@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <lfg9tgINNssc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>>  [.. Re: Clinton's election as president ..]
>> 
>> I think that I can let go of this battle for now. It has been a long
>> and a hard one, and I'm going to take a well earned vacation. For this
>> reason, I'm going to take leave of this news group. 
> 
> That's typical of the pro-aborts -- they're only interested
> in providing the choice to abort, nevermind about any other 
> choices.  

Doug:  Are you implying that the right to readily available contraception
is threatened?  The right to adopt?  The right to carry pregnancies to
term?  In short:  Huh??

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.214245.4799@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) asks rocker:
>>>>> How many viable lives would have to be terminated without good cause
>>>>> before you'd permit preventitive legislation restricting late-term 
>>>>> abortions?
>>
>>>> I've seen very few pro-choicers answer this question. 
>
>None.

Brevity at the expense of clarity. Ray, did you mean "none" as in "no pro-
choicer has answered this question", or "none" as in "no unwarranted 
terminations are necessary before Ray Fischer would permit restrictive 
legislation", i.e. Ray Fischer would permit preventitive restrictive 
legislation right NOW???

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Meet Ismail Elguindi, Abortionist
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Nov 92 13:33:56 GMT

In <1992Oct29.105957.28360@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720063540@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>[exchange with Susan deleted]

>>I'd grant exceptions to everyone up to the end of the fifth week, and
>>am open to moving it up to the end of the eighth week, given the
>>right embryological data.  After that, rape is not an exception
>>no matter what the reason.
>>
>It is interesting, is it not, that you deliberately
>choose a time interval in which abortion may not be
>safely performed because of the danger of uterine
>perforation.  Do you want to see more women damaged
>or dying?  That's what abortion prior to five weeks
>will do, if you look at the situation from the woman's
>point of view.

Your accusations are all false, though you may have made them in
good faith, not yet having seen my post, MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND
THE 5-WEEK LIMIT.  

[Distributions sure are crazy.  This post has already expired
on my boards, yet this message of yours dated 4 days ago takes
no cognizance of it.]

BTW this is the first hint I have seen that the suction curettage
procedure causes a HEIGHTENED risk of uterine perforations prior
to the__________week.  [I'm not sure what should be put in the blank,
though Muriel evidently knows what belongs there.]  I emphasize
"heightened" because the procedure always carries some risk of
uterine perforations. {Another thing anti-Casey people conveniently
ignore.}

>You would only allow a 3-week window in which a woman
>might reasonably hope to survive the process if you
>are 'given the right embryological data'.

Gimme a break.  "Reasonably hope to survive the process"????
Do you have any idea what the death stats are?

>How is it that you expect thinking people to believe
>that you have real concern for women damaged by abortion?

Read my MENSTRUAL... post.  I'll post a revision which
makes my feelings even clearer.  The subject is near and dear to
my heart.

BTW my netserver seems to have been restored, but I was away for
the weekend and will be playing catch-up for a good time to come.

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Post natal abortion's refference number
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 30 Oct 92 11:59:38 +0930
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

I hear that !newbies can take a refference and find the original
article. Here's the refference:

<1992Oct1.184309.90248@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

(the dude's address is kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> )

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,uiuc.general,uiuc.politics
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.051626.18683@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>In <1992Nov1.220127.9405@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <Bx20sw.JEt@cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>>> Show me a so-called "pro-lifer" who doesn't eat meat, doesn't use any
>>> animal-derived products, is against the death penalty, wants to outlaw
>>> cigarettes and automobiles as well as guns, and is willing to take a
>>> trip down to the Barrio in L.A. and talk to gang members, and I'll accept
>>> that the term "pro-life" is meaningful, at least in that one instance.

>> Show me a so-called "pro-choicer" who supports the "choice" to kill
>> and abuse born children,  who supports the "choice" to commit
>> murder, rape, robbery, and arson, who supports the "choice" to
>> evade income taxes and the "choice" to sell drugs to children,
>> and maybe I'll accept that the term "pro-choice" is meaningful.

> OK, so pro-choice really means "supports the availibility of abortion 
> as a choice", 

Right, pro-choice really means pro-abortion, because prochoicers
aren't interested in supporting women who choose to remain pregnant.  

>Larry Margolis

Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: misogyny
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 20:08:27 GMT

In <1cn8cvINNd5c@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <1992Oct28.204314.4883@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>There's a difference between mandating a kidney - or even a blood -
>>donation and forbidding an abortion.  It's the difference between an
>>active and a passive; you can think that someone may *not* do action x
>>where x violates another person's rights but that someone may refuse
>>to do y where (not y) violates another person's rights.

>Which falls apart when you consider the nature of abortion and kidney
>donation. ...  See, a woman who is pregnant contributes to the fetus 
>THROUGHOUT the pregnancy, right?  Ongoing, right?   That's ACTIVE, not
>passive, this continuation of transferring nutrients, etc.

Active, as I see it, has to do with willed
actions, while passive has to do with things that go on whether we will
them or no.

>  So, one can
>presumably cease this ACTIVE state, can't one?  If not, why not?  A
>pregnant woman is hardly passive.  A fetus is hardly passive.

Pregnancy goes on unless the woman (or someone else) wills it to end.
Fetal growth is something the fetus has no control over.  

Think of a pregnant woman in a coma.  Is she actively transferring
nutrients to the fetus?  Maybe in Adrienne's book she does, but not
in mine.  She is passively transferring them, or rather her body is
transferring them while she is oblivious to it all.

>All this, of course, completely beside the point, since the assumption that
>one can forbid a woman to take action that violates another persons rights
>is false on the face of it.  A woman (or a man, for that matter) who is being
>physically attacked CAN use force, up to and including lethal force, to stop
>the attack EVEN IF the attack is not necessarily life threatening.  Witness
>rape.  ACTIVE threat. 

Better to say: EVEN IN SOME CASES WHERE the attack is...

BTW I would not say killing a rapist is violating the rapists rights.  The
rapist abrogated those rights in the act of rape.  The fetus, on the other
hand, had whatever right to life it had taken away in Roe v. Wade.

The fetus is innocent of any willful wrongdoing, yet as Martin Guerrero
put it, can be sentenced to death without the benefit of a trial.
 
>>In
>>reality, there *is* no passive choice; either she actively gets an
>>abortion to remove the z/e/f or she works for her pregnancy.

How does a pregnant woman in a coma work for her pregnancy?  I'm not
following this. 

Peter Nyikos
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from ME
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:17:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov12.162153.1591@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>This statement expresses much of what lies behind the pro-choice view,
>and I find it puzzling.  I can't understand why the fact that my body
>is involved in an action makes it inappropriate for other people to
>form judgements about the action.

It doesn't.  You have totally missed the point.  I admit, the post you
were responding to didn't get the point either....

I believe we have a basic right to bodily autonomy.  This is not a right
of action, but a right to defend ourselves against non-consensual
physical intrusion.  I.e., your rights of action end at my skin.
You don't have the right to do things to my body without my permission.
You don't have the right to control choices I make about my own body.

You don't have the right to give me a tatoo without my permission.
You don't have the right to stop me from giving myself a tatoo if
I want to.  My body is my property.

You don't have a right to give a woman an abortion.  You don't have
the right to stop her from getting an abortion if she wants one.
Her body is her property.

Joe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J.  Silverio)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:37:41 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.031221.27218@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.uucp writes:
|I own some property.  I own a tree on my property.  I can destroy 
|the tree.  Which part didn't you understand? 

Clearly you don't live in certain communities in California,
where you'd have to get a permit before you could destroy any
tree, even one on your own property.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:00:45 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Nov11.045746.28299@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a 
>violation of the right to live which God has bestowed
>upon this nascent life.  To raise the question whether
>we are concerned already with a human being or not is
>merely to confuse the issue.  The simple fact is that
>God certainly intended to create a human being and that
>this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of 
>his life.  And that is nothing but murder."
>                     Bonhoeffer, "Ethics"   Hanged by
>		     the Nazis in 1945.

If this is the case why does God often end pregnancies before they
come to term, or even before there is any awareness that the woman
was pregnant at all?  Is this God's will?  Then who is to say that
abortions aren't?  Abortions are an interception of God's will?  Why?
Evidently, God is deciding whether or not the egg gets fertilized,
so contraception is part of his plan.  Like most people, Bonhoeffer
was saying "Because God wants it that way," as a stand-in remark.
His real belief is, "Because *I* want it that way."  I would have
liked to have been able to take him to task for this idiotic 
remark.

Joe
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:17:56 GMT

In article <adams.721595322@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>Pardon me while I but in here...
>
>jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>
>>You try to use the biblical quote "do unto others as you would have them do 
>>unto you" against me, while this is a good try, as others are ALREADY doing 
>>it to me, I can try to do it to them (not very nice or holy I know, but if you
>>corner something it will fight)  many are in government doing just that, and
>>you protest when I want to tell you that you can't marry unless it is a woman.

OK. I had sort of planned to marry a man, but a woman would be OK, I suppose.

Ummm... if we don't commit adultery on the up side, there wouldn't be any
more abortions, but on the down side, the birth rate is sure going to fall.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Chaney needs a lobotomy 
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  5 Nov 92 22:32:10 GMT

In <SCOTTS.92Oct29105701@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720065439@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>   In <BwJ8DG.31s@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>   >In article <16252@umd5.umd.edu>, spinoza@next09wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing) writes:
>   >>In article <SCOTTS.92Oct21110116@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU>  
>   >>scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>Re: the subject line

>   >I'd like to add that there's an additional problem to consider,
>   >namely the apparent fact that Airplane Boy is just plain scared of a bunch of
>	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   >us pro-choice folks. 

>   That depends on what kinds of weapons y'all would arm yourself with if he 
>   ever marched his [expletive deleted] over to your place.

>The only threats I've noticed recently on TA have been from you and
>Chaney. 

What threat have you seen come from me?  

> It appears the "pro-life" position you advocate for people
>that disagree with you is "kill them".

A vile slander, except for the saving clause, "It appears".  You've
been hallucinating, Scott, get a grip on yourself.

Peter Nyikos