HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:18:07 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

How amusing (and typical of anti-choicers) that the notion of consciousness 
does not appear in your "proof". Does a human who's never been conscious
have any morals, any opinions, any meaningful existence, anything at all?
People who insist on full personhood for fetuses are denying the value of
the thing that most makes us human: our minds. Someone who cannot see the 
difference between, say, you, and a fetus probably cannot see the difference
between you and an animal.

[Pet theory: anti-choicers are against abortion because they see it as a
stepping stone to euthanasia. They fear euthanasia very personally because
they know, deep down, that their closest associates, their relatives and 
even their own kids hate their guts for being such illiberal pinheads and
want them dead. Remember, you read it here first.]

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <9APR92.06401786@vax.clarku.edu>  lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
> It is my belief that most people know that a fetus is alive, and human, from
> the moment of conception.  The question of when something turns into a human
> is ridiculous.  Either someone is a human, or not.

Note that you're mixing two different terms here - human (adjective) and
human (noun).  As an adjective, it means related to mankind.  A fetus is
human; my appendix is human.  As a noun, it means the same as person or
human being, which we do not consider a fetus to be.

>      2.  If your are going to respond to this message, please respond to
>          the whole message, rather then breaking it up into specific
>          sentences.

Sorry, no.  Don't want to waste bandwidth.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: cut it out, chaney
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself unless noted otherwise

In article <1992Apr14.204324.2029@csusac.csus.edu>
	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

cut it out, chaney.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson)
Subject: Re: The Constitution-- misquoted
Organization: New York University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:07:46 GMT

bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu  
>(Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>> The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>> 
>> are these 3 words in ... order of priority???

I think they were placed in that order for literary reasons, such as rythmn.
The order in the 5th amendment isn't considered meaningful.

>	Where does the Constitution mention "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit  
>of Happiness?"  I think that you are confusing the fundamental law of this  
>country with another important, but non-legal, document-- The Declaration  
>of Independence.  The Declaration does mention Locke/Jefferson's three  
>rights, but the Declaration has no legal status-- and perhaps there was a  
>reason why the founding fathers chose not to include these rights in the  
>Constitution.  Food for thought- at least.

I think that the original draft said life, liberty, and property, but the
folks who revised the DoI thought that sounded too crass, and so they
changed property to pursuit of happiness.

I am wary about claiming that the DoI has no legal status, though.  At
minimum, it can be used to clarify the meaning of the constitution, since 
it explains some of the thinking behind the constitution.  (In particular, 
compare the complaints against the King with the Bill of Rights.) The DoI 
and the Articles of Confederation constitute the founding documents of
this nation.  The Articles were replaced by the Constitution;  the DoI
was not replaced.  Hence one could reasonably conclude that it does have 
some direct legal relevance, and does not merely inform the meaning of 
the Constitution.

But as the "one man - one vote" decisions in the 1960's showed, American
legal mythology beats out legal technicalities.  Those decisions were
contradicted by the legislative record of the 14th amendment--yet the
court was able to change the law by fiat because it had American mythology
on its side.  Who in the good ol' U.S. of A. could stand up and argue 
that some votes should count more than others?


david
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:18:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.231810.4276
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) says:

>A great point Matt... basically we argue over the status of the fetus here
>but the point has come out. A fetus/inanimate_lump_of_cells (?) has no
>value because the mother gives it none. A mother who loses her unborn
>baby to a miscarriage feels she has lost a CHILD. A woman who has an
>abortion has lost a NUISANCE. 

what about the destitute mother with a kid who was fairly secure
before she had children???? Her kids sure are nuisance. Now she
has to support them. Does she have a right to get rid if this 
nuisance??? Abandon them??? Kill them???
What about the high school student with homework??
Hey....that's a nuisance, and he/she has to go to school by law.
Why should we always get rid of a nuisance???

Heck....life is a nuisance at times??? Should we use a noose??
sorry....bad pun :)

>Many of us see pregnancy as a pain in the uterus,

AWESOME!!!! I love this quote.

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: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:34:08 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>   I have a habit - I read the message of the bible, and avoid the
>specifics. The concept and value of LIFE is a message. Polygamy,

Another message is to love your fellow humans and forgive them
their failings.  Another is to leave judgment to God.  How do you
reconcile these messages with an anti-choice stance?  How do you
decide that abortion is a sin without making a judgment?  How do
you use the Bible to justify ignoring what it says?

>                 One can READ the
>bible, but one must LEARN the bible's message...

One could easily accuse you of using the Bible to learn your own 
message.  Who's interpretation is correct?

>   Heh, I feel so close to you by now, you can just call me Steve, okay?
>You are free to exercise your right to reject my religion. However, my
>belief is that there are rewards to abiding by the bible's rules. 
>I myself break these rules everyday inadvertently, and I spend time
>each day thinking about and tryin to avoid any mistakes I make. 

Including "judge not, lest ye be judged"?

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:51:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.225153.2777
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:

>Only disagreeing technically.  Abortion is NOT contraception (ie. agreed) 
>but Abortion IS birth control (no birth takes place).  A minor point
>nonetheless.
>


Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth 
control too. Does that make every method of birth control ok?????

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
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu (Loren Finkelstein) writes:
>Sorry, but there is a flaw in your thinking there.  "Pro-Lifers" are not
>trying to take away womes rights.  We are trying to protect innocent childrens
>lives.  

The end result is taking away women's rights.

If you're trying to protect innocent children's lives, go to Ethiopia,
thousands are dying every week.

(tired refrain) CHILDREN MUST BE, BY DEFINITION, BORN.

>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.

And if anyone ever advocated killing "people", I would try to stop them
also.

Ron
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:11:20 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr3.111417.17766@newstand.syr.edu> mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) said:
>In article <rbrt#l=@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:
>>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>>>> rocker
>>>>> Gaylord
>>>>>Premise A: there is a God, and human life is what is valued most in this
>>>>>	 world by him, the only athority worthy to judge.            
>>
>>>>Kathi, do you want to repost the article listing the killings that
>>>>God has ordered, or shall I?
>>
>>>Go ahead.  I don't have it archived.
>>
>>Happy to help out.  This ones for you, "Gaylord".
>>
>>-------
>>>From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
>>>Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>>>Subject: All right, you asked for it (LONG)
>>>Summary: god killed innocent people all the time
>>>Message-ID: <1992Mar11.071407.29439@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
>>> Inturdgent
>>>By the way, Drieux, I do remember the Bible as saying "Thou shall not
>
>Thou means you.  This is God saying you shall not kill, it doesn't say
>"I God will not kill", there is a big difference.  Being that it doesn't 
>aply to God, all the rest of your lengthy posting is irrelevant.  It is
>obvious you do not understand what you are discussing, so don't. 

Does the bible not claim that we are made in this god's image?  What
exactly does that mean?  Does it mean that we all look like him?  I was
taught that it meant we share the same spiritual outlook and the same
reverence for life.

BTW, in the OT (Deut. I think) your god also tells Moses that no
illegitmate son may enter the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus was the bastard
son of Mary and god, was he not?  How did he get into heaven?  

Just pointing out that if you are going to take part of the bible as 
absolutely true, you got to take it all.

>>>kill," as, I think, the 7th Commandment. Abortion violates that
>>>commandment. It is the abortionists who are in sin & error, and the women
>>>who obtain them, not those who oppose it. Go read the CHRISTIAN Bible and
>>>tell me where God says killing an innocent human being is okay, and please
>>>list the reference. He says killing is not a choice, bonehead. 

Mark, you fail to address the many places in the bible where god _does_
say killing an innocent human is okay.  He does so in many places.  He
even *orders* it.  Also, in democratic society the laws apply to the 
lawmaker as well as the common people.  Only in a dictatorship-like 
regime does the lawmaker set himself above his own laws.

Looks like your god and Hussein have something in common.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15156 alt.flame:6782
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: kebbie wants a "neutral adjudicator" to control women's bodies (was
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.043728.4879@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
> and waffled on about sexual bondage with Drieux.

I assure you, I have no interest in sexual bondage with drieux.
Catwoman is another story though...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why 100 years?
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
->In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
->Franklin) writes:

->   What I _AM_ saying (as you so ineptly paraphrased) is that society
->is setting a trend. By first tackling the _WEAKEST_ of it's members,
->I ask you, what's next? 100 years ago, you tell any "ordinary" joe
->about a homosexual, or abortion, and they'd think you were mad. Well,
->you just let you imagination go crazy and try and envision what society
->will be like in another 100 years if it continues with this trend.
->Society can't exist like this. It _WILL_ change. Whether under influence
->of people like me, or through natural socio-economic evolution.

Hold your horses there...quite a few documented cases of homosexuals
exist from long before 100 years ago. I do believe the marquis de sade
was bisexual, although he was extremely perverted in any sense of the
word. Sociologists believe homosexuality has been around since the dawn
of man in something like 10-15% of the male population (I don't remember
what the lesbian ratio was). Recent studies have also shown that rats,
when packed too tightly into a cage, begin exhibiting sexual relations
with other rats of the same gender. Good argument for continuing that
downward trend in population growth, wouldn't you say? You wouldn't
want to become a homosexual, now, would you?

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

Probably knocking two stones together to make a fire to burn the
EvilAdultressPromiscuousLiscentiousButRaisesFeelingsIDontWantToHave
woman at the stake.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:16:14 GMT

<1992Apr12.171710.20635@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
><1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
>
>>>Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
>>>child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.
>
>>Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.
>>I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...
>
>A great point Matt... 

There wasn't a point.  I ahve told women that, and they have agreed with
me.

>                      basically we argue over the status of the fetus here
>but the point has come out. A fetus/inanimate_lump_of_cells (?) has no
>value because the mother gives it none. A mother who loses her unborn
>baby to a miscarriage feels she has lost a CHILD. A woman who has an
>abortion has lost a NUISANCE. 

Regardless of what they feel, technically each has lost a fetus, not a
child and not a nuisance.

>                              The woman who chooses the abortion is a victim
>of society herself just like aborted unborn child. Society has implanted in
>her the notions of success and stability, and pregnancy does not fit
>within this definition. 

I love this - when women agree with you it's because they think for 
themselves - when they disagree with you they are controlled by society.

And Kevin Welch was just explaining how society at large *doesn't* think
abortion is ethical or moral.  I wish you guys would get it straight.

>                        Many of us see pregnancy as a pain in the uterus,

How many kids have you delivered there Steve?

>and not as a gift or an inevitable stage of life. Women must realize that
>one of their great gifts is their ability to CREATE. 

They *MUST*?  Why *must* they?

>                                                     We must thank women
>for this, and heighten our support and admiration of the mother. 

That's why we have mother's day.

>                                                                 It is
>society's fault and it is now society's resonsibility to help all women
>through their pregnancies and beyond. 

Why, to both statements I ask why.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:37:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.221818.18249@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>To me, that means living.

>>So what?

>The fetus is also classified as homo sapien sapien. Thus, to 
>end the existence of a living homo sapien sapien has been 
>known up till know as Murder. That's what...

You could not be more wrong. Try to do a little research before
spouting off such foolishness in the future. It will save you
considerable embarassment.

Now once again; So what?

>   steve (who is listening to the devil's music (zepellin) and enjoying it!)
>    ^^^rebel! 8)

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:35:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: nas.1992Apr16.173513.29252
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


kb>In artilce <1992Apr15.225741.25161@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
em>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

em>But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a
em>woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like
em>yourself are fighting against it.

kb>The problem is your nearsighted inability to see the REAL issue.  If the
kb>fetus is human, it's murder.  If the fetus isn't human, then it doesn't
kb>matter at all.  It's the ONLY issue.

It is much easier to deal with complex issues if you have the ability to
ignore parts that make it complex.  Completely ignoring the woman makes
the abortion issue much easier for simple minded people such as your
self to handle.  I  understand why you would want to make the issue as
simple as possible to deal with.  However, for many people involved in
the controversy, we can not ignore significant issues just to make the
debate easier.

em>Eric

kb>animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
kb>prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.212836.25436@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> > I wish I were eighteen and not only knew everything today, but
> > knew all of my future as well.
> 
> Dean, you of all people should know that most of our mental development
> happens between ages 4 and 18:  At age 4, you know all the questions;
> at age 18, you know all the answers. :-)

Yes, but I'm old and forget things.

Dean Kaflowitz

	Si vis me flere, dolendum est
Primum ipsi tibi.
-Horace

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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:47:29 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sf>In article <1992Apr8.005453.17551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
ar>In <1992Apr07.192728.5615@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

ar>Of course, so is the concept and value of man's WILL.

sf>   And hasn't man's "will" just gotten us in a fine mess? Damn apple in
sf>the garden of Eden... heh

Would this fear of free will also be a teaching of your holy church?

sf>   steve

Dan King

I used to live in a house on Eden Way many years ago.  I planted an
apple tree in my yard and from the people I eventually sold the house
to have told me, no finer apples have ever been grown.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:12:53 GMT


In a previous article, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) says:

>Some wars never end, they are just taken up by generation after
>generation. I think that this is just another aspect of the most basic
>of those wars, that if the right to freedom vs. the stability of a society.
>

Excellent point Eric.

Very few people realize that our country was founded on the principle that
the people surrender "some" of their rights in exchange for stability.
Hence, anarchy=disorder. This idea is attributed to Locke or Hobbes.
I ALWAYS get them confused. But it comes from the old idea about
the right of kings to rule. The people subjegated themselves
to some king/government in exchange for other certain rights and
stability.

A perfect example of this today is gun control. We MUST limit
firearms, even though there should be no control, because some
people will always abuse them and the stability will suffer.


later

could someone please clarify which philosophe I am talking about??

I always found it so ironic that our country would be founded on a
principle that was also used as support for monarchies.


-- 
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,soc.men,soc.women