HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Summary: theres want and there is WANT!
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:49:44 GMT

This just came across my desk
Frederica Mathewew-Green of Americans United for Life
calls our society to the pain of crisis pregnancy.
"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone
or a Porsche.  She wants an abortion as an animal, caught
in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.  She must be met
by our willingness to help her if our assertions that we
value life, or that we support her choices, are to have
any menaing at all."


Ouch.

chus
pyotr
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <74036@netnews.upenn.edu>, Kevin C. Welch writes:
In article <1992Apr14.173219.2569@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>Kevin "Biojerk" Welch wrote:
>|Control your legs then. 
|>I hope all the women you meet take your advice to heart.
|Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
|I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
|Jerk.

Well, that's odd.  If you find your own advice so unpleasant 
& insulting, why did you offer it to others?  You do plan to 
live by the standards you'd recommend to others, don't you?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief." --Austen
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:07:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Lenny Bruce
>>David
>>

>>>Ah, you are *still* assuming that a human life (which an 8 week fetus *sort
>>>of has in that it is "genetically tied to the human race" and it is "alive")
>>>means it is a person. You have *still* not used any amount of reason to 
>>>convince anyone here that that is true.

>>Hey, Dave.  Like I've said a million times:

>>HUMAN BEING DOES NOT IMPLY PERSONHOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>I have NEVER said that the fetus is a person.  


>Person, human, person, human, human *being*, person being, human person.
>I have a hard time rembering which is bad to kill. I assumed all so I find
>them to be synonymous.

They are NOT.

>Is it the fact that the fetus is a human being or a person that makes it bad 
>to kill it. Pick one, and stick it in the above paragraph, then answer the 
>question.

It is the fact that it is a human being in the genetic sense.  That it is
human.  That, to me, it is a Constitutional person, not a phil person.

>>I have ALWAYS said that it is a human being in all genetic form, it IS human
>>and that it HAS rights!!!!!!!!

>Human? Or human *being*. I never saw the list from you that described the 
>exact terms we were going to use.

It is human.  Human is the adjective to associate beings of the same genetic
order.  Human being in it's genetic form...as I have said over and over
and over and over...


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.013357.29903@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>
>OK....let's take a moment and assume that it isn't a child.
>
>Well then, is it living at all??????

It has living cells: it is alive. That was never questioned, was it?

>It has a heart, brain waves, and for a certain time before birth,

It is important to discuss what time before birth.  A lot happens between
conception and birth.

>it could survive without its host (remember, we assume it's a parasite)
>To me, that means living.

Agreed.

>Sure, it is dependent upon the woman to live.
>
>But so was my brother when he was born 2 months early. He needed
>life support. HE COULDN'T SURVIVE BY HIMSELF!

Yes.

>Now.......does that make him not living??????

No. Did someone say otherwise?		


>The way I see it, theoretically the fetus is a living animal with
>certain restrictions due to life support systems. So, if we
>get rid of it.....and the heart stops beating....the brain waves cease...
>something living dies. Murder? perhaps not. But something does die.

Murder if that thing was a person. Killing, yes, always. Just like killing 
a chicken for dinner.

>After all, the fertilized egg could be removed IMMEDIATLEY after
>fertilization and be brought to term. Surrogate parents have proved
>this.

Yes, the issue of "potentiality". Let's discuss it.

>just something to think about

Great. I am. Let's discuss it.


>
>-- 
>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


-- 

**************************************************************************
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: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215934.29539@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>Look, this really is simple.  See if you can follow.  The woman is being
>"Inconvenienced", "Traumatized", etc. (Pro-Choice words).  The child is
>being "Murdered", "Killed", etc. (Pro-Life words).  So your arguement
>could easily be used to say:  You are *forcing* death upon babies.
>and the Pro-Lifers only want the mother to take responsibility for her actions.

If you would support your assertion that a 8 week fetus is a baby, you might
have a point. This has not been done.

You assert, without any support at all, that a 'fetus' (no age given) is a baby.
Do you believe that after fertilization, in the early stages of mitosis, that
this clump of say 16 cells is a person: a baby?

>>Selfish? Yes. It is the woman's self who is carrying this non-thinking
>>piece of fetal tissue. If she doesn't want to be carrying it in her*self*,
>>she has the right (under law:status quo) to have it remove from her*self*.
>
>More simpleness for you:  Legal does NOT equal Right.

Of course not. I didn't say legal DID equal right. I said "she has the right
under law, which is currently the status quo to have an abortion." If you
are trying to change the status quo, you need to do more for your argument
then just reassert your point over and over without support.

>>You are saying she is selfish because she doesn't want someone around to 
>>decide what she should do with herself?
>
>No.  Listen please.  It is selfish to murder someone because they are
>inconveniencing you.

You have oversimplified all abortions to occur because of inconvenience. 
Not only is this another cheap shot, but it is incorrect.

And if you would support your reasserted assertion that an 8 week fetus is 
a "someone", and that it is murder, we will gladly listen.


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Amazing...
Summary: ...not to mention boring.
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:37:53 GMT

In article <kusdj8INNe54@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>>Translation:  you're not intimidating people into acting like YOU think they
>>should, so they *must* be unable to have an intelligent discussion.  The
>>world doesn't revolve around your particular definition of responsibility.
>
>Translation:  You have no life.  You have no brain.  You have no clue.
>Wow! Somethings never change.  You could not be further from the truth!
>And I guess you still believe condoms are "safe-sex."  Now there is an
>oxymoron for you!  ("Safe-sex" for those of you keeping score at home.)
>And get this, a rubber glove (8 times thicker than the average condom) was
>once found to have a channel all the way through it that was 1 micron wide.
>Big deal you say, well the AIDS virus is only .1 - .3 of a micron in size.
>Tests for condoms do not even check for holes as small as a micron!

Tell me one thing -- what has your little rant to do with anything I said?
Nothing.  If I wanted your guide to how the rest of us should live, I'd
ask...but I don't need it, since you've already spared no effort in beating
us over the head with it.

>	Ok, on to the topic that should be at hand.  I believe this group
>is for equity over abortion, so what does that mean?  Are we suppossed to
>discuss whether or not a man can force a woman to have/have not an
>abortion?  Or, can a woman force another woman to have/have not an
>abortion (like mother  forcing daughter?)?  If a man does not want a woman
>to have an abortion, can the woman force her opinion her partner?  Is this
>what this group is for?  Do we really need another group for this?  My
>answers: nothing, would be nice, no, no, maybe, no.

Try nothing, sure, not in my book, also not in my book, who knows?, maybe
and maybe not...

>	And as for my little Rice-patty friend, my plates are XIT2DOS.

Hey, if you want to blow your money on vanity plates, that's your
problem...I have better things to do than look at other license plates when
I'm on the freeway -- *especially* I-40 in midtown Knoxville, for reasons
I'm sure you can figure out...

(65 days and counting...:-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: corection
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:35:13 GMT

A past message should have read not enoufe sochal workers and judges that are
willing and nonprejadishal enufea
error sarry hit wrong key to del.-. Just because the judge in your area is 
willing doesnt mean that all are like that. These people represent a diversit
as do the rest of us. They do not all come from the same walk of life. The 
tend te resemble the society at large rather well-take a good look around
with out the rose tinted glassis. Your knowing people who have made thesse  
adoptions shows that they are out there.

ELF-KIN	Human generaly pro-life but a moderat. as will/might be seen 
			in the future
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:06:20 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Pro-choice means that we are for the existance of choice between having
>a child, adoption, or abortion. Whatever the woman decides. Not a third
>party. It's kind of a live-let-live viewpoint. (and Kevin will attempt
>to twist this)

Who needs to twist this?  You're plenty twisted, my friend.  Really
now, murdering children = live-let-live?  hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>>>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

>>>Gee, you've seen a fetus walk, talk, act????????

>>I've seen one act.  I've seen one move about.  Seen a new baby walk?
>>Seen a new baby talk?  I haven't.  But hey, they're not persons either;
>>let's legalize infanticide now....there NOT persons...

>Ahhh, but they're not parasitic lifeforms in the sense of a fetus, now
>are they?

Man you are STUPID.  A fetus is not a parasite.  No more than you will
be when you're sitting in a nursing home.

>>>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
>>think?  Is the fetus human?

>OK, it has a tail, an extremely oversized head, and is generally similar
>in appearance to a melted wax figure, a sort of blob. It is human (so 
>is your blood) and is parasitic, does that make it a person? Not to 
>me.

I know someone with a skin tag resembling a tail.  Does this make that
person a non-human, bonehead?  Children have a head to body ration of
about 3:1.  An adult human is about 7:1.  Does this make children
non-human, bonehead?

>Not to dehumanize the fetus completely, since it really doesn't matter.
>I personally long for that day that science enables men to carry children,
>because then ignorant oafs like you would have to line up and be impregnated.
>(Yeah, we wwould force you to, it is only fair, it's what you want to
>do to women, whom I notice that you repeatedly leave out of your arguments).

Golly can't argue with that.  And when that happens we'll throw you in
a pit and pay "specialists" big money to tear you apart with long
metal tools.  It'll be really cool.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 20:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.010620.13821@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>Ahhh, but they're not parasitic lifeforms in the sense of a fetus, now
>>are they?
>
>Man you are STUPID.  A fetus is not a parasite.  No more than you will
>be when you're sitting in a nursing home.

A woman is a living, breathing BORN human being with definite feelings,
hopes, desires, rights, etc.

A nursing home is a non-living, human-built structure. A piece of property.

Crouching in a woman's womb is a LOT different from sitting in a nursing
home, Brawley. Always remember this.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 06:47:27 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  <72959@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
> David
> >Kevin
>
> >>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
> >>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?
>
> Hey, Dave, get a clue.
>
> To be born, you have to be a fetus.  To be a fetus, you have to have been
> an embryo.  To be an embryo, you have to have been a zygote.  To be a zygote,
> you have to have been unified by two gametes.  So when YOU masturbate, you
> don't kill the unborn.

Hey, Kevin, get a clue.  To be a child, you have to be born.  Since
"unborn children" is the null set, there are no "deaths of unborn children"
to talk about.

    infant; child; baby.  An *infant*, in the general usage of the
word, is a *child* during the earliest period of its life when it is
still being carried about, "a babe in arms."  *Infant* and *baby* in
current American usages are synonymous, though *baby* is the everyday
word and *infant* would seem formal or a little archaic.  A *child*
is a baby or an infant but in general use it applies to persons below
the age of puberty and since *baby* is generally used of the very
young, a *child* commonly designates someone anywhere between weaning
and puberty.  In law an *infant* is a minor, a person under twenty-
one, and a *child* is any descendant, regardless of age.  *Baby* is
not recognized in the law as designating a category.

Source:  _A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage_
(courtesy of E. Elizabeth Bartley)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:54:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr14.013321.6128@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>Kevin
>
>>>What purpose is there in killing life? 
>
>Eating?
>
Sorry, again I am a victim of semantics.  HUMAN life.


>>> I can see no exceptions to this
>>>"non"-purpose other than war or self-defense.  Without these two incidents,
>>>there should be no reason to take life (human).

>Ah, you are *still* assuming that a human life (which an 8 week fetus *sort
>of has in that it is "genetically tied to the human race" and it is "alive")
>means it is a person. You have *still* not used any amount of reason to 
>convince anyone here that that is true.

Hey, Dave.  Like I've said a million times:

HUMAN BEING DOES NOT IMPLY PERSONHOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have NEVER said that the fetus is a person.  

I have ALWAYS said that it is a human being in all genetic form, it IS human
and that it HAS rights!!!!!!!!


crack open your cranium and let some of that flow in.


>>>Bar the death penalty too.

>Irrelevant. Stick to one issue at a time.


No, it was to avoid the flames coming when I said "What purpose is there
in killing [human] life?"

thbbbbbt!


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:15:39 GMT

Before this became a debate on abortion in general, there was a mention of
community service.  This is a laudable suggestion, but also difficult.  There
are few schools that teach students about sex education, much less abortion.
The problem lies in people, whether they be pro-anything, trying to prevent
the dissemination if information in the school systems.  In the case of
sexual diseases and abortion, this information could be life saving, but people
scream "Don't encourage my kids to have sex."  The truth is that they are, they
have been, and they'll continue, whether their parents want them to or not.  My
point is that the education system, the next best thing to television, can
teach kids to protect themselves against both and that parents should stop 
trying to protect their "poor, innocent babies."

Shane Sauby
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are."   -BB

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Brawley thumps Bible! (Film at 11)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:55:40 GMT

chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- not the mamma!  not the mamma!) writes:

>>> I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to 
>>> start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>>> stance.

>> Don't call it *my* Bible, please.  I'm not a Christian.  If you want to
>> argue over what the Bible says, do it with someone who agrees that
>> said Bible has any authority over them.

>Kevin, we've been over this before.  There is nothing in the Bible that
>indicates the God is pro-life.  In fact, for every passage that you can
>"interpret" to mean "pro-life," I can produce a passage showing God taking
>bloody vengance against innocent people.  Read II Kings 2:24 for openers.

"nothing in the Bible that indicates the God is pro-life."  You are wrong.
You presume "God" is taking "bloody vengance against innocent people".  I 
will supply the Pro-Life scripture.  YOU supply the BVAIP scripture.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:657 talk.abortion:14675
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: what is the purpose of these two discussion groups? You're soaking in it.
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:39:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr11.052010.12342@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr10.225912.20767@leland.Stanford.EDU>  yoda@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ernest Hua) writes:
>> Would the people in charge (if any) or the originators of these two groups:
>>
>>      alt.abortion.inequity
>>      talk.abortion
>
>talk.abortion is for talking about abortion.  alt.abortion.inequity is
>supposed to be for discussion of the inequity that some people perceive
>in the fact that the man who contributed half of the genetic material
>to the fetus doesn't have the ability to either force the woman to
>carry to term or force the woman to abort.
>
>Almost everything in alt.abortion.inequity belongs in talk.abortion only.

Who would have ever thought they could get the net world to stay on its leash?
It is too much to expect that the material would stay in one area or another.

We should probably just throw up our hands and enjoy what we've got.

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:647 talk.abortion:14604