HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Punishing women...
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:52:27 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <7888@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> smithmc@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu writes:

> In article <1992Jul20.182518.19957@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> ><extreme satirical mode ON>
> >
> >Gosh, maybe this is an effective way to promote
> >wholesome traditional family values!
> >
> ><extreme satirical mode OFF>
> >-- 
> >Chris Lyman - email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov 
> 
> You ever notice how parents who want to encourage family values usually
> do it by beating the Hell out of their children and mentally torturing
> them in to submission? Many people who I met who come from conservative
> Christian households are in therapy because they were beaten so badly;
> in many cases these people were also sexually abused by their parents.
> 
> Don't believe me? Just ask your local homeless teenager how s/he ended
> up on the streets. Or ask your local teenage prostitute how they ended
> up as a prostitute. They're the victims of many people's Family Values.
> Lost Boy

  Ever notice that many of the same are on the streets because of a total
lack of family values that still came with beatings etc?  There's plenty
of blame to spread around.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: secret life
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:14:55 GMT

<1992Jul23.160237.2022@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) said:
><1992Jul20.105044.1443@massey.ac.nz> news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System) writes:
...
>>  I love you with the love of Jesus my lord and saviour
>>          Stephen Vidulich
>
>No flames intended Mr. Vidulich, but: 

But, what's new.

>I just razed a guy for making the mistake that pro-lifers have to rely
>on religion to justify their views, and now this. 

Most seem to.

...
>Honestly, I am tempted to regard the pro-choicers' flat out refusal
>to tell their religious flunkies to keep their religion out of
>government affairs, and cheer you on. And if the Frances Kissling
>issue turns out the way I think it will, this will be the last time I
>object to religious help for our side. If they want to break the
>rules, I will, too, and as good as we are in the ring, pro-choicers do
>not want the devastation of a no-holds barred debate. There'll be
>Bibles flying like cannon shells in WW-II... 

Strange how someone who claims that honor is so relevent to him can
easily toss it aside when it suits his needs.

Tsk, tsk.  What would Worf say...

>But when you even hint that your motives are religious, you're asking
>for a justified mega-flame from the enemy on this newsgroup. Just a
>friendly warning. 

Nope.  Anyone's personal reasons for being against abortion are fine with
me and probably anyone else on this net.  The only time I (and others) get
'hostile' is when these religious views are used to support *laws* that
regard all of us.  I have little problem with Catholics (for example)
making laws which govern Catholics.  When they attempt to expand those
laws to govern non-Catholics, *THEN* we have a problem.

Of course, I've seen you attack others religious reasons for being
pro-choice as well.

Is 'honor' only relevent to you in that you like to sully it any time you
can?


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel,
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress), 
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it all.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Keywords: doug rich and mike
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:37:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.101440.23207@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> 
tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:

>In some article...dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> But why doesn't the fetus enjoy the same right to bodily autonomy? 
>> In the vast majority of abortions, the fetus is either vacuumed out 
>> of the womb or scraped out, thus killing it in the process. 

> I think the big reason is because it is not autonomous.  Show me a fetus
> that cannot survive without a host to leech off of, and then I'd agree that
> it was autonomous.  

A newborn infant sucking on its mother's breast is not "autonomous",
If a newborn infant and its mother were isolated from civilization,
and the mother had only her breast milk to feed the infant, then the 
newborn infant would not be "autonomous" by your definition, and hence 
it would not enjoy the right to bodily autonomy. 

> Also, looking at your "assumption" in the second part,
> if it is correct, then you seem to imply that it is ok to be killed
> in one piece.

No, I was assuming that the right to bodily autonomy includes the
right not to be killed by any method.


> [...]
>> What if you tried to grab hold of my arm -- would I have the right
>> to remove your hand from my arm and let you drown, even if I had pushed
>> you overboard? 

> Even if you didn't push this guy overboard, you aren't obligated to help him.
> It's a decision that YOU get to make.  I think he'd appreciate it if you
> decided to help him, and that he'd be upset with you if you didn't, but
> ultimately you're the one who has to live with the choice that you've made.

But since I had pushed this person overboard, am I not obligated to
help him? If he drowned as a result of pushing him overboard, wouldn't 
that be murder? 


> (Can be avoided==>we have an alternative)

But in fact, there is an alternative to killing the fetus -- it can be
removed surgically without killing it. But in the vast majority of
abortions, the fetus is killed during the abortion procedure. 

> [.. rest deleted ..]
>-Richard


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29753 alt.birthright:213 alt.abortion.inequity:2810
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:10:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>1) Why is it that we don't take tissues from the bodies of executed
>murderers, for experimentation? 

We do.

>2) Dead bodies in general? 

We do.  Take Surgery 101 at Stanford (not that you're ever likely to
do so) and you'll be dissecting a human cadaver.  Cutting up a 
"dead body" in simple terms.

>3) Those who die from diseases? 

We do.

>After all, they, too, could hold answers to major diseases. 

They do.

Pay attention, boy! (a la Foghorn Leghorn)

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Sanger, Chaney, SANGER.  (WAS Re: NEWBIE ALERT! (was Re: Supreme Court))
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:21:38 GMT

> = (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[to V. Randle...]
>This MUST be a newbie. 

Chaney, who gives a shit?  Are you REALLY gonna ignore getting thoroughly
thrashed by Garvin regarding Margaret Sanger?

Don't be scared: *answer* her, fer chrissakes.  We're all waiting with
smiles on our faces.




-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Keywords: They're playing dodge ball again, folks!  
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:24:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.150128.19911@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.165937.13974@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.032349.15036@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <adams.712339545@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney | Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0 ) writes:
>>>
>>>Steve Adams, I don't understand why fetal testing is different that corpse
>>>testing. If the fetus is dead, what is the problem? Do you find testing on
>>>dead adults reprehensable? There is much to be gained by studying and using
>>>the tissue of a dead fetus that would otherwise rot.
>>
>>Answer this one, folks: 
>>
>>Name one instance, even one, in which we can legally kill someone and
>>then cut them up for body parts. 
>
>
>Or name the first person that comes to mind who has had no training in logical
>fallacies.  Reductio as absurdum is often your first mistake.

Answer the question: where can you find for us a class of human beings
which we can kill and cut up for body parts, legally? 

Can you answer that question or do you admit that this is illegal
universally in America? 

We know you can't answer this directly and will try to go around it,
but hey, give it a try, at least.

===============================================================================
		  Pro-Choice means pro-adult/child sex! 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: WANT YOUR OPINION HEARD?
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:49:04 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Given your praise for Chaney/Hall's flight of fancy, some of
us would be, well, embarassed to write for your magazine.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron, Med Sci 1-14, 4-3288)
Subject: Re: I'm a bit pissed...
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:15:39 GMT

In article 8079@csus.edu, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>FACT: The human heart beat does not begin at birth. It begins 3-4
>weeks after fertilization.

FACT: the beating is arythmic and uncoordinated.
FACT: the heart is not yet connected to the rest of the circulatory system
FACT: there is not yet enough blood formed for the heart to have
      anything to pump.
FACT: the fetal heart has two shunts (holes) in it, one that allows the
      majority of the blood pumped to bypass the pulmonary arteries and
      one that allows the majority of the blood to bypass the heart and
      flow directly through the liver. (seems filtration is more important)
FACT: the fetal ventricals pump in parallel not in series like adult hearts.
 

Outside of its usefullness as part of a pro-life mantra, does the fact that
cardiac cells are spontaniously contracting (at 3 weeks the heart is not yet
entirely fused) have any significance? It is not the first observable sign of
life.

BTW:
FACT: a chicken's heart starts beating 7 hours after fertilization.
      so eating fertilized eggs stops a beating heart.
---
--Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Cameron		bmc@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation			voice: (507) 284-3288
200 1st St SW			fax:   (507) 284-9623
Rochester, MN 55905		ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi)
Subject: Re: HeteroSexuality as a DeathKult
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:22:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.203528.17823@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>
>{ its a logical follow on to the whole of the if you have sex,
>you are consenting to gestation, and hence since that has a higher
>level of potential for death, that one has in fact implied to
>the female one is Copulating With, that one is seeking to Kill Them.

I guess this means that I can't buy my date dinner either,
because she might get food poisoning from the meal,
or the cholesterol might clog her arteries!

You know, he may be on to something! :) :) ;)

Mike Ciaraldi
mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Infanticide
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:10:56 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul22.233337.20729@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU# tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa) writes:
##In article <1992Jul22.195415.7681@ncsu.edu> (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
###In article <1992Jul22.184922.219382@cs.cmu.edu> (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
### It is never necessary to kill a newborn infant in order to
### remove it from its mother.  It is sometimes necessary to
### kill a late term fetus to remove it from the pregnant
### woman.
#
##It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus to remove it 
##from the pregnant woman. Labor can be induced, or if that fails, 
##the physician can perform a hysterotomy (surgical removal of the 
##fetus). Try again.
##
#
#I don't know about anyone else around here, but "It is sometimes necessary
#to kill a late term fetus..." seems functionally equivalent to me to,
#"It is not always necessary to kill a late term fetus..."  (An agreement?
#No way!)

No agreement.  DOD is now claiming that he should have said
something else, which is still not any different than what
I said.  He's incapable of admitting it, though, since it
will ruin one of his three standard rants.  

(If he admits that we're saying the same thing, then he's
just given a justification for killing a late term fetus
that doesn't justify killing a newborn, and he claimed
that no such thing was possible.  I can't claim the
high moral ground here, though, because I have completely
enjoyed watching him refute himself.)

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE RAPE/INCEST MYTH.
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:18:17 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <72hma8+.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes ...
>>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> Why would a set of outdated writings, full of mistakes, translated into
>>> pablum, written *2000 years* ago, and filled with unlikely fairy tales
>>> be given credence by an avowed atheist?  (Or even anyone else?)  The bible
>>> contains some nice philosophical points and moral guidelines, but that god
>>> depicted in the Old Testament seems like one twisted cookie to me.
>>> 
>>> I mean, what *else* from 2,000 years ago is given credence by modern man?
>>
>>Ummmmmm...  how about fossils/geological/paleontological evidence etc?
> 
> Fossils make no assertions.

Neither does the Bible if you don't know how to read.
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:28236 alt.flame:11253 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:318
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island (fo
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:12:14 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
[...]
-> We must have lies and fraud. Society wouldn't function without
-> them.

isn't this interesting?

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: The C word
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:31:53 GMT

In article <l6c073INN49c@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>Technically, we might not be guilty of murder in the first place, since
>murder is a legal term and murder laws may not apply on this desert island.

Not to single out anyone in particular, Eric, but I'm sick to death of this
specious argument. Murder is a term in law, yes, but it's ALSO a moral term,
too, being roughly defined as "malicious, premeditated killing". The reason
that the pro-life mantra "abortion is murder" is inaccurate therefore is NOT 
just because it's a legal term, but because it is typically used inaccurately
even _outside_ of the legal realm, i.e. because there is no evidence of 
"malice" as being the motivation for any abortion ever.

Why make a weak objection, when one can make a strong one?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Bush's mom
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:58:19 GMT

In article <adams.711813082@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>[..] He'll be free to do
>>what he really believes.

>I've been saying this for the past month or so to anyone who says that they
>are voting for Bush because of his 'pro-life' stance...I agree Russ...if
>he gets reelected, he'll change this stance...

	Does anyone have any idea what Bush *really* believes?  I
wouldn't be surprised to see him carve an illuminate eye on
his forehead and take to wearing a fez, given his solid
part history.  

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:29393 alt.politics.homosexuality:5227 talk.religion.misc:12889
From: orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu (Wes Orr {Academic Computing})
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: where is a copy of 'evidence that demands a verdict'
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:43:13 GMT
Organization: Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI

In article <1992Jul27.173233.6360@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>What an absurd reference!
>
>
>	_Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ is aa book that presents "historical
>evidences for the christian faith".  It is produced by the Campus Crusade for
>Christ, Inc and was prepared by a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Talbot 
>Theological Seminary.  
>
>	Since I'm a lot better with logic and the scientific method than
>languages and history, I will primarily be concerned with the massive
>logical flaws present, though I will include other items.  The entire
>text is rife with circular reasoning,  attempts at incremental
 
stuff deleted>>>
>	Since his title seems to indicate SOME judicial standpart, using
>"verdict", I believe that this will show that it is either wrong, unconfirmed,
>debateable, or biased.  Thus, it "demands" no such thing.  Given the wide 
>press this book gets, I expected better.
>
I just had to comment.  It seems to me that if you go in with a biased
opinion you will get what you expected (self-fulfilling prophecy).
There is a similar book written out of Harvard Theological Seminary.
I might add that if what you are concerned about is whether evidence
exists as to whether God created the earth or not think about this.
It requires an element of faith to believe in current evolutionary 
theory as well.  Some have labeled it "from fish to philosopher."

BTW, I haven't read the book so don't know for sure all it contains.
I just think you sounded incredibly biased from the getgo.

Wes

-- 
Wes Orr, Dude
GVSU
orr@newton.mcs.gvsu.edu           I love Bugs Bunny!
--------------------------------------------------------
From: jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:10:29 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <1992Jul30.124941.27576@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey) writes:
>
>If you are pro-choice re abortion, but not re drugs, why not?
>How can you not be pro-choice with respect to drugs?
>
>Should pro-choice imply anti-"War on Drugs"?  Keep in mind that
>a war on drug abuse should be a separate matter.
>
I can't help but feel superior to someone wearing a "keep your laws off
my body" T-shirt, yet supports the WOD.  I chalk it up to political
fashion.  These folks just don't seem to think about government policies
very much.   They will become relegalizers the minute 
it becomes just a little more fashionable to oppose the WOD.  

Keep a happy thought!

-Mark
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Who's really doing the Unwanting?
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:02:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>by kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>>>No, the discussion here is about pregnancies that maybe the
>>>mothers want, but that _other_ people with agendas don't want.
>> 
>> Gee, Suzanne, please enlighten us as to who all these _other_ people are...


>ANYONE who suggests that abortion will "solve" any third world "problem".
>If Planned Barrenhood bothered to ask any of the mothers in those countries,
>before presuming to promote abortion as the solution to everything that
>maybe these women don't consider problems, they would discover that those
>mothers LOVE AND WANT their children!!

Promoting abortion for family planning is not the same as forced abortion.
Unless and until the problems described below are resolved, it remains a
valid OPTION.  And that's what it is, an option.  (Except of course, in
the Peoples Republic of China - we'll save that for ANOTHER discussion.)

>The problems are simply food distribution and waste management.
To some extent, true...but war, regulation and mismanagement of resources
are a problem, too.

Just to throw some information on this topic:

Total Fertility Rates:

                  1965-70    1985-90
N & C America      5.2        3.5
S America          5.2        3.6
Asia               5.7        3.5
Europe             2.5        1.7*
Oceana             3.5        2.4
Africa             6.7        6.2**

And the current figures for all developed countries is 1.8*

* A fertility rate of 2.1 is needed to maintain a stable population.

** 1990 numbers, and do not reflect the death rate due to aids, which
   will be growing massively.

So what do these numbers mean?  That population control is becomming less
necessary, in most parts of the world.  In fact, the population of Europe
should actually see a decline, barring waves of immigration.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558