HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:03:02 GMT

In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.190010.13178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726100849@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>>[Deletions]
>
>>>I think a healthy person's life is worth more than that of an
>>>AIDS patient. Almost 100% of AIDS patients will never make it 
>>>for more than a few years.
>>>
>>You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?
>
>>When you are ready to leave HappyBunnyLand and try living in the Real
>>World (tm) then come talk to us.
>
>You have an awful lot to learn, don't you?
>
>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives. The
>above statement originally followed someone else's statement that z/e/f's
>should be less valued because many didn't survive til birth. This
>is an example of reductio ad absurdum, Mark: disproving a proposed 
>principle by showing it leads to obviously wrong conclusions.
>
I'm aware of what you were *trying* to show, but you did a very poor
job of it. Your statement about survival time for AIDS patients is
incorrect, unless your definition of "few" is considerably longer then
the average.
As for reductio ad absurdum...
You seem to be doing fine reducing your own arguments to absurdities,
we don't need to help you.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:42:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.045752.4968@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1993Jan1.022332.536@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.051334.12145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1992Dec30.005736.24210@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>"Interference" refers to detrimental effects. It is not a violation
>>>>of BA to have one's biological functions affected in beneficial ways.
>>>
>>>Someone whose religious beliefs forbid medical intervention might not agree...
>>
>>True, but in the context of the article from which you quoted, "beneficial
>>ways" mostly denoted natural gestational processes.
>
>First you said "The word "autonomy", by itself, implies freedom from outside
>interference."  Then, in the article I quoted, you attempted to restrict
>"interference" to detrimental effects.  

Yes. Do you wish to argue that "interference" doesn't carry a negative
connotation?

>Interference is interference.

Enlightening.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:25:34 GMT

I havn't been following this threat, so I am not sure who stands were on
the issue of abortion.  But, I was curious as to the pro-life stance on
fetal tissue research.  The common arguement follows along the lines that
fetal tissue reseach will up the number of abortions.  In addition, the
use of fetal tissue gets into the ethics of human research.  
I think it's pretty obvious were I stand on the issue, if you have read any
of my past postings.  I just wanted to get some feedback from the pro-life
and anti-research side.

Greg Popken

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Greetings
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:35:47 GMT

In article <29366@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

> and Chris' observations hold true for them (the majority). We have had
> one other who claimed to be an atheist (saying you are anti-creationist
> is redundant, BTW:) but he apparently has religious views, as expressed
> in his opinions and what he chooses to contest in his posts. 

I contest what I see as anti-religious bigotry and intolerance.
Your twisted reasoning is the same kind reasoning which says that
people who defend homosexuals from vicious bigoted attacks must
be homosexuals themselves.  It's a bunch of nonsense. 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:41:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.002801.8664@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne
Forgach) writes:

>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the
>time.

Not quite--it takes about 5 minutes, give or take, for the lack of
oxygen to kill. So what does this have to do with abortion?

Tep
-- 
If you wake up and don't want to smile, if it takes | Dear Lord, give
just a little while, open your eyes and look at the | me chastity...  
day, you'll see things in a different way. Don't    |    but not yet. 
stop thinking about tomorrow.       --Fleetwood Mac | --St. Augustine
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:37:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.203000.2255@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.172612.17505@news.unomaha.edu> 
>trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu  writes:
>
>>> It is said that Roe v. Wade allows abortion up to the 9th month.
>
>> First of all, the Court last June (I believe) redefined Roe v.
>>      Wade.  Secondly, The Court who determined Roe v. Wade
>>      allowed the state to proscribe abortion in the last
>>      trimester (or last three months of pregnancy) unless
>>      the woman's health was threatened.  Please look up the
>>      decision if you are in doubt.
>
>But the definition of ``health'' given in Roe v. Wade
>and the companion case Doe v. Bolton is so broad that it
>encompasses emotional and psychological health.  In order
>to perform a constitutionally protected abortion, a physician
>need only determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve
>the woman's emotional or psychological health, which can be
>easily demonstrated for a woman who would otherwise remain
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>pregnant against her desires. 

*PROVE* that this is "easily demonstrated", Doug! Cite even -one- case where
a woman obtained a third-trimester abortion for a "trivial" psychological
reason, and people might, just _might_, start believing that all of this 
moaning and gnashing of teeth of yours amounts to anything more than simple
scare tactics...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:11:25 GMT

In article <1icdflINNsnv@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com 
(John Townsend) writes:

}I, for one, have chosen life.

Congrats.  It can be a relatively unpopular thing to choose life 
over war -- a lot of people seem to think they can "choose life"
and rationalize away exceptions for war or whatever.

ps  I don't think the Guttmacher survey on abortion had a slot for
    "convienence"?  Was that your own "editorial" comment?


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:28:50 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>> 
>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity, 
>
>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Okay, I suppose then that no medical operation is dignified.  But
you're not "many women"; in fact, you're only one, living in your own
version of reality that's not quite like any other we've seen around
here.

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>
>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

And no more forced than dying of cancer, either, is it?  Does this
have any relevance?  You misinterpreted the meaning of 'force' here:
nobody's going to force you to keep breathing if you don't want to,
and nobody will toss you in jail if you try to stop breathing, but the
same would not be true of pregnancy if you had your way.

Would you please stop making these utterly clueless one-liners, and at
least try to post something meaningful once in a while?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54698 talk.religion.misc:25588 alt.atheism:25423
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Reading Skills...
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:03:39 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

] In article <1993Jan9.234254.8883@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
] mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
] 
] > Over 30 states have,
] > in fact, passed laws which are still in force, regulating the
] > performance of third trimester abortions. 
] 
]     "According  to  a  1979  survey  by  Jeanie  Rosoff  of  Planned
]    Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 30 states have laws regu-
]    lating third-trimester abortions. Some of these laws prohibit  or
]    strictly  limit  abortions after the fetus has reached viability.
]    Some require doctors to try to save  abortion  live-born  babies.
]    Only a few states have both types of laws.

Note that there are at LEAST two Types of Laws in this area.

]      In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
]    tional.   Others  obviously  would  be, in light of Supreme Court
]    rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
]    tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
]    individual doctor."

Note that Some of these Laws have been proven unconstitutional.

Note that there is no information as to which of the
At LEAST TWO TYPES of laws have been struck down as
UnConstitutional, and for what reasoning.

Then the Leap into the Dark, from the Void of silence,

Hence all of these Laws will be Struck Down.


Not if You will Dear Old Doug, that Some of the New
State Laws on Abortion Have Not been Sruck Down, and
some of them Have Been Struck down.

To use your 'text book case' form of 'logic' such as it is,
you could then conclude that:

1. All abortion laws will be Struck Down

2. All Abortion laws wiill be UpHeld.

3. None of the Above.

4. All of the Above.


ciao
drieux

ps: are you perchance HomoPhobic and Learning reasoning
from the clayton cramer school of how to read?


pps: does this also mean that you are potentially likely
to burn down churches to prevent 'homosexual feelings' as well?



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:04:57 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0K4y1.M1H@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>Well, maybe we are speaking of a different "value".  The value I am referring
>to  is associated with the gene structure which differentiates one human from
>another.  That exists independently of the uteris. I don't argue that to allow
>that valued individual to develop requires the nurturing of the mother's womb.
>The only thing the pregnant woman can willfully do it to destroy a pre-existing
>value.

Scuse, please, but let me be sure I've got this straight.

YOU figure 'gene structure' has a value.  YOU acknowledge (big of you) that it
costs OTHER PEOPLE (i.e., pregnant women) something to preserve this 'gene
structure' that YOU think is valuable.      

Do I conclude correctly that YOU would support legal restrictions REQUIRING
a woman to give up her rights as a citizen in the U.S. in order to force
upon her the BURDEN of gestating a 'gene structure' *YOU* feel is valuable?

No, this isn't a trick question.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:19:05 GMT

Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com writes:

>I find it funny, and as a potential father in the future, sad that several
>pro choice people jumped on Edward Simond's back when he said that a woman
>got HERSELF pregnant, yet turn around and vehemently state that it is the
>woman's natural right to have an abortion.  C J even went so far as to
>claim nobody was involved but the mother and her doctor.  The prevailing
>attitude seems to be that the father DOES have responsibility for the
>pregnancy, DOES have responsibility for supporting the child, but DOESN'T
>have any say in the matter of whether that pregnancy is continued or not.

>Although I agree wholeheartedly with Edward Simmonds, I am above asking him
>to put his money where his mouth is.  I am surprised that none of the pro
>choice people noticed he claimed 'references available upon request' to
>back up his statements and despite having asked two other people for their
>sources, completely ignored someone ('s request for him to provide those
>references.  


Sorry.  I must have missed this request.  Which statements did you want
references for?  The only one I can think of is the definition of
fetus... reference follows:

"Definitions- Nurses Reference Library", Intermed Communications, published
by C. V. Mosby Co., copyright 1983

Page 376

"fetus/foetus- the unborn offspring of a viviparous animal after it has
attained the particular form of the species, more specifically, the human
child in utero after the embryonic period and the beginning of the
development of the major structural features, usually from the 8th week
after fertilization until birth."  


Mr. Barnes, consider my money put.  

Oh, thanks for the hearty endorsement.



Edward Simmonds

- standard disclaimers -  



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio [sic] on.
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:44:04 GMT

In article <nyikos.726159529@milo.math.scarolina.edu> 
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) writes:
>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>But if you're making a list, checking it twice, I'd be honored to make it
>>on as a fan of Susan Garvin's rigorousness and sincerity (if not always of
>>her sentiments).
>
>I'll check the list as often as necessary.  As of now, it goes:
>
>Mark Cochran   Keith Cochran   Patrick Humphrey  Dean Kaflowitz
>Steve Novak   Steven Mezias  [...]  Jim Keegan   Brian Kauffman
>Dan King   Mark Ira Kauffman   drieux   Larry Margolis   Chris Lyman
>Ron Bense   Lefty   Gordon Storga, Eric Marsh, Galen Hekhuis ...
>
> [...]
>
>not to mention:
>
>Adrienne Regard   Sarah McCabe  Muriel Nelson   Kathi Mills  Heather
>rocker    Teddi  Linda Birmingham   Suzanne-lucia Demetrio

Why the gender separation, Nyikos?  Will you make us sit at separate
tables at the fan club party?  Or are the women just B-list?

>>>If I did, my apologies.  
>
>>To whom?  Susan Garvin, or me?
>
>To you, of course.  I think your testimony just now obviates the need
>for any apology on my part, but if anyone disagrees, hey, I'll gladly
>apologize to her too.

I think that you should apologize to Susan Garvin.

> Subject: That Garvin list, Woodyatt off, Demetrio on
> to the post of Ms. Demetrio
> Obviously Ms. Demetrio

I have an oddly-spelled surname, too, Nyikos.  Please do me the kindness
of getting it right.  Demitrio.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                    suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:55:01 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>mother's value?

Because, in this country, you get to use your own body as you see fit, 
based upon your own values.  And that includes denying the use of that
body to someone else who really is, or merely claims to be, in dire need
of your body for their own purposes.

The only way to get around this little standing rule is to 'deny the true
significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.'  Refusing her sovereignty
over her own body makes her less than any other citizen in this country.

How could you *possibly* justify such a thing, on the basis of the claims
of another person?  You can't.  And fetuses aren't *more* worthy than another
person, are they?

If it's fair game for women, it's fair game for men, and we can use your
extra kidney, thanks.  Regardless of your own values about that.

Think about it.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Why is vengance Anti Military?
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:01:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.223304.3303@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
drieux) writes:
>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>] 
>] >psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>
>Paul, You might want to talk to you boy here....

YES SIR, MR drieux!  What shall I say, Sir!

>
>] To label me as anti-abortion is accurate, but not the most accurate.  
>] Pro-life means that I consider life to be the single most basic and
>] fundamental right of existance.  Not only do I oppose abortion, but I
>] support standards and policies of morality which seek to improve people's
>] lives after birth.  Pro-life means that I don't think it is up to anyone
>] to decide for anyone ELSE what a "meaningful life" means, or to
>] decide if that person has the "potential" for "meaninful life".
>
>
>so Ed, you don't mind if we get personal here.
>
>but why are you anti_military?
>
>
>ciao
>drieux
>
>ps: is this where we get to talk about Close Air Support,
>Co_ordinated artillery fire.....
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems:
>
>"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
>				Olivia Newton Algegra
>


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:21:48 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
->au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:
->> None of us has the right to impose our views on this
->> subject on anyone else, least of all the government. 

->I agree, none of us should have the right to impose our views 
->about abortion on an innocent child in the womb.

i've never heard of any child being in a womb; just
z/e/f.

what do you think is the significance of your focus on
the existence of of something inside a live woman
rather than on the woman?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.magick,alt.pagan,alt.drugs
Subject: Attn Rob Carlson, Dan Pierson
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:32:46 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

I don't seem to be able to respond to your emails. Would you please send
me mail with your phone numbers?

Thanks


Eric

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.religion.kibology,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Godealian String Alert
Followup-To: alt.sex,alt.usage.english 
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:42:16 GMT

kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:

] In article <1992Dec30.181858.29786@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
] [re drieux and t.a/a.s.c-l/t.p.m]
] >	Not hardly, by Dobbs!  Spam, at the very least ("bloody Vikings!").
] >Or maybe even a Whizzo Quality Assortment.  And certainly the most consistently
] >interesting SubGenius on the net (except maybe for Kibo, but he never hangs
] >out here).
] 
] Hey!  I'm a *lurker*, you putz!

What is wrong with the above string?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

"lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
				Olivia Newton Algegra
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:54:32 GMT

In article <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>Try claiming a tax-deduction for a fetus, and you'll learn that citizenhood 
>does NOT begin at fertilization.

Hmmmm... there are LOTS of U.S. citizens who can't be claimed as dependents
on tax returns. I can't claim you as a dependent on my return, for instance,
yet I assume you're a U.S. citizen.

And the converse claim -- that only U.S. citizens can be claimed as dependents
on tax returns -- is equally fuzzy: lots of non-citizens can be claimed, like
"resident aliens", "residents of Canada or Mexico", or "an adopted child who 
is not a U.S. citizen, but who lived with you all year in a foreign country"
(these examples from 1992 1040A Forms and Instructions, pg. 19).

It would appear that U.S. citizenship, and eligibility as a "dependent" on a
tax return, have little to do with each other.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion