HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:15:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.115437.26551@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>   Buster? No... I say that we should halt the NEED for abortions. Not even
>through contraception, but through proper education . It can be that simple.
>One's own body is not just one's own body when you share it with another 
>sentient being...
But abortion IS NOT SUCH A CASE.
A fetus is NOT a sentient being. It doesn't have the brainpower
to be. For data, compare Beth Bartley's table of fetal development,
specifically myelination.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:20:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.
>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

So what?

>MaThiEu a. LeWis   

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  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:47:52 GMT

zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:

> Pro-Abortion Airheads? that sould be Pro-life airheads!

From the N-word to airheads... that's a step in the right
direction, Mathew! :-)

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:09:49 CDT

In article <1992Apr6.210531.19161@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>
>Sheesh, yet another pro-life 'Steve'.  Is there something about that name?
>
I was beginning to think so for awhile, but then I was reminded of
Steve Novak. My kinda Steve!

muriel
standard disclaimer
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 15:53:40 EST
From: Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Oh Steve! Oh Canada!
 <1992Apr12.173440.21579@cs.dal.ca>

In article <1992Apr12.173440.21579@cs.dal.ca> Steve Franklin writes:

>In <92101.130850ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Linda Birmingham
 <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>>Damn I hate when this happens,
>   hate what? when your article is flawed?

No when people post about Canada distorting facts.

>>REAL Women, a major female prolife organization in Canada, has a
>>membership far lower than the membership registered in NAC.
>  Correction - NAC has appealed to many groups and unions for support,
>and by receiving this has included them in membership statistics.

NAC is a coalition of women's group, some quite diverse,
all working towards aiding women in a variety of programmes.

>Therefore, many who pay union dues are actually supporting the NAC
>unknowingly, and even if they do - they have little say in the matter.

Sources please?  Unions members vote on where surplus funds are
diverted.

>Your union can support groups that you abhorrently deny and do not
>believe in. Pro-life does not include such numbers in their statistics.

Exactly Mr. Franklin, union funds are voted on and the
majority wins.  Its called democracy.

>>The leaders of two leading antiabortion organizations are men.
>>Reverend Campbell (I've forgotten the name of his group) was a
>>frequent demonstrator and spokesperson for the Right to Life
>>movement until he was arrested and jailed for violating a court
>>against protesting outside of a Toronto Morgentaler clinic
>>The leader of the Canadian Operation Rescue is a man.  The
>>politicians who have tabled prolife policies have all been
>>men.
>
>   Well - you screwed up. Ever heard of HLI? (Human Life International)

No, which is what I said.  The leaders of the prolife movements
that receive publicity are men.  Do you understand the word
leading?

>  Oh, and on another point - even though the politicians who voiced
>pro-life concerns were men, they were voted in by women dear.
>Also, remember that the majority of politicians are (unfortunately) male,
>meaning that in ANY politically sensitive issue, odds are that the
>instigators are male.

The Conservative party is disproportionately male, more so
than either the Liberals or the NDP.  Nor has the Conservatives,
unlike the other two parties, made any attempts at recruiting
women to be elected.  It is rather difficult to vote for someone
who is not allowed on the ballot and since Canada is a three party
system there really is not much choice now is there, dear.  Sort
of like your union dues being directed to places you don't like, eh.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how Audrey does in the next
round.


Linda
--
"All that has been written about women by men should be suspect
 for men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit"
 Francois Poulain de la Barre, 1673
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: A short lesson in copyright law Re: Consistency on the Email Privacy Issue?
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.223336.17428@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Funny, but wasn't the letter sent to ME?   That makes it MY property 
>and I can do with it whatever the hell *I* want.  Or don't supporters
>of legal abortion like using their own logic? 

Law School now in session: there's a dual law regarding letters. The
actual physical piece of paper on which a snail mail letter is written
is the property of the person it's sent to, and they can indeed do what-
ever they want with it, including show it to other people. The *words*
written in a letter are, like all other written material, automatically
copyrighted to the person who wrote them, and you cannot reproduce or
publish them in any fashion without the permission of the person who
holds copyright. E-mail letters have no piece of paper on which they've
been written, so for practical purposes, you can have someone look over
your shoulder while you read the thing -- the equivalent of showing the
paper to a friend -- but you can't post it, the equivalent of publishing
it, without permission. It's been decided in a few court cases; I'll try
to get the citations if anyone is interested. That said, I wouldn't try
to sue anyone for posting most private e-mail -- you are likely to get 
the decision in your favor and damages awarded of about two cents, if you
don't simply get laughed out of court and told please not to waste the
judge's time.

>SK

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 16:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.214140.8288@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr08.162313.825@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>[One of the worst analogies about a chicken GOd were deleted from here
>so that you wouldn't be insulted by it's sub-human logic and intelligence]

From Christian Steve, who professes that he doesn't "judge".  How truely
consistant of him.

>You have much to learn on the net...

Now *there's* a cogent, well written rebuttal!

>their own? Say that everone (including teh fetus) with an IQ below
>70 (including yourself?) does not have the right to life? Go away 
>Adrienne...

Hey, Here's another example of wonderful argumentation:  make it up to
suit yourself, attribute it badly, and then fail to even decently
rebut your *own* strawman.

>>But I'm going to be really pissed, and not terribly polite if you figure
>>you are going to impose this shit upon me.  I don't like shit, and I won't
>>put up with shit.
>   You are so attractive when you swear... NOT! YOu think that you argument
>carries more weight when spiced with quasi-macho expletives?

Quasi-macho?  Scuse please.  I just used a convenient and I presumed 
well understood shorthand for worthless excrement.  Let me make it easier
for you:

I believe that you are a superstitious dupe.  I think religion is the very
vilest form of intellectual dishonesty.  I think it denegrates *everything*,
absolutely *everything* that represents potential in human beings.  I think
it is cheap, immoral, and despicable.  I also happen to think it is dangerous.

Now, without the 'quasi-macho' expletives, I've made my position clear.  Can
you give me one -- just one -- good reason why a person who holds my
particular beliefs (and who is entitled to hold them under our legal system)
should, for *one* moment put up with the imposition of ANYBODY'S religious
values upon them?

Good luck.  You 'method' of argumentation so far (i.e., none) doesn't promise
much for the future, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

>>You will notice, if you ARE an observant fellow, that you will not have to
>>deal with insult or jokes about your religion if you keep your silly foolish-
>>minded religion to YOURSELF.  Put it out here in the public domain and 
>>it's fair game for anything folks care to throw at it.
>   I deal with insults and trash like yours every day. I'm not a fair "game"
>my dear. My "foolish-mind" religion appears to be stronger than yours,
>because apparently you feel the need to knock at mine. 

Yeah, right.  Which is why you were whining about it, huh?

Poor baby.

Adrienne Regard
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:22:02 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

> If on the other hand, you want to stop abortions by saying no one can have
> them, hold it right there buster.  The right to control one's own body is
> fundamental.  The right to make reproductive decisions is a private matter
> and not in the domain of the state.  Period.

Curtis,
        You can assert the fundamental right to "control one's own
body", but the USA has all sorts of legislation about things you can and
can't do with it.
        The right to make "reproductive decisions" always involves other
people and often brings in judicial decisions about consent,
responsibility for child support and custody, and with recent hi-tech
biotechnology several new cans of worms about who has the rights to the
ex-utero embryo and what inherent legal rights do embryos have ex-utero
and/or after live birth (and other such conundrums).

        The state certainly _considers_ "reproductive decisions" as well
as many issues concerning one's own body to be "in the domain of the
state", whether you like it or not.



Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 16:25:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.012857.24135@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr04.080524.15972@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Apr3.051045.14314@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar30.232632.26244@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
>>> >"you are telling him" happens to be excruciatingly inaccurate.  I am not
>>> >telling him diddly, and I have not stated my opinion (so far in this text)
>>> >on the current state of affairs.  Don't leap to conclusions so quickly, ktf.
>>> >It gets your feed muddy.
>>>
>>> If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then we call it "a duck",
>>> Adrienne.
>>
>>But the state mandates child support, not the woman.  So *Adrienne* isn't
>>telling him anything.
>
>Adrienne is arguing against those who would seek reform. She is therefore
>NOT neutral, NOT disinterested, and NOT uninvolved. Call a duck a duck.

OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.

However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so 
obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
non-duck. 

You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.


Adrienne Regard


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Dear Stupid, Pro-Life, Ass-Hole... :] (Sorry, I couldn't resist..)
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:35:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.14APR92.03353958
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) wrote:
> 
> 
>Loren:
> 
>I'm pro-choice.  I have absolutly not problem believing that the fetus is
> 
>(1)Alive
>(2)Human
>(3)a "Human Being" (in pretty much whatever way you want to define THAT).
> 
>I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions before the 20th
>week of pregnancy.  I have absolutly no problem with women obtaining abortions
>after the 20th week of pregnancy provided they have more of a reason than
>"Oh, I woke up today and it was, like, you know, cloudy, so I like, decided
>to go out and have an abortion".
> 
>Would you like to know why?
> 
>Because the rights of the BORN HUMAN BEING WOMAN must have more priority than
>the "rights" of the UNBORN HUMAN BEING FETUS.  There are cases where these two
>humans have almost equal rights, but those are few and far between.
> 

But we are not talking about the same right.  We are not talking about one
persons right to live over another persons right to live.  All rights are not
equal.  Does one persons right to free speech supercede another persons right
to live?  No, if it did then solicitation to commit a crime (specifically, a 
murder) would not me illegal.    I believe that the right to live must have
priority of over the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. 


>In-my-humble-opinion, of course.
>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
>=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
>=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=

Loren Finkelstein
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:36:58 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
> ]    I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
> ] the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
> ] that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
> ] a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
> ] against choice?
> Very simple, That AntiAbortionists should Abandon
> their Hatred of God, Seek Repentence and come to the Truth.

        On "Middle Ground": There isn't any.  If the unborn child is an
individual human separate from the mother (which genetically s/he _is_),
then it's not "the woman's body", it also involves the _child's_ body.
"The Right of Choice" is the right to choose to kill a separate human
life.
        This is the watershed issue: You are dealing with
ANOTHER PERSON!

        In "Choice" for abortion, the right to "quality medical care" is
DENIED to the child.  The "death rate" for successful abortions is 100%
_for_the_babies._
        Abortion is NOT "a woman's issue", because they kill MALE babies
too. (Although "Women's Rights" certainly are denied any female who is
executed in the womb!)

        I'm absolutely flabbergasted that anybody would talk about
Pro-Lifers' "hatred of God", and call us to "seek repentance and come to
the Truth".  Which god are you referring to?    Molech?



Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:16:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>             MP    Too sexy for Pro-life, but current mistress of Kevin
>> Welch and Steve Franklyn (sorry guys, it had to come out sometime! :))

   First of all, it's Franklin. Not franklyn... thanks...
Second of all, don't you think I have any taste? 
steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:10:31 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <9APR92.02500272@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Abortion foes are trying to take away the right of women to terminate 
>>a pregnancy and the right to determine what happens to their bodies
>>and the lives.
>
>We are trying to stop the termination of children.  You think that by calling 
>it "terminating a pregnancy" you can hide the fact that you are talking about 
>killing children.  If you would stop hiding behind semantics and accept that 
>you are taking about ending a life, then you might just change your mind on 
>this issue.  
>
	Some of you have noted earlier posts by yours truly on the necessity,
in some parts of the pro-life camp, of maintaining the notion that those of
us on the pro-choice side are only there because we're misguided, stupid, or
simply evil.  This post is a prime example of that form of deomonolgy.
	The poster is quite simply incapable of even entertaining the concept
that his pro-choice opponent does not regard the embryo as a human being.  It
therefore follows that the opponent is "hiding" and (of course) would agree
with the pro-life side if only they would stop kidding themselves.  The idea
that the pro-choicer is just as sincere as convinced of the validity of his/her
cause as the pro-lifer is simply not in this person's universe.
	I point this out merely as an academic exercise.  Pro-choicers are
also guity of this, of course, but this was a particularly pristine example.
Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Finkelstein.
>					Loren Finkelstein

Chuck
No .sig, no fat, no foolin'

--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14899 talk.religion.misc:6884
From: spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Where do they Get their Theology?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:23:15 GMT
Reply-To: spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr11.222040.10539@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux
>) writes:
>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>2) judge not lest ye be judged
>3) He who has not sinned may cast the first stone
Think about these two statements; then think about what you have been
doing.  Do you honestly mean to say that you have not been judging other
people by implying that those of us who are pro choice are not Christian?
You do not think you are judging other people when you say that women
who have abortions are murderers?  You are certainly entitled to your
opinion that abortion is wrong - however, forcing it on other people,
especially in the guise of it being religiously correct, and telling
everyone who disagrees with you that they are wrong, it judging. Which
is not only wrong (see #2), but also means you should take a hard look
at #3, even if you do believe the rest of us are sinners.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Request for Assistance
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:27:46 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article by GC.TLR@forsythe.stanford.edu (TerreMoto):
> 
> I was hoping to elicit any useful advice that this group has to offer.
> 
> The signal-to-noise ratio seems to be incredibly high.
> 
> I have an unusual situation, as far as I can determine.  My SO, of whom
> I am very fond, is a Right-to-Lifer. I have been a life long Pro-Choice
> advocate (I am male-she is  not-info included to save bandwidth for those
> who might have assumed otherwise).
> 
> We have agreed to disagree, and I am willing to accept her opinions as valid,
> because of her life experience, but I also hold mine with similar inflex-
> ibility.
> 
> What I am wondering is, does anyone out there have any personal experience
> or useful advice in dealing with such problems?  She has a female child-
> age 12- who has been brought up with similar beliefs.

Hi Terrance,

I saw Kevin William Ryan's good advice that you and your SO simply agree
to disagree, but I would also take it a step farther, and recommend that
you not make _any_ permanent, long term, commitments or lifelong decisions
with your SO any time soon.   Give it _lots_and_lots_ of time.   I think
it is possible that time will uncover other fundamental irreconcilable
differences between you, and that eventually you will break up anyway. 

I speak from the experience of being extremely pro-life, and having dated
an extremely pro-abortion (and get this for bizarreness) adopted guy, for
two years.  As it turned out there were other very basic differences between
us, that turned out not only to be personality differences, but I think
character differences as well. I gave the relationship a good long time to
iron itself out, and did not make any snap decisions, but in the long run,
we did break up.  I think the biggest difference that was uncovered between
us, other than the pro- vs anti- abortion business, was that he hated people
and I did not and would not.  He just couldn't stand that, but that was too
bad.  I just couldn't live my life that way.

Anyway, give yourself and your SO _plenty_ of time to discover any
difference of such a basic nature between you, before you make anything
permanent.


> Thank you,
> Terrance

You're welcome.  Hope it helps.

Suzanne.