HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:11:43 GMT


Here, Here!  Words of courage from someone tired of cynicism and endless, 
fruitless debate!  I think perhaps the arbitrary figure of 100 hours may be a 
bit harsh, and I believe perhaps slightly more firmly in the importance of 
discussion, but I wholeheartedly support the spirit of the message.  Get 
involved in the issues of importance to you!  I know I don't put in 100 hours, 
but I try to be active, both politically in writing to legislators and 
personally, by providing health care as an EMT (the ugly side of medicine).

I applaud pquince's statement, and will myself try to become more actively 
engaged in education and health care.

Thanks for waking us up.

--Bill
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!? What proof?!?"
Organization: Encore Computer
	<1992Apr11.033711.15593@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<1992Apr14.064559.20648@cco.caltech.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:34:56

In article <1992Apr14.064559.20648@cco.caltech.edu> 
shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby) writes:

>A good definition of when life begins (i.e. can almost be defined in a court
>of law) is when brain activity begins.  Since this is often the definition of 
>when life ENDS, then it seems logical to use the same criterium for when life
>begins.  When this occurs during gestation, I don't know, but it would not be
>too difficult to discover.

	Sorry, nope. Brain activity is an adequate measure of when life
ends, but not when it starts. If a body lacks any brain activity, it's
quite probably no longer sentient or capable of it (dead), but the presence
of brain activity does not mean that it is sentient or capable of it.
It's fairly simple to get brain activity from a slice of brain kept
alive in a Petrie dish. I don't go around screaming "It's ALIVE!!!" every
time I do so (OK, maybe once or twice, but it was funny).

John
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:966 talk.abortion:15763
From: IO20413@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Im gonna piss you off!!!!
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:32:37 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

I think a woman has no right to her body no matter what she thinks.  She should
stay in the house and have the punk and just shut up and take it.  If she was
willing to allow some man place his ******* into her then she has no right to
kill that inocent sweet child.  Any woman who thinks otherwise deserved to be
aborted herself at birth.  Never thought of it that way before have you???
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:15:20 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
->Gordon writes:

>Remember, Gordon, email is private, not the public access boards.

Unnecessary stab.

>Kevin
->>>Knapp

->>>-What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?

>>>It is the purposeless termination of human life.

->Oops.  Now we have to define "purposeless".  What might be "purposeless"
->to you may well be very "purposeful" to me, and vice-versa.  I see
->religious prayer as "purposeless", does that mean I can outlaw it?

>What purpose is there in killing 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).

I take it (human) applies to all references involving life, if not,
we're going through that entire old argument again. And by human, you're
saying person, am I correct? If so, you of all people should know that
a fetus is not a person, nor a human being, in the sentient sense.


>Bar the death penalty too.

Do you mean barring the death penalty from your definition of taking
a human life (another exception), or barring the death penalty as a 
valid means to get rid of those animals that cannot or will not function 
within society's basic rules?

Please be more clear about what you're saying.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy II
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 21:13:26 EDT

Well stated!!!!  I voice of reason in a sea of emotion!!!   I do not
agree with everything you say, but just watch--both sides will pick
out the one or two things that you say they do not agree with, and 
will pin you to the wall.
I will not do that, that is why I have not included any of your previous
message in this response.
Suffice it to say, all in all, I agree with what you say.
Thank you.

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:54:26 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>CJ

>There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.

>When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>faulted in decision making.

I love this form of logic. I'll label it "ignoic".

You imply that there's no such thing as an accident, merely that someone
faulted in decision making. Would you care to maybe look up "accident"
in a dictionary? It would be most illuminating for you. And until your
entire intelligence matures past the simple one-two stage, how about
just reading the posts, and let us think you're stupid instead of proving
us correct?

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A woman's choice
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:16:37 GMT

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

>In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.014319.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrlg@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>>>I believe that abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is 
>>>really a "life or not.

>>This is a grave injustice to humanity.  It doesn't matter if the murder is a
>>life or not, it just matters if the judge feels good on that day.

>Here goes Kevin again, saying something with gills and a tail is mudered.
>How about that steak you had this week? Fish? Pork? Any products made
>with animal parts?

I knew some ignoramous would eventually try to argue this lie.  Fetus'
do not have gills.  Never had em, never will.  Why don't you try 
reading sometime?  Bonehead.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: WHO is a Catholic... (formerly: Hello?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.175259.219@cs.rose-hulman.edu> sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck" writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.225135.29484@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU  
>(David Knapp) writes:
>> What does this have to do with being a Catholic?  How do murderers fit in?
>> Lead, sure, does this mean they "are not Catholic" though?
>> But are they a "Catholic".  It was first posted that anyone who believed 
>> abortion was ok, was *not*, and *could not* be Catholic.
>> Same here.
>> 
>I realize much of what I said was confusing.  I don't quite know how to
>explain something when I try to do just that and nothing got through.  You
>didn't seem to understand any of what I said.  No offense, but if we aren't
>making any connection in regard to this, then let's just move on to the
>other posts.

The problem is, this has been what has happened to almost every subject we
discuss once we finally get to a crucial point in the issue.

I am not sure *what* happened above, as I cannot memorize everything that 
you said, and why I responded to it.

This is probably the four separate issue I have seen abruptly dropped because
it is getting too 'complicated' or some such.

What a sorry way to end a debate.

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: next
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 23:41:58 GMT


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

>Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
>she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
>question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?
>

true........pregnancy is a viable consequence of ANY sexual activity.
Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.

well.......20% of it :)  

Later

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:31:31 GMT

In article <74037@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.172208.18111@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>>
>>>The fetus is not her property.  Her body is not her property.  She cannot
>>>do anything she wishes with her body.
>>
>>
>>That was the final blow to your credibility.
>
>Mary Anne Warren:
>
>"It is probably inappropriate to describe a woman's body as her property,
>since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from
>her property..."
>

Are you Mary Anne Warren or are you Kevin Welch? I don't know her. Does 
quoting her imply some kind of truth or support?

>Face, David.  I was waiting for you to send that one.
>
>

Face what, Kevin?  The statement is absurd, whether you say it, or Mary
Anne Warren says it.  Her affiliation is entirely irrelevant to me.


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: abortion protest
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:53:52 GMT

This is NOT the implication I draw out of this story at all, and I'm very 
confused as to where you came up with it.  I find it terribly ironic that not 
only did this group annoy the wrong doctor, but the "right" doctor doesn't 
perform abortions at all!  Clearly it would not be "right" to harass his wife, 
either.

Your Christ comment confuses me further.  Clearly this is not the sort of thing
Christ would do.  He had more pressing things on His mind than picketting 
houses - things like minstering to the sick, the outcast and the poor.  Why 
this comment?  What purpose does it serve?  What are you implying?

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
Trying to keep the discussion open, honest, and away from easily-misunderstood 
veiled implications.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:33:21 GMT

>>Kevin

>>What purpose is there in killing life? 

Eating?



>> 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.


>>Bar the death penalty too.

Irrelevant. Stick to one issue at a time.




-- 

**************************************************************************
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: next
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:49:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.184042.15620@liebe.uucp>, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
|> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question...an answer) writes:
|> 
|> >I've said this before, but it bears repeating here.  The fact that there are
|> >people who want to adopt children when there is a shortage is tragic.  But
|> >it's not sufficient reason to force other women to bear children for them.
|> 
|> Upon conception the women is already bearing a child.  No one forced her, 
|> she allowed it (gimme a break on the rape schtick).  Ultimately the 
|> question is: should she be allowed to destroy her unborn child?

...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her 
conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.


-- 
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.

                              Skate or die, m0ez.   
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: next
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:11:07 GMT


In a previous article, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) says:

>
>Why don't you  both get off the cheap shots?
>


hey.....cheap shots are great.

They accomplish alot. :)


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: rape,incest and nastys
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:33:53 GMT

Yes I beleve thet the prepervation of mentale stability is a part of 
servival. A liform lthat is insine is incapable of maintaning themselves.
Ie : a craze lifeform is less apt to defend tnd thehere life whin confronted
with danger: someone who is upset cares less about there life.
That was a beter asumtion then the previuse. Do not make asumptions
about anotheres standige there are more then just pro-life and pro-choce
standes in this.
personal servival is befor that of the species as a species cant servive
with out indeviduals. 

ELF-KIN	yes i do fall under all those nasty isms-
		envirmentalism;natralism;ecologism;SERVIVALISM
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Moral Absolutes
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:59:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>Hey, Ron!  I did reply to the mail you sent me.  I said you could post it too.
>I am consistent, yes, and will remain so...:)

Yes, the first set. I mailed a response back which I also posted. That
is the mail which I didn't even get a response for. But it's OK.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:50:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.032134.9166@news.iastate.edu> xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>
>	 Our morality is at stake on this subject.


We don't all share a common morality.


 As things stand a person can go to gail for involentary manslotter if he kills an unborn child that the mother has the right to abort. In uthere words A Fetuse only has rights and is a life if it is wanted. Where will this mentality take us? Where will it end? Who nextxt t t
>to fall under such classification? Where will it end? The old? the menataly unstabal? the homeless (it would solve the problem)? you? me? everyone? As for chose what about adoption? There are couples who have been whating on a list for years with no end in sight. Why? Because there aren't enough infints being put up for adoption. Also what about the father? It's as much his child as hers. Should
>he not have a say in the mater. He may wont that child.
>______________________________________________________________________________ELF-KIN		/Tommy James on life "only god has the right to decide whos to     
>live and die" Why does religen have to be a part of this issue? It is more A mater of life and death!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Holy cow. You should at least give a try at spelling. Also feel free to hit
return at the end of each line so we can read your posts.

'where this mentality takes us' is what we are discussing. Please join in.
We have discussed adoption quite a bit here. Please try to dig through some
of what we have said and concluded. (at least independently)

There are a *lot* of infants up for adoption, sir. (please also post your 
name) They are just not white, healthy ones. The market is bad for those
who are not white and healthy.

About the father, there are those that would agree with you. Keep putting 
in your two cents.




-- 

**************************************************************************
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: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:44:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.191943.2161@aus.intel.com> johne@tule.intel.com (john elliott) writes:
>
>Do we really have any proof that life does not begin at conception?


Do we have any proof that it *does*? Are you going to claim that we should
assume life *does* begin then until we can prove otherwise?


>  So
>far the most premature
>babies that have lived have all turned out to be humans.  Not one ever
>became anything else.
>Can any study or method of proof be cited that even might indicate otherwise?  

Does their turning out to be human suggest *anything at all* about when life
begins? I think not.

>
>Can any proof other than insults be found to show that life does not
>begin at conception.

Can any proof other than insults be found to show that life *does* begin at
conception?  It's a double edged sword.

Technically, correct me if this is wrong, the 'fetus/emryo/zygote' was alive
since the egg and sperm were created, since the sperm and egg were alive
before fertilization. So, I would have to say, the zygote was alive 'before'
conception. This does no sway a pro-choice stance in the least. *All* the 
cells (save nail and hair etc.) in your body are alive and we do not grant 
them inalienable rights.


>
>If I can't proove that the fetus is not alive, then on the chance that
>it might be alive,
>I am much more comfortable with the assumption that the fetus is alive. 

I agree, it is alive. What is the point? Did someone say a fetus is really
dead until it is born?


>It then follows that 
>termination of the fetus for any reason other than protection of the
>mother is ............(fill in the blank).


To end a pregnancy? (this is what I have been told by women who have had 
abortions.)

I assume you mean terminating the 'life' of the fetus.


Yes, a fetus is alive. Yes, abortion kills the fetus. Who has ever suggested
otherwise? What is your point?




-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Amazing...
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:05:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu


	I am completly amazed at the lack of intellegent discusion on this
group.  This is the same crap as is found in t.a.  Neither side cares to
discuss the real issue; responsibility.  It is NOT responsible to have sex
and erase an accidental pregnancy.  It is NOT responsible to spread disease
(less than 1/2 are stopped by a condom).  So grow up and become responsible
BEFORE pregnancy and BEFORE spread of disease!  Oh, I forgot, how silly of
me.  That will mean people must control their lifestyles and that is
"wrong."


bsl
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism knows no colour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------