HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:42:15 GMT

In article <73533@netnews.upenn.edu>
kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:

>Well, you see Elizabeth is probably Anti-Roe because Roe has restrictions
>on abortions.  She probably anti-Roe because she wants universal abortion
>rights--from conception until birth.

Get your facts right, Welcher.

First, Roe *permits* restrictions on abortion.  It doesn't mandate them.

Second, I'm Anti-Roe because I think it's constitutionally wrong and
I'm scared of the Supreme Court ignoring the Constitution.  I think
it's fairly good public policy; I just think the Supreme Court lacks
the authority (though they do have the *power*) to issue Roe.

--
"Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful....  Get your facts
first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."      - Mark Twain

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  I didn't get any mail from you... (Was: Dennis Chaney Posts...)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 12:52:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.013132.21620@csusac.csus.edu> Dennis Hall (cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu)  writes:
>In article <18156@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>>->In article <1992Apr14.033055.22143@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L
>>->Humphrey) writes:
>>->Cut it out, Chaney.  We're wise to you.  Comprende?

[Deletia.  Deletia.  Deletia...]

>	And of course those who continue to call me "Chaney" have
>	nothing to back their claims. They just continue to blatantly
>	assert that I am Chaney, knowing they are wrong. 
>
>	Or, as I have put it to Keith Andrew Cochran privately, they are
>	either fools following liars, or liars trying to generate their
>	own following of fools. 

So sorry, Steve, but I haven't gotten any mail from either of your acccounts.

Maybe you (1)Were going to mail me and didn't?
          (2)Mailed it to me, it bounced, and the bounce didn't get back to
             you? (I've known it to happen).
          (3)You're lying?
--
=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, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: Kathi, please be careful
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:43:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.225650.21492@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.210134.3581@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>No offense to Nora, Monica, Dean, and many others of the Jewish
>>faith/race, but at least you have a country to fight for.  At least the
>>rest of the world came to your rescue when you were being slaughtered by
>>the millions.  Ah well, I've gone on too long about this.  Sorry for the
>>diatribe.
>
>No problem about going on too long, and yes, it helps that I have a 
>country to fight for. But the rest of the world certainly did *not*
>come to our aid. They came to France's aid, and Britain's aid, and

How dare you. My great uncle was thrown into a concentration camp and 
tortured for speaking out IN GERMANY against the treatment of the Jews. 
It was scary listening to him tell us about what it was like.
There *were*
people in the world who came to the aid of the Jews and some LOST their
lives helping. You may THINK everybody deserted your prople but don't shame 
those who did. A lot turned their backs but many turned to help.
 
>Russia's aid; and when they had destroyed the threat to the nations
>of Europe we climbed back up out of hiding. But they did not do any
>of it for the safety of the Jews: first of all, they didn't believe
>that we were in real danger (no matter how many times we told them
>or how much evidence we provided) and second of all, nobody was going

We told them? How old are you??? 40-50-60??? You mean your *relatives*
don't you? I could say the same thing about my mother's family in the 
now free eastern block countries. Gee...no one helped them...they were 
slaughtered. But I am not going to whine about it my whole life. I didn't
even know them personally.

>it never really changes. Every time we have had to fight, no matter
>who was theoretically our ally, we've stood alone. We probably always
>will. Why do you think many American Jews *do* tend to be so protective
>of Israel?

Gimme a break. This is called "feeling sorry for yourself". For God sake
take this crap to talk.politics.mideast or soc.culture.jewish. It's one
thing to say that Jews suffered horrendously during the war...it's another
thing to say WHHHHHAAAAAAAAA nobody likes us, everybody hates us. Bullshit.
Lots of folks are quite sympathetic to the Jewish cause. Don't give them any
credit or anything now...

Dial 1-800-WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

for further information.

anne
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:35:42 GMT


In article <1992Apr8.124944.13862@cs.dal.ca> you write:
>   God has given us the gift to do anything. You give me enough
>tools and I CAN walk on water. God has also given us the will to choose
>our own destiny. But, I cannot stand by and watch our destiny go towards
>corrupt and shallow means. You consider me a self-proclaimed vigilante,
>but I consider myself a spokesman for the unborn.


If "God" has given us the "will to choose our own destiny", why do you
feel fit to interfere in the choices of others?  Doesn't that put you
at odds with your "God's" grand plan?  If "God" gives people freedoms,
how can a righteous upright dude like yourself interfere with that freedom
without blasphemy or heresy?  Just a question from an infidel...


>   Incedentally, democracy doesn't work. If you had an infinitely
>varied society, the vote on any result would be absolutely split.


This is obviously false.  The United States is not in a civil war, so THIS
varied society happens to agree on a few things.  It just so happens that
abortion is not one of them.


>However, we are worse than being infinitely varied. We follow
>TRENDS. This is very dangerous, and leads to HUGE sways in
>society's beliefs, and can result in radical changes in democracy.
>Humanity is not wise enough to lead itself by the masses. It requires
>intelligent and charismatic individuals guide it with suggestions that
>it considers plausible...


I hope that you are not considerng yourself for the position of Grand
Theocrat.  The masses have a way of beheading autocratic leaders it doesn't
like.  (e.g. Ceaucescu, the most pro-life dictator on the planet in recent
history.  No abortions at all led to the worst orphanage conditions one
could imagine.  Did anyone else see that 20/20 episode?)


>you all just resort to tactics of anger and violence.


Yeah?  How many churches were firebombed by pro-choice activists this decade?
--
Curtis M. Compton                                    compton@plains.NoDak.edu

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
                -- Oscar Wilde
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:35:47 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.152300.28970@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
>and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would 
>logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?

   No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as 
we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but 
once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.
   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: STUPID EXAMPLES, BRIAN!
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:17:03 GMT


>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>  = bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:

>> [on finding some middle ground by giving up your extreme position]
>>
>> Examples of extreme positions (IMO):
>> 
>> (1) unrestricted abortions at any time for any reason.  
>>     Eg. You're due next week and there are no medical complications,
>>         it's OK to change your mind, decide you don't want a child, and 
>>         abort the fetus.
>>     [...]
>> (2) Totally forbid all abortions at any time for any reason.  
>>     Eg. forbiding the abortion of a 4-week-old fetus in a 13-year-old 
>>         incest victim.
>>     [...]

>The example you cite in regard to the pro-choice side are stupid.

Well *I* said extreme, but I'll agree that they're stupid too.

>The pro-choice movement is not fighting for a woman's right to
>change her mind after 8 months!  The third trimester abortions in
>America amount to one tenth of one percent!  And virtually ALL of
>them are medically indicated!  Do you actually think that a woman
>is going to sit around for eight months wondering if she REALLY
>want to have a baby, and then say to herself, "Well, I think I've
>changed my mind!"?  To focus on non-existant extremes to make a
>point is not going to prove anything.  [...]

Quite the contrary.  
These are not random examples: while these extreme postions may or may not 
exist in reality, they are commonly refered to in abortion debates.
It is an important point that the 
pro-choice extreme (1) exists, but only in the RHETORIC of pro-lifers, 
while the pro-life extreme (2) exists IN REALITY, 

Glad you've been following along!

-Brian

PS: It's hard to have a meaninful discussion about abortion when some 
bone-head pro-lifer (as opposed to a thoughtfull pro-lifer) insists on 
defining the pro-choice position as some imaginary extreme.  One of my 
favorites is the honorable George Bush claiming that pro-choicers want 
abortion for sex selection.  I guess he wasn't prepared to tackle the 
real issues.
From: bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution-- misquoted
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:13:45 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu  
(Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> 
> The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
> of happiness.
> 
> Now the real question is:
> 
> are these 3 words in this order because they sound real SPIFFY together
> or is that the order of priority???
> 
> Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
> guaranteed?
> 
> just a thought
> 
> "Show me a worthwile cause to embrace and I'll show you a lost cause." -  
me
> 
> It applies to all "isms."
> 
> -- 
> 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

	Where does the Constitution mention "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit  
of Happiness?"  I think that you are confusing the fundamental law of this  
country with another important, but non-legal, document-- The Declaration  
of Independence.  The Declaration does mention Locke/Jefferson's three  
rights, but the Declaration has no legal status-- and perhaps there was a  
reason why the founding fathers chose not to include these rights in the  
Constitution.  Food for thought- at least.

						Ben Cushman	
						Reed College
From: tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Date: 7 Apr 92 11:55:33 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr6.171806.12636@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:

>-> >name one law that forces a belief.

In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing of persons.
That law is based on a belief that it is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable"
for people to go around killing other people.

To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder force them
to behave in a certain way.

Now granted, the law doesnt force them to *believe* - but then again,
neither do proposed anti-abortion laws.

Anti-murder laws don't take into consideration that a person may not accept 
the belief that killing persons is "wrong" or "undesirable".
The law doesn't try to force the person to change his belief. But it does
force him to act according to that belief - or face the consequences.

Similarly, anti-abortion laws won't take into consideration that a person may
not accept the belief that killing foetuses is "wrong" or "undesirable".  But 
it will force him (sic) to act according to that belief - or face the 
consequences.

So in this way, there are laws which force belief.

In fact, in this way, inasmuch as we can find one person who disagrees with
a law, ALL laws force belief - as the original poster claimed.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: AntiAbortion as AntiChristian
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:11:17 GMT

wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes:

] In <1992Mar23.193446.5347@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com 
]    (drieux, just drieux) explains to Joy Haftel: >
] 
] >1. every time that the antiAbortionists have been
] >asked to defend their assertion of a 'christian'
] >linkage on the abortion discussion they have 
] >proceded to show all that you attribute to blasphemy!
] >
] >2. They Procede to make Profane that which is DIVINE
] >in all of their efforts to form a 'biblical' defesne.
] >That to me shows a COMPLETE CONTEMPT for the bible
] >and the God of the Bible.
] 
] Hmm. 
] 
] The absence of literal scriptural prohibitions against abortion
] is alleged to suggest that the Christians have missed the boat
] in the abortion controversy.

Note that once again Bill avoids trying to develop even
a hint of a biblically defendable position. Thank you for
at least that curtesy.

Now of course we can move to the matter of whether or not
the 'bible' is even relevant as a matter of discussion in
regards to christianity????

When those who do cite a biblical passage, they should be
obliged to not try and make a statement that says "white"
be interpreted to say "Black" or what?????

While we are pausing here, which to clarify all of this
comedy about those who wish to make the scripture say
that it is against killing, and slavery, when we both
know, and Joy haftel has been gracious enough to point out,
that the text is clear on these matters....


Is this, 'tangental' enough for you? 

that you are clearly willing to avoid even remotely trying 
to justify the AntiAbortionist position based on Scriptures
is sufficient in itself to concede the point. Thank you 
for your General Support there.


ciao
drieux


-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: ...and does it badly.
Organization: PLH, praying for a southeast wind for this year's MS150 ride
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.221130.11844@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>someone posting as
>	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>-> In article <1992Apr14.153511.4684@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>-> >someone posting as
>-> >	cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>-> >[...]
>-> >cut it out chaney.
>-> And now you, too, owe me a retraction.
>
>this isn't kodak chaney.

Neither is Rice.  Unfortunately for Steve, whatever persona he's using at
the moment, the administrators here *do* read news once in a while...

--PLH. T.S.A.K.C and proud to be, and that's that.

-- 
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.
                     Support the Second Republic of Texas!
               (If at first you don't secede, try, try again...)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:18:48 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr6.153728.14448@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
><92096.024434KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>><1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>>in society. The "cheapened" concept of sex that we encounter as of
>>>>present has resulted in many cop-outs such as abortion. With
>>
>>When did this cheapening of sex begin?  Since it resulted in abortion, it has
>>to have been before the beginning of abortion. So, how long has this been
>>going on?
>>
>If we want to discuss the 'cheapening' of sex, I think we need some
>documentation. Even anecdotal evidence from someone who's been paying
>for it!

There are a few pro-life males I can think of who seem to fit my idea 
of someone who pays for it.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

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.
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:02:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: noao.1992Apr13.200223.9427
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article <1992Apr7.180443.5706@u.washington.edu>, by darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann):
> M. Price writes
>> In <1992Apr6.220151.5322@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> 
>> >Yeah, you're grinning now, but yesterday's crowd of 1/4 million does not
>> >even come _close_ to the 1.5 million that died of abortion last year.
>> 
>> ...
>> Forgach-endorsed natural family planning methods. 

{deleting speculations by Price and Hackmann as to how many children a Pope
 can father in a lifetime} 


> Is that REALLY what Randall Terry wants?  I am skeptical.  


Listen you two clowns, the Pope does not ask anyone to do that which
he is not willing to do himself: 

          that is, exercise a little self-control.


Are either of you up to it?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Oh!  Oh!  I just don't know how.. (Was: Implications)
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 13:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.081822.17226@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Apr12.181714.29926@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) said:
>><1992Apr12.020819.7670@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

[Deleted:  Kevin doesn't understand why people think Gordon's wife is so
beautiful.]

>>Kevin, go take a look at a photo of Gordon's wife (pant, pant).  Now, go look
>>at an ultrasound of a 16 week old fetus (or even a 20 or 30 week old fetus).
>>
>>Notice the difference?  I certainly do!
>
>Look, she posed for those pictures when she was young.  We all make
>mistakes. ;-) for the humor imparied

I don't know how young she was (they don't have "I'm Bambie, and I like.."
stuff hanging next the to the displays in the Denver Art Museum), but she
was certainly peotry in motion.

And, you can tell her the *I* don't consider those photos a mistake.  On the
contrary, I think we should send them to all the galleries in the world.
Especially #8, where she's lying on the bed, and from the expression of the
one eye and part of face you can see she's in a good mood, but from the subtle
muscle stiffness in her back it looks like she's about to shatter like a
fragile china doll?  That one has always had special meaning for me.
--
=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, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=