HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:49:18 GMT
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1993Jan9.073808.8862@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>This argument from Steve Adams is especially confusing. 
>>First he states that abortion is morally wrong from a 
>>religious perspective, and then he goes on to argue that 
>>abortion is not morally wrong from a secular perspective 
>>(i.e. the woman has a "liberty interest" and a "right" in 
>>protecting herself).  How is it possible to argue two sides 
>>of the same coin here?  
>
>Easy.
>
>Law and Morality are not the same thing.
>
>Laws are designed to enable society to function.  Morals govern
>personal behavior.  Abortion is legal because society works better
>that way.  But it is not moral according to some Christians (for
>whatever reasons).  Since there is nothing in the laws preventing
>Christians from acting according to their faith, it makes perfect
>sense to have abortion be legal but proscribed.

Law is a subset of morality. Functionally, the major distinguishing
feature of law, as opposed to other types of morality, is that law
has certain enforcement options that the other types lack, being
that it is, by definition, a coercive monopoly on force.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:31:19 GMT

In article <aidler.726560622@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.726435845@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>Abortion *may* be a responsible medical treatment for
>>>a pregnancy.
>>>However, any decision needs to recognize that there
>>>are now two lives to consider and that the mother and 
>>>father agree to some parental responsibility when they
>>>consent to sexual relations.
>>>
>
>>Unless you are going to claim that sperm and ovum are not alive, there
>>has never been a point in the process in which more then one life was
>>at issue.
>
>>However, given that only one of those lifes is capable of having an
>>opinion on the subject (the z/e/f can't. No brain, ya know?) and that
>>it is her body that is sustaining the z/e/f, the final choice in
>>abortion lies with the mother. You have yet to show any reason why
>>this should be changed.
>
>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
Any sperm/ovum has the *potential* to produce a unique child.
Do you have a point to make?

>(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
>each one individually).
I can *and have* shown that 2/3 or *more* of all completely fail to
produce the "unique child" you are so enamoured of. Which makes a
child a far cry from the inevitable result you claim it is.

>Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
>him or her of all rights.
You have yet to provide any reason to believe that a z/e/f is a child.

>The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
>or her death does not give the other party total control
>of the situation.
Certainly it does. It happens all the time. Unless you can produce
some rational evidence to show that this is wrong, don't expect
anybody to buy your bilge.

>Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
>representation.
>
This isn't a court case, there are no lawyers invovled (despite the
dreams of fetus worshippers). Nor is a fetus considered a legal person
in any case. It's existance is dependant upon the willingness and
ability of a woman to provide 100% of it's needs. Such needs being
taken 100% from her own resources.
This gives her all the right she needs to withhold thoswe resources
for her own use.
Do you support laws which would force the donation of
blood/tissue/organs?

--
                  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,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:45:41 GMT

As long as we are supposing about what Jesus would or would not do,
I thought I'd play too...

In article <1993Jan8.011901.9877@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) 
writes:

}Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
}that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?

By the same token, can you honestly picture him an advocate of any 
secular law to attempt to ban or restrict abortion?

}It would be completely absurd.

That's the impression I get too...

--
       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: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:24:48 GMT

In article <markp.726771489@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
Pundurs) writes:

>In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
>>Pundurs) writes:
>>>>The two cases are not so different as you might believe. In both
>>>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
>>>>the conception.
>>>Which IS an important difference.
>>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!
>But it is to the mother.

Irrelevant, if you're a pro-lifer. The poor, helpless, _defenseless_
z/e/f couldn't possibly help the circumstances of its conception. Why
are you punishing it by denying it your supposed right to reside in
a woman's uterus for nine months?

>>>>Why is it okay for the z/e/f conceived of rape to
>>>>be aborted, but not any other z/e/f?
>>>>Answer: In the case of rape, it is a woman's right to abort a baby
>>>>she does not want and cannot care for. Pro-choicers merely extend
>>>>this right to include _any_ baby she does not want and cannot care for.
>>>Your faulty leap of logic might be slightly justifiable in a reality
>>>where there was NO way for a woman to avoid pregnancy with complete
>>>assurance. In this reality, there are various forms of
>>>non-genital/genital
>>>sex that fill the bill -- not to mention sexual abstinence.
>>Mark, you can't just _say_ my logic is faulty. You've got to prove it
>>too. So I'll ask you again: Why is abortion okay in the case of rape
>>or incest, but not in other cases?
>I did. Here it is again: Chance (e.g., contraceptive failure) is an
>inescapable fact of reality; rape is a violation of rights by a free
>actor. Your logic has so far unsupportedly denied this distinction.

It is not a woman's fault if she gets raped, and it is not her fault
if a contraceptive fails. There are no guarantees for safety in this
world, but if we have a procedure which can reverse the effects of
rape or a torn condom, what is so wrong about using it? I do not
deny the distinction between rape and contraceptive failure, merely
argue that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of abortion.

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: March for Life
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:24:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan11.171307.9379@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> 
> In article <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
> |
> |>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
> |>
> |>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
> |>>you wind up losing yours.....
> |>
> |>
> |>My, my,
> |>what a positive, nay
> |>                      pro-life
> |>                                sentiment.
> |>
> |>Adrienne Regard
> |>
> Please Adrienne....
> 
> Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up getting hurt.
> I am very concered that he not accidentaly cross with the wrong por-lifer and
> wind up getting hurt.I am sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
> Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.

I just took a close look and saw that you had said that you hoped
whoever you were responding to would lose his life.  Which is what
Adrienne answered.  You didn't say you "hoped he did not have a
serious turn..."  What you said is right up there for you to see.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: cookc@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:13:36 GMT

datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

>In article<1993Jan9.113651.26973@fuug.fi>, an anonymous person writes:

>>I would like to explain why many of us (the majority) whom you call
>>"anti-choice," take a pro-life stance on the abortion issue.

>>[loooooooooooooooooong, tedious article deleted]

>If you're so unsure of your stance that you must post this anonymously,
>why should I bother to read it? Post it again with some kind of
>signature and I'll take it more seriously.

Posting anonymously opens one up to speculations as to one's "real"
identity, no?

Sooooooooo.......Chaney, anyone?  The arguments are the same, the personal
details are the same, the whole article screams ChaHallney.

And it would fit with his twisted personality to post the nasty, stupid,
violent articles under his own account, while posting the calm ones
anonymously.  He also knows that his name on an article carries a
negative credibility rating in t.a.

                     -rocker
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:42:56 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.235055.18645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>
>>2) Those who are against abortion in general, but for it in some cases
>>   (rape, incest, probable death to mother).
>
>>Why is abortion wrong in only some cases?  Is the fetus a person?  If
>>it is, why is it ok to kill an innocent person to comfort a victim of
>>rape or incest.  I assume in the case of harm to the mother you treat
>>the fetus as an aggressor that can be killed to save the mother's life?
>
>>Perhaps someone can do a little
>>tweaking for me, eh?
>
>Tweak, tweak!
>
>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)
>
>

Literacy, as I have said before, is a wonderful thing. Would you
please show us that you practice it? Did you read the post you responded 
to? the question was, (in my own words):

Question: If your arguement against abortion is that the life of
the fetus is sacred and of primary concern, then how can you 
justify abortion in the cases of rape and incest?


Your answer: Because the mother did not have the choice to not
become pregnant.

You ignore the premise of the question, which is that the life of the 
fetus is of primary importance. Now, you may not believe that, but
this is irrelavent. In that case, you should not have answered the 
question.

Robert Johnston

>Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Organization: That thing Willy founded.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:24:39 GMT

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:46:47 GMT, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) said:

>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>>I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
>>private email between us, to USENET. 

>It was pretty funny, too.  That bit about the rainbow dick was a bit
>far-fetched though, since we all know you don't really HAVE a dick.

>:-)

>(To everyone else: yes, I know it's rude, but the little airplane boy
>just BEGS for this kind of abuse.  Besides, I had fun. (-: )

You should have seen him in soc.culture.african.american last week -- he's
managed to destroy any support for him he may have had in *that* newsgroup,
of all places, with a diatribe prompted by his desire to proclaim to us all
the virtues of his new girlfriend.  She happens to be white, which is not
what's causing the uproar -- it was his long rant about how he'd stay away
from black women because they're just too aggressive for him.  Needless to
say, he's been skewered on a spit for *that* remark -- and two questions
come to mind upon reading that:  one, what kind of girl would put up with
him in the first place?  two, why do I have the sneaky feeling that one of
his primary criteria for prospective girlfriends is that they have no net
access?  :-)

(You're right, though -- he's just begging for punishment, even though his
latest screw-up in s.c.a.a provides more evidence to support a conclusion
many are already arriving at in *this* newsgroup:  he is one seriously
messed-up kid.)

--PLH, the doctor is now...*out*

--
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
                           I love my country.
                     I *don't* trust my government.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54801 alt.abortion.inequity:6355
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan9.001223.11039@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.151835.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> So what do you call child support laws, if not burdening men
>>> in a way that women aren't?   
>
>> I'm sorry, I'm unaware of a child support law that distinguishes
>> between men and women, rather than custodial parents and non-
>> custodial parents.
>
>Neither child support laws nor anti-abortion laws are intended to
>burden one sex more than another, but they both have that effect.

Well, no court has ever considered the equal protection implications
of abortion laws, so the point is mostly moot, but I trust you have
the common sense to divine for yourself how false that statement is.

>If I'm not mistaken, you stated that a law which has the effect
>of burdening one segment of society is not necessarily unconstitutional.

True.  What's your point?

>>> And how does it follow that every type of abortion restriction, 
>>> including waiting periods, informed consent provisions, and
>>> late-term restrictions, will result in the subjugation of
>>> women?
>
>> Take it up with Tribe.  It's not my argument.
>
>Well, you seemed to have no difficulty defending his argument
>up until now.

I wasn't defending it (or attacking it).  Someone asked for an
explanation of it, and I gave references, which you are surely
capable of looking up for yourself.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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 21:57:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.200358.1316@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.185215.12992@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>
>> She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
>>
>> Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
>> PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
>> here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
>> here...
>
>What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
>a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
>who's a lesbian, Cochran?  
>
DODie, you don't understand the term libel very well, do you?
Here's a definition for you:
A written or oral defamatory statement or reprensentation that conveys
an unjust or unfavorable impression.

I have no problem with homosexuality in any of it's various forms
DODie, but society often does. Given that, making false accusations
about ones sexuality may easily be seen as libel.
I find homosexuals of any variety less annoying then pompous assholes
who lie compulsively.

--
                  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: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:17:55 GMT

In article <1384@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I've never seen Beth Bartley lie about anything on t.a.  I find
>her extremely credible.

Thanks....

>(That's one reason why I was a bit 
>surprised when Phil Buckland cited her as a source for a rather
>odd claim about late term abortion procedures - I never saw
>Beth confirm Buckland's claim, though.)

Phil was somewhat right.  (If I've guessed correctly, you mean the
procedure for late term abortions including sucking out the innards of
the fetus's head to shrink it and let it fit through the birth canal
without too much stress.)  The New York Times article I read claimed
that there were three doctors in the U.S. who regularly perform third
trimester abortions; two cut the fetus up and bring it through the
birth canal and the third used the procedure Phil mentioned instead
(partially because, I believe, it revealed the extent or lack of the
fetus's physical deformities).

I've posted this at least once to talk.abortion in explaining how a
woman might be better able to tolerate a late term abortion than
either birth or Caesarian.

>I disagree with her
>stand on abortion, as well as her stand on some other issues, but

There wouldn't be a talk.abortion without disagreement....

And I ultimately think that such solution as can be reached on the
abortion issue (I think probably no significant anti-abortion laws,
but some pro-birth ones) can *only* be reached through honest
disagreement.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:24:13 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> >>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-> >>> She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
-> >>>
-> >>> Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
-> >>> PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
-> >>> here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
-> >>> here...
-> 
-> >> What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
-> >> a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
-> >> who's a lesbian, Cochran?  
-> 
-> > Here's a definition for you:
-> > A written or oral defamatory statement or reprensentation that conveys
-> > an unjust or unfavorable impression.
-> >
-> > I have no problem with homosexuality in any of it's various forms
-> > [Mr. Holtsinger], but society often does. Given that, making false 
-> > accusations about ones sexuality may easily be seen as libel.
-> 
-> So you were helping to perpetuate the bigoted notion that 
-> homosexuality carries an unfavorable impression.

that's not how i read it. it appears to me that
you're simply misrepresenting the facts again. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion