HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.202535.12137@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.063637.11999@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>You clearly didn't go and look where I've already said this eight
>>times this week, so I'll repeat it here: Nobody has ever yet come up
>>with any remote indication that this kind of garbage does them any
>>good whatsoever in their stated cause.
>
>Nora, why are you *concerned* about what is doing them any good?
>
>I mean, if you are debating *against* them, why would you *help* them
>better organize their strategies?
>
>For that matter, the person above never *said* it 'does them any good'
>All I heard was that he could understand the emotional anology provided
>a person does believe that abortion is genocide.  What's the big 
>deal? Geez, go have a beer and relax.

Haaahmmmmm... That's SHE not HE :-).

anne
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:20:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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.

>It should simply be the woman's choice.

And what about the man, fsrlg@acad3 ?  Does he ever have a say?

>This whole issue boils down
>to the fact that our patriarchal American government is still trying to tell
>women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.  THAT is not right.

What this boils down to is whether this government will allow further killing
of human life.

kcw

--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:52:59 GMT

In article <ku79ckINN4eb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu writes:
>
>	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
>also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
>for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
>population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.
>
>	For those of you who think that "Christians" or "conservatives" do
>force their beliefs on people, remember this.  Christ never forced His
>truths onto mankind, but He did clear the temple.  His truths have stood
>the test of time, but where will the truths of the "liberals" and
>"humanists" be in 2000 years?
>
>	Racism knows no color.

Wow, there is a lot there.

So which stance is formed by 'liberals'?

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.172053.11134@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.165737.9990@ncsu.edu> 
>Your reasoning is flawed. 
>
>Your argument is basically:
>
>(1)  Born Person => Person has rights 
>     A => B
>
>(2)  Not born person => Person has no rights
>     !A => !B
>
>(2) does not follow from (1). 
This is pretty funny coming from a man who made precisely this error
in his post "A Quick proof."

The problem is that in Constitutional law the default state is that
rights are not guaranteed. So, in fact, it is correct that unless
one can show that a right is guaranteed, it is assumed not to
be. [Note that I'm not particularly happy with this state,
but that's the way things are.]
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
 If it's in the machine, I eat it. If it's not in the machine, I don't eat it.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:49:24 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr15.210557.17749@cs.yale.edu> 
            rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

> This is pretty funny coming from a man who made precisely this error
> in his post "A Quick proof."

An error which I subsequently corrected. I never claimed to be perfect.
But you seem to be gloating over it. 

> The problem is that in Constitutional law the default state is that
> rights are not guaranteed. So, in fact, it is correct that unless
> one can show that a right is guaranteed, it is assumed not to
> be. [Note that I'm not particularly happy with this state,
> but that's the way things are.]

I can't believe you could write that. Try taking a closer look at
the Ninth amendment:

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
  not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
  people.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: > Re: Pro Choice... We all are...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.042424.19085@cs.rose-hulman.edu> sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck" writes:

>Thanks Dave, I now better understand a few of your points.  I myself don't know
>exactly what the fetal tissue is.  I heard a good analogy I think may apply
>though.  If one doesn't know for sure whether or not it is human or just tissue,
>then why take the chance.



Someone I was speaking to about religion once used this as their reason 
for believing  in God.  If God exists, I think he'd be the kind of guy 
that would admire a person who stood on their own two feet and didn't 'believe'
just because it's 'safe'.




>  It's almost (not quite) like hunting in the woods.
>You see a shape, but you don't know if it's a human or a bear (like just tissue).
>Do you take the chance and kill it anyway?  I am sorry if this seems far fetched
>and stupid.  Just a thought I heard and wanted to pass on...

No, it is not far fetched or stupid. I am quite certain, though, that since
an 8 week fetus has no thinking capability whatsoever, and that since 
potential still has not been supported as an issue, that an 8 week fetus
is no problem to abort. Nobody was injured or killed because without a
functioning brain, nobody was there.

Now as the brain develops, and the capacity for  thought,learning and
reasoning go, then the issue becomes more difficult. I am not certain 
abortion is *intrinsically* 'ok' then. I just don't know. I do not 
advocate late term abortions.

If we all are just the culmination of experiences  we have had and the 
lessons we have learned, if this defines *who* we are (and I think this
is right) a fetus is *still* not a person, since it has had no experience.
On the other hand, it may be able to feel pain, in which case, it is 
still a very cloudy issue and I will not advocate late term abortions until
I feel confident in it. Right now I don't. 

At 8 weeks, I believe there is no 'person' there. I don't see a problem
with it and I don't see an abortion at that time taking any sort of 
chance.

>
>--
>
>thebians
>
>The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
>[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination and  
>should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]


-- 

**************************************************************************
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: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:39:53 GMT

In article <74047@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>David
>
>
>>Person, human, person, human, human *being*, person being, human person.
>>I have a hard time rembering which is bad to kill. I assumed all so I find
>>them to be synonymous.
>
>They are NOT.
>

I said "I find them to be", not "they are".


It is wrong to kill/murder a human being. It is wrong to kill/murder a person.


>>Is it the fact that the fetus is a human being or a person that makes it bad 
>>to kill it. Pick one, and stick it in the above paragraph, then answer the 
>>question.
>
>It is the fact that it is a human being in the genetic sense.  That it is
>human.  That, to me, it is a Constitutional person, not a phil person.
>

So it is wrong to kill a fetus because it is genetically human?  How about
someone who is brain dead? Are you against euthanasia? Death penalty?




>>>I have ALWAYS said that it is a human being in all genetic form, it IS human
>>>and that it HAS rights!!!!!!!!
>
>>Human? Or human *being*. I never saw the list from you that described the 
>>exact terms we were going to use.
>
>It is human.  Human is the adjective to associate beings of the same genetic
>order.  Human being in it's genetic form...as I have said over and over
>and over and over...
>

Got it now.


I will use 'genetically human quality' to be that feature a fetus has that
makes it wrong to kill it in the future.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.054559.29707@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <72803@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr6.011911.6285@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>>
>>>] This is true.  Hitler murdered about 6,000,000 Jewish people.  But what is 
>>>] astonishing is that more children have been uselessly slaughtered in
>>>] abortions than ALL the deaths of WWII.  During the winters in Russia, in
>>>] addition to the massive troop deaths, Stalin cut off all supplies to the
>>>] Ukraine, resulting in about 20,000,000 of their deaths.  In affect, WWII
>>>] was more of a massive genocide than a war.  
>>
>>>1. the kill counts from the Death kamps was totalled at
>>>a MINIMUM of six million jews, things got a little hectic 
>>>at the end, and the noted efficiency broke down....
>>>{note that these figures do not take into account, gypsys, gays,
>>>roman catholics, protestants, trade unionists, SR's ..... }
>>
>>yes...that's why I said about 6000000.  I didn't say "exactly 6,000,000".
>
>>>4. So KCW, now that you have lumped together a whole LOT of interesting
>>>things and hoped to call them all WWII, albeit your time line runs
>>>from the 30's into the 50's.... care to tell us where this fits in
>>>with the flow of the abortion debate?????
>>
>>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?
>
>Both of you, shut up. Reasons, if you want them, are over on the thread
>"What the Pro-Lifers Don't Tell You" in about nine different places. I'm
>sick of typing the damned thing out when you should know better by now.
>This is not an appropriate analogy to abortion, or to any non-genocidal
>situation.
>
>Followups to alt.nazi.nitwits, or alt.jdl.actionline.


Wait a second. I can understand why a pro-lifer could easily blend this
into the abortion debate. I believe that many of the pro-lifers see
the abortion issue as just another case of genocide. A genocide against
unborn children. I don't agree with them, but I can understand this 
connection. The slaughtering of Jews, Gays, Protestants, and those that
Hitler determined to be his enemies may to them be just as bad as
their preceived genocide of (as they claim...millions of unborn). 

Personally, I can't see how they could equate the abortion of fetuses
with the death of live, breathing, thinking people, in germany, or
cambodia, or wherever. But then I don't equate the value of a fetus
as being == to the value of a born individual.

There feelings are valid, but misguided.

anne
>
>>>drieux
>>
>>kcw
>
>	-Nora
>-- 
>Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: MORALITY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:07:40 GMT

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

>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.

Tell that to the "liberal" judges who often won't allow white couples to  
adopt black children due to the possible "problems".

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty)
Subject: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:48:55 GMT

From the Gospel of: <92100.151951IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
According to:       IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)

>My point again:  The only way that
>abortion advocates can rationalize their position with no sense of guilt is to
>look upon the baby as a lifeless lump of tissue.  

Spoken like a man who has absolutely no insight into the mind of those he
claims to know.  Since you seem to be such an expert in matters of my own
psychology, tell me - what career should I be in?  Should I have picked
something different from engineering?

My position needs no rationalization, thank you.  It is the only conclusion
consistent with my belief system.  And before you flame my belief system, 
I would remind you that there are pro-chocie Christians, and they might
take exception to your comments.

>Only then can the conscience
>be ignored, and abortion remain legal.  

More assumptions from someone who has no idea what I'm like.  Let me assure
you that I don't ignore my conscience - if my conscience told me that
abortion should be illegal, I would be a staunch pro-life advocate.

Let me spell this out for you -- you seem to think that because I want
abortion to be legal, I will search for whatever justification is necessary
to support my [unsopprtable, to you] belief.  Your are grossly incorrect.
My years of deep contemplation on the matter have told me that there is
no other logical position, for me.

>If the pro-abortionists looked at the
>truth: that it is human lives that are being ended, then perhaps there would
>be quite a few less pro-abortionists.  

It's almost true... but not quite yet true that "pro-abortionists" can be used
in the plural to refer to people on this net.  Right now there's only one,
and while I do admit that I'm pretty close to accepting the label myself, for
now I am still pro-CHOICE.  Do me the courtesy of referring to me that way.

As for the rest of your statement, I am fully aware of what is killed during
an abortion.  Are you aware of the woman whom you would force to be a host?

>One can only ignore the conscience for so long before they give
>into its voice of reason.

Yes, that's why I support abortion rights now.  
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:847 talk.abortion:15425
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:20:53 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr15.165737.9990@ncsu.edu> 
        kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:

> If you look at Ammendment XIV, it says
>
>	"Section 1.  All persons BORN [emphasis mine] or naturalized
> in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
> citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
>
>	The ammendment then goes on to say that no state shall make
> laws infringing on the rights of citizens of the United States.  Since
> someone has to be born to be a citizen, it seems that fetuses are not
> guaranteed these rights.

Your reasoning is flawed. 

Your argument is basically:

(1)  Born Person => Person has rights 
     A => B

(2)  Not born person => Person has no rights
     !A => !B

(2) does not follow from (1). 
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:830 talk.abortion:15381
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:44:46 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

>"Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
> life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
> masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."

*knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
until AFTER conception fool...
   *sigh* don't they ever learn?
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: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr15.014513.14470@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
> >Flawed logic award returns to Kevin. Sometimes the carrying to term
> >of a fetus denies a woman the right to life (read death of woman). Since
> >this is so, a true fact, in other words, you must support abortion.
>
> Like I said:  You're easy.  "...a fetus denies..."  hahahahaha.

Are you conciously trying for the pro-life stupidity award, Kevin, or
does it just come naturally?  He said
   Sometimes the carrying to term of a fetus denies a woman the right to life

I.e., it's the *carrying to term* that denies, not the mindless fetus.

> >First off, there is no such thing as an unborn child, there is a fetus
> >and a child, one is unborn, the other is born.
>
> So the difference is the being "born"?

Hey - you're finally catching on.

> So "unborn child" is synonomous with "fetus".

Nope, I guess not.  You can't have an unborn child any more than you
can have a born fetus.  Birth is the dividing line.  Before birth, it's
a fetus; after birth, it's a child.

> Fortunately you have made it clear that your opinion is one of the
> most misguided, illogical piles of emotional glunk available.

Considering the source, this is funny as hell.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: Amazing...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:00:36 GMT

In article <kur5ugINNltf@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) wri
tes:
>
>    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.

I must admit I am sympathetic to your observation that the discussion on this 
board lacks focus.  I have noticed lately that the subject lines never change; 
they are, by and large, all "re:" subjects to messages that were posted weeks 
or months ago.  Many people seem to be in the debate for the debate's sake, for
the sake of scoring points on each other.  The few "outsider" attempts to post 
to this board have mostly been ignored by those too busy in personal battles to
notice.

Nonetheless, in the interests of fostering discussion, I would disagree with 
your (IMO) core premise.  The central discussion is not about "responsibility";
it is about people, real, live, often hurting human beings.  "Responsibility" 
is a big, broad concept, one that this sort of discussion is very good at 
bandying about at great length.  But when I encounter abortion in the real 
world, is it with REAL PEOPLE.  Not all of them fit your description.  Some may
be married, desparately want to have children, but are unable because of a 
threat to the mother.  Are they being "responsible"?  They're trying.  Some may
be women who grow up in an inner-city atmosphere where responsibility could 
contradict the laws of survival.  What I am saying is that abortion cannot be 
solved by big, grand ideas.  "Abortion" is not a single entity (except as a 
medical procedure); it takes place is a wide variety of circumstances and for a
wide variety of reasons.  Not every woman who has an abortion is happy about 
it; many may wish fervently that they had a good alternative.  I would rather 
deal with such people where they are, rather than coming at them with Large 
Ideas that are meaningless to their lives.

For me, this is an issue of caring for other people.  Not condemnation; not 
moralizing; not legislation to solve the whole problem at once.  Simply caring 
for other people's - usually *very different* - needs.

--Bill
Committed to faith in God
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity