HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.190628.12162@noao.edu>
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.

A child is a born person.

-    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -
_Dictionary of Contempory American Usage_

    infant; child; baby.  An *infant*, in the general usage of the
word, is a *child* during the earliest period of its life when it is
still being carried about, "a babe in arms."  *Infant* and *baby* in
current American usages are synonymous, though *baby* is the everyday
word and *infant* would seem formal or a little archaic.  A *child*
is a baby or an infant but in general use it applies to persons below
the age of puberty and since *baby* is generally used of the very
young, a *child* commonly designates someone anywhere between weaning
and puberty.  In law an *infant* is a minor, a person under twenty-
one, and a *child* is any descendant, regardless of age.  *Baby* is
not recognized in the law as designating a category.
-    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -

--
"Let us speak plain: there is more force in names than most men dream of; and
a lie may keep its throne a whole age longer if it skulk behind the shield of
some fair-seeming name."         - J. R. Lowell
Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:54:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr13.185038.14911@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>Yesssss.... He shoots, he misses... Finally it comes out. The mentality
>behind abortion is no different than the mentality of euthanasia. We
>as a society are generally and increasingly abusing and neglecting
>the weak, in favor of the strong and dominant. 

>   How 90-ish

Yesssss.... He shoots, he misses... Finally it comes out. The mentality
against abortion is no different than the mentality against euthanasia. We
as a society are generally and increasingly abusing and neglecting
the weak, in pursuit of easy to digest black and white answers to these 
complex issues.

   How backwards-ish

>steve

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: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
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: Sat, 11 Apr 92 00:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>
>>Steve, welcome to the real world.
>
>>       commitment != sex
>>       sex != commitment
>
>Sure gets tiring to see this != crap.  These Pro-Deathers think that using
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whatever you say, Pro-Forced-Female-Slaver.

>mathematical symbology will cause their arguments to magically become
>logical.  Here's one for the unthinking child murdering masses:

Wrong on all counts, Incoherent Fetus Worshipper.

>
>          the want to have sex != nullification of responsibility

Please find one pro-choicer who makes such a claim.

>
>or how about:
>
>          small body != less worth as a human

Note the assumption here that something that has no arms, legs, or lungs is
still more then the woman it resides in.

>
>maybe:
>
>          "unwanted pregnancy" != horrible life ahead

Certainly not.  My mom never "planned" to have any of her five kids.  If I ever
became pregnant, I don't think I would have an abortion unless my life was in
serious danger.  But I still don't think I can attempt to tell other people
what to do with their bodies.

>         
>    "Woman should have a choice" != intelligent argument

Gee, so you're agreeing that "MY HOLY BIBLE SAYS SO" is also not an intelligent
argument???

>
>       thinking children have a right to life != Catholic

What does this have to do with abortion?  Oh, nothing.

>
>I'm not a Catholic (just to nip that bigoted argument in the bud).  But you

You're not Catholic?  You must be Protestant, or a Baptist, or a Hindi, as
we shall see below...

>people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  

Please find even ONE person who has posted to talk.abortion advocating the
killing of children.

>
>You will DIE one day.  The creator is going to want an explanation as to 

Whoops!  Nice that you said that you're not Catholic.  So, just religious
practices DO you follow?

>your actions.  Are you prepared to answer why you aided in this modern day
>holocaust?  It's not too late to start using your head.

However, it's obvious that you left your head at your Local Church...
--
=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!!!=
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:22:05 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu UUCP (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr14.020953.1304@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
            mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
>
>> Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
>> modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
>> Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
>> pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?

> not pro-life.....sorry

Well CJ, do you like the methods of your fellow pro-choicer?
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Summary: Chaney's a few cans short of a six-pack.
Date: 17 Apr 1992 03:44:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Committee to Hunt Down and Permanently Kill Elvis

In article <1992Apr14.204324.2029@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.161010.256852@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr11.233846.13880@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney) writes:
>>
>>a lot more of his special crap.
>>
>>Cut it out, Chaney.
>
>Susan Garvin? 
>
>Well, Susan, seeing as that you've stumbled into some mis-facts as well,
>you, too, owe me a retraction, seeing as that I am not Steve Chaney. 

Man, you've really got it strung out this time, don't you?  You psychotic
buffoon -- your own sysadmin has spilled the beans on you.  You're toast,
Chaney.  How about dealing with it like an adult, instead of like some brat
who makes noises like he's some airplane?

>I most sincerely hope that you pursue this, so that you may wind up
>having *your* system administator chewing on your hide, in addition to
>the ones here at CSUS. 

If you believe half of this, you have no business being in public -- if you
were in Texas (which you're not, thank "Bob"), the men in the white coats
would be hauling you away to a long stay at the state hospital up in Rusk.

>I'm really getting bored with this harrassment, because anyone with
>sense knows it's a lie, and with the original harrasser having been
>punished for this, it should serve as a lesson to his followers. 

Of course, since the only place the "original harasser" has been punished is
in that noisome imagination of yours, and since you're the only one that
believes it (and I'm not even sure you'd do *that* in good faith), it's
serving as a lesson, all right...that you're to be trusted as far as you can
be thrown.

>>Susan
>
>"Who is the worse fool - the fool, or those who follow him?" - Obi Wan
>Kenobi, Star Wars (approximate quote) 

It's the one who actually thinks people believe his psychotic babbling in
this case.  Shut up, Steve, and do something constructive for once -- go to
class...

-- 
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.
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:57:21 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Apr14.172205.11087@ncsu.edu>, Doug Holtsinger writes:
|mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
|>In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
|>> Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
|>> modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
|>> Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
|>> pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?
|> not pro-life.....sorry
|Well CJ, do you like the methods of your fellow pro-choicer?

It's obvious to all readers except Holtsinger that I find
him nauseating.  I also doubt his claims to be pro-choice.
He has made all the usual pro-life arguments:
	- advocating forced hysterectomies for women who
	  seek abortions
	- labelling sexually active people as sluts
And in email he has said that he would limit abortion
to cases where there is medical danger to the woman's
life.  Whatever he calls himself, he quacks like a pro-lifer.
(Copies of the email furnished on request, via email,
if Lewis tries to deny it.)

What do you think of him, Holtsinger?

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To come with a well-informed mind is to come with an inability
of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person
would always wish to avoid."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Pope is coming! The Pope is coming!
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 21:01:41 GMT


In a previous article, steven@jaynes (Steve Novak  #3000  x2110) says:

>> = (Matthew A. "Weenie Flamer" Lewis) writes:
>>> = (Pope Bruno the XVth) says:
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	  ??? - actually Patrick Humphrey.
>

sorry.......but I didn't do this. Look a little farther back. 
There is so much quoting going on, so please be careful to who
you attribute certain things. Again.....this was not my doing.


>EXACTLY.  Now, apply this truism to your (fallible) pope and church
>teachings, get off your goddam high horse, and rejoin society.

I'm not Catholic and I think the Pope is just like any other person.
And, not once in all my stupid posts have I even made on statement  
concerning religion, etc. I have ignored that all together.

>Thank you.  After all, we're _all_ Americans; we ain't all catholic, or
>even christian.  Respect ALL OF OUR beliefs.

I do. But I can still think they're wrong.


-- 
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: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:14:32 GMT

In <1992Apr7.185620.15429@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:


>Sophistry.  YOU are doing the judging when YOU decide that abortion is a
>sin and is wrong.  The Bible (which I presume is your reference text)
>has nothing to say on the specific subjects of when life begins or
>the appropriateness of abortion.  To claim that you are not judging
>people is little more than self delusion.

   I do not. The message of God tells me that ALL human life is precious,
that conception is the ultimate goal of sex, and that we must defend
the weak, innocent and oppressed. I am not a judge, nor am I a hero.
I am merely a Catholic, and a moderately intelligent one, enough that
I would never refer to the bible as you have done yet incorrectly.
 Bzzzzt Sorry, you fail the test. Read the old and new testament again.
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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: An ethics question.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:22:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.224152.24071@crd.ge.com> keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >-> >>>and isn`t harassment against the law, sonny?
>-> >-> >>
>-> >-> >>Certain forms of harrassment, yes. But, since YOU are
>-> >-> >>making this allegation of law-breaking, don't you think
>-> >-> >>it's incumbent on you to SPECIFY exactly what laws Welch
>-> >-> >>has supposedly broken? Chapter and verse, I mean.
>
>-> >-> > but heck, let's pretend for a moment that this
>-> >-> > particular thread isn't just another continuation of
>-> >-> > your net.vendetta.  so, you stated "since YOU are making
>-> >-> > this allegation of law-breaking.."  see it? it's
>-> >-> > included above. now, do be precise in your answer to
>-> >-> > this question. where did i allege law-breaking? the post
>-> >-> > reads to me, and i imagine to just about everyone else,
>-> >-> > like i asked a question, "isn't harassment against the
>-> >-> > law, sonny?" does that look like a question to you?
>
>-> >-> Given that Welch had admitted to harrassment, your
>-> >-> question amounts logically to the same thing:
>-> >-> 
>-> >-> "admits to harrassment" + "harrassment is illegal" => "admits
>-> >-> to law-breaking"
>
>answer the question kevin: where did i allege law-breaking?

Refer to my previous article. You know, the one you HEAVILY edited to make 
it appear like I didn't already answer your question.

Fraud.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 18:53:32 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  <31242@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>  tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>
> Since the rightness or wrongness of "forcing" is irrelevant - why not
> let the majority (or a Constitutionally sufficient majority) decide?

What country are you talking about?  If you're talking about the
United States of America, then the reason is that we're a democratic
republic, not a strict democracy.  This is so that the majority *can't*
force their views on the minority.  E.g., I believe that a majority of
people in this country are Christian - but that doesn't mean that they
can vote to make Christianity the official religion of the country.

> And what is the current climate - vis a vis the morality of abortion?

That banning abortion would be immoral.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:16:15 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>"  Until you can ask a fetus whether it wants to be born, we cannot afford to
>force it to be born possibly against its wishes and definitely against
>those of the woman (whose choices we can know)."
>but since we cannot ask it, why not give it... oh, about 9 months
>to think about it... Maybe even a couple of years. THEN, after it's had
>time to think over things, let the CHIL decide. 

Because at the same time, you are allowing the woman zero input into a 
decision regarding her own body.  We can't ask the fetus, because the fetus
wouldn't understand the question, not having a mind.  We *can* ask the 
woman, and accept her choice.

>You say it isnt' human? I say it will be. 

So?  I say the woman IS.

>You say that potential
>isn't enough? I say prove it doesn't already have a soul. 

Oh, sure thing, Steve.  Just do two things for me first:

--Define in straightforward, testable terms, what a soul is, and
--Prove to me that both you and I have one.

>You say you
>don't believe inGod and souls?I say prove to me that society wouldn't
>be exceptionally better off socially and economically if we didn't abort
>the fetus. 

Bullshit.  YOU are the one that wants to remove a woman's fundamental 
right and to claim she's committing a sin and a crime by controlling her
own body.  The burden of proof is on you, kiddo.  The fetus is of inde-
terminate and arguable status--the woman is not.

>You say the woman's attitude is more important? 

I say the woman has more right to decide to what uses her body will be put
than you or I do.  The fetus is imposing; if she does not wish that impo-
sition, she has the right to evict it.

(Hey, you want to talk about how the fetus is a *person*, then let's look
at it in terms of a person's responsibilities to others.  Not threatening
other people is high on the list.)

>I say that
>a woman's emotional status is important, but a fetus's right to life
>is more important. 

And you would enslave women to meet that goal.

Not while I live, Steve.

>You say that is my opinion and I have no right to
>enforce it on others? 

Bingo.  You can argue it all you like, but the second you attempt to 
put your own religious morals into law, you will be challenged.

Steve, you've said many times that "I just want to work together!", while
simultaneously calling any pro-choice Catholics "not real Catholics", calling
abortion murder, and taunting those who disagree in childish fashion.

You really want to work together to reduce abortion in this country?

Start by attacking the causes of abortion.

And until you've solved the problems which make abortion so prevalent, stay
the hell out of a woman's private decision.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:49:15 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

>The warning is mine to dish out.  Pro-Death is my response to being
>repeatedly referred to as "Anti-Abortion".  If you decide that
>
>Kevin Brawley

What's wrong with the label "anti-abortion"?  I would think 
that if you are against abortion, then this would be a 
non-detrimental label for you.

The "pro-life" label seems awful vague to me.  
Does this mean you are against wars because lives are lost?
Does this mean you are against capital punishment because a life is taken? 
Does this mean you are against euthanasia?
Or does it simply mean that you think life is grand?
In the same way, the "pro-death" label is too vague.

Now let's get back to the issue of how to handle preganncy.  
The "pro-life" camp is for:
birth choice
adoption choice
The "pro-life" camp is against:
abortion choice

So if you want a label that specifies exactly what one stands 
for then, you would have either "pro-birth-and -adoption-only" 
or "anti-abortion".  The latter is easier to say, and should 
have no more negative connotations than the label "anti-stealing".

The "pro-abortion" camp is for:
birth choice
adoptioon choice
abortion choice
and against nothing.

So if you want a label that specifies exactly what one stands 
for then, you would have either "pro-birth-adoption-and-abortion" 
or "pro-all-choices" or "pro-choice" for short.  The latter is 
easier to say.

Note that the label "pro-abortion" is improper because it implies 
that abortion is generally preferred over birth and adoption, which 
is not the stance of this group.  "pro-abortion-choice" would 
also impart an incorrect meaning in the same way.

Note that the label "anti-abortion" seems proper since 
it implies that abortion is considered less good than the 
birth and adoption choices, which is the stance of this group.

But... on the other hand, some people in the "pro-choice" camp 
also consider abortion less good than birth and adoption, so 
the term "anti-abortion" is too vague and not useful in 
delineating the two camps.

Damn, this is trickier than I thought it was when I started...  :-)

OK. let's try "anti-abortion-choice".  That should work. 
It defines the stance of one group without also describing 
the position of members inside the opposing camp.

Hmmm...
As Emily Latella (Sp?) used to say on Saturday Night Live:

Oh, you were talking about pro-DEBTS?...   Never mind.     :-)

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////  -> Mad Max b/y Thunderdome
Newsgroups: talk.abortion