HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: suzanne on pigmentation and fetuses
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:30:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct3.213806.5084@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

}People who have publically expressed their clear and unequivocal
}objection ...

}   Doug Holtsinger

So why the hell do you still keep doing it Doug?  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:05:00 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>To my knowledge, discussion of the time at which life appeared on planet 
>Earth 

Cute wording.  You do realize, of course, that Roe is riddled with
references to "when life begins".

>was never germane to the RvW ruling. Do you have a cite?

Actually, no.  I had thought that the statement appeared in an
amicus brief in the Roe case (which it may very well have), but
the only reference I could find was to an amicus brief in the
_Webster_ case.

	"Biology, according to the _Webster_ brief filed by
	167 scientists and physicians (including eleven Nobel
	laureates and and five National Medal of Science winners)
	says life began once billions of years ago and has been
	a continuum ever since, marked by important moments
	such as conception, implantation, quickening, viability,
	and birth."

	-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, p. 248

Guess those pesky biologists were the ones who started the "moldiest,
stalest 'joke' on usenet", eh?

>								- Kevin

                -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: for bill overpeck
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:18:39 GMT

In <y5czbd_@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
In <1992Sep23.202016.21680@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <mcbzh9q@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu 
   (rocker) writes: >>>

>>>> person was apparently right.  Jim kinda reminds me of the little 
>>>> Energizer bunny.
>
>>>_My_ clinical diagnosis: It takes two to tango.
>
>> Of course it does.  But will the dance ever end? 
>> I suspect (and this is consistent with the advice
>> I received) it will end only when Keegan is allowed
>> to have the last word, however non-substantive that 
>> is.  
>
> by "non-substantive," i think bill means posts with
> content along the lines of "Energizer bunny" and "Pee
> Wee." i wonder if he's ever considered the meaning of
> "physician heal thyself."

By non-substantive, I mean your consistent refusal to 
answer direct questions pertaining to your "opinion" 
that Doug Holtsinger needs to "see [his] therapist". 

The substance of my "Energizer bunny" remark related
to your behavior in that regard.  The substance of my
"Pee Wee" remark related to your "I know you are but
what am I" behavior.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: George Bush's Happy China....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:41:51 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
]
] Since posting a request for information about whether China has a
] forced abortion policy, and what it entails if it exists, I have
] received email from what appears to be a Chinese national attending a
] University in the U.S.A. who asserts that China has never had, nor
] does it now have, a policy of forced abortions that it will publicly
] admit to.
] 
] The individual did recount speculation that the government has engaged
] in forced abortion on rare occasions in outlying provinces.
] 
] Note: there should be no doubt as to whether China has a policy of
] `coerced abortion' -- distinct from `forced abortion' in that physical
] force is not used to coerce.  I point this out because recent
] developments on the issue of `welfare reform' in the United States
] could be considered timid forays into the realm of coerced abortion,
] i.e. rules that discourage welfare mothers from having children by
] refusing benefit adjustments.  One wonders how a typical pregnant woman
] facing grave economic demands as a result of pregnancy might react to
] the idea that she wasn't enduring any `coercion' to abort.


Given also the President's Strong support for the 
AntiAbortion Plank in the GOP party Platform, and
his deepest commitment to the sanctity of human life, one
could not even begin to imagine that he would in
anyway consider 'trading with the enemy' of so
sacred a doctrine by frivilously seeking 
'most favored trading status' for the People's Republic of China....


or is there some other Agenda Item that George is on about?


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:18:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

rlee@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Richard Lee) writes:
>Look this taking a baby out of a mothers womb and not killing it is a non
>issue.  

I agree -- we weren't talking about birth, we were talking about abortion.

>The "bad" thing about abortion is the fact that a human being 
>dies (the baby WILL become a human begin) so there is no
>distiction.

Snort.

I nominate this for funniest non-Chaney talk.abortion post of the week.

Look, Mr. Lee.  You can't say that every fetus who gets aborted would
have become a baby.  Things happen.  Expectant mothers die, you know,
and sometimes it's the pregnancy which kills them.  Making that blanket
generalization shows an appalling lack of thought on this issue.

On second thought, I retract that nomination.  This isn't funny at all.

-- 
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                              Eddie/Marvin '92:
               We support a kindler, gentler depressive state...
                        as improbable as it may seem.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40565 talk.religion.misc:17659 alt.atheism:18394
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:12:41 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct5.031148.7376@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Oct2.003522.4832@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) :
>><nyikos.717897446@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>nb. Storga has admitted to being a confirmed atheist.  I wonder whether
>>>that rules out being a Wiccan.
>>
>>I doubt that it does. Many people who call themselves Wiccan or neo-pagan
>>are animists and do not believe in a god or gods.
>>
>>>"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and
>>>utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.
>>>...Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>>>		----The words of Jesus, spoken during the Sermon on 
>>>		    the Mount [Matt. 5:11-12]
>>
>>Storga should soon be a saint by this criterion. St. Gordon and his
>>Unvirgin playmates... I like that one.
>
>Wouldn't that be "De-virginized playmates", or is it "Deflowered
>playmates"?
>

How about 'tumescent playmates?'


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39474 talk.religion.misc:17440
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: SATs as an insult (to Brian McBean & Peter Nyikos)
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:30:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <nyikos.717795214@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Sep28.011929.20842@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>>Peter, think about the fact that a lot of the pro-choicers around here
>>are absolutely convinced you're a brainless twit.

>Elizabeth, you ought to know by now that most of the ones who claim to be 
>convinced of it are among the bigger clowns in this talk.abortion
>group.

Well, you can take this for whatever you think its worth; for the most
part, Peter's arguments have IMHO fallen into the mindless pro-lifer
category. There are a few times that he indicated an interest in something
more sophisticated, but I never really saw any follow up. As for his
claims to super-SATS and dozens of papers published, all I can say is that
talk is cheap, and long ago I came to the conclusion that a person
who makes extravagent claims is often not to be taken at his or her word.
Certainly, Peter may indeed be telling the truth about those claims, but
as far as I can see his supposed great knowledge in the area of mathematics
has not carried over to his debating of the abortion issue.

Eric
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:14:02 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.045541.19478@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
<margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> In  <1992Sep27.211130.8098@nntp.uoregon.edu>  egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

> Living beings that are human.  E.g., sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryos, fetuses,
> and people.

Ok.  That is not what I am taking about - exactly.  A sperm or egg will
_never_, left seperated from the other, develop into a human child.

Basically, human life, for me, is what begins at the moment of conception.

> So you consider the natural failure of a fertilized egg to implant (which
> happens on the order of half the time, I believe) to be murder.  That's,
> umm, an interesting concept.  Who are you going to prosecute?

No.  Accidental death is not murder.  Sorry.  Trap failed.


> > See someone fall off a cliff and they just happen to catch hold of
> > something, which saves their life temporarly...they will no be able to hold
> > on forever.  You are able to save this persons life with absolutly no risk
> > to yourself in any way, shape or form.  Is it permissable to allow this
> > person to die?
> 
> Rescuing them would be interference, but good.  Not rescuing them would
> be bad, but would not constitute interference.  Causing them to fall would
> be bad, and *would* constitute interference.

You _are_ interfering with their possibility to go on living.  That is
bad.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 4
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:18:26 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes ...
>In <5713@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>>Besides I don't follow the analogy that an unwanted pregnancy and getting
>>hit by a hurricane are similar. Unless you somehow think that your
>>lifestyle or your decisions will cause hurricanes to hit your house.
>
>Of course if your lifestyle, and your decisions about your lifestyle
>cause you to move to south Florida, then you run the risk.

Still, I haven't heard lots of people (pro-life or otherwise) demanding
that the folks in Florida pay their own way out of the mess.  They
just got a large gift from us, the taxpayer, via George (Santa Claus)
Bush and complained nary a bit.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.174017.20251@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> 

> 
> I think that none but the most stupid among us believe that abortions
> really are induced right up to birth, for other than grave health problems.
> I think none but the most stupid *and* calloused would prohibit an
> abortion necessary to save the woman's life.

Laws exist in part to protect us from the "most stupid *and* calloused. 


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:35:11 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...

>>>>>The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right we have.  Without
>>>>>a right to life, we cannot claim any other rights (possibly because we'd
>>>>>be dead?)
>>>>
>>>>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>>>>
>>>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>>>
>>>Are you going to take the 2 year old's right to life away?
>>
>>Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.
>>
>>>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?
>
>Even if I do go along with your way of thinking,
>   If you certainly are not going to get rid of a 2 year old's right to life
>   then why will you get rid of a fellow human's right to life, namely 
>   the unborn child?

Which completely avoids the question I asked.  Here it is again.

>>>>>>And if you're willing to eliminate some of the rights of a two year old,
>>>>>>why not some more of the rights of an embryo?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:24:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   I have assembled a list or organizations whose names remind me
of Feminists for Life.

 1.  Vegetarians for Veal
 2.  Slaves for Slavery
 3.  Politicians for Truth
 4.  Republicans for Reason
 5.  Libertarians for Legislation
 6.  Jews for Jesus
 7.  Democrats for Dornan
 8.  Klansmen for Farrakhan
 9.  Atheists for Islam

   There is absolutely no validity to this self-labeling of these
women as feminists.  The name is a joke.  It makes no sense.  The
name is a contradiction.  This organization exists to take away a
freedom that is important to every woman of childbearing age.  It
is more accurate to call them FAUXminists against Choice!
-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:12:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Jennifer,

Don't be so condescending.

You may think it's a responsible solution. But I disagree. Why don't
you write 1000 times over:

What's good for me is not good for everyone.

This has brought up a nagging question. If people really want to
discuss this issue, or any issue, why do they continually throw 
flames at eachother? It's not like anyone's going to listen to your
point. They're going to get angry and throw more flames back.

What I wrote above is a perfect example of what I see every day.

And I just don't understand it.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Suzanne "It's a child" versus Brian "No it's not"
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:17:54 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Steve Chaney writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>>Peter Nykios writes:
>>>Such a mother would be guilty of gross child abuse, and her child 
>>>would be taken away from her.
>>
>>Not always true.  The number of low-income single mothers in the
>>country is many times greater than the number of public-service
>>workers who can find out that she's doing this and take her child from
>>her.  If she leaves her child at home all day and lies to people that
>>the baby's with a sitter, can you honestly say that she'll always be
>>found out?
>
>So? Many people steal software and use drugs and don't get caught. Bill
>Clinton openly admits to using drugs and yet they want to elect him to
>office. (I had problems supporting Clarence Thomas over this issue,
>y'know.)
>Just because some people can find a way to get around a law, does not mean
>the law should be abolished. That would mean that all the thieves and
>RubberGaters in Congress would be off the hook in a flash...

You're missing the point COMPLETELY.  Stealing software and not
getting caught has _nothing_ to do with leaving an infant home alone
all day and not getting caught.  And I'm not advocating abolishing any
laws; I'm just saying that if a woman does't want to have a baby
because she needs to be able to work all day to earn money, then
forcing her to give birth might leave her in a situation where she has
no choice by to leave her infant home alone all day, which is an
abyssmal way to grow up.  This is one of the reasons why I support the
current Roe v. Wade ruling.

>>Besides, haven't you seen the TV commercial for the
>>'save-the-starving-children' charity?  "This little third-world boy is
>>too weak to even cry... this little Indian girl will never achieve her
>>dream of learning how to read... this little boy right here in America
>>is left alone in his apartment all day because his mother can't afford
>>day care."  That's where I got this example in the first place.
>
>Yeah: Kill them while we don't have the common sense to know that they
>exist, so their lives will be improved. - typical pro-abortion argument.

Again you demonstrate an ignorance of the issues involve.  I know a
fetus exists; I know it's human life.  But if a woman wants an
abortion, and if by forcing her to give birth you would cause her
child to be raised in such poor conditions, then your act of forcing
her to do this against her will is morally irresponsible.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: This Christian "Thing"
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:44:02 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.222550.15292@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <BvGIwC.1C3@nic.umass.edu> 
>csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:

>> I certainly enjoy how discussions about abortion seem to revolve around
>> the "Christian" perspective.

>But have you noticed that it's usually the pro-aborts who 
>raise the issue of religion?  Your post provides another  
>data point to support that observation. 

I haven't. I think what she was noting is that the arguments on when
does a human life begin, and all the rest of the Christianity crap are
irrelevant to her as a non-Christian. In short, she can't see why anyone
would see abortion as a big wrong thing.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Birth control
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:24:54 GMT
 e.berkeley.edu> <1050@bug.UUCP><1992Sep29.001959.19878@csus.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Sep29.001959.19878@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Borgie boy) writes:

   That would amount to the fact that America holds a compromise
   position: legal for rape/incest/deformity, illegal for birth control.

   If you look at the stats: 
   rape/incest/deformity = 7%
   birth control = 93%

What does it mean to abort for reasons of "birth control"?  Is a
women who has an irregular period, allergic to the pill, uses
barrier-method contraception, yet still gets pregnant and decides to
have an abortion doing it for reasons of "birth control"?  How do you
write the legislation which outlaws this motivation and not others?

   If put to a vote nationally, we would indeed have an abortion law that
   would ban 93% of all abortions. Not to mention banning funding and
   instituting parental consent. 

Again, how would you write this law.  I do not believe that it can be
done.  You may be able to make an action illegal, but you cannot make
a motivation illegal.

   Pro-lifers on the extreme would not like that compromise, but I
   guarantee you, the pro-choicers would be the biggest losers of all.

Basketball has winners and losers.  Women are the only loosers when
abortion is made illegal or inaccessible.

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee
From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:32:02 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep26.013837.15264@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep25.221439.21300@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> 
> Eric, you are the one claiming that "at conception, a person exists".
> 
> It's up to you to prove that this statement is true.
> 
> It is not Ray's task to prove that you are wrong.

Sure it is...if he cannot, then it would be silly for him to not accept
what
I am saying.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:38:19 GMT

In article <8tlzdzq@rpi.edu> cookc@marcus.its.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>There were 2nd trimester babies in that NCU at the hospital.  

It is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be kept alive!  What's all the skepticism for?  I was there, I saw it!  There!  You have proof.  (Want me to get signatures from the kids too?)  BTW, Strong Memorial Hospital has one of 
the best Neo-natal Units in Upstate NY.

rlg
-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"                                           
Newsgroups: talk.abortion