HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution-- misquoted
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:22:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sk9k2INN5gh
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

>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?

You probably refer to the Declaration of Independence, that does not guarantee
anything, since it is non binding. However, for the sake of the argument, let's
assume the American Constitution guarantees the right to live to everybody. In
a sense, this is true, since murder is "unconstitutional". The question is : should this protection be extended to potential life or not ?A problem of definitiohere: what exactely is potential life? A three months fetus?A fecondated egg?
A spermnatozoid? And if any of the last two is found to be true, how do you
enforce protection?

Also, if Constitution extended its protection from "life" to "potential life", 
then why not from "liberyt" to "potential liberty" and from "hapiness" to po-
tential hapiness"?  Things get pretty messy, eh?

-- 
Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley
Department of Economics
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.214014.10886@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
[Deleted:  Steve whines about how badly he's getting flamed, how much it hurts
to have his "logic" flaws pointed out to him.  He tries to paint a picture of
us mean old pro-choicers ganging up on the pro-lifers].

Gee, Steve, if the pro-life movement is just begging to work with everybody,
then why do the pro-lifers in this group flame the other pro-lifers?

Now, (1)If you're going to play with fire, you're going to get your fingers
burned.  It's sad, but it's true.

(2)I (speaking only for myself here.  Not for Nyx, UseNet, Pro-lifers, pro-
choicers, the City and County of Denver, The State Of Colorado, but just for
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)) have this funny feeling that if we
let you "pro-lifers" get rid of a woman's rights just because she's pregnant,
the next thing you might decide to do is get rid of homosexual's rights just
because we're not popping out those children like "normal" people are.  Or you
might decide that we have to get rid of the rights of the American Indians,
because they're not "truly" white.

(3)If, as you stated before you're not judging people, how the hell do you
explain the fact that you feel you're more qualified to tell a woman what to
do with her body then she is?
--
=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 and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15597 soc.women:9064
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.women
Subject: Re: Loser, Loser, who's the loser (was: You want to win(Men's rights and Women's rights).
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:09:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr16.180926.1441
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <12489@tamsun.tamu.edu> cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>In article <122664@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa  
>Corsetti) writes:
>$ A girlfriend of mine is a single mom, and she gets no child
>$ support payments from the father who is a loser.  She used to tell  
>me about
>$ wanting to get a lawyer to go after him, but she's just too busy to
>$ hassle with it.  Plus, the father is not living a "stable life"  
>himself.
>$ It's a very tough situation.
>
>
>Sounds like your girlfriend is the loser. After all she
>1) decided to involve herself with a loser
>2) hopped into bed (or was it the backseat of a car) with the loser
>3) didn't take responsibility for birth control
>4) got pregnant by the loser
>5) and carried the loser's child to full term
>
>Now she's paying for her poor judgement.
>
>Don't ask me to feel sorry for her, when she's the one who's the  
>loser.

Chuck:

So you string together a bunch of assumptions and character 
assisinations against someone you don't even know and 
pronounce judgment.

Why must you be so nasty?


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:08:08 GMT

mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>In a previous article, tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) says:

>>For your information, Matthew, I'm happily married, and I imagine that
>>if our contraception were to fail tomorrow, my wife probably would decide
>>to get an abortion.  We simply cannot manage a child or a pregnancy at this
>>point in our lives.  

>I didn't ask YOU, I asked about the big picture. 

I see.  So if no one asks you what you think of abortion, you'll not bother
us again?

That ought to be easy.

Matthew, you said:

>again.....how many happily married couples have abortions?????

[of course, you deleted this part in this response.  How honest.]

I have already suggested Elizabeth repost the stats she's got on hand; I
don't have them handy.  I then continued on to give you an example, and if
you wanted more, I could give you half a dozen more cases.  I don't know a 
single married couple that's pro-life, and I know a *lot* of married couples.

>>That is *quite* enough.  Cut the innuendo, Matthew.  If you want to say
>>"if you had an abortion, it means you're a slut and scummy because you
>>had sex outside of marriage", then say it.  None of this "a certain type
>>of person" crap.  It doesn't wash.

>here we go:

>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or
>sleep around and/or are sluts. 

Ah.  Now at least you're being honest.

And misogynistic, and slimy, and vindictive.

Thanks for contributing to the cause, Matt.

>You're in college. Look around you.

Grad school, actually.  

>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not
>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one
>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

Oh.  So women should just ask *you* then if they're "entitled" to get an 
abortion because they're not sluts?  (Of course, you only mention women 
above.  Are men who are promiscuous sluts as well, or are they macho stud 
types?)  Are you somehow suggesting this argument can be used to outlaw
abortion *entirely*, which seems to be your goal?  Or is it just wrong for
people you think are sluts?

(And as Muriel and several others have pointed out, saying "you're a slut, so
now you HAVE to keep the kid" suggests a parenting-as-punishment scenario;
now there's a good environment for any child...)

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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: Re: A Request for Assistance
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 APR 92 13:21:16 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.192746.29463@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>I speak from the experience of being extremely pro-life, and having dated
>an extremely pro-abortion (and get this for bizarreness) adopted guy, for
>two years. 


I don't see what's so bizarre about this.  I'm adopted, and I'm very much 
pro-choice.  So is my adopted sister.  So is our mother.  Just because we are 
adoptees/adopters doesn't mean we should tell people what they can and cannot 
do with their own bodies.



                            .... Heather.
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:27:08 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr9.181610.29235@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <1992Apr9.051812.14632@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>  (stuff deleted)

>>PS Can anyone tell me if the meaning of life is indeed a banana float? :)
>>   (I got into a big debate with a girl about this today after dinner)


>     Either you mean a woman, or the U of R is admitting minors again...

>                                                          MP

	Sorry about the use of term here. I meant a Woman! (or Womyn)
By the way, how about answering my question? I don't want to lose the bet!
(This will probably do great damage to my male ego...)  :(

>>
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: A sensible Kevin (was THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:16:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.221638.11290
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <EduEx5600WB2F5bI9j@andrew.cmu.edu>, Kevin William Ryan writes:
|cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
|>In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
|>|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:
|>What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
|>sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.
|CJ, I'm hurt. Deeply hurt.

It is with deep humility that I proffer my apologies
to Kevin William Ryan (hereinafter referred to as 
"Kevin William"), for lumping him with the Darcies,
Brawleys, and Welches of the net.  Kevin William
has never, to my knowledge, been obsessed with
calling people pro-death, proving that starvation
does not cause death, or weasling out of paying
child support.  He has always been a fine, upstanding
young poster, and a credit to his name.

Kevin William, please accept my abject apology.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Elizabeth, none of us men out here "know" what pregnancy is like and what it
does to the woman psychologically.  What we do know is that often it is painful
and unwanted.  It is like a harmless slavery of sorts."      - Kevin Welch
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:18:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.024051.11433@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:
> 
> >You couldn't look it up yourself to support your own remarks?
> 
> too lazy...sorry :)
> 
> >If you ask for such respect, give it first.  You called a whole
> >slew of people you've never met "sluts."  You called many women
> >whom I love and respect sluts.  You called decent, honest,
> >hard-working, contributing members of society who have had the good
> >fortune to fall in love morethan once and done no more than you
> >have done, which is to sleep with someone not their spouse, sluts.
> 
> I'm not using it in a demeaning sort of way. Simply as an adjective.
> I have great female friends who could be called "slutty." I'm not
> offending these women. I'm just using an adjective.

That is not true.  In your response to Keith Cochrane you
took great offense at the idea that he might have called your
girlfriend a slut.  If it is just an adjective without any
derogatory connotation, your offense was illogical.

I find this passage of yours pretty dishonest.  I don't believe
the term "slut" is devoid of negative meaning to you, especially
as you took such offense when it was applied to your girlfriend.

> >If your girlfriend get shit by a car tomorrow and dies, you
> >will never have sex again with anyone?
> 
> not until marriage

By your definition, that makes you a slut.
> 
> >I wish I were eighteen and not only knew everything today, but
> >knew all of my future as well.
> 
> You have age.......which is what I want......I have youth....which
> is what you want.

Not at all.  I've had that discussion with friends already.
Not a one of us would be eighteen again.  I'm 34.  I am in
excellent physical condition and my mind and body get stronger
every day.  I do not lack youth.  My "wish" was sarcasm.  I
don't really wish to be eighteen again.  And, as I said, I am
quite young.
 
> Wanna trade? :)

You wouldn't have the foggiest notion what to do with what
I have if I gave it to you.  That's something one has to
learn.  Even if you knew what to do with it, you wouldn't
know how to value it, because you haven't earned it.  And
that would be disrespectful.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:39:44 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>
> Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
> Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.

First chapter of Luke.  The angel kept talking with his sales pitch on it
until she did indeed agree to the whole plan.   Read it and weep, Eric.
From: keegan@scoobiedoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

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.

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:16:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.213743.6194@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>      BTW, wouldn't it make much more sense to use placentas from
> full-term births than from abortions? After all, even though what we
> covered in high school about placental development was rather minimal (I
> think they were still calling it the "afterbirth" then), surely the
> placenta increases in size as the fetus does. Or is it magically there
> and fully developed immediately after conception--kind of like the soul?

Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
know if this is true?

>             MP    Too sexy for Pro-life, but current mistress of Kevin
> Welch and Steve Franklyn (sorry guys, it had to come out sometime! :))

I hope it came out some time.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:54:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr14.135409.10299
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr13.233944.19093@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
|> > In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
|> >
|> >>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
|> >
|> > Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
|> > Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.
|> 
|> First chapter of Luke.  The angel kept talking with his sales pitch on it
|> until she did indeed agree to the whole plan.   Read it and weep, Eric.

Ah, high pressure sales.

Then again, what kind of God gets an unmarried girl pregnant and
then blames it on someone else :-)

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:26:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <92101.124208ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>  Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
> Do you feel that women who abuse drugs do not have to quit while
> pregnant?

Forget "abuse" - what about women who responsibly indulge in the use
of recreational drugs?  Remember fetal alcohol syndrome?

> "In Wisconsin, a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl was confined to a
> secure detention facility because of her alleged tendencies "to
> be on the run" and "to lack motivation" to seek prenatal care."
> S. Faludi, Backlash

It's scary - if they can do this to women, they'll be doing it to
full-fledged citizens next...  (sarcasm!)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:29:37 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


Well, jennifer mc daniel wrote some nicely put points abou the status
of the fetus. But Jen, you argue that you doubt that all of teh aborted
fetuses "fetii? fetice? fice? " would want to enter this world anyways,
but that doesn't justify anything. Surely some of them do...
   ALso Jen, you write that 
"  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. Heh - not so easy once
it's already out in the real world. No way - it's much easier to silence
a fetus. You say it isnt' human? I say it will be. You say that potential
isn't enough? I say prove it doesn't already have a soul. 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. You say the woman's attitude is more important? I say that
a woman's emotional status is important, but a fetus's right to life
is more important. You say that is my opinion and I have no right to
enforce it on others? Well, I wouldn't stand by if I saw you getting 
beaten-up or killed would I? No way, nor will I watch these children
and gifts of God destroyed at the hands of salination, suction, pills,
slicers and dicers, or any of the above. You call that civilized?
   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: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.015353.7074@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
> 
> >But you already have... by your rhetorical techniques,
> >and not by your politics.  There are people on this group
> >who are respected by people holding differing opinions,
> >because they think & speak reasonably & without offending
> >people.  You've managed to offend everyone.  Can you choose
> >a more effective technique.
> 
> well.......if I stop (like I have), will all the other flamers who have
> been at it for centuries before I came around 5 days ago? I think not.

Wish I were eighteen and knew everything, including how people
would behave if I did something which I am not going to do because
I don't have to because I am eighteen and know how everybody
would react anyway so what's the point?

> If I accomplished nothing, then nothing is being accomplished here.
> Several people, people not posting, have confirmed this point in

And I wish all the world revolved around me like it does around
Matthew, and I knew that if I didn't accomplish something then
nobody else is accomplishing anything either.

> private email to me. If I am an example of a way not to act around here,
> then alot of people have some changing to do. But change is hard.....
> and some people refuse even to consider changing.

And since you know how everyone will behave, you certainly
wouldn't want to even consider changing.  Oh, those wicked,
unspecified some people.

> >You have a good point here:
> >
> >|The problem with this group is that so many people are entrenched
> >|in a groove to the point that they REFUSE to even consider what other
> >|people think in other grooves. 
> 
> If you read this group, but rarely post and feel the same way, please
> send me email telling me so. Perhaps we can talk a little more
> rationally and productively.

I'd appreciate it if you could substantiate a single claim that
I asked you to substantiate both here and in email.  I prefer
you do it publically, since I, for one, have nothing to be ashamed
of and prefer that my opinions and ideas be corrected by whoever
can do so.

For instance, please show me to be a hypocrite as you claimed
everyone is a hypocrite.

Dean Kaflowitz