HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Constant Reader)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Dale Ann & Patrick's 1/18th of the farm, New Effington, S.D.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:40:11 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.124118.22309@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
|> In <1992Apr14.005534.18330@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Apr13.222640.11768@odin.corp.sgi.com>, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
|> 
|> >|> Is this why you called Keith Cochran a "fils du pute"?
|> >|> Clearly you are using a definition of "respect" unlike
|> >|> any one I've ever seen.
|> >It looks to me like in Matthew's little convoluted reality, anyone not as
|> >violently "pro-life" as himself simply isn't considered a person...
|> 
|>    No Pat... I think Matt was saying anyone who says stupid
|> things and lashes out at the other group with mental violence and 
|> insult is a fils du pute. Not that I agree with wrong + wrong = right,
|> but you misinterpreted what he had to say most heinously.
|>    steve

Maybe you should let *him* be the judge of that.  (and speak English, while
you're at it.  "heinously"?  Argh.)

-- 
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.

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
        (I *knew* that Dvorak keyboard would get me sooner or later...)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
From: yoders@wittenberg.edu
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:00:20 -0400
Organization: Wittenberg University

In article <1992Apr7.212012.10189@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> if you like. I just think it's important to think from both sides. I sure
> try to. I have seriously considered the rationelle bend pro-choice, but
> I realize it is not for me. I just hope that everyone has been exposed to
> both points of view, that's all. It's a big decision to make, and I want
> everyone to know that...

Thank you for saying this so well.  Can I assume that you would like others to
be able to decide this for themselves? (as you did) I won't label this 
pro-choice.  How about "pro-informed-decision"?  As you point out, abortion is
a big decision to make.  Making abortion illegal would make this an even 
bigger one (do I risk a quack abortion?  can I go somewhere else and get one? 
can I afford to get one?)  Do you want everybody to be able to make their own 
decision, also?  If so, this is a pretty unique statement from someone
admittedly pro-life (at least, on this group).  If this is what you are saying,
then I think you and I, at least, have a foundation for the peace you spoke of
in another post.

>    You haven't read a damn post of mine I imagine. All I do is moan and
> groan about teamwork and pro-choie and pro-life working TOGETHER to 
> reduce abortions, but you know what friend? NO one gives a damn... They

Well, I do give a damn.  I would like to see the number of abortions reduced
(particulary when it is used as a twisted form of birth control).  Making
abortion illegal may reduce the overall number of abortions, but the ones that
concern me the most will probably not decrease.  The ones that will cease are
the ones done in the interest of the mother's life.  Please, moan and groan on.

Kevin Yoders
From: pmmuggli@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Pauline M Muggli)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:49:21 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK


  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>will answer your stupid point. You see, the Catholic church emphasizes
>>celibacy for the priests/hierarchy because they already HAVE a family.

>I doubt seriously that this is the reason.
>I suspect it has more to do with the "marriage good, virginity better"
>ethic that the Church has been breeding ever since Paul.

true, celibacy has become a tradition/requirement but was not in
the early rccatholic church.  there are some married rccatholic
priests.  ones who have converted and were already married.  the
rccatholic church just does not allow men who want to be priests to
become a priest and *then* get married.  they have to leave the
priesthood and get a dispensation to be allowed to marry *in* the church.  

on a personal note:  i have an uncle (former benedictine priest)
who left and married a former nun.  he would happily serve in
the capacity of a priest if it was allowed by the rcc church.
and from what i have heard, he is by no means alone.
 
>>On average it's about 4000 per diocesan sector. So, they have NO TIME for
>>another family, namely their own. A priest is so exceptionally busy trying
>>to undo some of the damage and crap that society has bred, that he would
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[ church woman voice on ]

would this, by the way, be *SEX*???

[ church woman voice off ]

>>have NO TIME to responsibly care for a child of his own. Like I said earlier,
>>each individual has his/her own calling in life, and YOU don't have the
>>right to deny it.

there are also people who feel that a priest who has a family
will be better able to understand the workings and problems of a
family not just as a son and/or brother but as a father and/or
husband.

>It is my suspicion that if the RCC gave up the celibacy requirement,
>they would find it a lot easier to find priests, which would make
>the job somewhat less taxing.

true.  the number of priests is dropping *and* the average age
of priests is rising.
 
 [ rest deleted ]

pauline  (who has family members who are and/or were members of various
religious orders.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:21:27 GMT

mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>You are not going to win any points with the folk around here
>by launching your t.a career with a personal attack on rocker.
>Rocker is an awesomely fine and wonderful individual. She's
>a mother. Whatsamatta wich you, no respect for motherhood?
>Sigh. I suppose apple pie and the flag will be next to go.
>Does your newsread show headers? Mine does, and the lady's name
>is on them: Cathi Cook. A word of unsolicited advice: newbies
>do better around here if they lurk for awhile before jumping
>headlong into the fray. I was a lurker for about three months
>before I started posting. In my humble opinion, Kevin, you would
>make a *fine* lurker.

>muriel

Why of course you would want me to "lurk".  Standard Pro-Death tactics is
to scream their opinion while trying to shut others out.  This issue is
much too important to sit by until I think YOU approve of the manner in
which I post.

Kevin Brawley
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: b r a w l e y withdraws? (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:07:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

->Keegan

->i take it then that you shall be withdrawing your nonsense which
->began this discussion; that is this nonsensical statement:

->       "Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion
->       while trying to shut others out."

->don't feel too bad kid. people like you pop into t.a. a couple of
->times each year. most don't last.

>Here is a prime example of the difference between the Life/Choice
>sides of the issue.  I have proven my points time and again with
>LOGIC.  This post is what I get in response.

Excuse me Kevin, would you mind pointing out where you showed any LOGIC....

>Since you haven't followed all the debate I'll give you the idea
>of the meaning of the quote you took out of context.

I don't believe anything was taken out of context. The only thing that
was done was to remove a bunch of emotional posturing on your part.

>"Standard" as in "Typical"
>"Pro-Death" as in "Pro-Choice" "
>"tactics" as in "strategy"
>"scream their opinion" as in "promote their ill-conceived ideas"
>"shut others out" as in "attempting to rid the group of people who disagree"

So nice of you to give your own definitions, especially 2 and 4.
Still loaded for bear with negative connotations, but the entire emotional 
issue took a real nose-dive, although by no means was it eliminated.

>So:  Typical Pro-Choice strategy is to promote their ill-conceived ideas
>     while trying to rid the group of people who disagree.

Still disagree, since I think your ideas are "ill-conceived".

>Is it justified?  This was in response to a couple of pro-deathers
>telling me it would be better if I didn't post any more.  Now, you
>can retract, asshole.

Still no logic, except maybe the reason you posted.

And note the subliminal insult that Kevin went to great lengths to come
up with at the end there. The intellectual prowess is astonishing.

Ron
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:25:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.180234.12290@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
> The sad thing is that if one day I do come out with my whole philosophy
> then one group will simply ignore and/or attack everything I will
> ever say without even considering it.  So why should I alienate
> a large portion of the readers. My point is that everyone's assertions
> and logic should be questioned and defended, even your comrades in
> thought. Not every type of caustic attack has to be destructive. 

In the first place, you've succeeded in alienating more people faster
than the average talk.abortion contributor, sso you have failed
miserably if your intention was to build bridges.

In the second place, I can see where your idea that everyone is a
hypocrite comes from, since this posting of yourss is a statement
of your own hypocrisy.  If everyone's assertions and logic should
b equestioned and defended, this must include your own.  But you
won't express your own assertions and logic and instead offer us
a muddled version of other people's ideas.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:17:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.223547.19080@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> In <kum6mnINNspg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr14.152300.28970@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
> >>In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
> 
> >Well, lets see. If the population size is already to big as Ron indicated,
> >and the rate of population growth goes negative, then it would 
> >logically follow that this would be a good thing, right?
> 
>    No Eric... YOu see, things as momentous as population growth
> are aexceptionally difficult to turn around. Once we hit negative population
> increase, things will start to hit us. We will buckle financially as 
> we have insufficient manpower to handle our produce. It will also
> cut into our socio-economic structure which requires a specific
> population to sustain it. You see, maybe we are a billion over, but 
> once we shrink enough, we DON"T STOP. We keep right on going. Numbers
> like these are only swayed by HUGE variables. The one that is causing
> the decrease is technology and  is never goin to go away.


Do you have any sources for these assertions?

As for the "buckle financially" part, it is a very poor, over-
simplified statement.  In the firsst place, technological
advances have been rendering the need for labor smaller
and smaller.  In case you haven't noticed, Steve, there is
a situation of under-employment worldwide.  By the way,
farming technology has improved to an enormous degree, so that
the production of foodstuffs is accomplished with a great
deal of machinery and far fewer people than has ever been
needed.  Also, your remarks are rather short-sighted.  If
the population were to decrease, which I already discusssed
in a separate possting, demand for production would likely
decrease as well.  Supply and demand are flexible and
married.

I have noidea what you are trying to say about our
socio-economic structure.  Could you elaborate?

Dean Kaflowitz
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another Perspective (was Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:20:46 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr9.202640.4100@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu said:
><1992Apr7.003041.20704@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>[deleted the fair Nora's statements regarding sensitive email received
>>from one K Welch. <snif> She never mentioned the sensitive email _I_ sent
>>her - she probably never got over my indescretion with hat check girl and
>>the maid on that weekend in Rio. :-(]
>
>It wouldn't have bothered me so much if you hadn't woken me up...;-)

How were we to know you were sleeping in the back seat?

...

>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
>
>Purr!

I forgot the effect catnip has on you.  


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:58:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax.8APR92.16582442
Organization: Clark University

>(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.

Sorry, but there is a flaw in your thinking there.  "Pro-Lifers" are not
trying to take away womes rights.  We are trying to protect innocent childrens
lives.  And if any of those other groups ever started saying they had the
right to kill other people, you can bet your sweet ass that we would try to
stop them. 

					Loren Finkelstein
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The Constitution-- misquoted
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:14:58 GMT

In article <sk9k2INN5gh@agate.berkeley.edu> 160955r@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:

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

The Constitution does protect the right to pursue "potential happiness"
and to pursue "potential liberty". For example, if the state did not 
protect my right to join a particular church, then anyone could deny 
me the "potential happiness" which may result from my participation 
in the church. 

If the state did not protect my right to run my own business, then
anyone could deny me the right to pursue the "potential liberty" that 
may result from my self-reliance as a businessman. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Re: speaking of Single turning points
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:55:25 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Great answer.....

>In the arbitration between the KING of ENGLAND and some 
>collection that wishes to seek a coup d' etat, we simply
>abrogate the lawful obligations to the Lawful head of state
>and assert that some mob is in fact the owners of the divine mandate.

>Or to flip the matter around, should you wish to install a
>new Regime in the USA you merely assert that the US Federal
>Government is NOT the Head of the government, Annoint Randell Terry
>and say that this is the True 'Higher Authority' and carry on Blissfully?


>ciao
>drieux

>ps: you do know that there was a King in England that was the
>Lawful head of the Government over the British Empire?????

The crux of the matter lies here: the King Of England as the
Head of the enterprise (British 'empire') had not kept up his
part of the social / feudal bargain,such failings being
enumerated in the Declaration, the English peoples in the 
Americas were released from _their_ obligations under the same
social contract, and were free (so to speak) to seek independence
fromthe British crown.
	The religious question then becomes: are the claims of the
new government 'legitimate', and is the new government just.
ANd will there be parking in heaven?

chus
pytor
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:21:27 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <92101.084649JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <+44tn#a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) says:

>One thought:  when a woman is pregnant, she is risking her life for
>her own child.  The man in this scenario wouldn't be.  He would
>be risking his life for strangers who are external to him.
   Also... the woman knows sees the direct relationship between her 
choice for sex and the child (conception). The man's risk of life 
has nothing to do with his immediate actions...
   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: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:50:52 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr15.055321.19702@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>	The following two statements seem to be fairly common on t.a. :
>   
>                   "Abortion is a cop-out"

>              "Well, Adoption is also a cop-out".

>I'm curious to how people feel about the benefits and consequences of both
>alternatives. So let's hear some responses folks, and please keep your hands 
>off the flamethrowers. It would be nice to see some constructive criticisms, 
>NOT new ways of putting down the other side. Here's two questions to get the
>ball rolling. Thanks in advance to everyone that responds.

>Pro-Choicers : Would an adoption be a resonable alternative for an abortion
>               to you? 

     Sure. That's the point, Mikeey. If a woman just doesn't want to keep
a baby, adoption may well be a valid option. If, however, she just plain
doesn't want to be pregnant, adoption doesn't help any. The choice in
pro-choice means that there IS a choice, get it?

                                    MP
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Value of a Man (repost)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:20:00 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr10.001711.8919@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>In article <+44tn#a@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) writes:

>Bzzzzzzzz...nice try. The ultimate biological purpose of a male human is
>                      to provide genetic diversity for the offspring through
>                      providing sperm to fertilize the egg. It is NOT 
>                      "startign and supporting families". I know LOTS and 
>                      LOTS of families without males in them.

   Lots _AND_ lots huh? Well the point remains that all families _are_ 
started by males biologically - and, the huge percentage of families
_are_ supported by males. The only exceptions I can think of are:

1) lesbian relationships where a child was adopted or brought from
earlier relationship.
   Hmmm, not sure I consider this to be a sturdy situation, nor a very
popular one...

2) A divorce/separation situation where the mother retains the children
   In most cases the father still has financial and emotional input 
into the children's upbringing...

3) A family loses the father to an accident or some sort of death. 
   Financial and spiritual(conceptual) support is still given by
the father in many cases... 

 I'm sure there are others. note that I envision a family as some
sort of matriarch or patriarch heading a household with at least a
child included. 
   My point is: in general the concept holds true that 
a male does start and support a family. The cases where the
male does not are generally exceptions to the rule, and often
have many problems and deterrants which result. 
   steve (who thinks the "normal" family is the BEST family)
-- 
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: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:16:26 GMT

dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>If medical science advanced to the point where the fetus could be 
>transferred from one person to another without being killed, then 
>your entire argument would fall apart. Are you prepared for that 
>possibility?  

_Prepared_ for it??  I fervently WISH for it.

However, I don't think it will be a practical substitute for abortion.
The sheer numbers hint that there will be nearly as many unwanted fetuses
as unwanted pregnancies.  I seriously doubt that many pro-life people
would be willing to suffer actual INCONVENIENCE merely to save an
unwanted fetus.  Not to mention that few people will be likely to incur
that amount of expense to save someone else's child.

No, I'm sure that if that technology became available, those that
now call themselves pro-"life" would find some reason to fight
against fetus-saving technologies as well.

>If you grant the fetus any rights at all during pregnancy, then by
>your own argument, that is tantamount to slavery.  

The pregnant woman may grant the fetus rights without enslavement.
For anyone else to grant rights to the fetus will invariably lessen
the rights enjoyed by the woman.

                           -rocker
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 6 Apr 92 03:02:08 GMT
Organization: Alphabetical

In article <Apr.5.21.14.37.1992.11736@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:
>
>On the TV news this evening (on the puff-piece coverage about the
>Washington rally) they showed some speaker who said something about a
>woman's right to keep men out of her uterus.  Hee hee.

Hee hee indeed.  I don't think a man would *fit* in my uterus.
It'll stretch for a baby, but that's about it...

Joy Haftel               "`I happy am,
JKH107@PSUVM              Joy is my name.'
                          Sweet joy befall thee!"--Blake
Newsgroups: talk.abortion