HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: warren@pws.ma30.bull.com (Warren Lavallee)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Webster says no child before birth
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:54:02 GMT

In <1992Oct12.194739.2480@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>Just like to mention that a friend of mine had a Webster's dictionary
>onhand today (1986 edition (just a paperback thing)), and it happened
>to specifically state that a child existed between birth and some other
>later stage of life (puberty or adolescence).  If you need a reference,
>I could track it down for you, but I can't see what it would prove.

If you are interested in what Noah Webster really said, I will post it
tomorrow.  I have a 1st edition Noah Webster's dictionary at home. 
From the early 1800's.  Very enlightening looking at some of the
definitions he wrote, and what the dictionary says today...

Warren
--
Root out the cause, not the effects.                           Be | true
Do not distort the truth.                                       --+--
Pay attention.                                                    | Unbeliever
Work: warren@beloved.unidesk.com  Compu$erve: 76450,3463   answer | the call.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:37:50 GMT

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>How many pregnant women want abortions simply by virtue of the fact
>that a fetus resides within their body, or because the fetus is "using 
>her body" against her will?  

Just as a guess, I'd say pretty near 100%.  At least, I never knew
a woman who got an abortion because a fetus was in someone _else_'s
body.

>Doug Holtsinger

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Circles of Influence (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.030332.8476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

}If my social reasons are directly starving certain people (like me buying
}a better car at the expense of not getting my son or daughter some food)
}then my social reasons are definitely not going to take precedence over
}the life of my son or daughter.

How about the son or daughter of your neighbor?  The sons or daughters
in the next county?  The next state?  Another country?

One of the things that you eventually confront when setting yourself up
as your brother's keeper is deciding exactly who qualifies as your 
brother.  

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:53:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.222448.23511@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Peter Nyikos writes:
>>Brian Kendig writes:
>>>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?)
>>
>
>>>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>>>involved. 		  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Come off it, Brian!  are you blind, or are you such a toady of Adrienne
>>that you cannot bear to disagree with her?
>
>Beg pardon?  I don't know what Adrienne says about the rights and
>responsibilities of a pregnant woman, but why does that matter here?
>I said that Martin completely neglected to consider the woman because
>he did -- through his entire post, there was no mention given of the
>women's concerns.

I did mention lots of times that what is being weighed it the right of
the mother to live vs. the right of her human offspring to live.  I compare
two human lives, not a non-respectable human life vs. a woman.  Just because
I am not "pro-choice" does not  mean I do not care for the woman involved.

Also, I mentioned several times that I do recognize the plight of the women.
People may not trust me in saying that, but that is understandable.  
The woman is very special, but I don't think the woman has the right to kill
in most circumstances.

>
>>Or don't you give a 
>>damn about reducing the number of abortions, Brian?
>
>I care very much about reducing the number of abortions, and I don't
>appreciate your suggestion that I don't.  I want to get rid of
>abortions by getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, 

Now how would you do this?  Just wondering how you would like to achieve this.


>
>We're both working for the same goal, Peter: a day when all abortions
>will finally be unnecessary.  If you'd just drop your legal agenda,
>maybe we can work on the same side.
>
Legalized abortion cannot stand.  Some words have trouble sinking in because
abortion would still be available to most people.  Abortion, sanctioned
by law, is a sickening thought, as even you would agree. (I hope.)

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42087 talk.politics.guns:22020 alt.conspiracy:11188 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5265 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6699 talk.bizarre:33828
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 12 Oct 1992 12:42:34 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>> = (William Crosmun) writes:
...lund@noao.edu (Rich Lund) writes:
...Reagan Bush have lied to you for twelve years!  Lied, lied, and
...lied again!  They have come damn close to bankrupting the country,
...and *you* talk about big spender liberals?
>>What is Clinton going to do differently?

You know, from where I sit, just about ANYTHING different would be an
improvement.

Adrienne Regard
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Date: 12 Oct 1992 09:39:20 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: request for exact language
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <BvzLAD.Byr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>It might be noted that one of the reasons the effects of psychological
>sequelae are uncertain was outlined by Koop in a letter to the President
>which accompanied the report.  It seems that it was impossible to get
>women who had had an abortion to talk about the experience.  They simply
>refused to co-operate with the data collectors.  Quite an unusual reaction

	That's interesting; I hadn't heard it that way.  Could 
	you please quote that part of the letter (I assume this
	is first-hand knowledge)?

				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: hart@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: True Story: How Pro-Lifers Try To Gain Support
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:13:24 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

I had to go to my clinic for a routine yearly exam, performed for my 
health and well being.  It just happened that the only day I could make
the appointment was the same day that the clinic was performing abortions
(the name and the location of the clinic will remain silent).  I'd like
to relate what happened to you.

My fiancee and I pulled into the driveway -- well, we tried to pull into
the driveway, anyway.  There were too many people in the parking lot for
us to safely proceed straight to a parking space.  We did eventually park.
BEFORE the car came to a full stop, dozens of people descended upon us.
I have never been so frightened in all my life, as to see that mob running
towards my car.  Half of them were wearing orange vests labeled "ESCORT".
-All- of them headed to my side of the car.  I got out, and was 
immediately surrounded by escort people  so tightly I couldn't breathe.
Pro-lifers with gruesome signs shouted curses at me -- at ME.  Me, personally.

One even tried to roll himself under my feet, shouting that he wasn't going
to allow me to kill my child.  Another woman screamed right in my ear that
I would go to hell if I went into the clinic, that I was a butcher.  The
escort had to force their way ahead and on the sides of me by pushing
bodies aside.

As I came out of the clinic an hour later, the mood was even uglier.  Screams
aimed at me personally came from all sides.  A man grabbed my arm and 
shoved me up against the side of our car, screaming two inches from my
face "How could you do that?  Don't you care?  Don't you care?".  He left
bruises on my arm and back, and I had flashbacks to when I was raped 
as a child.


I was going in for a pap smear.  A regular exam.  I wasn't doind anything
wrong.


Is this behavior supposed to make me sympathetic to your cause?  All 
it did was make me loath the entire "pro-life" movement.  If I want
abuse like that, I will go back to my father's home, or become and 
masochist especially interested in humiliation.

You aren't gaining ANY supporters by this kind of radical fanatical
behavior -- you might attract more fanatics, but fanatics aren't real well
known for their brains.  Faith does not make up for every shortcoming.



I am going back to that clinic tomorrow.  If the pro-lifers who 
abused me without bothering to figure out why I was there are once
again harrassing and molesting patients, I for one will be happy.
Because if the man who bruised me is there, I will have him arrested
for assault -- I already contacted the police.

And even if he isn't there, it will give me the opportunity to spit
in each and every sanctimonious fanatical suppressive face.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:38:13 GMT

lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>Ron  - I have incorrectly tried to argue that assigning "value"  to a  fetus is
>not a moral stance.  I agree that it is a judgment call and therefore a matter
>of opinion.  HOWEVER, this was not the point I was trying to make.  In an
>attempt to find some common ground I feel reasonably certain that the
>"morality" we are calling upon is the same, namely "though shall not kill". 
>The issue is, does that apply to a fetus - you say no, I say yes.
>
>There are two points to be made:
>1) Even though I have not yet done so, I feel it can be shown that the baby and
>fetus are ONE IN THE SAME.  I think this can be done using reasoning that is
>both  scientifically sound and based on common sense.  So it is not that I am
>trying to apply the same value to "A" and "B", rather, "A" IS  "B".

I, for one, am looking forward to this demonstration.  Presumably
you'll also be showing that a zygote and an embryo are also identical
to a baby.  I see considerable difficulties with this endeavor, so your
attempt is eagerly awaited.

>2) You have already shown some ambiguity in that you both accept a pregnant
>woman's desire to save a premature infant as well as a different pregnant
>womans desire for a late term abortion for any reason (despite its rarity). 
>The fetus can take on two vastly different "states"  soley based upon the
>mother's attitude.  In one case the doctor and society bring to bear all the
>life saving actions at their disposal, in the other the fetus winds up in the
>trash.  [...]

Nothing new in this.  While considerable effort may be expended to
save a toddler who has fallen down a well, many, many more of them
starve each day in Africa.  It looks like circumstances count, after
all.  I suppose it depends on large part who's paying, eh?

>>Contrary to your opinion, I believe the pro-life position is one of
>>"wishful thinking and blissful ignorance" with "wishful" and "blissful"
>>taking on extended connotations.
>
>If you are "connoting" a religious based position, you are wrong in my case as
>well as many others I know.

I agree with Ron and add that religion doesn't enter into this
polyanna view of the world.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:58:33 GMT

In article <lefty-141092161206@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.141758.15740@acd4.acd.com>, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill
> Overpeck) wrote:
> > "Lefty" wouldn't, by any chance, be a reference to your 
> > political (rather than neurological) orientation, would 
> > it?  :-)

Uh-oh.  I think Bill is trying to get nominated for the
Uncle Joe Award, folks.  I'd place his name in nomination
myself, but my political orientation would probably screw
his chances.
> 
> No, in point of fact, it would not.  If you're interested in my political
> orientation, I'm an anarchist.

See, if you're interested in my political orientation, I'm a
monarchist, but only as long as I get to be the monarch.

I hereby proclaim that all subjects of the realm own their
bodies.  I also declare that busybodies and control-freaks
be banished to Bill Overpeck's couch for analysis and disposal.

Dean Kaflowitz

Here lies a great and mighty king
  Whose promise none relies on;
He never said a foolish thing,
  Nor ever did a wise one.
-John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (I didn't know Jack Benny's
butler had an earl)

The Hero can be Poet, Prophet, King, Priest, or what you will,
according to the kind of world he finds himself born into.
-Thomas Carlyle

The king and his faithful subjects, the lords and commons of this
realm,-the triple cord, which no man can break.
-Edmund Burke

And allowing for the word "man" as generic in the following,
we have that tepid poet:

The loathesome mask has fallen, the man remains
Sceptreless, free, uncircumscribed, but man
Equal, unclassed, tribeless, nationless
Exempt from awe, worship, degree, the king
Over himself; just, gentle, wise:  but man
Passionless?-no, yet free from guilt or pain,
Which were, for his will made or suffered them,
Nor yet exempt, though ruling them like slaves,
From chance, and death, and mutability,
The clogs of that which else might oversoar
The loftiest star of unascended heaven,
Pinnacled dim in the intense inane.
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Contest Time Kiddies
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:50:18 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
] In article <7142@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
] >In article <1992Oct9.020248.1916@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
] >#Now, now, I didn't claim that I own the title. I'm not THAT arrogant.
] >#I certainly think that Drieux and Novak are some stiff competition.
] >#But Suzanne. Nah. She's not half as twisted as me. Just ask Novak.
] >Okay.
] >
] >Steve, who's the most twisted person on the net?  (I'd even
] >be willing to limit it to the most twisted person on t.a.)
] >
] >Why are we just asking Steve - can't we ask drieux, too?
] I don't trust Drieux. He wants the title for himself. Steve doesn't
] care. Oh, I forgot to mention that Geoff Miller (Mr. alt.tasteless 1991)
] is also in the running.


Well the biggest difference between Geoff and Myself
is that He can NOT pronounce his NAME, and I CAN.

As for Novak....

well....

You try and say that...

ciao
drieux

ps: personally I think of myself as just a shy quiet
niave innocent waif from a small town in the midwest,
as that is what the Cover Story indicates is the operable truth
at this point... So I clearly can NOT be twisted.

Do you think I look like 
Chubby Checkers or What?



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Clearing Up a TermUsage
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:49:04 GMT

Petri.Wessman@hut.fi writes:
] On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:57 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:
] drieux> I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....
] 
] Hmmmm. Now *I'm* confused. Exactly *what* is a ClosetHetro? Anything
] related to LivingRoomMunchkins or KitchenBoogers?

I'm sorry, I had thought that this expression had 
already been moved into common usage as a 'reclaimed'
term for those persons who for reasons not fully 
clarified are still essentially acting like HeteroSexuals.

Now that many persons are aware that HeteroSexualityTheDeathKult
is really the Ikky Yukky UnNice thing that it is, many persons
have begun to go into the closet, or are merely in complete
denial about their HeteroSexual Tendencies.

This term is Gender and Affectional Preference Nuetral
and can be used for the Bruces who are still carrying on
as if they really were Just Ward and June in Drag.

{ok, I'll say it, "oh How Cleaver of Him..."}

Persons who DO NOT admit that Gestation as an ObligationalPotential
of Sex - and for some irrational reason presume that SEX is ABOUT ORGASMS -
suffer the classic symptoms of ClosetHeteroSeXuality.


Yes, BEWARE! They Are OUT THERE! And they ARE DANGEROUS!

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41432 talk.religion.misc:17877 alt.atheism:18641
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:09:18 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct8.001541.3046@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>> I'm told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
>> by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
>> he shared much with the rest of mankind.
>
>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including death,
>with the rest of mankind.

Bloody nonsense.  The rest of mankind doesn't come back to life two
days after death.

Hell, I wouldn't mind dying on Friday afternoon if I knew that I'd be
alive again on Sunday morning.

See what I mean when I say that the "death" of Jesus of Nazareth is
nothing but a hoax, and a very silly one at that?

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42763 alt.politics.elections:16925
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I'm back, the VP debate.
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:31:26 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:

>What I want to know is why Dan Quayle didn't just say that he
>supported his party's platform, and reply to Gore that he
>*didn't* support the right of a woman to choose.  Does Quayle
>support the Republican platform or not?  Are the Republicans
>trying to have it both ways?  Cuddle up to
>Robertson/Buchanan/Schlafly, but whisper to moderate
>conservatives that "we don't really mean it"?

M-x put-finger-on-nose

You got it!  Gore used that line of attack because he *knew* that
Quayle couldn't answer one way or another without either losing
support from the radical right wing bozos, or the final few remaining
pro-choice Americans who still think the Republican party is anything
more than America's Paternal Order of Deceitful Reprobates.

>One of Stockdale's best moments in an otherwise dismal
>performance was his reply to the abortion question.  "A woman
>owns her body", and has the right to do with it what she wants.

M-x applause

>"Period."

M-x cheering!

The one decent answer of the whole night!

>If you count the Libertarians, 3 out of 4 major candidates
>support the right of a woman to choose.  

Truth.  

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Atheist for Christ  (WAS Re: Biblical Authority for Law)
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:25:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct15.044155.9064@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> If you're consistent, you will push hard to eliminate the Pledge of
> Allegiance (as it was revised by Roosevelt - a DEMOCRAT who put God
> into the Pledge), and you'll have the Dollar Bill changed to eliminate
> "In God We Trust." 

Stupid as usual, Dennis?  "under god" was added to the PoA in
1954, under Eisenhower.  Republican, as you in your vast wisdom
no doubt know.  To be fair, it was done by act of cowardly
Congress in the days of McCarthyism.

In God We Trust first appeared in 1864 under Licoln.  Republican.
Then it disappeared.  Then it reappeared in 1955 on the money.
Under Eisenhower.  Republican.

Too bad Chahallney has me in a killfile.  He ought to be informed
of what an ass he makes of himself.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42064 talk.politics.misc:51072 alt.sex:32734 alt.rush-limbaugh:7155 alt.politics.elections:16215 alt.politics.clinton:9843 alt.politics.bush:8712
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:30:43 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1687B9B42.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>Believe what you want, just don't try to enact your beliefs into law.

Why not?  
All laws are in essence the codification of somebodies beliefs.
Are you saying that you believe that laws you agree with are alright, but
that laws you disagree with are not alright.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Persons only after birth? (was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:33:08 GMT

In article <BvvC3K.9B5@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.074256.22492@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <BvtCJH.A9u@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.035505.23247@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>>Pro-Lifers are saying that <human> life BEGINS at conception, using the
>>>Bible to back up their positon.  They, then have made it a religious
>>>issue.
>>>
>>Over-Generalization.  I haven't used the Bible to say human life begins at
>>conception.  Many others don't.  Some even don't believe in the Bible
>>yet they know Human Life begins at conception.
>>
>>Careful now.
>>
>
>Oh, I aploogize for my over-generalization.  I must still be seeing stars
>from that Bible that hit me over the head as I was escorting someone
>into an abortion clinic.
>
>:-)
>
No prob.  Please note that not everyone employs the same tactics.