HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:15:17 EST
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa

In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
> 
>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>- and my wife has said the same thing...
> 
> [all the slams deleted]
> Well... Did you slam me hard enough (redundantly)?

Did you expect anything less when you tried to justify your statement by
claiming that "my wife says so too"?
 
> In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
> a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception (reference my article on
> abortion in historical comparision in alt.abortion.inequity).  If it is not
> human then you can do any bloody thing you want to it (please no slams from
> animal lovers), but if it _is_ human then abortion is pre-meditated murder.

Did you notice in your argument that you switched from "a human" to "human".
Is masturbation murder because it kills human entities?
 
> You can't take your argument half way just because it gets you to where you
> want to be.  People that say the ____ is human at conception and don't consider
> abortion murder are self-serving people comming up with incomplete arguments.

But apparently you can switch your argument halfway. Sperm and egg are human
prior to conception. A zygote is human after conception. Please provide your
definition of a Human Being versus just being Human.
 
> I do think that smoking and drinking during pregnancy should be illegal and
> should be considered child abuse.

The list would be enormous of activities which "might" be dangerous during
pregnancy. Would one cigarette or one drink be "that" dangerous? How about
dancing the polka? (This I bring up from a rather embarassing moment for
my wife and I when she slipped and fell on a dance floor when she was eight
months pregnant. How does one "catch" a pregnant person gracefully?)
 
> As for spontaneous miscarriges, etc.  There is no intent of wrong doing, there
> is no "assistance" as someone mentioned so there is no crime - most crime does
> come down to _intent_.
 
The point is do we investigate each and every instance to make sure there
was no "intent". (..and does praying for it count?) 

> As for rape, incest, etc.,  Again - if you consider it life, then consider it
> life - don't go half way...  It is incredibly regretful and unfortunate that the
> life was created in such a way and I would feel for any person in such a position,
> BUT IT IS STILL LIFE (HUMAN).

Back to 'human' versus the 'human being' you should be feeling compassion
towards. This "Sanctity of All Human Life" sure sounds familiar. Some of my
fellow Catholics are fanatical about it and even want to outlaw birth control
(except NFP, of course). Are you sure you're not Catholic? - J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: 1-900-fone-sex (was: myths about PP or something)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:09:16 GMT

In article <adams.714945730@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>From article <1992Aug22.130432.2159@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:

>>> Masturbation and phone sex are forms of sex.

>> Some people might indulge in such activities, but I would be willing to bet
>> that no one in the world would claim he could possibly have lost his 
>> virginity over the telephone.

> You are clearly using the definition of virginity that means not having had 
> sexual intercourse.  In other words, in the case you make, having 'sex' is 
> limited to male/female penetration of the vagina with the penis.

Ms. Forgach has said nothing about her definition of 'sex' in this
thread.  Your own warped and deluded imagination has taken over.  


> Jeez, Suzanne, where DID you get such a warped view of sex?

Here we see the classic 'set-up line' introduced by Mr. Adams. 
Other pro-aborts will respond to this single question by 
deleting the rest of the article, and then they'll make all
sorts of snide comments aimed at Ms. Forgach.  It's much
too inconvenient for them to recognize that Ms. Forgach 
was making very reasonable and straightfoward comments. 


>Steve Adams


Doug Holtsinger

      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
 that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
 we want to be precise)..."
   -- Gloria Feldt,
      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Choice and post-viability abortions
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:32:04 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
-> In article <92241.214449ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
-> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes
-> a long and fairly hostile response to some ideas I
-> posted for discussion.  

perhaps you're correct. it does seem strange that,
within the next few lines, you chide ms. birmingham for
deleting something from your post while you delete her
entire post and, instead, simply make blatent
assertions as to its content.

some people might call that hypocritical.

-> I clearly stated in the original post that I
-> personally do not support post-viability
-> restrictions on the right to choose abortion.  Yet
-> Ms.  Birmingham deletes the statement of this
-> opinion and directs hostile questions about
-> potential reasoning for supporting these
-> restrictions to me.

see? here you are critical of ms. birmingham for doing
something which you have also done, although, in your
case, you have done it much more extremely.

-> I wonder if her deletion of my opinion is an
-> indication that these matters should not even be
-> discussed in her opinion.  

that's a rather silly question, isn't it? haven't you
read the instructions for new net readers? you may or
may not be aware that people are asked to trim their
posts/replies to include only relevant material or
material which is being discussed.

of course, should i be in error and if your question is
valid, then one could assign equal validity to questions
as to why you deleted ms. birmingham's entire post and
speculate that you were unable to respond to her
comments.

-> In addition, she misrepresents my representation of
-> the point-of-view that supports such restrictions,

if that's so, it is very hard to see it, since you
deleted it and, instead, simply made this unsupported
and blatent assertion.

-> suggesting for example, that opposing post viability
-> abortions is the same as wanting to punish women for
-> sex.  

i suspect she made a very strong argument there. of
course, you deleted her comments and simply asserted
what they were ... again.

[...]

-> I think she may have a reading comprehension problem
-> if she thinks that a statement that continuing a
-> pregnancy creates an obligation is the same as a
-> statement that consenting to sex creates an
-> obligation to carry to term.

where exactly did she say she thought that? i've read
all of her posts and i don't recall ever reading that.
and you did raise the issue of reading comprehension
while at the same time deleting whatever she wrote
which might support your blatent assertion. 

it does make me curious as to why you would delete what
she wrote and then post an article where you interpret
what she said. the potential for, ummmm, errors, is
quite great when you do that, you know.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
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: Sun, 30 Aug 92 15:26:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.093844.20481@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:

[MegaDeletia...]
>Abortions are wrong!  There's no difference between a fetus, a baby, and
>an adult, these are just different steps in human development.  People
>say that a fetus isn't anything because it can't survive outside the
>womb, well a baby already born can't survive outside the womb either
>unless someone takes care of him/her and feeds him/her.  You're talking
>about human life, no matter what stage it's at and it's wrong to kill.
>Plain and simple.

You're a single woman.  Two weeks ago you were raped.  Now you're pregnant.

What do you do?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.172929.12103@advtech.uswest.com>
stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
>I would be much happier with a constitutional amendment that requires
>the consent of the father before abortion is allowed.

Sure.  And I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that requires
every male child to undergo a vascectomy at 12.  They could only reverse
it (or attempt to reverse it) with written permission of their wife.

How do you like those apples?  You want control over other people's
lives, then I'll have control over yours.

Jennifer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "And maybe flog the little b*tch to teach her a lesson"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.145954.7784@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <5738@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>>Someone asks:
>>>>What do you do with a woman who self-aborts?  Arrest _her_ and charge her
>>>> [with murder 1], since there is no doctor involved???
>>
>>And Steve Chaney bleats:
>>>I'd agree with that.
>>
>>Such warm compassion.  (don't you pro-lifers just _hate_ him?  :-)
>
>That was me.  And I'm waiting for Suzanne for answer.
>
>She's always said that she wants to punish the abortionist, not the woman
>involved.
>
>So come on, Suzanne.  What if the woman involved IS the abortionist?
	What I *really* want to know is:  why does she feel that someone who
contracts for the murder of a child shouldn't be punished?
	Sounds like a lack of family values to me!  >:-)>

>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
>=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
>=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Two pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns (was Re: Observations)
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:10:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not today, thank you.

In article <y2knd#_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes ...
>>Evidently not.  So far, nobody has shown any respect for my viewpoints
>>at all, to say nothing about the fact that nobody even seems to be
>>able to read a simple, well written description of what they are.
>
>Wasn't it you who discounted the pro-choice view as being just another 
>belief and no better than your beliefs?  Why should I show your viewpoints
>any more respect then you show mine?

I respect your viewpoint in that I have carefully read what has been written
in support of it, asked for clarification where I wasn't sure of meaning
or intent, and apologized when I attacked on the basis of a misunderstanding.

And if calling the pro-female-choice view just another belief discounts it,
then I also discounted my own view when I said that mine was no better.

>And what's with the (apparently) forged ID?

Exuse me?  What are you talking about?

>>>The net result is that when society arrives at a consensus about what
>>>rights individuals must have, some people with opposing belief systems
>>>will be disappointed
>>
>>Agreed, with provisions.  There are very few situations where a society
>>actually arrives at a true consensus.  Here in the USA, we pass law based
>>on majority opinion.  And that is what this debate is about, trying to gain
>>converts for one side or another in the establishment of a MAJORITY.
>
>With some qualifications.  The constitution puts some limits on majority
>rule, defining some rights & rules which may not be abrogated.

>Of course,
>that constitution may be changed, but that requires rather more than just
>a majority to accomplish.

So if the constitution can be changed, then by definition, all rights and
rules can be abrogated.

The process may not be easy, but it is possible.

>At this time abortion is legal.  Despite this, some terrorists harass
>doctors and people and bomb clinics.  Hardly a sure way to win public
>opinion over to your side.

When was the last time a clinic was bombed?  And what terrorists are
you talking about?

>>       The way to persuade me, is to come up with a compromise situation
>>that agrees with BOTH our belief systems.  My belief system requires that
>>the compromise:
>>
>>1)	Give both equal rights and responsibilities to both men and women
>>
>>2)	Maintain religous freedom.
>
>With the exception of the unequal treatment men & women get in the courts
>with regard to child custody and support, this is largely the state of the
>laws of this country.

I disagree.  Rights are not equal.

>OK?

No.

>Ray Fischer
>ray@netcom.com

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Shrugging off an aborted pregnancy (was Re: Another good reason
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>And that Rodney King beating was horrible.  Did that gross you out, Lyman?
>I guess that means you shouldn't move to Los Angeles if you don't want
>to get beaten by the LAPD, right Lyman?

Are you attempting to get racial here or what? As for Chris, I think
he'd be perfectly safe in moving to LA as he probably won't be driving
in excess of 100 mph in a residential neighborhood, try to flee from
officers, nor disobey officers and then attack them. As for being ikky,
well, blood is ikky, but the tape was black and white, so RunnyRedGorey
Material did not OozeSlimePuddle on it. So the IkkyYukkyNess was rather
limited. It was pretty horrible otherwise, though.

> "For some of us, abortion on demand *is* no more serious than demanding a
>  hamburger."
>   -- Adrienne Regard

You have a problem with this? If you consider it in the context it was
quoted in, you little tweezer-jerking nitwit, you would have seen that
it related to the question why it should be any more serious than demanding
a hamburger *when* you don't consider a fetus a human being (person).
Your quotes are only making you look more and more like a malicious
malecontent prosletizing megalomaniacal hypocrite.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A crack in the iron curtain?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:42:39 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <92231.112200ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca (Linda Birmingham) writes:
>
>Ms. Bartly could you please not speak as if you know the
>minds of t.a readers, or at least not this reader.  I
>disregard the majority of Chaney's ravings and only see
>his comments in people's follow-ups. I personally find
>the man a fool and his writing style so atrocious that
>it is painful to read.

And Linda's to talk? 

Since when have _you_ said anything worth bothering with? 

In this lifetime, I mean. 

===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:26:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.152616.972@sniap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>: 2) If you abort a e/f, you never *have* a child in the first place; if
>: you give a child up for adoption, you do have a child (and for better
>: or worse, will probably think of him/her for the rest of your life).

>And an abortion will slip her mind?

Certainly not.  I'm not discussing whether abortion or giving birth is
emotionally easier in the short term here; I'm saying that - for
*most* people - an abortion is over and done with, whereas the
knowledge that someone else is raising your child is with you for the
rest of your life (N.B. this is not necessarily bad!).

>Regardless of whether you *think*
>the e/f is a person or not, I'd say a lot of women who have abortions
>*feel* that it is/was.  The head is happy but the heart's insane,
>as the song goes.  You don't bring a woman who has recently had an 
>abortion to the local kid's playground.  Why is that?

I think it rather depends on the woman.

>Whether this represents a profound truth about abortion, or just 
>society's conditioning of the mother, I couldn't say.   But why
>should it be that a woman can control her intellect sufficiently
>to rebel against society's norms (in my country abortion is illegal)
>and not her emotions?

Do you think that maybe some people start with their premises and from
them decide that abortion is not wrong, rather than starting with the
conclusion that abortion is okay and picking the premises to suit?
(Hint: I basically don't think abortion is wrong, and I pride myself
on intellectual honesty.)

--
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33759 alt.flame:12374
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: And Now, You're A Coatrack!! Was: without even being asked ....
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:39:54 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <BtLE9w.AD4@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
wrote:
> 
> In <2a9ac9b7.crud@crud.mn.org> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug15.224854.14033@csus.edu>
> >        chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> >It is a shame to lose one's mind.
> 
> It is a shame to lose one's self-image... eh trashman?

Why don't you tell us about it, "Superboy"?  I'd say that you're the
leading expert on lost self-image around here.

On the other hand, I guess you can't really lose what you've never had, eh,
Stevie?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:43:21 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <nyikos.715038115@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

#Jim, I apologized to you in private even before I saw this, but let me
#go public now.  When I made my original comment, my mind was exclusively
#on the temporal (= pertaining to time) dimension of how late you would
#allow abortions.  But in the moral dimension there is a gulf between you
#and Tiller which I cannot begin to fathom.  My apologies to you and anyone
#I might have misled by my remark.

I think that there's a "moral gulf" between Nyikos and Dr. Tiller
as well.  From everything that I've read about the man, George
Tiller is a principled man.

Susan
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne commits a sin for all of Usenet to see!
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:16:57 EST

In article <1992Sep4.175549.22523@u.washington.edu>, darkstar@u.washington.edu
 (Alden Hackmann) writes:
>> > In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes (to Gordon Storga) 
>> >>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>> >>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>> >                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>I'm glad.
>> > ^^^^^^^^^
> 
>One more time, Suzanne: A vasectomy is Birth Control. Birth Control is a Sin.  
>You are advocating a SIN. Advocating a Sin is also a SIN! Please see the man  
>in the little booth, who will assign you 5 Rosaries to say in penance. 

If you shop around, you can get "use of Birth Control" down to 3 "Hail Mary's"
and 2 "Our Father's".  What I don't understand is why Suzanne continues to
post to t.a as it clearly presents her with an "occasion to sin". :-) - J.J. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33992 alt.abortion.inequity:3329
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:00:31 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-> I don't believe that I've ever insulted Ms. Garvin.

denial is unhealthy doodie. see your therapist.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion