HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:49:27 GMT
Organization: NCSU Project Eos

In article <18219@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.165737.9990@ncsu.edu>
>>        kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:
>
>>Your reasoning is flawed. Your argument is basically:
>
>>(1)  Born Person => Person has rights
>>     A => B
>
>> [...]

	I didn't write this.  I wrote the article that the author of
this was responding to.  It's not that big of a deal, but it does
make me look sort of strange arguing with myself on the net...
-- 

--

  Kevin Jaget                              Mail: kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- distributed by Coron, Incorporated)
Subject: Re: A Small Dose of The Real
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: W A C D T F ... W a s h i n g t o n ,   D . C .
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:53:53 GMT

What: <1992Apr14.082917.5801@cco.caltech.edu>
Who:  shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby) writes:

>Also, with around a thousand responses, how can you generalize this to a nation
>of about 250 million?

By using statistical analysis.  Sure, it would be more accurate to survey
all 250 million... but that would take a while, no?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Degradation
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:46:29 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Apr7.045657.19625@cs.rose-hulman.edu> sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck" writes:
#It's a shame there's so much degradation in this newsgroup.  Some individuals
#can't make a point without knocking someone else down.  I usually don't, but
#I'll start trying.  If you think you want to accomplish something, or at
#least earn the respect of the person you're conversing with, then don't nail
#'em to the cross.  Excuse me, I just wanted to use that expression because
#religion plays such a fun role here.
#

Uh, some (if not most) of us still remember your initial posts.
You might wait until a few people have forgotten about them
before you start talking about *other* people showing respect.

Susan
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:50:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Jay
>Kevin
>

>>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

>>choose Z adoption and keeping.
> ======
>The operative word there is CHOOSE.  And as far as that goes I agree.
>(did I say that?)

The choice between adoption and keeping the child should be the choice.
Pro-choice all the way then....hurrah!
Pro-Life all the way
Pro-man-woman-child
Anti-abortion


>     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-

kcw
--
FORCE IS MACHINE             -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-		WE ARE THE BOYS
VISIONS OF ORDER        -=(kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)=-       WE ARE BIG BOYS
MUSCLE AND  HATE						WE'RE SO STRONG
JOIN IN THE CHANT	         - NitzerEbb -			WE'RE SO PURE
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Summary: A fool's statement
Organization: Welch's favorite university
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:40:52 GMT

In article <74203@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn) writes:
>David
>>Kevin
>
>>>Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>>>I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
>
>>>Jerk.
>>>
>
>>And you are lecturing us about moral and ethical behavior?
>
>No, I am lecturing about crediting and accurate portryal.  Deception.

Coming from someone calling himself "Geisha Dawn"?  And here I thought I'd
already seen everything...:-)

--PLH, who's been confused at times, but has at least known who he was all
along...


-- 
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.
                  Support term limitations for politicians:
                 two terms -- one in office and one in jail.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:13:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Patrick
>Kevin
>>Pat
>>>Kevin

>>>>No, I am lecturing about crediting and accurate portryal.  Deception.

>>>Coming from someone calling himself "Geisha Dawn"?  And here I thought I'd
>>>already seen everything...:-)

>>Hey, Patrick....I could have sworn I saw you with a different attribute
>>once or twice on t.a  :)

>I know.  It's amazing what you can do with xrn, isn't it?  I promise,
>though, you can have "Geisha Dawn" all to yourself.

Well, that stems from many years of REM song translations.  Once I found out
that it was in the lyrics of Shaking Through, I thought I'd stick
it up in there.

What does this mean.....hmmmm

>>>--PLH, who's been confused at times, but has at least known who he was all
>>>along...

>>I know who I am...how about a little variety for a change.

>We know who you are, too...how about a *real* change?

Oh...I see.  Change myself, be inconsistent.  I'm not inconsistent.  I was
just inconsistent that one time.  It happens with me every 4.32 years or
so. I'm very short tempered, but I've learned to contol it better and
better, seriously.


>>(Only if they're democrats...:)

>Or Republicans -- after all, they're the same party with two front
>organizations...

Well, considering that mostly Democrats bounced checks....we find out today
actually who did it...:)

>So, Scott Roby is "history", eh?  Sucking up to such slime as Steve
>"Absurdgent" Chaney won't make you any friends...

I haven't sucked up to Chaney at all.  I think snooping around the
net is a bad thing.  

And I see you got my mail from him...or maybe he just passed by word of
mouth.  Either way, he has no respect for privacy.

And he's history.

Call Chaney what you want.  No matter to me.  He's not my right hand man.


>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.
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Spend a lot of time there, Patrick?  Devloping alcohol dependency?  That's
a real problem for you.  Imagine, supplying a bar's phone number.  That
means that there's a high probability that you'll be there.

Cool.  Order me a White Russian and I'll join you there some time.


kcw



--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: next
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:11:07 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  <1992Apr17.042652.11306@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>
> >In article <1992Apr15.000215.13002@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
> >>patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
> >>
> >>>...and ultimately, the answer should be:  that's between her and her
> >>>conscience.  It sure as hell ain't YOUR concern.
> >>
> >>Interesting, if inane, response.  It would then also follow that it
> >>would be nobodies business what Jeffrey Dahmer decided to do with his
> >>spare time.
>
> >In case you didn't notice, Dahmer was killing *born persons* -- that's a
> >crime under our legal system.  I guess little details like that don't matter
> >to a truly dedicated pro-forced-birther, though...
>
> Guess what Patty?  "Legal" does NOT equate to "Right" much as your silly
> position hinges upon it.  I guess a little logic like that don't matter to
> a truly dedicated Pro-Elitist-Nazi-like-Death-merchants-Whom-Only-Murder-
> Innocent-Unborn-Children, though...

In other words, your statement "It would then also follow" is incorrect,
and since you lack logic, you once again fall back on insults.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: next
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:55:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Kevin W.

>>There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>>involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>>you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.

>>When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>>faulted in decision making.

>But would'nt you say practically *all* "accidents", car or otherwise, are due to
>a fault in decision making?


I say that there is no such thing as an accident.

>>There are crucial differences in car wreck and the result of pregnancy.
>>When we are in a wreck, we can receive treatment because we do so to save 
>>life/lives.  Aboriton is done so to end a life.  Big difference.


>No, you are using kwc logic. The women I know who got abortions did so to end
>a pregnancy.

Round and round.  Where it ends, nobody knows.  I answered this long ago,
David.  Purpose for and purpose of are two different things.

Bottom line:  moral to get aid if in wreck.
	       immoral (my view) and unethical to get abortion...not aid.


>>It would not be irresponsible to seek attention.  It would uphold all ethics,
>>rules of self-preservation, fulfill the State's interest in preserving life,
>>get your money's worth in all the premiums you've payed, benefit from that
>>insurace you've been receiving, blah blah blah.  THere are many ethical and
>>moral reasons to get treatment from a wreck.


>>On the other hand, receiving an abortion is not ethical:  it destroys life
>>and does not fall in line with self-preservation, and all the rest I stated.

>Again, destroying life is not the issue. If it is, everytime you eat, you are
>acting unethically.

Again, the pro-choice side likes to deal with semantics to get a short lived
victory.  Of course we are all talking about human abortions here.  I
have never seen a bunch of rhinos prop a female rhino up and rip out a
rhino fetus in a clinic...gimmie a break.

We're talking about human life here.


>>>You've just got to
>>>accept the consequences of your behavior, and live with
>>>the broken bones, the mangled flesh, the burns.  You should
>>>have thought about accidents before you got into the car.
>>>Use your brain.

>>How ironic coming from you, CJ.  "Use your brain."  Use your brain and fathom
>>the differnces between morals and ethics.  Use your brain to realize
>>the inequties in the car-fetus analogy that you have so piss poorly laid
>>out.
>>
>>Use YOUR brain.
>>
>
>Why don't you  both get off the cheap shots?

Why don't you get off the semantics run?


>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
FORCE IS MACHINE             -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-		WE ARE THE BOYS
VISIONS OF ORDER        -=(kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)=-       WE ARE BIG BOYS
MUSCLE AND  HATE						WE'RE SO STRONG
JOIN IN THE CHANT	         - NitzerEbb -			WE'RE SO PURE
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:20:05 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>>Pro-death, however, means that I'd be for your death as well as everyone
>>else's death, the sooner the better. This is completely inaccurrate.

>Okay then, litmus test time.  Pro-death = "I'd be for your death as well as
>everyone else's death, the sooner the better."

>Did we forget something here?  Did we forget the issue was ABORTION.

Why not? You seem to forget the WOMAN very conviently.

Or maybe you'd like to give an accurrate definition of Pro-death that
fits the connotations of the label and applies to those who call themselves 
Pro-Choice? I gave what I thought was an accurrate definition of pro-death. 
Only problem is, no one I'm aware of in the pro-choice camp falls under 
that label.

Some people that are pro-choice don't believe that abortion would ever
be an option for them. They would not, however, force someone else to
make the same choice they made voluntarily by removing one of their
original choices.

>Once again we can use this "Disregard the issue" mentality and say...
>Pro-Choice = You are for MY choice to make abortion illegal except in the
>case of the mother's life being endangered.

Absurd....

>Of course I could have used some far-fetched baloney to illustrate my point
>but I think you did that well enough.

You did, with your own example. Please show us all where there was some
far-fetched baloney in my post that wasn't sarcastic. And don't bother
with the pro-death thing until you've given a reasonable definition that
both fits the connotations of the label and all those who fall
under the pro-choice label now.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Which 'constitution'?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:11:20 GMT

kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:

] Mr. Bates states:
] >	person: human being in the "moral sense"
] 
] I would also like to add a term that *I* use frequently.  It is:
] 
] Constitutional person:	human being genetic, recipient of rights.

interesting point here....

are we aserting, auto d' fe, that there is such an
entity, as there is a constitution?

Or are you willing to be honest and limit a constituitonal person
to those delimited by the constitution of the united states of america?


ciao
drieux



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP (alt.abortion.inequity)
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Mar31.000539.21910@athena.mit.edu>
krpeters@athena.mit.edu (Karl R Peters) writes:

(N.B. Please keep to lines well under 80 characters (70-75) so that
the lines don't start losing characters on some screens after people
have replied.)

>> David Knapp asks why  a fetus should be considered a person.

>I honestly don't know if a fetus is a person or not - there seems to be no clear
>defining line as to at what point a creture of the species "homo sapiens" should
>be considered a person.

I propose a hypothetical line at the first moment the fetus has the
capability to think, and assert that this line is somewhere past the
start of myelination (myelin sheaths surround the axons of the nerve
cells, making transmissions more rapid and reducing signal loss).

>However, it is definitly "safer" to assume that a fetus is a person. No one
>really knows what the status is, but we are a lot less likely to make a mistake
>and accidentally kill a "person" if we don't perform an abortion.

Don't forget that while you may kill a "person" if you perform an
abortion and have inaccurately defined "person", you are *definitely*
preventing a woman from controlling her own body if you forbid a woman
from having an abortion.

--
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:04:01 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Distribution: usa


In article <72707@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:

I guess the President of the UPenn pro-life movement is not happy just
trying to control women's wombs.  He also feels it is necessary to
control their thoughts as well.  He can tell a woman what she is
thinking better than she can do.  What an amazing president he must be.
I can think of no better spokesperson for pro-life than little Kevin
Welch.

>A woman likes to think that the purpose of an abortion is to end pregnancy,
>where it is actually to end the life of the fetus.  You cannot end pregnacy
>unless the baby is born or the fetus dies.

[Someone wrote the following.  Kevin hates leaving attributes 'cause then
maybe someone can trace back the original article]
>>Kevin: "excuse me, but why are you going in there?"
>>Woman: "Why, to get an abortion of course."
>>Kevin: "Why are you getting an abortion?"
>>Woman: "I do not want a child right now. This prenancy was a mistake, and I
>>       would like to end it."

>That's what she says.

But Kevin who is after all president of his little college pro-life group
would naturally know the woman's thoughts better than the woman herself.
I guess she would be lying because she has some other agenda such as the
right to continue to kill for fun.  Lucky for us Kevin has no secret
agenda, and can read the woman's true thoughts with out any trouble.

>kcw

Dan King


Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com
Subject: Adoption: Some hard data for discussion
Reply-To: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM PSP Palo Alto, Ca.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:25:34 GMT


A recent study followed trends of single pregnant women who placed
their children up for adoption. The intersting thing is that the
rate actually *declined*. This means that more single women kept
their children instead of giving them up for adoption. The rates for
white women declined from 19% (pre-1973) to 8% (1973-1981) to a
scant 3% (1982-1988, the latest statistical period). The rate for
unmarried black women has remained more-or-less constant at 2% in
all periods. The rate was nearly 0% for unmarried Hispanic women.
To my knowledge, this survey did not track abortions.


So what does all this mean? Well, you can draw your own conclusions.
At any rate, it means that there are more single-parent families
lead by a woman than there were in the past. It means that a vast
majority (at least 98%) of unmarried women do not give their children
up for adoption, but instead keep the children to raise.


There are a few things I wanted to find out from this survey that it
did not include:


1. The age breakdown. Which age group is more likely to keep their
   children instead of give them up for adoption?

2. The percentage of women who initially planned to give their children
   up for adoption but later changed their minds.

3. The percentage of women who initially gave the children up for adoption 
   but later changed their minds and regained custody (before time ran
   out).

4. What percentage of the women who kept their children and are receiving
   some sort of welfare. Also, what percentage live at or below the
   poverty level.


You may all draw your own conclusions from this. The study was done by
the Alan Guttmacher Institute and was published in the January-February
1992 issue of _Perspectives_ magazine.

One interesting note - out of the 8000 women covered in the 1982-88
cycle, only 62 put their children up for adoption. That's 7938 new
single parents (and that's only from the survey participants over
six years - a little over 1300 women a year, on average).

No flames, please. I'm not insinuating anything by this, I just wanted
to post some figures to get people talking about something concrete.


THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
	"We're just a Bob Seger cover band."
		-Les Claypool, PRIMUS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:43:38 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- applying member, tsakc) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr15.011947.13996@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>>   = Jay T Stein

>>>I stand by my assumptions.  Slaughter does indeed refer to killing en masse,
>>>and in addition, connotes a hatred for those slaughtered, particularly
>>>when it is used (as it often is) with he word "innocent," as in
>>>innocent slaughtered babies.  You're blind if you don't see the
>>>implication of hatred being made here.
>>
>>This really is fun.  You're almost as easy as Ron.  You "stand by your
>>assumptions."?  Well, since you were referring to MY quote let me make
>>it clear:  YOU'RE WRONG.  Simple enough for you?  Bet you'll even find
>>it hard to find a dictionary to prop up your stupid arguement.

>Speaking of dictionaries, you should find one and look up "connotation."
>It means, among other things, an implied meaning *apart* *from* the
>exact dictionary definition.  It deals with how words and phrases are
>*interpreted* by other people.

Exactly.  YOU "*interpreted*" wrong.

>  Since my original claim is that your
>use of "slaughtered" connotes a hatred of children, I was saying only
>that the phrase would likely be interpreted that way.

Your assumption.  You're wrong.


>  You cannot
>simply write that off by saying, "YOU'RE WRONG."

But you are.

>  If you didn't
>mean to suggest that I hate babies, then you did not communicate clearly,
>because the tone of your article certainly suggested it.

Of course it was clear.  Whether you have a paranoia or are simply
making a desperate attempt to find fault in my statement, you read
things into the post that simply weren't there.

>>I'm not blind.  I see YOU making a hatred insinuating statement.

>Explain yourself please.  Exactly how is calling you to task for invoking
>emotionalism "making a hatred insinuating statement?"

hmmm...On that one maybe there was confusion.  It probably should have
read "I see YOU making a "hatred" insinuating statement.".  This was 
only to say: you were insinuating that I was accusing you of hatred (which
I wasn't).

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion