HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: NEWS:  Oklahoma fetus disposal
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 21:18:38 GMT


In a previous article, olson@acf9.nyu.edu (David Olson) says:

>Any in Oklahoma read this group?  
>
>Info taken from the 17.April.92, NY Times, A13. 
>
>An obstretician, Nareshkumar Patel, "said that he and and and employee
>took the [remains of 60] fetuses to the [farmer's] field and tried to 
>burn them with two cans of lighter fluid."  Patel didn't say whether 
>the fetuses cam from abortions, but...  No charges have been filed yet, 
>but judging from the sketchy comments in the article, Patel will (at least) 
>be charge with illegally dumping biomedical waste.


A friend of mine made a interesting point. We assumed that Mr. Patel was
from India or Bangledesh.    

In that part of the world, people are cremeated. So instead of burying
them like biomedical waste, Mr. Patel, perhaps because of certain
moral/spiritual beliefs had the fetused burned/cremeated. Possible??


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.185625.49382@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>Was the alleged rape used in any of the arguments, Eric?
Not as far as I can tell. I looked at Roe and the evening
doesn't seem to make any mention of the circumstances.

>(I'm supposing that you remember all of the facts, if not,
>I'll go look it up over the weekend.)  I could care less
>what she told people as long as the decision wasn't
>based on the rape.  I'm very sure it wasn't.
Like I said, not as far as I can tell.

Though I add as a footnote that I think it may have made the justices
somewhat more sympathetic--not that it did, but it's possible.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:57:52 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Apr6.204151.25534@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>Rights, in this country at least, are handed out on a hierarchical basis.
>That doesn't mean that it's right, but that's the way it's done.

Hopefully our discussions pertain to whether this is right. You
have a disturbing tendency to quote the status quo selectively in
support of you position. "That's the way it is" is a rather impoverished
argument in the realm of morality, ethics, and the law. One has visions
of playground bullies chanting, "I'm the king of the castle ...!"

>You would force a _fetus_ to have
>more rights than a woman?  Ludicrous.

It is difficult to see how having the right to continue living gives the
fetus more rights that than any adult woman. I merely contend that there
should be a right enjoyed by both mother and child which takes
precedence over all other rights attaining to either, that is the right
of both to continue their life, the one medium through which they can
give meaning and expression to the other rights they enjoy.

For instance you have a right of thoroughfare on a public road, but that
does not allow you to drive through pedestrian who stray into your
path.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Kevin Welch: ethics
Keywords: Kathi? Ethics? What a concept.
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.232554.1896@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.193158.22671@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> Well, Welch has not responded to this, so I will:
>I'm sure nobody could sleep until you did.
>
>> "You are such a misogynist, as WELL as being uninformed!  If you read
>>  ANY studies you will find that rape is not usually done for sexual
>>  gratification; it is done for the thrill of dominating a woman, forcing
>>  her to do something against her will.
>> 
>> "Sound familiar, rapist?"
>>                  ^^^^^^
>> 			From: mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills)
>> 			Message-ID: <1992Mar5.235325.11550@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
>> 			Date: 5 Mar 92 23:53:25 GMT
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> As I understand it, now it's up to Kathi Mills to either retract her 
>> allegation, or to prove it.
>
>Actually, it's up to you to get a clue before charging in like
>a White Knight to defend all and sundry against those who have
>flamed you for an stuffy little martinette in the past.
>
>When Kathi described Kevin Welch as a rapist, she also supplied
>her definition of "rapist," which was non-standard, but in the
>situation, applied.  

She made no attempt to redefine "rapist"; she only tossed out some 
superficial interpretations of what some unspecified studies had to say 
about the "usual" motivations for rape. Hardly a solid basis on which 
to pin the label "rapist" on someone...

I certainly think a retraction and/or apology is in order. Kathi clearly
got carried away and didn't realize what she was saying. Let's see if 
she's big enough to admit her mistake.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: darcy's hypocrisy (was Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!)
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, 12 Apr 92 16:44:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.131143.6874@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.172524.1861@crd.ge.com> keegan@rosebud.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>
>>-> >i think you're just flaming susan because she's female.
>>-> 
>>-> As Larry has already noted, isn't this at odds with the
>>-> official TSAKC party line that I'm flaming Susan as part of
>>-> some "net.vendetta"???
>>
>>it sure is. of course, i posted such when i replied to larry's
>>post and admitted my error. would you like me to repost a copy of
>>that reply? you did miss it, didn't you? in it, i agreed with the
>>obvious: that you are, in fact, flaming susan garvin as part of
>>your net.vendetta.
>
>In other words, you are realigning yourself with the official, orthodox,
>TSAKC party line that my criticisms of Susan Garvin are motivated by a 
>net.vendetta, right?
>
>Whew! What a relief! Can't have any heresies or schisms in the TSAKC ranks,
>now can we...

No, Kevi-pooh, he's admitting that HE MADE A MISTAKE.  He thought that you were
flaming Susan because she's a female, when in fact, you're flaming her because
of your net.vendetta against her.  Unlike you, James has no problem admitting
when he makes a mistake.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15143 soc.men:8422 soc.women:8946
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 13:34:11 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: You want to win.

In article <1992Apr13.194939.8956@noao.edu>, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
says:
>
>From article by JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown):
>>
>> You and I both know that
>> we didn't remember what went on between the age of -9m and 0months.
>
>Does that mean you would legalize abortion up through the 2nd birthday,
>since most people don't remember that far back either?

No, but I do legalize adoption.  Change the abortion's b to a d, and
its r to a p.  There you have it.  By the way, why do you compare such
things?  A child once its born is no longer in the mother's womb.
Why *do* you think of it as such?

>The whole point is to have the legal system also keep the third party,
>namely the preborn child, in mind.
>
Would you make the parents take care of it, would you make adoption
illegal?  It sounds this way, because there is NO way that America would
be able to afford all those children who were abandoned at the adoption
agency's steps.  If the parents didn't want the child, before its born,
how many of those do you expect will change their minds?  Yes, some
might.  You can't make all of them change, though.  Is life so precious
to you, that you want them to live in poverty?  No, the orphanages that
the kids will be put in will not be able to afford them all.  You will
be condemning them to this life, unless you're able to find enough people
in the world to adopt them.  You also know that children who are older
than (let's say) 4, are most probably never going to be adopted.  You
are condemning those not_able_to_be_adopted_because_they_are_too_old_
_or_you_cannot_find_parents_who_want_them children to this life.
Why?
-Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:26:35 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>    You see, the liberal views of the Usenet audience mean that
>the pro-choice to pro-life ratio is well below that of national
>polls. In other words, there seem to be 3 pro-lifers posting,

One MIGHT infer something about relative intelligence given that
posting requires a higher-than-average knowledge of technology.
But this might be considered insulting, so I'll refrain from making
the implication.

>   The funny thing is, you don't seem interested in our views. Anything

OK, here are some questions.
1) Why does a human life begin at conception?  What defines "human"?
   Note that I require some reason to accept your views so make your 
   argument convincing.
2) If terminating a pregnancy is wrong because it terminates a 
   potential human life, why isn't it wrong to not have as many children
   as possible?
3) Why does a collection of cells this big >.< have more rights
   than a 120lb woman of 25 years?

I realize there is some overlap possible in the answers.  Fell free
to answer all three questions with a single reply.  Also note that 
there are no flames or insults - but I will be very critical of any
answers.  The desire to remove rights from mothers requires compelling
arguments.

>   Great techniques? The current rates of prices? How to go about
>relaxing for an abortion? No way man... DOnt' you get it? There isn't a
>single thing you could do or say tha will discourage me or my kind.

Sounds like bigotry to me.  You have a brain that can (presumably)
reason.  Why do you choose to not use those gifts God has given you?

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14792 alt.flame:6621
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: which "kevin?" (was Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:31:21 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
-> The Nazi analogies are valid, much as you hate them (and they
-> must be cause KEVIN said so).

to whom do you refer when you write "KEVIN," the darcy one who
was elected to the council of net.idiots in 1991?

--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: sgast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Dennis Hall posts private E-mail!
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:23:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr17.013132.21620@csusac.csus.edu> Steve Chaney (cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu) writes:
still more excreta.


Cut it out, Chaney.  Your little scheme didn't work.  No one
believes you.  Go play with your toy airplanes, now, the
adults are talking.

Susan
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:32:04 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr11.025242.16362@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>What exactly do you mean by "with the premise", Eric? As I understand it, the
That when the case went to trial, it was still generally believed
that Norma McCorvey had been raped.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: If you loved me...
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 22:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.172705.24617@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM  
(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") asks:
> 
> >Now let me put up a question: is there any difference between the 
> >statement, "If you loved me, you would want to start a family" and 
> >the infamous line, "If you loved me, you'd have sex with me"??? 
> >If so, what is the difference? 
> 
> I don't see any of a difference between the two statements.  Both are
> manipulative and a method of control.  I would turn it back and say "If
> _you_ loved _me_, you wouldn't be making these kinds of demands on me."

Well, that's what I _did_. If a man loves me, he would want me and
no one else....

> The person who starts a sentence with "if you loved me" and finishes it
> with "you would" do something that I want, clearly does not have your 
> best interests in mind.

Sad, but true.

> I'd run like hell from this person as chances are they'll
> never have your best interests in mind and can't possibly love you like
> you deserve to be loved.

Whoa! This is starting to sound like a Mutual Admiration Society
for Jennifers! :) 
My apologies for being somewhat off the abortion topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:37:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr8.132516.12185@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:

>In article <7469@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:

>>Who has heard of the latest use for aborted fetal tissue?

>Latest?  This urban legand has been around for a long time.  I say UB
>because I never saw anyone, here or elsewhere, produce the name of
>said company, and/or the name of it's product. 

>>As reported in "The Australian" (7/4/92) a French cosmetics company is
>>currently engaged in the practice of making women's face cream from the
>>placentas of aborted fetuses. They apparently are able to get 1 tonne of
>>the material every day from the St Petersburg (Russia) area, and up to 4
>>tonnes world wide.

>So what's your point, even if this were true?  Do you support cosmetic
>testing on fully developed, live animals?  If you don't actively
>rally against it, you're a [explitive deleted] hypocrite in your
>"fight for life."  

>Would you be against it if it were placental material from births?
>Why or why not?

>amy 



>-- 
>******************************************************************************
>"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
>	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
>              						--Neil Peart
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     One (at least) U.S. company--Nuskin, based (I think) in Utah--have
an additive in many of their skincare products called "human placental
extract." This, the company, practically shrieks, is derived from the
placentas of pregnancies brought to term, and bought from hospitals (not
from individual mothers). At first I thought, "yuck," but when I thought
about it I realised that it made sense--after all, the placenta would
only be wasted, and I object even more strongly to smearing proteins
derived from dead animals on my face.
     BTW, wouldn't it make much more sense to use placentas from
full-term births than from abortions? After all, even though what we
covered in high school about placental development was rather minimal (I
think they were still calling it the "afterbirth" then), surely the
placenta increases in size as the fetus does. Or is it magically there
and fully developed immediately after conception--kind of like the soul?
;) 
     Or is the problem like that which apparently dogs fetal tissue
research, i.e., that using the placentas of women having abortions would
only encourage an increase in abortion ( as in "Hmm, I can't decide
whether to have this baby or not. But what finally makes the decision
for me is that if I have an abortion, some woman somewhere will have
access to face cream she would otherwise have been denied.")
     NOT

            MP    Too sexy for Pro-life, but current mistress of Kevin
Welch and Steve Franklyn (sorry guys, it had to come out sometime! :))
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:41:58 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.224945.16344@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
> It certainly sounds like you are.  Or are you only against WOMEN having sex in
> relationships?  Do you feel it's ok for the man to bang as women as he can, but
> the women have to remain "pure" for their [future] husbands???

But what if there are no women involved?  "Look ma - no sluts!"

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:38:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.173256.3307@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin  
Brawley) writes:
> >This from a man who consistently refers to people who disagree with
> >him on the question of the legality of abortion as "pro-death".  Gee, 
> >that sure doesn't start out by putting anyone on the defensive or
> >anything.  
> 
> Geeee...I wouldn't take much thinking to realize that the "pro-death" is
> a simple response to those who insist on using "anti-abortion" and the   
> white-wash nature of the term "pro-choice".  When I see universal 
> respect for Pro-Life I will return the favor. 

Of course you're pro-life; you want the fetus to be born whether the woman
wants it to or not, and, if somehow given a well-enough developed brain to  
assess the situation of itself, the woman, and others involved, whether  
the fetus _itself_ would want to live or not.

> >...pro-lifers
> >often argue that a woman has a physical responsibility to the z/e/f
> >(that's zygote/embryo/fetus) which she has helped to concieve.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ add child/baby/infant also 
 
If we add child/baby/infant, that knocks out the choice of adoption.
Dan King, we have a winner! (See "Isn't adoption an escape from
responsibility?") 

> >If
> >you support this argument, what equivalent physical responsibility does 
> >the male who was involved in this conception carry?
> 
> Responsibility cannot be "equal" due to the nature of pregnancy. 

..which is part of the nature of a woman, of course. Let me guess, there  
are _other_ things which cannot be equal due to the nature of the wo/man,
right, pal?

> Hence the
> male responsiblity has to come in the form of financial and emotional
> support. 

I don't want a man's money. And those men who have been able to give me 
real emotional support are those who have respected my choice to not  
define my life by the output of my baby factory.

> Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they 
> are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi 
> analogies
> are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

And Jenni says enough of the Nazi analogies from either side!  
 
> >Sarah McCabe
> >"Stop the slaughter of skin-children.  Stamp out scratching."

Along similar lines, why don't we make a movie, "The Silent Part,"
of a brush ripping out a defenseless hair from its sanctuary of a root 
;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion