HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:22:54 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

del@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (denise.e.long) writes:

> >Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
> >an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
> >private or public of their choice.

> Excuse me?  I really don't see the connection. Pro-choice (in the 
> connotation that it is used in this newsgroup) refers solely to
> allowing a woman (and/or her partner) to choose whether a pregnancy
> is carried to term. Not to choosing schools, clothes, pets, etc.

Interesting. I wonder if the poster can even *say* the word "abortion"..

Why don't you say "pro-abortion" if that's what you mean?


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alison Colman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 02:13:07 GMT

In article <C19Fzr.7D8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike 
obb) writes:
>Maybe this is a strange way of looking at it, but if it is not human, th
n what
is it?  If all humans have rights, then why does this thing NOT have the

Who is saying that is isn't human? I have yet to hear any pro-choicer say
that a z/e/f isn't human.


same 
>rights that all other humans do?  As to the "conceive and bear a son" li

If you are so concerned with the humanity of a fetus, why did you just
call it a "thing"?
e not
>showing humanity, what does it show?  Do women ever conceive and bear a 
able,
>or a monkey, or an apple?  From the moment of conception the only thing 

No, women bear babies. Surely you learned this somewhere along the line.
hat is
>added is food and protection.  All of the genes and dna that are needed,
color
>hair, eyes, sex, etc., are all present?  If humans deserve to be protect

So? Have you given any thought to where the z/e/f's food and protection is
coming from? Could it be...a woman? what about her? Can't forget about
her. Women aren't simply baby containers, you know.
d, AND
>THIS THING IS HUMAN, then why shouldn't it be protected?
 Why should it? Simply because the z/e/f is human is not enough reason to
make abortion illegal. At least not in my book.

>(Just because it can't talk back?)
>
>MAC

Alison
acolman@nyx.cs.du.edu, alison colman@launchpad.oit.unc.edu


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58277 talk.politics.misc:70149 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14036 alt.rush-limbaugh:15321
From: hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:38:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.4]

John E Jablonski (jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:

>     Militant feminists are indeed pro-abortion.  Abortion is the ultimate
> symbol of freedom of so-called oppression from men.  

 Wouldn't it be interesting if the pro-abortion movement was really the
 brainchild of chauvenistic males who saw pregnancy as the last barrier
 to getting all the sex they wanted? Perhaps feminists have been duped.

 Just a bizzare thought.

 Steve Hamilton
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57442 alt.politics.homosexuality:10123
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:43:50 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1993Jan22.175741.12895@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott):
:  In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
: >From article by cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio):
: : 
: :  "I don't think Christians should use birth control."  
: :  				--Randall Terry, Operation Rescue
: >
: >"Christians shouldn't use contraception or abortion."
: >                                --Pope Paul VI
: >Terry's in good company.
:  
: ... 
:  Terry's also the venemous cretin who said that he saw the hand of
:  God in the AIDS epidemic.
: ...
:  --Frank
>
>A death months or years after diagnosis, with the opportunity for
>rethinking one's life and turning to Christ that that time allows,
>is definintely far more merciful than a sudden quick death without
>the opportunity to set one's house in order.

	First, we are told of absolute moral standards, then we are
told that one can commit any sin one wants to, so long as one can
repent and profess belief in Jesus Christ afterwards.

	Good grief!

	Personally, I don't think that AIDS is a punishment for sin
any more than I think that lightning is a punishment for sin. The
latter viewpoint was expounded by a leading clergyman in colonial
America when Boston suffered a big earthquake. He explained that the
people of Boston had been putting up lightning rods and defusing God's
wrath. Thus, God had to find some other way to punish them. He
evidently thought that putting up a lightning rod was essentially
thumbing one's nose at God.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: When is a fetus not a person?
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:22:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.012006.20871@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.182348.7135@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <C19H86.886@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>All they want to do is say that if a woman goes 
>>>into labor at 9 months and then decides while the baby is still inside her 
>>>that she doesn't want it she can kill it.
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>as for your last statement, kindly show where any pro-choicer have
>>made such a statement. Or retract it.
>
>Many Extremist pro-choicers have proudly announced that they support
>abortion "at any time, for any reason", Mark. That certainly seems to
>cover the hypothetical which Mr. Cobb presented.
>
No Kebbin. Work on your reading skills. He quite specifically is
talking about an abortion performed during a full term labor.
And if he can find a case in which a Pro-Choicer has advocated
allowing abortion during labor, then I'll ask him to address the issue
of finding a case of any woman ever asking for one during labor, and
then finally, trying to find any cases of an abortion being performed
during labor.
He's not going to find any of that, and you know it Kebbin, assuming
you've come back from your trip to Fatansy Island and are once again
living in the Real World(tm) with the rest of us.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:46:06 GMT

In <1993Jan20.175022.14959@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes ...
>> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>
>>>>No; but no goldfish has ever exhibited reason or free will -- at 
>>>>ANY stage of its existence.
>>
>>>Neither has a fetus or a zygote.  Try again.
>>
>>Neither did a newborn infant named Cathi, once upon a time.

>Ever try feeding a newborn infant something it didn't want?

Ever try operating on a fetus without giving it anesthesia?  Lots of
people did, and more and more they do give it anesthesia to keep
it from struggling.

>>'Nuff said?

>Nope.

>>Perhaps rocker will now call me an idiot because the continuation
>>is not at all obvious to her devious mind.

>Maybe it's not _her_ mind that is devious ...

Could it be yours, Ray?

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:36:43 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jkgjbINNeb0@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>What do you think we have right now, Dennis? With the current laws, well-off
>>single men are MAGNETS to the women you describe -- spend a night of pleasure,
>>get impregnated by him, and rake in huge child support payments for 18+ years.
>>What a deal! What a racket! *Any* child support scheme that's based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is going to affect people's choices of biological co-
>>parent to some degree, yet any child support scheme which ISN'T based on 
>>parents' ability-to-pay is pretty unfair to low-income parents. It's the 
>>eternal trade-off. I think my proposal is at least a better compromise than 
>>the current system, since the economic incentives/disincentives are 
>>quantitatively smaller, and thus _less_ likely to affect anyone's choice of 
>>biological co-parent.
>
>You make it sound like the man has no choice in the matter.

You make it sound like a woman who can't get a legal abortion has no choice
in the matter.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:38:35 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>The law states that any man must support the child of a woman
>>who shares his last name.
>
>I very much doubt that.

I almost have to laugh!  Are you serious?

Well, you've deleted the rest of the context, but perhaps you now 
want to enter a debate about whether in fact Man A and Man B exist, 
or whether Thing 1 and Thing 2 are really friends of the Cat in the Hat?


>Perhaps you're referring to the assumption of paternity in marriage?
>(i.e., that a man is assumed to be the father of children born to 
>his wife while they are married, unless proven otherwise)

No, I wasn't.  I made suppositions about a Man A and several other
fictitious things, and even after you deleted the context, your
response seems silly.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:38:54 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

Replying to all of your responses is starting to exert considerable strains
on my time, keeping me from my studies and other pursuits.  (One post alone
took me nearly three hours to formulate.)  However, I still find all the
arguments on both sides quite interesting, and will continue to lurk in
the shadows.  :-)  My posts, however, will be limited, hopefully...

In article <1993Jan28.133947.16662@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>[I'm not trying to muscle in on your debate, but I wanted to address
>a specific question of Paul's.]
>
>brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>
>>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>]A z/e/f is, of course, alive.  It's not a citizen until
>>]birth.  The Constitution is rather clear on that.
>
>>If so, I will definitely have to change my stance considerably.  Could
>>you please supply the passage(s) in the Constitution that provide for this?
>
>Amendment 14, Section 1, 1st sentence:
>
>	All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>	subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
>	United States and of the State wherein they reside.
>
>By definition a z/e/f is not a U.S. citizen.  Citizenship is "thrust"
>upon a child at birth.

Thanks for the quote, Greg.  I can see clearly that citizenship is
bestowed no later than birth via this clause.  (Provided birth is in
the U.S.)

However, the clause does not appear to say anything concerning the
period before birth; from this clause alone, it looks like the citizenship
of a z/e/f could conceivably be argued either way.

So, I'm going to probe for more info from the net community.  I didn't
follow RvW closely (seeing has how I was just being born); what was the
Court's reasoning on the case?  Has anyone else here made any other
interpretations?  Also, what exactly was known about pregnancy and birth
at the time the Constitution was drafted?

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:27:56 GMT

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) asks why analogies to the H********
are not useful:

> Anything emotionally painful or visually repulsive (pictures) are impossible
> to use when discussing the issue.  It hurts to much to see that these
> "things" look so much like a little child.  It makes us feel better to keep
> those emotionally troubling issues out of the discussion.  We're happy, and
> the child, is dead.  It is emotionally troubling.  Just asked the group
> Women Exploited by Abortion.

Of course, when we discuss legislation or public policy that abridges or
curtails a woman's right to control her body, we should get ourselves as
emotionally riled up as possible.  Forget the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments,
forget Griswold vs. Connecticut, forget Roe vs. Wade, forget the hundreds
of hours that medical, legal, pastoral professionals and others have expended
in research, meditation and writing on this issue.

Let's just repeat after Peter Finch in "Network":  "I'm mad as hell, and I'm
not going to take it anymore!!!"

Since we're talkin' emotionally painful or visually repulsive pictures, let's
turn to page 310 in the new edition of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" and see what
the aftermath of a fatal illegal abortion looks like.

Or, we could build a case that the availability of safe, legal abortion has
certain affects on society and public health, positive and negative, and
whether these affects, if negative, are compelling reasons to place
restrictions on abortion.

> So, please explain why it is such a stupid and  senseless argument, without
> just saying it is so.  It's convenient to not have to, but we don't get
> anywhere.  It is an emotional issue, for everyone.  

Since I don't remember you participating when I last wrote this, I'll be
happy to explain.  The Holocaust was the result of a totalitarian government
policy.  It was systematic and deliberately cruel.  The total number of
abortions in the U.S. is the result of an _aggregate_ of decisions of
individual women.  It is in no way systematic or deliberately cruel.  The
only attribute that the Holocaust and abortion share is that the numbers
are real big.

Imo, the Holocaust is not an analogy to anything.  It simply is what it is,
an expression of hatred and bigotry.  It is a monument to what happens when
an entire society surrenders to the Big Lie that all problems are caused by
that different sort of person over there.

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- with something missing)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:42:11 GMT

What: <1993Jan21.203028.15399@ncsu.edu>
Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)

>>     = Jay T Stein -- now with home login
>|>>   = jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
--------------------------------------------------------------
[... bandwidthectomy ...]

>|>>Before anyone flames this....remember God is forgiving if you just ask for
>|>>forgiveness....Just because someone made a mistake is no reason to condemn
>|>>then. This guy has the right idea but is expressing it entirely wrong...
>|>>He is using the fire/brimstone/watch out approach that is wrong.
>|>>You need to realize that God is forgiving and loving......
>|>
>|>Your approach doesn't sit any easier, I'm afraid.  Why should I ask for
>|>forgiveness for something I feel isn't wrong?  Seems to me that you are
>|>also using the "fire/brimstone/watch out" approach.  If God is so forgiving,
>|>God will understand my reasons for the choices I make in life.  If I
>|>am to be damned anyway, I dispute that God is really so "forgiving."
>
>Of course he will understand the choices you made. You may believe that
>they are right but if in fact they are wrong it does not change the fact that
>you sined even if you felt that you were in the right.

Of course, if I am *not* wrong then no amount of fire-and-brimstone scare
speeches from you will change that.

>I could go out
>and shoot someone and feel that I was perfectly right to do so that does
>not make it right.

No kidding.  Today's Statement Of The Obvious (tm) is brought to you by
Nuprin.  The headache people.

>If you do something wrong and refuse to admit it or
>you do something wrong and refuse to admit its wrong they are the same thing 
>its up to God to decide what is wrong.

IF God exists as you depict, which I dispute, and that is the point I was
making.

>He was saying just think about where you will end up before you do it. I am
>saying that even if you have goofed you can always admit you're wrong and
>seek forgiveness but if you don't think your wrong you won't seek it will
>you.

Right.  And I will also become annoyed at you and anyone else who attempts
to proselytize.

>The fact is you can't be damned anyway because God will forgive you if
>you ask.

IF God exists as you depict.
--
     _____     __      __               -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        
   |   |  in  |   |  |               Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__               GEnie: J.STEIN18

But still I fear and still I dare not laugh at the madman.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:58:49 GMT

From article <1993Jan24.011514.18921@netcom.com>, by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> <1993Jan22.173524.12311@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>You relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to me, and
>>I will relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to friends
>>of Jesus.
> 
> Does this imply that you are not a friend of Jesus?  Called Roxbury yet?

I'm still waiting for you to give me the phone number I asked for.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: NCSU
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:11:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.234749.12467@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

> you should really note that I don't believe that there exists
> any act X of which one could truthfully say that X is immoral.
> Therefore, it follows that I do not believe that infanticide
> or abortion is immoral.

Then you must agree that stopping an abortion is not immoral.
Nor is it immoral to throw an abortionist in jail. 

>>> [Pro-lifers] want to tell others what to do.  

>> Pro-choicers want to tell others what to do.  They want to
>> tell certain human beings that they must die.  

> Nonsense. They wish to permit others to terminate their
> pregnancies. 

Pro-choicers want to be able to tell certain human beings
what to do.

> Your claim is false on several counts:
> 1) One doesn't tell fetuses anything during an abortion.

One doesn't 'tell' women anything by passing an anti-abortion law. 

> Why would you? They can't understand it.

I was using 'tell' as a metaphor, just like passing a law
is 'telling' people what to do.  Pro-choicers want to be
able to execute certain human beings, or 'tell' them they
must die.

> 2) There are pro-choicers who will never have anything to
> do with an abortion (for instance, they are male and have no
> contact with medical professionals) and therefore would
> never tell certain human beings that they must die even given
> (1).

Pro-lifers would never 'tell' these people that they must not
obtain an abortion.  Therefore, pro-lifers do not wish to
'tell' these people what to do.

>-Ekr


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion