HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Mark is playing Devil's Advocate, and badly? (Re: Who are you guys?)
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:31:39 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan10.220646.246@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David A
>aron Tepper) writes:
]>>In article <markp.726677631@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark
]>>Pundurs) writes:

]]>>cases, the z/e/f dies. The only difference is the circumstances of
]]>>the conception.
]>>>Which IS an important difference.
>>Not to the z/e/f it isn't!
>But it is to the mother.

Why should what happens to the mother allow her to propogate a crime
onto another? Because JB ran off with $300 of your money, got hit by
a tanker truck that subsequently exploded and burned JB and your money
up, does that give you the right to remove $300 from JB's wife/child/parents?
It's about the same thing. 

Abortion is either wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong, you're propogating
a wrong for another wrong, giving the proverbial two wrongs make a right.
This is contradictory, not to mention assinine. That leaves one other
case, that abortion is not wrong, in which case it would be wrong to
deny it to those who want/need it.

>>too. So I'll ask you again: Why is abortion okay in the case of rape
>>or incest, but not in other cases?

>I did. Here it is again: Chance (e.g., contraceptive failure) is an
>inescapable fact of reality; rape is a violation of rights by a free
>actor. Your logic has so far unsupportedly denied this distinction.

What does this have to do with the z/e/f? Does it make any difference
to it? Again, abortion is either right or wrong. I leave you now to
make that distinction. Have fun making it match with the convoluted
garbage you've spewn so far on the net.

btw, I'd like to see how you answer that without making punishment the
prime theme in your answer.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:14:43 GMT

In article <markp.726532818@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.205944.28139@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>
>>In article <markp.726525430@dragonfly.wri.com>, markp@dragonfly.wri.com
>>(Mark Pundurs) writes:
>
>>>Let me make this explicit for Mark and other irony-challenged persons: I
>>>hold AIDS patient's lives to have the same (high) value as any lives.
>
>>*Any* lives? Let me guess. You're an anti-death-penalty,
>
>No; I value murder victims' lives too highly for that.
>
>>anti-euthanasia, 
>
>Yes.
>
So you not only wish to control a womans right to control her own
body, but you wish to control the right of an individual to end
his/her own life. No doubt the "pro-force" label fits you just fine
then. How long have you had this fetish for controlling the lives of
others?

>>non-leather-wearing fruitarian.
>
>Sorry; should have said "human lives".
>
No, should have stayed in bed.

--
                  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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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 wqorth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 03:22:49 GMT

In article <markp.726855166@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Deletions, massive deletions]

>I have no valid claim to other taxpayers' money. If we're talking my
>money (or my insurance company's money), then maybe I should give it
>up for the good of others -- but it's not government's place to 
>mandate such charity.
>
Nor is it the governments place to mandate the donation of a womans
body to the needs of a z/e/f.
Next contestant please.

--
                  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,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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:54:03 GMT

From article by gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis):
> As long as we are supposing about what Jesus would or would not do,
> I thought I'd play too...
> 
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach):
> 
> }Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
> }that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?
> 
> By the same token, can you honestly picture him an advocate of any 
> secular law to attempt to ban or restrict abortion?


Sure: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but render unto God
that which is God's."

He had no problem with earthly authorities.   He even submitted himself
to trial and execution by them.


Suzanne.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:17:48 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
>>>In <30DEC92.17224243@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>Once again, consent to sex, with or without using brains, does not equal 
>>>>consent to nine months of pregnancy.  
>>>
>>>Having sex = Chancing the possibility of pregnancy. (Simple biological
>>>fact.) Therfore: Consent to sex = consent to chance of pregnancy.
>
>>Driving = Chancing the possibility of dying.  (Simple biological
>>fact.)  Therefore: Consent to driving = consent to dying.
>
>Try again, Ray. Simple substitution (sex -> driving, pregnancy -> death)
>shows the parallel conclusion to be
>Consent to driving = consent to cahnce of death
>which is perfectly true.

Yup.
But sex is hardly consent to nine _months_ of pregnancy, now is it?
Or are you really trying to argue that consent to driving really _is_
consent to dying?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:44:22 GMT

In article <C0q3oG.KJz@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.021048.2261@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
>>>The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
>>>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>>>killed.  
>>>
>>Nonsense. She has a fetus removed from her body. That it dies is
>>simply a fact of it's inability to survive as anything other than a
>>parasite, at this stage.
>
>How many abortions are performed simply by removing the child from the womb
>without harming it?  What about "vaccumming" and saline abortions?
>
Look up your own statistics. From the abysmall lack of knowledge wrt
abortion procedures you are showing, you could certainly stand to do a
little research into the subject.

>>>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
>>>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>>>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
>>>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>>>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>>>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>>>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  
>>>
>>No mother or father is required to use their body to care for their
>>children. They are free to provide care via a nanny, grandma, sitter,
>>or adoptioni agency. Requiring them to use their bodies would mean
>>they could be forced to donate bllod/tissues/organs to the child. This
>>is not true.
>
>Requiring the use of the body need not require blood/tissue/organs.  
>If you provide a nanny/grandma/sitter you have to use your body to dial the
>phone, talk to the sitter, sign the check, etc.
>
None of which is required, since they are, as  I mentioned, and you
ignored, free to give up their children if they choose. The care and
feeding of a fetus requires 100% of the time that the woman donate the
use of her (limited) bodily resources. You advocate removing her right
to avoid this donation of her body. Unless you also support
legislation to force the donations of blood/tissues/organs, you are
being quite inconsistent. 
Could it be because you would be *personally* affected by those
requirements, while you will never have to deal with abortion
personally?

--
                  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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
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.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:38:17 GMT

In article <markp.726774645@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

[Mr. Delete Key is happy...]

>I believe that absolute ethical standards exist. (If I thought ethical
>standards were intrinsically subjective, it wouldn't make sense for me
>to argue with others in favor of my standards.) But I'm by no means
>convinced that the standards I presently hold completely correspond
>to the absolute ideal -- just that they're closer than any alternative
>I've seen. Show me better standards than mine -- and demonstrate that
>they're better -- and I'll joyfully adopt them.
>
Feel free to try and provide us with a single example of an "absolute
ethic" since you are so certain they exist.
Expect to be laughed at when it turns out to be not-so absolute after
all.

--
                  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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Some people at lease hide it better(formerly: March for life)
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: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 07:48:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.064339.8454@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Deep Net Nine) writes:
>What: <1993Jan11.192648.15779@ncsu.edu>
>Who:  jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
>
>>> = Jay T Stein
>>>>= JEFFREY JAMES PRICE [to Patrick Humphrey]
>
>>>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>>>>you wind up losing yours.....

[deletia]

>>I have posted that this article has mistyped
>>by me and should read....does NOT take.....could be just a freudian slip?

Hmmm. well, the term "freudian slip" is usually used to indicate an
uninteltional sexual comment which reveals the speakers true desires.
In this instance, your refering to your words as a freudian slip may
then be taken to indicate that no matter what you *intended* to write,
you did, in fact, mean precisly what you posted.

[More deletia]

--
                  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: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Darcy and the Twelve Specious Arguments.
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:28:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.054631.10651@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.043340.25301@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>[Lots of stuff deleted]
>
>>Where's the disclaimer about just how limited your "knowledge" is, Larry?
>>And what's this "we" bit? Is that a royal "we", or are you (both) turning 
>>schizophrenic on me now?
>>
>Kevin, if you're accusing Larry of having multiple personalities, I'm
>afraid I must again correct you. MPD and schizophrenia have
>absolutely nothign to do with one another. MPD is a neurosis,
>Schizophrenia is a psychosis. They are totally unrelated.

In common parlance, i.e. the _appropriate_ lexicon for the broad spectrum of 
people who read t.a, "schizophrenic" denotes a person with multiple 
personalities. If you want to be more precise than that in your medical
journals, by all means do so...

								- Kevin
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:09:40 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

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
-> I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
-> history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
-> preborn.

gosh. and here i always thought there was a born
woman involved.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 14:27:14 GMT

In a previous article, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () wrote:
>cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
> 
>I see no reason to even discuss the medical risks, ramifications, and
>history of illegal abortions anyways.  The issue is the life of the
>preborn.  The rest is just a smokescreen thrown up by abortionists to
>protect their atrocities.  

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me.  All this time I thought that 
the medical risks faced by pregnant women were relevant.  In fact, I thought 
one of the main issues was the life and well-being of the pregnant woman.  
But now that _you_ have dismissed the pregnant woman, I guess the rest of us 
should too.

>The Willke's could make a lot more money supporting abortion than opposing
>it.  When you are looking at these things, always ask yourself "where is
>the money going?".  Abortion is big business.  Anti-abortion is break-even
>business if you are lucky.  

Deliveries babies is a much bigger business that providing abortions.  The 
obstetricians at the HMO I work for receive huge salaries.  Doctors only 
charge a few hundred dollars for abortions, while deliveries cost several 
thousand dollars, as I pointed out to you earlier.

>Edward Simmonds

				.... Heather.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Date: 5 Jan 1993 13:01:19 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan5.203530.10053@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>... He is 
>too afraid to apologize to me directly for his racist remarks, so I am
>perfectly right in making comments to and about his family.


The mind boggles.  Didn't know that Patrick controlled Steve's manners
so completely, did we?

Feh.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: cass8806@elan.rowan.edu (Kyle Cassidy)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:58:55 GMT

>
>> I personally find it repugnant to carry dead unborn babies around in a jar.
>> Most would consider it disrespectful to lug a corpse of a fully grown
>> person around, even if one were lugging aroud a dead Jewish body during
>> the holocost to make a point.  But I can see why they would do that, or
>> send pictures of aborted babies to advocates of abortion.  
>> 
and if you saw where your cheezeburger came from you'd probably lose your 
appetite too.
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
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.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:27:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.005319.23382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.000503.4625@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec29.192416.5661@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>}>In article <1217@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>}>>In article <nyikos.725573716@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>}>>[everything but the following sentence deleted]
>}>>>That was an attempt by Holtsinger to quote Humphrey, to illustrate what 
>}>>>racist tendencies this redneck has.  
>}>>
>}>>For ten points, spot the racial slur in the above quote.  For
>}>>10,000 points, guess what basis PHoney is using to assign a
>}>>race to Patrick.
>}>>
>}>Let me guess... "Redneck" would be the racial slur, would it not? And,
>}>like so much else, PHoney is assigning a race to Patrick based on....
>}>his own fantasies.
>}>Who'sz the scorekeeper?
>}
>}Galen is, of course.
>}
>}I wonder if Darcy is going to comment on Patrick being a "group" of people
>}now...
>
>No, Darcy will probably complain that Gordon isn't qualified to keep
>score...
>
And PHoney will pipe up to tell us that from a topological viewpoint,
the score is incorrect anyway. It will take him roughly 1200 lines to
say this.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your emplyer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:03:57 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>However, some pro-choicers in t.a have claimed that the z/e/f's humanity 
>>is irrelevant -- that human or not, the z/e/f can ethically be evicted
>>by the mother from her womb. Do we agree that this pro-choice argument
>>is wrong -- that the z/e/f's right to life is the crucial point?

No.  Because if the z/e/f were granted a right to life, that does not
necessarily presuppose it can accept it's right to life at a COST to another
human being.

If you want to do such a silly thing, grant *me* the 'right to life'.  And
then see if it's OK within the realm of that 'right to life' for me to demand
your liver.

The potential/development/'rights' of the z/e/f is what's irrelevant.  The
crucial point is the COST to the bearer, and whether they are content to pay
that cost, or not.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:55:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.004633.19382@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

A bunch of lamentable but I guess true stories about children being
killed.  It doesn't have much to do with abortion at all, but it 
rather nicely underscores that illegality doesn't offer much protection.
It was illegal to kill those kids, I presume...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:53:20 GMT

markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes ...
>>What does a human's right to life have to do with pregnancy?  OK, so
>>the fetus has a right to life.  That does not, however, also imply it
>>has the right to use anyone else's body while exercising that right.
>
>Exactly the argument defused by my original statement.

BFD.  Your opinion is worth no more than my own.  And until you also
start living by the same standards you apparently wish upon women, I'm
going to consider you opinions as nothing more than self-serving
hypocrisy.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion