HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: Mark Cochran covering up a lie? 
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<C0x3BF.Fws.1@cs.cmu.edu> <1993Jan17.033436.14789@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1993Jan20.200506.24735@ncsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:14:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.200506.24735@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

   Doug Holtsinger
   'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
   Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.

Okay, I read it.  I don't believe you.  In particular,

    ... prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in
    appropriate medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of
    the woman....

This sure sounds like a restriction to me.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Documenting claims for Mark Cochran (Was: Proposed...FAQ)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:53:28 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1993Jan21.033723.3724@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>Such nebulous assertions of error don't prove a thing, Larry. I detailed the
>reasoning behind my conclusion in an earlier post -- if you continue to
>insist that I erred in my reasoning, you now have the means to show
>specifically WHERE I erred. Please avail yourself of them.

Because the quote you were using showed you to be a fool.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:55:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.215449.403@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1jjrsrINN6ch@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> Pro-choicers tend to disagree with this viewpoint since they
>>> generally hold that the woman's ``right to bodily autonomy''
>>> should supercede the child's right to life.  This argument
>>> ignores the fact that in the vast majority of abortions, the
>>> child's body is ripped to pieces,
>
>> pro-choicers generally pay just enough attention to this counter
>> argument to point out that pro-lifers wouldn't be *any* happier
>> if the fetus were rejected, whole.
>
>That's right, but pro-lifers generally have premises which are 
>not connected to bodily autonomy, and which lead them to oppose
>abortion regardless of the failings of pro-choice arguments.
>

Pro-lifers generally have premises which are in no way connected to
reality, and thus refuse to acknowledge their blatent mistakes despite
overwhelming evidence.

>>Adrienne Regard
>

>Doug Holtsinger

Robert Johnston

'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
those typing lessons appear to have payed off, but an education would
have been more worth while.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:14:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.211606.2921@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.165434.23402@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan24.074055.11945@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>>>Oh come on, Kevin, lots of tyrants have had their will enforced without
>>>benefit of law.  
>>
>>Is that what you prefer? Myself, I'd ...
>
>[Kevin's fantasy deleted]
>
>Of course I didn't say anything even remotely like that.  

You said a bunch of seemingly-inconsistent things, Galen:

	A) You felt that laws were generally ineffective

	B) You felt that "enforcement", on the other hand, helped to curb
	   crime

		and

	C) You offered tyranny as the sole example of how one can have 
	   "enforcement" without first having laws

The only way to reconcile (A) and (B) is to implement "enforcement without
laws", and (C) gives the only example of how to achieve this, i.e. tyranny.

Was I wrong to draw the inference I did?

>>I distinguish between "force" and "enforcement", by the way. "Force" is just
>>a general term. "Enforcement", on the other hand, implies the use of force
>>towards a particular goal. Laws reflect goals for which it is valid to use
>>force. Democracies pass laws which reflect their people's ideas of what goals
>>are valuable and what aren't. It actually works, Galen. You'd be surprised.
>
>The validity of using force in concert with goals, whether legal or not has
>implications I won't get into right now.  Of course, I didn't bring up
>"force" at all, and I certainly didn't try to contrast it either "enforcement"
>or anything else.  

"Enforcement without laws" tends to imply raw, arbitrary force, such as might
be used by a tyrant.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:20:41 GMT

brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
# If you do not believe that that unborn child is an alive American citizen,
# though, I can see how argument would hold.  Is this your position?

There is no such thing as an unborn American citizen.


-- 
+---------------------------+  I wasn't expecting it.  When Danny Elfman
| J H Woodyatt              |  sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  night, I cracked.  Some horrors are too
+---------------------------+  large to shade out.
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:03 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.211342.6241@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian
>Kauffman) says:

>>"Life" doesn't "begin", it continues and permutes.
>>Your question is ill-posed.

>Life ends, though. Doesn't that imply a beginning as well?
>Or is this just another semantic argument?

That sounds reasonable.  Life *began* a rather long time ago.  *Your* physical
life began only dozens of years ago (however old you are, plus about 9 months), to the extent that you are distinct from your ancestors.  *Human* life began
at some fairly fuzzy point a rather long time ago--though not as long ago as
life began.  This doesn't have too much to do with abortion.  Your *emotional*,
*intellectual*, *individual* life began dozens of years ago, probably several
months after you were born (possibly later).  This *does* have to do with
abortion--for some people; others ignore the trait of sentience and care only
about the genetic biological fact that a human child is (gee, what else!)
human.  (Some also believe sentience occurs earlier or put value in a "soul"
that enters at conception.)

You could also notice that life on this planet hasn't ever ended, and will
hopefully *not* in the forseeable future.

> Kurt  E.  Ludwick

[A cute phrase about progress being the opposite of congress deleted.]
[How about this:  If digress is the opposite of congress, why does Congress]
[digress so often?  ;) ]

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:06:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.220659.25439@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <C0MyzH.Bxv@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>
>>Further, if abortion is not a medical issue, why should the taxpayer, whose
>>religious morals disagree with abortion have to pay through the state for
>>abortions?

>Because it's far more economically-efficient than paying for the resultant
>welfare, etc. of all those unwanted children. If you want to take the taxes 
>you save, and use them to provide healthy happy homes for unwanted children, 
>thereby reducing the incentive to abort, then go right ahead. But don't ask 
>ME to support children that YOU partially caused to be born by cutting off 
>abortion funds for poor women. I don't feel I should subsidize your lousy
>economic decisions.
>
>								- Kevin

That is totally ridiculous. If abortion is anything like the radicall-pinko-
feminists say, then abortion is the ethical equivalent to a face lift,
a nose job. What a waste of taxpayers money! that I "partially caused"
unwanted children to be born is completely ridiculous. There are several
things an expectant mother might do to an unwanted baby.

1. Pay for an abortion out of her own pocket. After all, it certainly costs
less than a new car, or even a new stereo. Don't tell me that she or her
boyfriend or her family can't pay.
2. Go through with it and dump the baby at the door of some "anti-choice"
activist or an impotent family who would kill for a baby.
3. Go through with it and slit its throat as it comes out of the womb. 
According to feminist types, it ain't human till you cut out the cord and
they are forced to breath. Smother the baby till its blue in the face and
sell its parts to science. Hey, you CAN profit from an unwanted pregnancy.
4. Do your own abortion, preferably with those newfangled RU4ABORTION
pills. The latest craze with cross border shopping.
5. Have the state lower welfare for every successive child. After all,
they are just a burden, right? And they do it in China. (Makes you feel
cuddly inside thinking about the Chinese right now. Boy that Tiananmen
square made GREAT TV). How about free contraceptives with every welfare
cheque? 

Remember, in the past people paid for things ALL BY THEMSELVES. In a free
market, abortin would be a purely private procedure. After all, what
business has the state in the bedrooms (or wombs) of a nation?




-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Left Wing Anti-Abortionists
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:47:27 GMT

From article by kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly):
> After reading this group for a while and reading the endless flame wars as 
> to who said what and who didn't say what and how they spelt it I thought I 
> would ask a question to the group.
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of the Anti-Abortionists/Pro-Life are to the right 
> of the political spectrum. I'm wondering if there is anyone who would 
> describe themselves in the left of the political spectrum and are against 
> abortions. 

Well, there are some issues I might consider myself on the left of, and
others I might not.  It would depend on the specific issue.  As for abortion,
I am certainly against it.


> As well I would like to hear from people who oppose abortion for 
> non-religious reasons.
> In addition I would like to know what reasons brought you to this view. 

I oppose abortion because  1) I used to be an unborn child myself

                           2) I am a mother myself and know fully 
                              what it is that abortion destroys

                           3) I have seen the photographs of aborted
                              children, piles of dead babies, pictures
                              so horrible, they can only be called
                              a holocaust.
                

> Kevin Kelly

And you know Kevin, if you are going to object to folks who have
"religious" reasons for being against abortion, let me suggest that
you ask them what sort of reason a "religious" reason might be.  The
only religious reason I've ever heard is that human life has value,
and I think most people would have difficulty arguing with that.

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Pro-choice loses another round.
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:34:30 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <329@ininx.UUCP>, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP writes:
|On this day, United States President Bill Clinker has terminated the
|so-called ``gag rule'', asserting that this was to increase personal
|freedom.

|It used to be that you had a choice on whether to support abortion
|counseling.  Now, unless you have managed to remain free of the
|clutches of the United States Government, you no longer have that
|choice.  This means that part of your toil is applied, by way of
|taxation, in support of abortion counseling, whether or not you would
|so choose on your own. [...]

I see.  So what do you, oh brave defender of choice, suggest I
do about the part of my toil that is applied, by way of
taxation, to the construction of bombs, guns, other explosives,
and the means of their delivery?  I would not choose to spend my
money in that manner on my own, and I'm just all het up that my
gov't isn't following my wishes about how my taxes are spent.

Hint:  you *can* exercise your freedom of choice about how your
tax dollars are spent.  It's called "voting".    

But really, my heart bleeds for you.  You poor thing!  Forced
to pay for counselling that MENTIONS abortion, when you could
be paying for welfare for all those people instead!

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com          C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Let me state my view
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:34:51 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.143210.2724@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>In article <15JAN93.20360422@vax.clarku.edu>, hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|>>>someone else writes:
|>>
|>>|>And of course, we'd have to find a way to pay for all the needs of the 
|>>|>unwanted children that women are forced to give birth to.  And the costs 
|>>|>associated with the women's pregnancies.
|>>|>
|>>|>I'm sure you'll be willing to pay higher taxes so all these kids can go to 
|>>|>school and get a decent education, right?
|>>|
|>>As to the cost....one B-2 stealth bomber cost $1,000,000,000...this money
|>>would go to paying for this and taxes wouldn't have to be raised.
|>
|>Okay, so you'd rather bring unwanted children into the world and use
|>the government's money to raise them, instead of using it on projects
|>that will benefit technology and create hundreds of jobs?
|>
|>I think a lot of people will find your reasoning weird at best.

If whether or not a child should be brought into the world based on whether
or not he or she was wanted alot of us wouldn't be here. I am afraid
you'll have to find a better excuse.

A whole lot more jobs would be created bringing up these children and the
money would be put toward helping lives instead of killing them. What would
you rather have 20,000 kids being housed,fed,schooled,loved or one high-tech
bomber that can blow up half a continent?
-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:13:22 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan27.012758.22521@Princeton.EDU>
elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes to Gordon: 

>Great idea.  What if several people donated exactly one cent
>to the next "Peter's Pence" collection.  Would the Vatican get the
>point?

I already write back to my Catholic high school each time they ask me
for a donation telling them that when the Church gets out of politics
I might consider contributing.  I specifically mention abortion and
gay rights.  It seems not to have had any effect thus far.

SJM

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The ongoing jokes on talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:54:42 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes ...
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>->You mean the poet who actually had something _meaningful_ to say in all-
>->lowercase? As opposed to the Usenetter whose dearth of capitalization
>->accompanies an even greater dearth of content? Well, I've heard of both
>->of them. What, pray tell, do they have to do with each other?

[Several quotes, no original content from Keegan deleted]

Clever repartee, that.  Rebut a comment about a lack of content with a
post containing none of your own content.

Way to go, dude.  Keep up the good work.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: darkstar@u.pathology.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:11:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: larry.pathology.washington.edu

Peter Nyikos writes

<a bunch of stuff about insults, Steve Chaney, rocker, posting email to the  
net, and other foolishness deleted>

Petie Honey, I'd be glad to send you a quarter so you could call someone who  
gives a damn about your anal-retentive maunderings.  Sheesh.  

--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:56:32 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position.  The label implies that pro-lifers are
>opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy", which is false.
>They are opposed to an action which results in the death of an
>innocent human being.  If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

Okay, that's reasonable.  But let me ask you three questions:
(1) Do you feel that the right to life overrides all other rights
    absolutely?
(2) Do you see any problems that legislation against abortion might
    cause?
(3) Do you understand that people are calling you 'anti-choice' because
    you're giving the woman no choice other than to give birth?

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

That's not at all reasonable, and in saying it you demonstrate that a
lot of what's been said to you in this newsgroup in the past has gone
in one ear (eye?) and out the other.

I don't like abortion, and I will do my best to advise women against
it, but it's none of my business to tell them they can't have one.  If
this makes me 'pro-abortion', then what do you call the people who
advocate abortion in cases where the woman has any doubt?  'Pro-death'?

I support the right to choose to have the _fetus_ _aborted_ (please
lose the emotionalist buzzwords).  If she wants to abort a fetus for
some reason that I don't like, then that's just too bad for me, but I
have no right deciding when abortion is 'okay' or not, and I have no
right putting the woman on trial to decide whether or not she's
telling the truth when she gives her reasons for wanting an abortion.

See?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:38:44 GMT

corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:

>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
>>From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>>Subject: Final comment re: Why we go for non-black women:
>>Organization: California State University Sacramento
>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:42:21 GMT
>>
>>If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
>>they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
>>convince you to buy a fourth?

To clarify, it should be noted that the "lemons" Chaney refers to here
are African-American women.

               -rocker