HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
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 19:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
>
>>>1.5 million children are killed by abortion every year, Janice.
>>
>>How?  Does the doctor do an abortion and then run out and kill a kid, or
>>does the woman run over them in the parking lot on her way home.
>>Certainly you couldn't be trying to tell us that you think a fetus is a
>>child?  That doesn't fit any dictionary definition I've ever seen.
>>
>
>
>Hey dickhead!!!!

Hey, Shit-For-Brains!!!!

>
>Why don't you tell that to the woman who just had a miscarriage.

You mean like my sister, who had a miscarriage during the fourth month of her
first pregnancy???

>I'm REAL sure she'll agree with you...

Well, gee, Cheryl's concern wasn't that she had "lost a child", it was that 
she wouldn't be able to have a child.

(Here we go again:  Yet another pro-life-male-virgin-without-even-half-a-clue
is going to try and tell women how to run their lives...)
--
=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!!!=
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:32:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: rotag.1992Apr11.183238.9244
Organization: Who, me???

In article <1992Apr7.002431.20509@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Apr2.054719.10599@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
>><1992Apr1.081337.3891@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>><1992Mar26.030833.18459@cfctech.cfc.com>
>>>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>
>>>>No matter how objectionable the email is, there is no excuse for reproducing
>>>>it publically without the author's permission. Period. End of sentence.
>>>
>>>Nonsense.  Welcher deserved a spanking badly enough that letting him
>>>get away with that e-mail was a worse evil than posting the stupid
>>>thing.  There are two clear-cut cases when it is permissable to post
>>>e-mail messages to the Net: 1) Absolutely clear-cut, when you warn the
>>>person beforehand that you will not hold e-mail you send him
>>>confidential; 2) Clear-cut that it exists, not clear-cut where the
>>>boundary is, when the e-mail is awful enough that not posting it is
>>>worse than the breach of confidence of posting it.
>>
>>If the email is so "awful", how is posting it verbatim, with the consequent 
>>emotional reactions, going to help matters any? Are we returning to the days
>>of lynch mobs here, or do we hold reasoned justice higher than gut-level
>>reactions?
>
>Give it a rest.  Just because his name is Kevin doesn't mean you have to
>suck up to him.  

Just because your name is Storga doesn't mean you have to be a moron, either,
but shall we bid adieu to name games, Gordon???

>As for "reasoned justice"...  this situation doesn't
>quite fit into our current legal system.  However, we can mimic the system
>to a degree.  We can use a "jury of his peers" to determine "guilt" or
>"innocence".  In fact, we have used a jury of his peers.  We have all
>examined the evidence and the overwhelming "verdict" is:  GUILTY.

What about jury selection? What about rules of evidence? What about adequate
representation? What about swearing oaths? What about striking immaterial or 
irrelevant evidence? What about holding a closed session to discuss delicate 
matters? What about controlling publicity and carefully choosing venue? What
about detailed instructions to the jury?

If this was supposed to be a court, I think it's one dominated by large
jumping marsupials indigenous to Australia, if you get my meaning...

>No one is lynching him - his account hasn't been removed, there is no
>boycott.  He was judged by the masses on the net based on the evidence
>supplied: his claim of ethical behaviour and the direct contradiction
>enclosed in his mail.  We are all a little wiser now.

We were ALREADY wise before the breach. The only thing that changed was that
people's voyeuristic/prurient inclinations were indulged, and emotions were
encouraged to rage beyond the bounds of objective reason. For some reason,
most people posting to this group apparently see this as a Good Thing. Go 
figure...

								- Kevin
From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:05:03 GMT
 <1992Apr14.111643.7793@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
 <92105.121056JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr14.230949.3623@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: HAM--Hackers Against MUDs

In article <1992Apr14.230949.3623@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
(Eric Rescorla) says:
Suzanne:
>>>> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.
JJ:
>>>Suzanne, have you heard of an event called the Immaculate Conception?
Me, misreading:
>>The Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the teaching that
>>Mary was conceived without sin.  Perhaps you are referring to the
>>incarnation and virgin birth?
>I suggest you go back and reread the article, Joy.

>The argument is quite coherent and one I had not thought of(good call,
>J.J.) It also shows quite clearly that he DOES know what the
>I.C. is.

Yes, and Joy misread the article :-/.  It is a good article, but I don't
believe in the Immaculate Conception.  I do believe, however, that Mary
gave consent, but as for her having the option--well, look what happened
when Moses tried to say "no".  He had to do it anyway, just with some
more help.

Joy Haftel               "We are not sure of sorrow,
JKH107@PSUVM                   And joy was never sure."
                                --Swinburne
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Subject: Re: Big news!
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 17:01:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.151858.28846@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve  
Franklin) writes:
> In <JBATES.92Apr14092456@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>  
jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
> 
> >	MY GOD! You're right! I never noticed that before! On careful
> >observation, and with Matthew's inspired guidance, I have discovered
> >that abortion seems to be used EXCLUSIVELY by PREGNANT WOMEN!
> 
>    Actually - this brings up an interesting point. If a 13 year old
> has a child, is she defined as a woman or a girl in your eyes?

If she's had menarche (her first menses), she's a woman.

> I would say that seeing that she has a mentality of a younger adolescent
> should be sufficient to treat her as a child. Any disagreements?

You know, all 13-year-olds may have a younger-adolescent body, but
not have that mentality. I'm sure that there are some who have seen
more in 8 years than I have in 20.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
From: mon@hemlock.cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Originator: mon@hemlock
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:29:07 CDT


In article <wP00iB7w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us>, cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:


> 
>         Any law affects equally people who "believe in" it or not. If
> you don't obey the law, you face the consequences.  Whether the law is a
> good one or a bad one, this still holds.  This holds with anti-murder
> laws protecting postborn folks as well as the proposed legislation
> against the killing of pre-born folks.
> 
>         Calling pregnancy "involuntary servitude" is a cute twist, but
> when ANOTHER LIFE is involved, I'll still argue that personal
> inconvenience is outweighed.  The physical location of the baby and the
> inconvenience (and a degree of danger) to the mother are inherent in our
                                                                       ^^^
> humanness: that's how babies get here.

Cancer is inherent in 'our' humanness, too. I don't suppose you object to
treating that. The fact is, Clyde, you risk _nothing_ by seeking to enforce
_your_ religion-based morality on women. Women risk _everything_. If you 
think pregnancy is merely an 'inconvenience' for the woman, I'll call upon 
one of my heroes, Dan King, to repost an article on that subject that was
written by Judy Leedom Tyrer. It needs to be reposted every now and then. 
> 
> > Not at all.  Can't you see that laws against rape, murder and theft all
> > deal with a *victim*.  There isn't a victim in abortion.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         That is the whole issue.  The primary victim is the _baby._
> I use the term "baby" deliberately: a genetically separate individual
> from conception, yet dependent on the mother's hospitality until birth.

You use the term primarily for emotional appeal. 'Fetus' already implies 
genetic identity. A fetus is neither separate nor individual, physically,
until birth. 

If it's so separate, why do you not wish to allow the woman to separate
from it?

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sci. POV 1: Life begins at birth
Summary: Hard to have a birth without the mama
Keywords: food, waste disposal, circulation, blood loss
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:57:27 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <1992Apr9.164149.1158@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>lh>In article <1992Apr7.220444.3380@pegasus.com> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
>bm>In article <7446@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>bm>What a marvel!
>bm>That one cell can carry the energy required to divide so many times!
>
>lh>I agree wholeheartedly, Brendan.  Having watched this process of
>lh>development and birth of a human infant probably 6000 times in the
>lh>last 33 years I never fail to be amazed at the process which will
>lh>start with two cells, and thru an intricate process of dividion,
>lh>differentiation, and selective proliferation, end up 280 days later
>lh>with a living breathing human being.  It is indeed a marvel!  It is a
>lh>source of recharging my spiritual battery every time I see that
>lh>newborn kick in and start breathing and crying.
>
>This leaves me rather damn curious Dr. Howard.  In all these times
>of witnessing this marvelous process was there ever a woman involved?
>Could this intricate process have even been possible without the
>woman's contribution to the process?  Since you seem to have more
>expertise in this field than I do, I'm sure you can answer these
>questions for me.
>
>lh>Shalom,                               Len Howard MD
>
>Dan King

Dan, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and realized that you
may not know that the word birth applies to the process by with the
infant separates from the mother and starts on its own way thru life.
So for every birth there was a mom......

Sorry for assuming too much,    

Shalom,                                  Len Howard MD
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:17:42 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.062635.4717@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
> (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
>>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.
>   Utterly disagreeable. One MIGHT infer that the NewsNet audience has been
>exposed to exceptionally liberal and superficial ideals and concepts that
>breed an ignorance of the spiritual, and tend towards corrupt and
>amoral views. (just in my humble opinion though)

And yours are deep, philosophical ones based on much introspection?
Most of these 'liberal and superficial ideals' were arrived at by
thoughtful consideration and (probably) much agony. Yours, however,
are brainwashed into you by the church (note that all your counterpoints
include 'the church says' 'the church holds' 'the church believes' or
something similar about catholics). As Ray said, why don't you use what
your god gave you and think for a change? I know I question what I believe
quite a bit, and when an arguement comes along that makes sense, I carefully
consider it and might change my views to accomodate it. It is extremely
closed-minded and a sign of idiocy to say that you won't change your
beliefs, no matter what.


>>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.
>   The church does not defend the status of the fetus, and does not
>argue it. We believe that whether you feel it is human or not, the
>underlying potential of the child/fetus is already there. Conception
>has already occurred, and the deed is done (none of this sperm is
>sacred crap, conceptiohas ALREADY occurred).
>   I don't have to convince you, because there is no argument here.

WOW....
The power of religious logic just overwhelms me. Gee, the church thinks
the sky is pink, therefore it is, even though everything in the world
points out that it is blue, but we don't have to defend it because it
is pink.

Steve, from now on, I'm not even going to waste my time with such a
hopelessly brainwashed person. I don't believe you'd realize what a
fact was if it smashed you in the face. Until you show some sign of
reason in any arguement, besides the mindless, brainwashed counterpoints,
adios

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:46:50 GMT


In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>Spoken like a TRUE Pro-Lifer.  Hypocritical, illogical...


WRONG. generalization, therefore invalid.

please try again.

Gee....I've never met an illogical pro-choicer who was a hypocrite :)
-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:15:58 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes ...
>> I'll believe anyone to be "Pro-Life"
>> when their concern is for _life_ and not just abortion.
>
>You are very disegenuous, Ray.   You won't ever believe _anyone_ to have
>any concern for anyone else as long as you see _anything_at_all_ wrong with
>the world.   Therefore, your problem is in your own head.

And you ducked the point.  You claim to be pro-life when the evidence
indicates that you are, in fact, anti-abortion.  While the two categories
might share some aspects, they are not the same.  Most importantly, it
has not been conclusively established that the anti-abortion stance is,
in fact, also a pro-life stance - that prohibiting abortion does improve
the quantity/quality of human life on the planet. 

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:42:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.014223.377
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) says:

>If it is not a "sentient being", how do you justify preventing someone from
>doing as they will with their own body?


well.....what if I wanted to cut my wrist? Or mutilate my leg in
a fist of rage after a serious break-up????

Would that be wise?

the point is that a man or woman is often NOT in the right frame of
mind to make a decision. 

Watch more Zoo TV


-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: 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.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 01:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.202946.1687@csusac.csus.edu> cs060110@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( ) writes:

Go back to pretending to be an airplane, ok???
--
=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!!!=
From: efhearn@acsu.buffalo.edu (Estelle F. Hearn)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:35:09 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>  There will come a day when people will see that monogamy can reinforce
>>>relationships, and strengthen a marriage. Heck, if you only
>>>have sex with one person, it's always the best. It's not like you've 
>>>got anythin to compare it to... 8)
>>Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
>>abortion?
>
>Absolutely. Now granted I am trying not to approach this from a narrow
>mind. Monogamy breeds an entirely approach towards sex
>in society. The "cheapened" concept of sex that we encounter as of
>present has resulted in many cop-outs such as abortion. With 
>a monogamous relationship, where sex is seen as a bond between the two
>heightening trust, physical and mental closeness, the child is
>not seen as an unfortunately side-effect but a gift resulting from
>somethign miraculous. That is the concept i have believed and been
>taught from the beginning, and you know what? It works...

>  Many of the abortions (dunno numbers) are resulting from unmarried
>women, and although this does in no way prove that a monogomous relationship
>didn't exist, it does certainly does suggest that the pregnancy
>(in most cases) is the result of promiscuity. Often a woman will 
>choose to have an abortion for financial reasons. The dominance of
>abortions occur within the financial desperate niche. As well, they 
>predominantly occur with single women. So, this leads me to believe
>that monogamy would make things a hell of a lot better...
>
>>>steve


Buddy, you are fucked in the head.  There is a simple reason you study
psychology...because you are fucked in the head, and have a need to find
out what is your problem.  Why you cannot come to grips with reality.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:14088 talk.religion.misc:6353
From: publius@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: speaking of Single turning points
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:49:09 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Apr6.035411.26274@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.022848.7627@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>>Has anyone yet been able to resolve the moral
>>complications that a biblicalLiteralist must
>>face with Romans 13:1 and the American Revolution?????
>
>Yes. Don't regard Romans as part of the Bible. ;-)

What "moral complications" are you talking about here?  If we apply
Romans 13:1 to the American Revolution, the the 'higher powers' mentioned
in Romans 13:1 were the powers of the Continental Congress, and the War
that followed was simply the effort to enforce these powers.  In short,
the American Revolution was quite consistent with Romans 13:1.


Regards,

-- Publius
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are mine and not my employer's.
Organization: State Penn
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 17:15:26 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
 <92099.011358JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> <17805@oasys.dt.navy.mil>

In article <17805@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
says:

>In talk.abortion, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

>In this context, the (death) of a cow should hurt you just as much,
>or an amoeba, since at conception, that life form bears the most resemblance
>to a zygote. What's the point? Everything dies eventually, and in the
>case of a fetus, removing it from the womb and allowing it to slowly
>die seems much more inhumane than just killing it and removing it. I

What about not killing it at all unless it's absolutely necessary?

>have made the leap of faith here that you are not bothered by killing
>the roach or fly or flea, organisms that are much more complex than
>an 8 week old fetus in that they are fully functional and can fend for
>themselves.

Neither are newborns fully functional and able to fend for themselves.
Yet we don't condone killing them.

If we look at the fetus alone, the only thing protecting a human being
from being killed is its stage of development.  I'm not sure that's the best
criterion.

It's like the question of ensoulment, which I think is moot, under religious
terms:  if a fetus is innocent and goes to heaven when it dies, and so
are children under a certain age (an assumption I operate on), then it
doesn't matter *when* they die.  Obviously some other criteria are needed.

Joy Haftel               "The world's a jest, and joy's a trinket:
JKH107@PSUVM              I knew that once: but now--I think it."
                                  --J.K. Stephen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion