HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: re: segestion
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:35:33 GMT

Maybe if you were to use normal terminology so that one doesnt have to have
some sort of law degree to comprehend compleatly. As far as I could tell it
deals with AI and seragit mothers. Also abortion seems to be a default if 
the two partys are undecided. Personaly I think that papers for an abortion
are what should have to be signed by bolth sides. It does have the most
negitive associations towards it.

ELF-KIN	please no name calling. flames are fine , I like fire.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.165913.2501@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
>As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
>be Pro-Family.


Why?


Sounds the same as "Pro-life cannot be Pro-family".

Does it make sense? Is it convincing? Is it based on 'misinformation and 
deceit?'  We can't tell can we because all I did is spout out something I
believe, not something I am supporting with proof so *you* will believe it.




>  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
>ultimatly, murder of children.



Ok, list the areas of misinformation and deceit and then, support you assertion
that 1) abortion is murder, 2) an 8 week fetus is a child.

I've been asking you to do this for weeks now, still no support.

Your above statement has simply been asserted, then reasserted, then  hemmed
and hawed about, then reasserted again.

Since you are challenging the status quo in this country, you are *obliged* 
to support, with reasoning, why the currect system needs to be changed.

So far, this has only been attempted with saying things like "a person who
does one thing that Catholics are against cannot be Catholic." and the like.

We are all listening, here. You have our attention. This is usually what people
who are trying to change the system want.  Take advantage of this and 
explain to us exactly what supports your above assertions.



>  When a man loves a woman, he would do his
>best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.


"Insure" (ensure) or force?  

"I love you so much, honey, your going to have that child no matter what you
want." 

Doesn't really have the flavor of love in it does it?





-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:648 talk.religion.misc:6749 talk.abortion:14605
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question... an answer)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C. [and applying member, T S A K C]
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:34:41 GMT

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr11.165913.2501@liebe.uucp>
According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>> = my .sig

>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>
>>     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>>   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
>>   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>>|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
>>                                               \
>
>As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
>be Pro-Family.  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
>ultimatly, murder of children.

Oh yes, I've heard it before.  Many times, and all from people who didn't
"get it" any more than you do.

I believe in the family and its importance - that makes me pro-family.
I like children - that makes me pro-child.
and I support the legality of abortion, which makes me pro-choice.

Btw, I admire your ability to assert without documenting.

>When a man loves a woman, he would do his
>best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.

Unless, of course, she didn't want to be pregnant.  In which case he would
support her right to choose.  Actually, in both cases that would be
supporting her right to choose.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Summary: And I thought I'd heard everything...
Organization: Spam.  *Again.*
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:44:40 GMT

In article <74036@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.173219.2569@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu>, Lenny Bruce writes:
>
>>|Control your legs then. 
>
>>I hope all the women you meet take your advice to heart.
>
>Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.
>
>Jerk.

You know, in my almost 37 years (five weeks from tomorrow!), most of which
have been spent living here in the nation's fourth largest city, I have yet
to encounter a female who could rightly be called a bastard...you obviously
have a different standard.  :-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.
                     Support the Second Republic of Texas!
               (If at first you don't secede, try, try again...)
From: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:32:19 GMT
Reply-To: cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu>, Lenny Bruce writes:
Michele:
|He has a choice to impregnante his wife/girlfriend.  He makes a choice
|in having sex with this woman.  They both choose.  They both assume
|the risk.  They both pay the price of carelessness.

Clearly Kevin has never heard of birth control failure.
Maybe Kevin should go away until he knows what he's
talking about.

Whatever Kevin knows about birth control, I find his
callousness distasteful in the extreme.  Maybe Kevin
can be so harsh & cruel to people he feels have behaved
carelessly, but I can't.  I have more compassion than that.

People do foolish things in the heat of passion.  People
do foolish things because they don't know better.  People
do foolish things because they are desperate.  And 
sometimes accidents happen to people who behave
sensibly.

Kevin Welch would crucify all these people.  I won't.
I think they should have the option of medically
cleaning up their mess.  I judge not, lest I be judged.

|Control your legs then. 

I hope all the women you meet take your advice to heart.

---
cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Without scheming to do wrong, or to make others unhappy, there may be error, 
and there may be misery.  Thoughtlessness, want of attention to other 
people's feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business." --Austen
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Disease is Cropping Up All Over, It Seems
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:32:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Nora
>Kevin
>>Nora
>>>Kevin
>>>>Nora

>>>>>Oh, G-d; another idiot Kevin. Where do we find these assholes?
>>	^
>>	o

>Uh, Kevin; I didn't mistype that lack of an "o". It's prohibited by
>my religion to write out the name on anything that's going to get
>thrown away, so I use the conventional Jewish usage. Why does it
>bother you?

Oh, I didn't realize that was the case.  It doesn't bother me now.  If that
is the way you do it, then that is so.  I just interpreted it as one 
of those "I don't feel like writing out the full name cause it may be
offensive" type deals.

>>Assholes?  Come on.  Logic is twisted here.  Does Kevin => asshole ?  NOT.
>>Neither does asshole => Kevin.

>No, it doesn't; that's why I said "another idiot Kevin". There is a
>Kevin or two on the group who doesn't fit into the category, but yonder
>Brawley fellow ain't one of them.

Kevin Brawley, Kevin Darcy, Kevin Welch.  Am I one?  :-(


>>>>Asshole?  Thanks for the assessment, bitch.  

>>>No problem. It fit so perfectly....

>>Look, people.  Lets watch the name calling here.  (Hey, did I say that?)
>>Nora, This is a little unjustified coming from you.  Let's not judge
>>people.  There are words offensive to YOU and there are words others
>>don't particulary want to hear either.

>Right. And he's refused to respect mine. If he starts behaving in a
>civilized fashion, I will stop treating him in an offensive manner.

This is good.  If he refuses to respect yours, will you continue to do
wrong to him?  Is that right, Nora?  

But if there is still name calling and personal attacks, I think personal
attacks are warranted.

>>                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-

>	-Nora




--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:705 talk.abortion:14879
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:04:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr13.160449.1359
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr12.030037.29797@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

|> 
|> 1) Stupid idea of morality and abortion----
|> 
|> One side claims that the other is forcing its "morality" on the other
|> and that abortion is not a question of morals. Wrong. One morality
|> says abortion is okay, while the other says that it is as base as
|> murdur. NEWS FLASH: This is a question of everyone's morality.

You are close, one side wishes to impose their morality on all, while
the other side admits that it is a question of morality, they don't 
have the correct answer, so lets let each individual decide for
themselves if their action is moral.

You are correct, one aspect is a question of morals. Is it moral
for someone to impose their morals on another? Is it moral for
the public to decide sexual & reproductive questions for individual
members of society? 

If these are moral acts for society to perform for the individual,
are you willing to lead by example & submit your (personal)
sexual & reproductive decisions to the public forum so that
we may decide these things for you?

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:49:48 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>>I like debating you Ron.  You're easy.  "Anti-Abortion" is as much a
>>misnomer as "Pro-Death".  Choicers like it because of the negative
>>connotation of being "Anti".  "Pro-Death" is a sarcastic reply to
>>people who insist on labeling themselves "Pro" while refusing to
>>recognize the other side's labels.

>It is? Are you not against abortion if you're pro-life? Well, actually,
>you have a point. I know people who are Anti-abortion, are rational,
>and don't seek to stop anyone from having an abortion. They just don't
>see it as an option for themselves. I guess I'm insulting them when
>I compare them with a pro-lifer like you. Sorry folks, I'll try not
>to insult you again.

Try to keep your flames more concise.  ;^)

>Pro-death, however, means that I'd be for your death as well as everyone
>else's death, the sooner the better. This is completely inaccurrate.
>As for me being easy, you'll never know. Even were you of the correct
>gender, you have an incompatible personality, and I'd tell you to take
>a hike.

>If you didn't follow the logic in the above, please go study boolean
>algebra before responding. It might help.

Okay then, litmus test time.  Pro-death = "I'd be for your death as well as
everyone else's death, the sooner the better."

Did we forget something here?  Did we forget the issue was ABORTION.
Once again we can use this "Disregard the issue" mentality and say...
Pro-Choice = You are for MY choice to make abortion illegal except in the
case of the mother's life being endangered.  
Of course I could have used some far-fetched baloney to illustrate my point
but I think you did that well enough.

>Ron

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Flogging an Undecided (formerly: The Disease is Cropping...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:48:13 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- saying hi to Betty) writes:

>>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr08.233143.1161@liebe.uucp>
>>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>[writing to nora gayle rivkis]

>>Typical of you to attack an "emotional stab" and then
>>use the phrases "pro-death" and "slaughtered babies."

>I have explained my usage of "pro-death" before.  It is not intended as an
>unprovoked "stab" but as an eye-opener to those who refer to Pro-Life
>people as Anti-Abortion.  The fetus' are unquestionably "slaughtered".  So
>I guess you're referring to my saying "babies" as "emotional".

IYHO

BTW, unprovoked or not, it is still a deliberate emotional stab. How
is Anti-Abortion an emotioanl stab?

>If it walks, talks, acts like a duck ...

Gee, you've seen a fetus walk, talk, act????????

At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.

>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ drivel alert

Actually a true statement.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 03:21:48 GMT


In a previous article, decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) says:
face surgically removed from your monitor. Read the Bible or the

>>                    I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
>Watch less television.  Read more.  Start with the COnstitution.
>I also recommend Locke's Second Treatise and De Toqueville
>(the latter for some insight into the American character).

Get a life. Go out some time. Get your fat ass off the couch. Ge
Koran. Get a clue.



-- 
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: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:00:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Kevin W
>->Gordon writes:

>>Remember, Gordon, email is private, not the public access boards.

>Unnecessary stab.

You were not pertinent to my mail with Gordon.  You do not know what I
had said.  Your comment carries no weight.  Gordon can understand from
our letters.

>>Kevin
>->>>Knapp

>->>>-What exactly about abortion is "wrong". Is it "immoral","unethical"?

>>>>It is the purposeless termination of human life.

>->Oops.  Now we have to define "purposeless".  What might be "purposeless"
>->to you may well be very "purposeful" to me, and vice-versa.  I see
>->religious prayer as "purposeless", does that mean I can outlaw it?

>>What purpose is there in killing life?  I can see no exceptions to this
>>"non"-purpose other than war or self-defense.  Without these two incidents,
>>there should be no reason to take life (human).

>I take it (human) applies to all references involving life, if not,
>we're going through that entire old argument again. And by human, you're
>saying person, am I correct?

No.
Human is an adjective in my statements referring to the genetic relationship
to the human race.

>If so, you of all people should know that
>a fetus is not a person, nor a human being, in the sentient sense.

I never said it was.  I said it was human, a human, and a human being in the
genetic sense AND a CONSTITUTIONAL person.


>>Bar the death penalty too.

>Do you mean barring the death penalty from your definition of taking
>a human life (another exception), or barring the death penalty as a 
>valid means to get rid of those animals that cannot or will not function 
>within society's basic rules?

Yes, I think the death penalty, war, self-defense are the situations when
rights to life may be overriden.

I bar the death penalty from my "Don't take human life" domain because of
obvious reasons in conflicting interpretations of death penalty and 
abortion.

>Please be more clear about what you're saying.

It was obvious.

>Ron



welch



--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:05:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Kevin

>>Asshole!  Why don't you put the rest of what I said in there, bastard?
>>I also included a "And keep your pants zipped" for the guys.

>>Jerk.
>>

>And you are lecturing us about moral and ethical behavior?

No, I am lecturing about crediting and accurate portryal.  Deception.
>**************************************************************************
>Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
>**************************************************************************

kcw

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:669 talk.abortion:14717
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:47:21 GMT

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- more than just a question... an answer) writes:

>From the Gospel of: <1992Apr11.165913.2501@liebe.uucp>
>According to:       kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)

>>> = my .sig

>>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>>
>>>     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
>>>   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
>>>   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
>>>|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
>>>                                               \
>>
>>As you've probably heard this before, I'll be brief.  Pro-Choice cannot
>>be Pro-Family.  "Choice" is hinged upon misinformation, deceit and 
>>ultimatly, murder of children.

>Oh yes, I've heard it before.  Many times, and all from people who didn't
>"get it" any more than you do.

>I believe in the family and its importance - that makes me pro-family.
>I like children - that makes me pro-child.
>and I support the legality of abortion, which makes me pro-choice.

Oh.  Your definitions are just far looser than mine.
I believe in family and in not terminating "undesirable" children.
I like children also.  I also like the idea of not killing them young.
I support the promotion of humane laws that won't allow a holocaust to
be forced upon anyone.
At least we know where each other stands.

>>When a man loves a woman, he would do his
>>best to insure both she and their child survived pregnancy.

>Unless, of course, she didn't want to be pregnant.  In which case he would
>support her right to choose.  Actually, in both cases that would be
>supporting her right to choose.

If you favor "choosing" so much, then why not allow direct votes from 
state to state to simply allow or disallow abortion?  Because the Choicers
would get be crushed. 

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Christians
Reply-To: sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:33:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.010115.6769@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein --  
waiting for pigs to fly) writes:
> From the Gospel of: <1992Apr3.223311.29423@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
> According to:       sienerbc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu "Chuck"

Thank you so very much...
--

thebians

The truth hurts; doesn't it?  Life's a bitch, and then you die!!!
[Any information presented herein is the product of the author's imagination and  
should not be used, construed, or interpreted as anyone's beliefs.]
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: johne@tule (john elliott)
Subject: Re: Hah hah! Good one! (formerly: RATIONALIZATION AND PRO-ABORTION)
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:53:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.174116.19896@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>Do you know of any man that has *forced* an abortion on a woman?
>

I do understand that this is quite common where the father does not 
want the responsibility (sex, chance of defect etc.) of a child.  
Yes, on a world wide basis, abortions are often FORCED on women.
Women in the rest of the world are not as independent as in the US.
Even here it is quite possible for a teenage girl to be forced into an 
abortion, and then regret it the rest of her life.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity