HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:49:53 GMT

In <29511@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1993Jan7.224938.4424@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle
>>) writes:
>>
>>>In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark P
>>undurs) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
>>>>right to choose avoiding pregnancy. As for probable death to the mother: when
>>>>her right to life is balanced against the baby's right to life, it's her
>>>>choice. (The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>>>In other words, the woman got caught doing something she shouldn't have, 
>>>and we need to punish her for it.  If she wasn't "doin it" voluntarily, 
>>>then there's no need for punishment.

>>Straw man alert! That's not my argument.

>Um, Seems to be the case, Mark. Except for you additional stipulation
>that she can choose to save herself. If she chose sex, she gets pregnant,
>she can't have an abortion. That's pretty much your position, with the
>one exception noted, you kind-hearted soul, you.

>>I have no "punishment theory."

>Seems to be what your opinion is based on. Nothing else holds water,
>no matter how you try to disguise it. What else accounts for the fact
>that you'd allow elective abortions in the cases of rape and incest
>(where incest may have been consensual) and not for other pregnancies
>that do not threaten the life of the mother? (A free clue to go with
>your marshmallow, the fetus doesn't care how it was conceived, not
>does it care whether it endangers any other lives, as a matter of fact,
>it doesn't care about anything.)

>>Wrong -- as my initial argument showed.

>An initial argument would say that you stated something with backing,
>you have not done so.

>>Please demonstrate (you haven't yet).

>Please do. I'd like to see an argument from you. It would be much better
>than Blatant Assertions [Tm] garbage you've been spouting. (That's a
>statement made without any backing, and offered as an argument in the
>hopes that your opponent will be so flabbergasted by your seeming intelligence
>to spout such nonsense that he'll take it at face value.)

All you're saying is that YOU can't imagine a state of mind other than
"punishmnet" that would result in my beliefs. That's a failing of
your imagination, not of my beliefs.

Can you respond to what I've said, not just your pop psychoanalysis of
what I've said?

>Ron

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:25:58 GMT

keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>in a post where he repeats the same old lie which he's
>been repeating for months.....

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>->Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand
>->throughout the term of pregnancy.  

>this statement is not correct.

Well..it's the way you look at it.  Roe v. Wade *did* give unrestricted
abortion on demand, but because of the GodSquad(tm) (wow..I like that term)
it is not as strong as it once was.

-Mark



--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu

Remember: 7 out of 10 people make up 70% of the popualtion

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:19:01 GMT

From article by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> 
>> It is possible for genuine Christians to be wrong about things, and there
>> are only two sides to this issue.  
> 
> Hey, Steve Adams, Elizabeth Bartley and I (and others) are Genuine
> Christians[tm].  We all support choice and we don't think we're wrong. 
> Would you care to enlighten us?


Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?

It would be completely absurd.


Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Patrick's Doomed Business Venture 
Organization: Chapter 54.
	<PATRICK.93Jan10144533@rio-grande.is.rice.edu>
	<1993Jan11.065123.24558@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:22:36 GMT

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:51:23 GMT, Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio) said:

>patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>| --PLH, if I could sell clues to DOD at a nickel a pop, I could
>| retire at 38

>Nah.  He wouldn't buy them.

<sigh> Well, I guess I'd better cancel the printing of the business cards,
then...:-)

--PLH, nothing ventured, nothing gained

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:38:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.155810.14110@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <C0Jxtu.L5L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >
|> >This is where I differ.  If there is no difference between the fetus/baby
|> >I need to consider the rights of the fetus/baby balanced against the rights
|> >of the mother.  It's not a pleasent choice but I think
|> >society has an obligation to consider this when they determine
|> >abortion policy. IMO the fetus/babies life should be the overiding concern
|> >even though this may cause emotional or psychological harm to the mother.
|> >(I guess that sounds cruel but whenever conflicting rights are involved somebody
|> >is hurt.)
|> 
|> What about physical harm, and risks to the mother's
|> life or health?

If the mothers life is in imminent danger from a pregnency (something society
needs to make judgements about with the input of medical personnel) 
then the results of either decision
is equally destructive. Even though the fetus lacks intent to harm I see no
problem with the mothers life taking priority if she decides. If she decides
to have the baby and sacrafice her life that seems reasonable to me too. I
see no compelling reasoning for society to interfere.

|>  What about placing pregnant women
|> in a category of individuals who have fewer rights
|> to their bodies than all other born persons?  Do you
|> think that women could ever acheive equal status with
|> men in a society where their rights were subject to
|> suspension on the basis of your, or society's, concerns
|> about the fetus?

I don't think equal status applies between men and women concerning the right
to an abortion since men could never have one.  If they could it should be
treated the same way (which ever way society decides).  Since I believe the
fetus should have rights, abortion involves more than control over one
individuals body and therefore the competing rights need to be considered.

BTW, I don't want to suspend any rights based on my concerns. All I want to
do is express my concerns and hopefully help to convince society in general
that they have merit. At that point society would potentially make different
decisions about abortion policy.

Mike

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:39:23 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Doug, Ted was just responding to a call for information on Constitutional
>arguments for abortion (from Michael P. Noonan), and a subsequent call for
>elaboration (from me). Since the EP argument HAS been made, albeit not in
>a court of law (yet!), 

	White came back: "You're relying in this branch of your argument
	simply on the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"
	I responded, "We originally brought the suit alleging...the
	due-process clause, [the] equal-protection clause, the Ninth
	Amendment, and a variety of others." "And anything else that might
	have been appropriate," White cut in.  I had to laugh and say yes.
	The truth was that we had included every argument we could think
	of.

	We had not emphasized the equal-protection clause when we filed
	the suit in 1970, because the Supremem Court had not yet applied
	it to gender-based discrimination.  The first time it did so was
	days earlier in 1971, in _Reed v. Reed_, an Idaho case.

		-Sarah Weddington, _A Question of Choice_, Grosset/Putnam,
		 1992.  p. 116-117

>								- Kevin

                -rocker
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Date: 10 Jan 1993 04:40:51 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: galois.math.ubc.ca

Anonymous writes:

|And unlike any cell in our bodies, the zygote already
|has a predetermined gender - they are either male or female at
|conception, and it takes a full decade and more, before that trait
|becomes fully relevant to them at puberty.

I know this is a tangent to what you are arguing here, but note that
while gender is determined by the genes, number (or individuality) is
not (as far as I know), as in cases of identical twins, who certainly
are distinct people. An `identification' of people with their
precursor zygotes doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55372 talk.religion.misc:25954 alt.atheism:25778
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:29:04 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <YfIZFcC00Uh7085GYM@andrew.cmu.edu> Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Another bizarre interaction between Catholicism and the "murdering
>the innocent" rhetoric is that the Catholic form of infanticide and
>abortion as practiced by the Spanish Conquistadores was to baptize
>first, then kill.

   References, please.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54616 talk.religion.misc:25551 alt.atheism:25375
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: An example of Mark Cochran's "reasoning" abilities
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:48:49 GMT


  "Lack of proof in favor of
   existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
   true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
   many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."

       mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
       <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Susan smears Holtsinger unjustly
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:01:26 GMT

<1993Jan3.003510.10196@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
><1993Jan02.164252.2282@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>><1993Jan2.094941.7852@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>><1992Dec30.005219.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>If Susan was to post something that conflicted with my experience of
>>>>knowledge I would correct her.  She hasn't as far as I'm aware.
>>>
>>>Here's an example from the top of a long list, Galen:
>>
>>That's "Gordon" (speaking of knowing who we're talking about...  :-)
>
>Argh! That's the second time I've done that. Sorry, Gordon, I don't really
>MEAN to insult you like that...

I don't understand this at all.

'Galen' 		'Gordon'
5 letters		6 letters
no 'o's			2 'o's
no 'd's			1 'd'
no 'r's			1 'r'
1 'a'			no 'a's
1 'l'			no 'l's
1 'e'			no 'e's
2 syllables		2 syllables
Starts with 'G'		Starts with 'G'
Ends with 'n'		Ends with 'n'

It seems to me that there are far more differences than there are
similarities.  I could understand it if Galen's last name was even
remotely similar, but they're not even close.  We don't even hold the same
abortion views.

Oh well, don't worry about it, Keegan.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: still more of the GROUP, kevin darcy
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.051222.15504@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
}In article <1993Jan3.162045.18984@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan3.142319.12078@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
}>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
}>
}>}I have never argued affirmatively for restrictions on abortion, Mark. 
}>}Deal with it as best you can.
}>
}>Then what do you call your lecture to rocker about anticipating problems
}>rather than putting out fires?  
}
}It was a mini-discourse on the perceived/possible value of preventitive 
}legislation. 

Sort of an affirmative argument for restrictive legislation...

}I was so abstract in that article...

Like the part about having blood on your hands, I assume.  

}I didn't even IDENTIFY any particular 
}restriction(s), so how the hell could I have "supported" any? 

Sort of like you have never identified what definition you mean
when you say "viability"...

}Do you believe everything that Keegan tells you, without even bothering to 
}check out the facts for yourself, Galen? 

No, I read the article myself.  But now that you ask, if Keegan were to
assert that the earth was edible, and you were to say it was made of
rocks and dirt and other stuff that was inedible, I would probably take
a bite.  I would be a bit surprised.  If the same thing happened a second
time, I would probably take another bite.  No, Kevin, I don't believe
everything Keegan tells me, but I do doubt your every word.

--
       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: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:55:51 GMT

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.203903.4000@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|> In article <1hssu5INN270@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Since you're so "pro-choice," how about letting Jeffery Dahmer eat you for
>|> >dinner if he wants to.  Hey, it's his body.
>|>
>|> If Jeff Dahmer wants to eat his own body, I would not care, nor would
>|> I do anything to stop him. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>|> certainly agree that he should be allowed to eat himself if he wishes.
>|> You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>|> difference between what he does to his *own* body, and what is done to
>|> *another persons* body.
>|> Try not to post without engaging yoru brain.

>If Patricia Ireland wants to abort her own body, I would not care, nor would
>I do anything to stop her. I wouldn't care to watch, but I would
>certainly agree that she should be allowed to abort herself if she wishes.
>You, on the other hand, seem to have a difficulttime comprehending the
>difference between what you do to your *own* body, and what is done to
>*another persons* body.
>Try not to post without engaging yoru brain, or at least your spelling checker.

I have to smile, that was very cute.  Unfortunately, it fails because the
unborn (especially those that are at a point in development where abortions
are not uncommon) are *not* "people".  You see, I am a person; Mark Cochran is
a person; you are a person.  How can you tell?  Because we are having this
silly argument, that's how.  Only people are capable of such things.  Non-
people are not.  The unborn are not capable of anything even close to an
argument, or any other conversation or meaningful communication, and thus are
not people.  The unborn are not capable of deciding for themselves as they can
not even comprehend what is taking place.

There is also a difference between chosing to abort an unborn child inside you
and chosing to abort an unborn child somewhere else, but I don't expect you
to grasp that concept either.

>// John Townsend

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion (again)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:03:38 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>There was no federal law which abolished slavery.

Correct, at least for the United States.  It was an amendment to the
Constitution which did the job:

13th Amendment
   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

>As a matter of fact, slavery
>is probably quite legal in your locality, it is the    
>enforcement of things that go along with human slavery
>that will get you into trouble.

If your locality is in the U.S., slavery is more than illegal; it is
unconstitutional.

>One of the reasons why slavery is such a poor analogy to
>abortion is that there are people who actually wish to
>make laws pinpointing "abortion."

I fail to see the distinction.  Does not the 13th Amendment in like
manner pinpoint slavery and indentured servitude?



                                 Gregg Skinner

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Porphyria & Forgach (An argument for better sex ed)
Organization: Bad Bowlers of Palace Lanes
	<1993Jan8.171616.9365@advtech.uswest.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:05:05 GMT

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:16:16 GMT, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) said:

>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>> = (Patrick L Humphrey):
>>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".

>>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>>> haven't seen any such activity -- 

>>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

>Jesus Christ, you snotty bitch.  Did you and Chaney contract the same
>case of rabies?  What's this strange hangup you two have with Patrick's
>wife?

If any of y'all find out what the source of their fascination with Dale Ann,
let me know.  I've been trying to suss these two for a long time, in that
regard.  It beats the hell out of me why they act the way they do about her
-- are they jealous that I've got something they can only dream about?
That's one question I'd definitely appreciate an answer to, as unlikely as
it appears I'll ever get one from either of them...

>If your "god" actually existed, it would be "Forgach Flambe'" the
>instant you died.

Nah.  It'd just be put to work over here at the campus FM station.  (and
probably skip out in the middle of the night and forward the phone to my
number at Mudd Lab, of course. :-)

>>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...

>>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

>Wow.  Amazing.  

>Maybe someday you'll have that orgasm, you sanctimonious hag.

>Blech :-P

Amen to *that*.  Still, don't confuse her too much with concepts she's
obviously incapable of understanding...:-)

--PLH, staying up late figuring out a few things, himself

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.war.vietnam
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Majore Mental Stimulations Please
Followup-To:  talk.abortion,alt.sex,soc.singles
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:19:04 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
] 
] 1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
]    can't prove otherwise so it must be true.


As a general rule do you always start out by 
asserting as True an unproveable premise,
and assume that this will lead to a logical
following through the rest of the 'argument'????


Since one can not Prove that Hitler is Dead,
It follows that Hitler is Alive.
Since Hitler Was the Head of the Nazi German State,
and that he is Alive,
Then It proves that since he has not been taken out
of his position of Power, that the Current German
State must therefore be in the Hand of the Nazi's.

Since the USA continues to trade with Germany,
Knowing full well that the Above is True, it
Follows then that the USA is a Part of the Nazi Conspiracy.


ciao
drieux

ps: now Jeff, what was the point you wanted to prove?
Other than that the USA is a Nazi Police State????


ObAWV: sometimes its fun to enjoy how a well reasoned
agruement is developed, as a means of clarifying how
some forms of reasoning are NOT as productive as others.



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:02:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.014900.4997@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >
|> >If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
|> >fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
|> >and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
|> >OK to terminate before but not after ?)
|> 
|> Easy!  On the day before its birth, the fetus is still inside its
|> mother's body.  Physicially, of course, there's no real difference.

Agreed.  The fetus has moved to a different environment.

|> 
|> I never said it was OK to terminate the fetus on the day before birth,
|> though.  Why would you need to, and besides, how could you justify the
|> risk to the mother?

If your pro-choice it should be sufficient reason that a woman would want
to terminate rather than need to.  As far as the risk to the mother, I'm your
basic agnostic Libertarion and if a woman wishes to assume risk of herself
it's ok with me. However, in this case there would be another human being
involved which is a different case.

|> I support the woman's right to choose to remove
|> the fetus from her body at any time during the pregnancy.  If she
|> wants to have it removed a few days before it would normally be born,
|> then just induce the birth artificially.  (This is what Marilyn
|> Quayle, an avid pro-lifer, did.)

The question said terminate (i.e. end all life functions) not remove.

BTW, I hope I am never again associated with Marilyn Quayle. (although it's
better than being associated with her husband).

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.abortion