HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: An Invitation
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:09:23 GMT

In article <3919@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <BvrnD0.3n3@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R
>SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Pro-"Lifers"
>>to go to their nearest universities offering Womens Studies courses.
>
>I've seen the way establishment feminist sometimes treat pro-life feminists. 
>Doesn't sound like "fun" by my definition.
>
>Paul


Same as Pro-Life Christians do to Pro-Choice Christains???  

Maybe if you attended you'd see that there are a great many ideas and
thoughts welcomed and encouraged in these classes, instead of the narrow
view you seem to have.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42302 alt.flame:13526 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:451
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:48:32 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <pmxz8zp@rpi.edu> 
> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
> > the issue was force. force. force.
> 
> Abortion is force.

Then what is forced abortion?  (e.g. Chinese policy in Tibet)

Forced force?


mathew
[ Abortion = mass * acceleration ]
-- 
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums weren't they?"
 -- George Bush, during a tour of Auschwitz, 1987-09-28

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41800 talk.politics.misc:50712 alt.politics.clinton:9546 alt.politics.bush:8518 alt.rush-limbaugh:7027
From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:21:02 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 30-Sep-92 Re: That Responsibility
Thi.. by EMIL CHUCK@acpub.duke.ed 
> Taken from an article by nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf):
> ?mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> ?>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> ?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> ?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> ?>>  Abortion can be a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
> ?>
> ?>Try this on for size.
> ?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
> ?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
> ?>Euthanasia can be a responsible solution to an unwanted burdan.
>  
> How about replacing "responsible" with "convienient"?

I am glad that the fetalidolators take such a strong stand against
convience. I'm sure with their wholesome family values that never eat
out or eat tv dinners, but always good home cooking.  I hope they are
never corrupted by modern capitalism.

Is Mr. Chuck Amish or a Shaker?


Michael Loomis
From: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:52:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

In article <7173@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) 
writes:
> In article <2801485892@psl.nrl.navy.mil> usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil (usenet) 
writes:
> #In article <7161@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) 
> #writes:

> 
> ## Of course, we're up to five FFLA spokespeople on the net,
> ## now.  They all seem to be male.  I wonder why.
> #
> #Susan - I'd like to hear your "wondering" out loud.  What's you 
innuendo 
> #here?
> 
> I just wonder why there are no female FFLA members on the net,
> or even any women who are willing to support the FFLA stand.

I think thats obvious - the group is relatively new and small (should be 
comforting to  you).  You may take that as a further indication of FFLA's 
illegitimacy.  I do not.  Can millions of pro-choice women be wrong? You 
bet.

> I have read posts from five different men supporting the group.
>.... but none can be considered
> feminists by any stretch of the imagination.  Why are there
> so many men who don't think of women as equals, but are
> quite willing to tout this so-called feminist group?

 I am not familiar with these men's postings.  Maybe they are using FFLA 
to assuage their consciences if they are as you say.  On the other hand, 
if you are defining "as equals" to mean "pro-choice" then we have a 
tautalogy.

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:22:02 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>Einstein thought he was correct.  Heisenberg thought he was correct.
>Martin Luther King thought he was correct.  Gandhi thought he was correct.
>Thomas Jefferson thought he was correct.  You think you are correct.

You however, don't think you are correct.  You know beyond any doubt
that you are correct.  Here's where you say so.

>>>  But I know what is in my
>>>heart and what is in my head.  What is in my heart and what is in my
>>>head cannot be wrong.

>They must be pompus too, right.

If you don't know the difference between thinking one is correct and
knowing without a doubt that one is correct, then you truly are
ignorant as well.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:27:59 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>Via the social/cultural transmission of values.  If a behavior
[BS deleted. Looking at current attempts to ban guns is a case in direct
opposition to his point, as is the case that young adults barely born
at the time of the Roe decision are against it.]

>Prohibition might be a good example.  I personally have no
>strong feelings about the legal status and availability of
>alcohol, despite the fact that the health risks involved
>in its use are greater than for many illegal substances.
>But Prohibition had long since been repealed when I was
>born.

Prohibition abviously had great effect on the consumption of alcohol,
and had a great deal to do with the rise of organised crime.

Why don't you try prostitution, something that has been sort of illegal
for longer than any of us alive, (with certain locales excepted) yet
many don't think twice about it, and go looking at the hookers on whatever
strip they frequent at some point in their lives. Many would never use
them, or become one, but they are interested in looking at them, as
a curiousity item. I don't think anyone has any strong feelings about
it either, except they don't want to be associated with them in the
same way that non-drinkers don't want to be associated with alcohol.

>Our Japanese foreign exchange student was both fascinated
>and frightened by the possibility that we might have a
>gun in our house.  At age 14, he'd never (nor his parents,
>in his case) known a situation in which private gun owner-
>ship was legal.  Yet I don't give a second thought to that
>constitutional right.

Japan is a strange nation whose people have been dominated for centuries.
They view weapons as part of the oppressive system they used to be under,
although their present system isn't really less oppressive. Since WWII,
they have been fairly weaponless as a country, but they are supposedly
building a new fighter jet, and just the other day I saw a special where
the Japanese would go to Hawaii to go to gun ranges to shoot guns, and
purchase them to take home with them. Many get confiscated during customs,
but many get through. (The special was on PBS, and was copyrighted in
the last year.)

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:13:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.153934.5743@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> 
> > Yes...Yes...I see it all now, so clearly...Just let me get my steel 
> > marbles...and roll them around in my left hand...and get my cat...and 
> > gently stroke its fur...and slowly begin looking like Humphrey Bogart.
> 
> > Wait a minute...I can't remember...Is my name Caine...Or is it yours?
> 
> The _ship's_ name was Caine, ya dweeb.  IMHO, you'd be hysterical (in all
> senses of the word) as the captain in Mr. Roberts.

As I recall, the captain in The Caine Mutiny was named Queeg,
not to be confused with Queequeg of Moby Dick fame.  Nor to be
called quahog, which is a kind of clam.

Fun with words beginning with the letter "q".

QDean QKaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:15:33 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


mg>In article <1992Oct8.183345.20368@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
rb>In article <26157@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
mg>>In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
 
mg>>I don't think you just "cut off" support.  I believe abortion methods
mg>>require killing first.  I don't think you starve the unborn child from
mg>>the womb.  I could be wrong about this.

rb>Hey, simple snip of the unbilical cord, and that's it. 
 
mg>Why don't they do this more often?
 
Would you honestly feel better if abortions were done this way?
Is the procedure itself really what is bothering you?  Lets assume
we could do abortions this way, but unfortunately it leads to, oh say
a 20% increase in the risk of infection and death to the woman.  Would
that risk be worth it just to give you the Warm Fuzzys over the 
procedure?
(I would guess that performing abortions in this way would actually
lead to a much higher risk to the woman than 20%)
  
mg>Just remember exactly what abortion does: Abortion is active, forced, or
mg>induced death.  
 
No it is not.  It is the safest way for the woman to have a fetus removed
from her body.
 
Dan King

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:01:09 GMT

In <skwz_pc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
dean.kaflowitz) writes: >>>

>>>>> I suspect it's just more of your misogyny-on-parade.  
> 
>>>> I wonder why you tend to see misogyny around every corner...
>
>>> Probably because of the evidence, old darling.  It tends to lead
>>> one to conclusions.
>
>>In true Kaflowitz tradition...
>
>>All lies and jests
>
>i've never seen dean post a lie. will you post a couple
>of examples of dean's "lies?"

Ah.  You didn't understand the reference, did you?  Perhaps
some other kind soul will explain it to you.

>he is the king of jest though.

That he is.

>so, you were half right, which is an improvement.

Feelings hurt, Jim?

Bill

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41495 alt.abortion.inequity:4312
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Useful Delimiters of the Debate
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:14:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct6.184544.9172@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
|> ] In article <Oct05.212132.72636@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ] >
|> ] >	THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.  YOU MUST SET SOME UNIVERSAL POINT FOR
|> ] >PERSONHOOD SOMEWHERE OR I CAN CHOOSE TO DEFINE YOU AS A NON-PERSON AND KILL YOU.
|> ] >	Understand?
|> ] 
|> ] Certainly.  Birth works wonderfully here.  It's obvious, it's usually messy,
|> ] tends to be very noisy, and a lot of people generally know it's happened.

	Somebody must be changing subject names on me; I didn't see
Keith's reply...
	Anyway, birth is arbitrary.  If you can set the mark at
birth, someone else can set it at "being a member of the Master
Race."  There is no difference.

|> I would also like to recommend that 'death' be
|> considered a point of 'closure' on the set as well.

	But Drieux, what about non-dead humans who are not aware?

|> Thus the range from birth to death be the considered
|> the delimiters of the set....

	IRONY ALERT!!!  IRONY ALERT!!!
	No, I think I'd prefer to establish the limits as everybody
but gays, Jews, cripples and Democrats. :-) :-) :-)
	(See the smiley faces?  I was just kidding.)
	END OF ALERT!!! END OF ALERT!!!

Steve

Why settle for the lesser evil?
	Cthulhu in '92
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: psychological effects of abortion
Date: 12 Oct 1992 16:52:40 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org
Summary: second request for quote from Koop's letter
Keywords: forced childbirth

>>In article <BvzLAD.Byr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>It might be noted that one of the reasons the effects of psychological
>>>sequelae are uncertain was outlined by Koop in a letter to the President
>>>which accompanied the report.  It seems that it was impossible to get
>>>women who had had an abortion to talk about the experience.  They simply
>>>refused to co-operate with the data collectors.  Quite an unusual reaction

>zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>>	That's interesting; I hadn't heard it that way.  Could 
>>	you please quote that part of the letter (I assume this
>>	is first-hand knowledge)?

In article <Bw0FA6.ut@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
	 kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>Information presented at public lecture at the University of Illinois,
>Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln Hall Theatre, October 4, 2:00 p.m. by the founder
>of Project Rachel, who's subject of talk was "Psychological Sequelae of
>Abortion".  Dr. Koop also commented about this during a private
>conversation with the speaker shortly after the report came out. 

	That's interesting, but I was interested in the "letter to the
	President which accompanied the report" that you originally
	mentioned, specifically in the words/phrases used by Koop (and
	not third- and fourth-hand reports of those words).  Could you
	please quote that letter?  Or is it the case that the information
	touted as being in the letter is actually only an inference drawn
	from third- and fourth-hand conversations, to make an otherwise
	unsubstantiated point?
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Foetus - special class of citizen?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 17:01:20 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: zapodid.aero.org
Summary: Look! A fetus! Oops, it's a pregnant woman. Didn't see her at first.
Keywords: forced childbirth

In article <Bw0Cox.56M@dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>Suppose there were some restrictions on abortions - e.g. suppose third tri's
>could only be removed if the mother was going to die.  (Maybe such
>restrictions already exist).
>Doesn't such a restriction constitute making the foetus a special class of
>citizen?

	Not at all, to my mind. It affects pregnant women a great
	deal, however, treating them as a "special" class of citizen.

>Doesn't an anti-abortion law require that a foetus be given *special* 
>treatment, more than that of any other "person"?

	No, just that the pregnant woman be given "special" treatment,
	*less* than that of any other "person."

>If this is so, how does US law/Constitution regard such a situation?
>tommy

	The Roe v. Wade decision et al. have been discussed here. But
	the above looks more like rhetoric, dealing with hypotheticals;
	the reality is that 3rd-tri abortions are not trivially sought
	nor performed without reason ... or are there counterexamples
	in significant numbers to warrant legislative remedy?  How many
	frivolous 3rd-tri abortions can be cited?
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption vs. Abortion (was Re: Please let Marrou debate!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:52:55 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <9OCT199211292029@acad3.alaska.edu> fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan) writes:
>At the risk of starting a major flame war, allow me to state that it's
>been my experience through observation that pro-abortion individuals are
>the ones who are only willing to adopt white, blond-haired, blue-eyed
>children.  I see minority and disadvantaged children who are adopted,
>but I only see them adopted by pro-life individuals.  However, maybe
>someone can show to me that circumstances are different in other places
>and/or with other people.

Not always true. I'd be willing to adopt either a blonde blue eyed child,
an Asian child, a Black child, or even a child of my own race. :-)

(Of course, I happen to be a minority, so do I get brownie points for
being willing to take a white child? :-))

Sean, is being such a sanctimonious twit a result of wearing your halo too
tight? 


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:55:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct14.165855.8916@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <nyikos.719007205@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[text deleted - I had nothing irrational enough to add]

## Susan apparently wants to
## get on Don Beaver's killfile, not just mine.  But, as I told her in a
## private message, I have some evidence that she is capable of better
## things, so I am not about to put her in mine.
#
#And aren't you just the most magnanimous little set-theory
#expert with the hot SAT scores?  What a condescending twerp
#you are, Peter.
#
#There's been some discussion of misogyny lately.  I don't think
#Peter is a misogynist.  I think he's a condescending little
#twerp towards everyone.

I'll drink to that.

## I hope Will is listening.  He told me he still has some residual
## respect for Susan.  A month or so he said he had a great deal of
## respect for her.  At this rate...
#
#And I am sure Susan is laying awake at night trying to think of
#ways to regain the respect of the guy who said he'd have killed
#his girlfriend if she hadn't shown him the proper respect.

Gosh, Dean, how did you know?  (I wonder if Steeves thinks that
I'll kill him if he doesn't respect me.  He adds a new meaning
to the old "Will you still respect me in the morning?" line.)

Am I supposed to be flattered that Petey and Steeves discuss
their feelings about me?  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin.darcy
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: So let's all do the DarcyShuffle!
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:34:39 GMT

you're new at this aren't you kenny?

(Little Kenny Hamer) writes:

first, 

(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>->>Second, for hopefully the last time: I DO *NOT* SUPPORT ANY RESTRICTIVE
>->>ABORTION LEGISLATION!!!! So please stop stating or implying that this is
>->>my view. You are dead wrong.

then keith replied:
>->Is this the same Kevin Darcy who once wrote something about "...in this
>->circumstance, I feel it would be justifiable to force the woman to
>->continue the pregnancy" (Not an exact quote.  Anybody this one archived?)
>
then keith posted:

        "I would not force a woman to have an abortion, if by
        "force" you mean legally. But if a woman is not willing
        or able to pay the 100% of financial support she (in my
        opinion) will owe the child, when going against the man's
        wishes, I would question the wisdom of her keeping the
        child. And I would not feel bad about "forcing" her
        financially to give up the child, since it's probably
        best for her, the child, and possibly the man as well."
                <1990Jul12.012842.23584@cfctech.cfc.com>

->The poster clearly states that he has no interest in LEGISLATION TO FORCE
->a woman to have an abortion, although he does have an interest in forcing,
->apparently through non-legislative means, adoption of the child.

legislation wasn't the issue. force was. see?

->Nowhere in this article did he say he supported abortion legislation of
->any kind.  

so what. you're the only person who raised the question
of legislation, other than kebbie, of course. but he
always changes the subject when someone catches him in
a mis-statement.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Forced abortion in China and reflection on coerced abortion.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:56:15 GMT

In <5kxzq+p@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>->I work with a young married woman who is also a Chinese national. 
>->She states that among people of lower socio-economic status who
>->(as you indicate) live in smaller towns and villages, forced or
>->coerced abortion does indeed occur.  Those who have advanced edu-
>->cations and/or money generally have nothing to worry about, unless
>->they appear to be reproducing indiscriminantly (my paraphrase), at
>->which time they might receive a friendly visit designed to politely
>->deter such behavior.  

>i play tennis with a young woman who is a chinese
>national. she tells me that forced or coerced abortion
>does not occur in china.

Does she also say there were almost no deaths in Tianamen square,
and the ones that occurred were due to peaceful soldiers acting
in self-defense against murderous students?

Peter Nyikos
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR PRO-CHOICE REFUTED HERE!
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:42:32 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:

>'Tis done -- unlike those who have flamed me for that posting, to which I
>returned exactly that.

I don't believe I flamed you, and I'm still waiting for a complete response,
esp to those points and the reproduced posts.

You only responded to the biblical quote, which was the least of my
arguments.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush