HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: No defeatist attitude here! (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:02:48 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- ex-boyfriend of... uh...er...um...ah) writes:

> Where it was written: <1992Apr12.230932.3731@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
> Who wrote it:         mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
> 
> >>> = Steve Franklin
> >>  = Me (Jay)
> 
> >But if we are to find a solution to this issue, everyone must realize
> >that there are no absolutes. 
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Take heed, those who said that morals are absolute!  *snicker*
> 
> >"Man is a species very limited in perception in the space-time 
> >continuum and the future." -  Star Trek: The New Generation
> 
> Hey, if you're a TNG fan you're all right in my book!


        The statement that "there are no absolutes" is a foundational
issue in this discussion.  If there _are_ no absolutes, then your only
objections can be personal if I assert that I have a right to kill you.
In a morally relativistic arean in which I actually have the power to
kill you and you lack the ability to resist effectively, you're in a
heap of trouble.
        If "there are no absolutes" then NOTHING is _inherently_ "right"
or "wrong": the only issue is what's "politically correct" or "socially
permissible" in society.  If the societal consensus approves abortion,
chop those fetuses!  If people want to starve defective children, put
"DO NOT FEED" on their cribs and _fire_ any nurse who tries to feed the
kid!  If a geriatric patient (without much money) has too poor a
"quality of life" or simply is a pest, drug him so silly he can't feed
himself and don't feed him! (This _actually_happened_ to a relative of
mine and I'm _still_ furious!)

        I recommend the book, THE GOD WHO IS THERE by Francis A.
Schaeffer, published by Inter-Varsity Press and THE ABOLITION OF MAN by
C.S.Lewis for discussions of the concept of "right and wrong".

        I actually do believe in absolutes.  I believe that the Creator
defined them and gave them to us in the Scriptures.  Even if the current
"cultural moral consensus" is devaluing human life, I _must_ continue to
defend the defenseless and call killers and conspirators to repentance.


Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: is kodak pro-force?
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:37:12 GMT

<tarty1-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (Cathi Ann Cook) said:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>><29122@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> keegan@oboe.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>>>
>>>... this is what they said about dan bredy, a former pro-choice poster.
>>>
>>>================included email message
>>>
>>> [a brush-off, essentially]
>>> 
>>>========end mesage
>
>>I guess your heavy-handed tactics are really paying off for Dan, eh?
>
...
>Where do you see "heavy-handed tactics" in this scenario?
>
>>Congratulations, Jimmy. We're proud of you.
>
>I assume that the use of first-person plural means that you are
>speaking for the GROUP Kevin Darcy.  Or perhaps you merely felt
>that someone, somewhere, might agree with you in this.

Well, I know that I'm sometimes proud of Keegan, not that I want to be his
ex-boyfriend mind you.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

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.
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: birds 'n bees (was Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>)
Summary: Orgasm and pregnancy
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:36:55 GMT
Followup-To: Creating an orgasm
Distribution: world
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation, Collegedale, TN 37315

In article <1992Apr8.103313.4156@crd.ge.com> keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> The woman did not, in volitional terms, necessarily CREATE her
>-> pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a use.
>
>pssst! may i suggest that you speak to a woman or two privately
>about this matter.
>
>or, ask drieux.
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.

Apropos orgasms and pregnancy, I was acquainted with an individual years ago,
(I hesitate to call him a friend) who sincerely (stupidly?) believed that
a woman could not get pregnant unless she had an orgasm.  Can you beat that?

	->  Steven Foster					<-
	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: So Many Men! So Little Time! (Was: March in D.C.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:25:17 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>Dean, you of all people should know that most of our mental development
>happens between ages 4 and 18:  At age 4, you know all the questions;
>at age 18, you know all the answers. :-)

And betweeen 24 and death, you've discovered a new world (the actual one) :-)

Note: 24 is a random age chosen because that is when most have left the
      confines of mommy and daddy. Some leave earlier and discover this
      earlier, and some never discover it at all.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:37:01 CDT

In article <1992Apr08.060536.25602@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>
>>Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>
>Interesting tidbit there (Anti-Roe).  We are ALL aware (I hope) that the
>entire case (Roe v. Wade) was built upon a lie.  And the entire pro-death
>movement is based upon obscuring what matters with loud, emotional rhetoric.

Oh, Joy! (sorry, Joy.) Another Kevin for the pro-force-women-to-do-what
-we-think-they-oughtta side.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice, Pro-Life, Hmmm... (Take Two!)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:25:03 GMT

<1992Apr10.122436.26711@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
><1992Apr8.010527.1233@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and darn proud of it.
>
>Well, she sure was a good sport about that chorus line formed by all
>your ex-girlfriends at the wedding reception. I did feel bad about
>what happened to her train when she decided to join in, though.

And if you all hadn't decided to wear the garter belts and stockings the
men wouldn't have had to jump in the pool to cool off.

>On behalf of all your ex-girlfiends, I'd like to request a guest 
>appearance in this forum from Gordon's sweet wife. She doesn't
>even have to dance!

She's thinking about it.  It's her decision, but I warned her about the
verbal abuse pro-choice women take in this forum from the supposedly
life-loving, peaceful opposition.  You might say I've attracted a fair
share of small-minded enemies who would see it as their duty to harrass my
wife since their comments have little effect on me.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel (great legs!), Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman 
in the world, and darn proud of it.
-- 

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: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: dal
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 21:11:26 GMT

<1992Mar30.130020.8336@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
>>Would you let me fist you for nine months straight?  It would certainly give
>>me 80 years of happiness, and I'll ensure that nothing serious happens to you
>>because of it (i.e. loss of job, health problems for the rest of your life,
>>the father of the fetus running off as soon as he finds out you're pregnant,
>>etc...)
>
>Hahaha, this is just lovely logic. First of all you lose all of my respect
>with "it would certainly give me 80 years of happiness...". I pity you
>for having nothing better to do with your life...

It was hypothetical.

>   Second of all, it is a purely self-indulgent analogy which does not
>extend to the circumstances I described. By carrying out the pregnancy
>the mother gives another family the opportunity to raise and nurture 
>one of the most valuable gifts: a child. Those who adopt are generally
>unable to have children of their own, so you are giving them something
>priceless in nature. 

Children can be bought, you do know this don't you?

>   As well you mention the inconvenient result of "the male running off
>as soon as he finds you're pregnant"... Well, this doesn't happen if you
>wait to have sex until you a) love the person and b) marry the person
>now does it? At least not very often I would hope. 

You don't get out much, do you?  Do you know what the divorce rate is
nationwide?  How about in our state?  Are you claiming that all these
people 'didn't really love each other'?  Having been through a divorce I
can tell you first-hand, you are full of shit on this point.

>   You also mention the "health problems" that plague you for the rest
>of your life. Don't you get it? Don't be so afraid of a child, they 
>make you feel GOOD. Kids are a responsibility that have more reward than
>anything else on this earth. 

Anyone care to repost the health dangers to the woman during pregnancy?  I
think Steve thinks that pregnancy is like being constipated for awhile.

>   *sigh* I was hoping for better arguments. Apparently people don't like
>to respond to those ideas which they don't agree with...

Open your mind and do a little research on the topics you post about.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and darn proud of it.
-- 

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.
From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:40:34 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <29359@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes...

>heim@vms (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>-> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
>-> >I don't believe the someoneness (Cool word huh?) of the fetus
>-> >is that important to the abortion debate.  I have my own
>-> >personal feelings regarding the someoneness of the fetus, but
>-> >do not feel they are pertinent to the legality of abortion.
>-> 
>-> I started reading this group only about 1 week ago but I
>-> always thought that was *the* issue.
> 
>well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of the
>fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an agruing
>point. the issue is a woman's right to self-determination, her
>right to control her body. those who try to make the issue
>something else usually do so because they have no way to deal
>with the issue of controlling women.

This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to self-determination 
is self evident.  I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
I feel I have to.  You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
truth.

You chose to delete the part of the message in which I explain why I 
think it's *the* issue.  I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to 
the moment of delivery.  (I had thought that this is something most 
people would agree with.)  It seems incredible to me that anyone might 
think that a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby 
becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the womb.  
Clearly he's entitled to *some* protection before that.

It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society have to 
place *some* limits on a woman's right to self-determination.  Not 
because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but because we want 
to protect what we believe are humans in need of protection.

So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving 
protection?"  I don't believe that there are any logical arguments 
that can be made for protecting a fertilized egg.  (Though I do 
recognize the religious arguments I don't subscribe to them.)  The 
argument that a fetus deserves protection no sooner that when it 
developes a cerebral cortex seems reasonable to me.  I'm been watching 
for a reasonable rebuttal to that one.  (Maybe no logically based 
rebuttal is possible.  If so I'll have to change my signature.)

PS. I think you are so used to arguing with religious fanatics that 
you don't recognize an open mind (I hope) when you see one.

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
[Undecided and so open minded that my brain is drafty.  :-) ]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Susan, Muriel, Cathi, please read this...;-)
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:42:56 CDT

In article <1992Apr10.230121.25145@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.182426.10884@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
>>               ^^^^^^^^
>>and darn proud of it.
>
>We're proud of you, too, Gordon. In fact, we get together sometimes
>to have slumber parties and talk about you; don't we, girls?
>
Hey. My place. Tonight. There are already five teenage girls
giggling away there. Pizza's on the way.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: buckmr@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Roe vs. Wade
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:14:47 GMT

orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:


>Know how many abortions would be stopped in the first week if RvW were
>overturned? NONE! If Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still
>be legal in all fifty states until such time as the individual states
>decided to outlaw it (and many have already gone down on record as
>stating that they will NOT outlaw them. New York, for example.).

Only 7 states have made it certain that Abortion will be legal there is Roe v
Wade is overturned. There are a number of states where abortion would be illegal
 instantly: Utah, Louisiana et al.

>I do not understand all the hysteria.  Casino gambling is legal in only
>one state and one other city in the U.S. and people travel from all over
>to reach these places for gambling. A desperate woman would be able to
>travel to any state that still allowed them.

Because this assumes that women have the resources to travel thousands of miles
to GET an abortion. The idea of Roe v Wade is that a woman has a constitutional
right to self-determination of her reproductive system.

Anyway, I hope Roe v Wade IS overturned in Casey versus Planned Parenthood
this session. Atleast the election will be more interesting.

And whatever happened to a ruling no Bray v Reproductive health services from
last year? Aren't they required to rule on something in that session? Oral 
arguments in Bray were heard LAST February (91).
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"I could not do it nearly as well as Kate Bush, because she is a Goddess."
                                                            --Sinead O'Connor.
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:45:43 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18037@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>>world would be a better place. Damn, I love the ME generation. NOT
>								^^^
>Another juvenile clueless....
>Matthew, if we didn't work for ourselves first, we never would be in
>a position to help others.
>The ME generation
   Well... Ron, I suppose I am a juvenile clueless as well, but I must
point out that the ME generation sucks most heinously, and is likely
responsible for the majority of the flaws that you call progress.
   that is another flaw of society that we must silence our paranoias
by always looking over our backs. Our friends should do that for us.
But, being the 90's and all, humanity feels it must have sole concerns
for itself, not it's fellow man/woman. Said isn't it?
   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: just another view
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:06:55 GMT

etheridg@duncan.cs.utk.edu (Jennifer Etheridge) writes ...
>As I write this post, I tell myself, "You are a fool to step in here."

This has obviously provided no restraint to the rest of us.  Just
watch where you step ...

>The problem, as I see it, is the current view of the role of government.
>I believe that the purpose of government is simply, and only, to
>to maintain the structure of the society it governs. The government
>should protect its members from outside threat and should protect its
>members from threat from each other. And nothing else. Some may argue
>against this, but I see no way that a fetus can be considered a member
>of society. Therefore, the protection of the fetus is beyond the
>jurisdiction of the government.

Nonetheless, society is affected not only by how it treats its own 
members but also how it treats those outside of society.  As an
example one might consider what kind of society would accept
the widespread torture of animals or slavery.  During the middle
ages one sport was to tie a cat to a post then men would take turns
trying to kill the cat with their heads while avoiding its claws.
Nowadays such behavior is considered barbaric and is probably illegal.
And if you think the gas chamber is cruel, find out about the
medieval punishment called "breaking on the wheel" - really nasty.

Government tends to reflect society - if society thinks it's OK 
to have people controlled, then government will tend to control
people.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The March in D.C.
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:24:06 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hi everybody,

I went to the "We Won't Go Back" march yesterday, and I had a terrific
time. It was quite incredible. I have never seen so many folks in one
place at once. The speakers were inspiring, I met lots of friendly
people, and I am more dedicated to the cause than ever.

Cheers,
Big Al  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:12:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.162800.22842@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>It's not ludicrous, it's a fact. A mother cannot normally act to
>cause birth to happen, birth is an event that happens to her. 

Like rape?

>>>Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother. 

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:06:14 GMT

In article <16851@plains.NoDak.edu> compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.194237.16141@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>No amount of handwaving can change the fact that an abortion kills
>>the fetus.

Curtis Compton cogently responds: 

>The point is not to obtain the property of the fetus.  The point is that two
>people (the futus and the woman) are competing for resources that belong to
>the mother (her body).  She can choose to share those resources, or she can
>chose to withold those resources, even if the fetus needs those resources
>for survival.
>
>In order to justify making abortion illegal, you must bestow rights upon the
>fetus that other humans do not have.  No human has the right to force
>another to be their slave.  No human has the right to use your resources
>without your consent.  To say that a fetus has these rights is tantamount to
>saying the unborn are a superior class of people to the born. 
>
>Of course, if you do not accept the personhood of a fetus, then you probably
>don't need the pro-choice viewpoint explained to you...


I applaud you.  Cogent, concise, clear and telling.

Since I figured you wouldn't get much response (since arguing with what
you said would be rather difficult) I decided to send you fan mail.

And repeat your words once more for the net at large who missed them
first time 'round.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.religion.misc