HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh? (LONG)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:00:14 GMT

In article <nyikos.720711981@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct29.215052.18101@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>>In <1992Oct25.213248.13784@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>I believe that FFL does want to give all women rights equal to those
>>>enjoyed by others.  They want to give pregnant women the same rights
>>>and privileges which men and non-pregnant women enjoy. 
>
>> You mean, like the right to choose whether or not someone or something
>>else occupies one of one's body cavities?
>
>No, because men never had that right to a meaningful degree.

Um, Peter, I believe the following scenario proves you wrong:

1)  You're walking home after a long hard day of flunking freshmen.
2)  Somebody grabs you and drags you into an alleyway.
3)  He throws you into a wall hard enough to stun you.
4)  He rips off your pants and proceeds to rape you.
5)  During the rape, you manage to pull the 357 you carry on your
    person (you have a license), and kill him.

[DISCLAIMER:  This is only a scenario.  In no way, shape, or form am
I suggesting that Peter or anybody have to endure the trauma that comes
from rape.]

6)  Why don't the police charge you with some sort of murder?

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: atd1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Anh T. Doan)
Subject: Let Keep the population down please!!!!!!!
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:41:03 GMT

Please leave the women a lone its her LIFE!!!!!!!

Do you want your parent tell you what to wear and how to live??????

If you dont then  give the women the right to choose the way they like  
  to live!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice CAN justify calling infanticide murder
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:56:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <19240.2afd3caf@levels.unisa.edu.au>,
by 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon):

[a lot of deleted stuff]

> Once a child is born, anybody can take the responsibility

And if no one does?

> so there is no need to kill it if it is unwanted

Then now there is?

> (deformations etc would probably lead to an abortion LONG
> before birth,

Oh, *that's* when we kill *it*.  When *it's* deformed and we
didn't figure out LONG before birth that there was a problem.

> unless the prolife weenies stuck their noses in.)

Obligatory, irrelevant name-calling, perhaps designed to defuse
inevitable criticism of argument, or perhaps to bolster inadequate
self-esteem.

> -- 
> John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
>

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil does not understand circular reasoning.
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 20:34:18 GMT

In <31796@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <2803131578@> usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil writes in response to
>me (>>):

>>> There are several problems with your reasoning.  First of all, once
>>>the child is born it is a citizen and is unquestionable entitled to
>>>protection under law.
>>
>>Another great example of circular reasoning:

>>--->The fetus is not an infant ---> So it is not infanticide to kill a 
>>fetus-->
>>--->It is not illegal to kill a fetus ---> So a fetus must not be an 
>>infant--->

>I am not trying to prove the first or the last of these premises.  If
>you think that fetus not equal infant needs to be proven, then I might
>suggest that you consult a dictionary.  

Well, there is a long honorable tradition of referring to fetuses as
infants.

	An infant *in ventre sa mere*, or in the mother's womb,
	is supposed in law to be born for many purposes.  It is 
	capable of having a legacy or a surrender of a copyhold
	estate made to it.  It may have a guardian assigned to it;
	and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to 
	take afterward, by such limitation, as if it were then 
	actually born.
		W. Blackstone, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_,
		v. 4. (1765)

	Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature
	in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law
	as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.
		*ibid*, v. 1 

>I have made a statement of fact about how our legal system defines
>citizenship.  If you dispute this statement of fact, then I suggest
>you demonstrate how it is wrong.

I don't know about the "citizenship" part, but Blackstone's uses of
the word "infant" are much to my liking.  It is right around 5 weeks
that the infant is able to stir in its mother's womb, in response
to various stimuli.

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
From: cddukes@c00810-247dan.eos.ncsu.edu (PakRat's Anonymous)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.224854.16311@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>There are several thousand abortions performed annually after
>the 21st week of pregnancy (viability starts around the 22nd
>to 23rd week).  Would you impose any legal restrictions on
>these abortions, other than requiring the woman to obtain
>a medical opinion?  

You're an engineer, why don't you devlop a way for a machine, or another
woman (Or for that matter a man) where the cost is comparable to a regular
abortion at that time (for the woman having the abortion) and there is
a demand for the service.
You just have to go for the nice biomedicalengineering degree, or a
medical degree.

No more unwanted fetus... and no dead fetus..

Chris "the PakRat" Dukes______________________________cddukes@eos.ncsu.edu
Inbreeding is every-one's problem.  Contact your local Mormon church to be
sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
PGP key available upon request
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:37:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.205525.2265@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
>Most of Keegan's crap is directed at Darcy.  

Just call me "Lightning Rod" Darcy. If it wasn't for me, all of that festering 
hate and malice would undoubtedly be randomly showered at you fine folks.

>Those two are guilty of the
>same sins: endless name-calling in huge meta-discussions that have little
>to do with abortion and a lot to do with ego inflation and a battle of
>who can be the most self-righteous and condescending.  

Please cite an instance in the last, say, three months, where I have responded
to Keegan with name-calling or engaged in any dialogue with him that could be
characterized as "meta-discussion". Hint: you won't find any.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: A new battleground
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:49:08 GMT

I'd be interested in seeing Lynn and Galen argue the relative
merits of frogs and bats.  I haven't made up my mind on either
yet, and I'm trying to economize on my affections towards
small animals, so I'll only be picking one.

Susan


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.child-support,alt.da
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Nadja's Reprehensible Attitude Towards Men
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 23:16:36 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.041844.13267@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
|I saw this err, *mug* at the offices of two women at the
|company which I used to work for.  And if I weren't on my six
|month probation period, I would have had no qualms about
|charging the pair with sexual harassment, seeing as there seem
|to be legions of feminists declaring that pin-up calendars are
|also sexual harassment.

You equate a mug with political slogans on it with a pin-up
calendar?  You think that if nude photographs consitute sexual
harassment, so also must the political content of a mug?

You just don't get it, do you.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The answer!!!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:22:36 GMT

clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>God owns the world and is the CREATOR 
>or all life.  Don't you think he had a reason for a baby.

Okay, I won't.  ;-)

Oh, was that a question?  No, obviously your god _didn't_ have a
"reason" for that "baby" -- he apparently had no problem with it being
aborted!

>The world needs Jesus.  That is a given. 

Jesus died two millenia ago.  Hadn't you heard?
Or maybe you mean a friend of mine from college, Jesus Villa?
He's cool.  I can see people needing him.  :)

If you're going to try to use your religion as a defense for why
abortion is wrong, you ought to have some good idea of how you're going
to convince those of us who don't believe in your god to agree with you.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
        "Sex is DEATH!"      Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
         -- Barbara Bush                                         -- Rousseau
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: J Price consistently refuses to answer the question
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:54:34 GMT
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu


In article <19242.2afd6c4e@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
(all previous arguments deleted to save space and actualy answer a question)
|>In article <1992Nov3.210902.3556@ncsu.edu>,
|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

|>So, it's OK to kill unwanted puppies but not unwanted fetus's just
|>because a dog isn't a human? Are you implying that humans are in some
|>absolute way that humans are superior to all other animals?
|>
Yes I think humans are superior to other animals. Even though we may have
biological roots with monkeys I feel we are superior to a dog or cat. A 
porpoise or whale may be an exception to this because we do not know enough
about them.

I don't think it is OK to kill any animal (insects excluded) but one thing I 
have noticed is that talking to someone and you talk to them about getting
a little puppy put to sleep will elicit more of an emotional response then
talking about abortion. Is a puppy any more important than a baby.


|>Time and time again you do not answer the question:
|>
|>A woman has taken EVERY precaution she can, condom, spermicide, pill,
|>the works. She has indicated from the very start that she does NOT
|>want that pregnancy. By some cruel twist of fate, she gets pregnant.
|>
|>Should she or should she not get an abortion?
|>
She should not! She indicated from the very start that she knows sex can
result in a pregnancy and that she has thought of this. She should have
thought about that small case in which she did get pregnant. She should be
prepared to deal with the child.


|>Answer the question: What if she is forced to change her mind because
|>of reasons not under her control?
|>
Have the baby because she purposely brought it into the world


|>Just how are you going to stop her? If she really wants to get rid
|>of it she will go to a backyard abortionist. What next, tie pregnant
|>women down just in case?? Did Romania teach you nothing?
|>
Prosecute doctors that preform these abortions.

Concerning Romania please clarify for those that are ignorant like me.

|>-- 
|>John J McVey,

-Jeff Price
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Why Peter can't count (or, posting email for fun and profit) (long)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 01:01:58 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14k by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1df1iuINNe5j@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.231043.147510@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>> ( a bazillion line article all about how Peter's machine is down, he
>    is very confused, he made an honest mistake and now he's talking to
>    Larry about it.)  (Thank you, Larry, for taking what must have been
>    a *lot* of time to explain things)

No problem, but note that he hasn't yet admitted to making a mistake;
hopefully, that last article (which I also emailed him) will clue him
in.

>I find it *very* odd, if it was an honest mistake, and Peter can apparently
>send e-mail out....
>                   that he's sending mail to Larry.  Did I miss it and he
>accused Larry of forgery, too?

Since his post stating that his news server was down asked people to mail
him stuff they wanted a response to, I gathered up a few threads and sent
them off.  One was all the posts about his accusation, to which he didn't
respond, the second was something else, to which he did, and then later I
sent the Chris Lyman post and in the resulting discussion I again brought
up the apology due you; you saw (if you really read that whole thing  :-)
the result.

(Note the alignment; I got the new Mark Kaufman posting software.  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: anti-choice claims
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:46:19 GMT

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
->mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes ...
->>>Do you want a woman in labor to be able to have the doctor kill the 
->>>fetus just before it emerges if labor becomes too painful?
->>
->>This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also insulting.

->It isn't either.

are you better equipped to state ms. mills feelings
than she is, ray?

->Keegan is apparently unable to distinguish between
->restrictions on abortion and outright banning.  His comment was
->designed to misrepresent Ms. Bartley's position 

i didn't write these quotes, ray. ms bartley did.

   "My preferences as to when to restrict abortions
   don't allow women who prefer to wait until the third
   trimester to get abortions, no.  This doesn't
   particularly upset me.  I want restrictions to start
   at the *earliest* 22 weeks (more likely 24), and by
   that time she should have known she was pregnant
   long enough to have had an abortion if she wanted
   one."
      <1992May25.204212.8159@midway.uchicago.edu>

   "For the woman, I'd support a jail sentence of at least a
   month, probably somewhat more, (six months to a year if
   we had unlimited space in non-hellhole prisons, but we
   don't), with hefty community service tacked on to that."
      <1992May25.234304.14516@midway.uchicago.edu>

if you think you can speak for her, as well as speak
for ms. mills, who don't you do so.


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:47784 alt.flame:14715
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Keegan demonstrates his control tendencies yet again
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:29:23 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Nov12.033956.9468@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-111192113534@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov11.160837.7443@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >Darcy) wrote:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Nov11.023620.4638@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> >> >
> >> >So when are you going to bill Lefty for your "archival services", Kevin?
> >> 
> >> What business is it of yours?
> >
> >How about _me_, Kevin.  Is it _my_ business?
> >
> >So, when are you planning to bill me for your "archival services"?
> 
> I'll let you know, off-line, *IF* and *WHEN* I plan to bill you.

Gee, Kevin, I hope its going to be soon.  I can't imagine why you're so
reluctant to share this bit of information.  You certainly weren't shy with
your threats regarding "hypothetical" collection agencies.

Nor can I understand, since you claim to have a legitimate contract, why
you're so hesitant to discuss the details this time around.  Come on,
Kevin.  People _have_ to be wondering.

I can't wait to see what your "archival fees" are.  Have you paid Q for the
legal advice yet?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:29:55 GMT
	<1992Nov7.011810.1248@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

[ On whether the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Rehnquist in
  particular, would uphold the Constitutionality of Maryland's abortion
  law, which essentially codified Roe v. Wade: ]

>Renqhuist's position is always pro-states against central
>rule.  That was the basis of his dissent from Roe v Wade
>in 1972.  I think, as a basic philosophy, decentralized
>power is a sincere position of the Chief Justice and not
>something he used to dissent in the RvW decision.  If
>all fifty states passed laws codofying Roe v Wade into
>law, Renqhuist would likely see that as appropriate.

I disagree with that assessment; Rehnquist seems to favor government
power over individual liberties, rather than supporting States' rights
over Federal power.  But in any case, if he were inclined to overturn
a *State* law permitting abortion, he'd have a tough Roe to hoe.


Keith
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:09:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.174512.27932@rotag.mi.org> 
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> I think a "person" should be defined as an entity which possesses
>> rights under the Constitution.  

> Then a fetus isn't a "person" since currently it possesses no rights under 
> the Constitution. Agreed?

The developing child is not a legal person today, but that's 
simply a legal definition which is subject to change.
From: ron_s@verifone.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: a woman'right, not a common good..
Date: 31 Oct 92 13:03:32 -1000
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

   It is my firm opinion that the decision to have an
abortion is the right and responsibility of the pregnant
woman, provided she is sane and competent, and that this
right rests absolutely with her and no one else.  She
may of course be encouraged to consult with her husband or
loved one if she has one, or her pastor, or with her parents
or anyone else.  It is certainly wrong for the government to
pass any legislation which would mitigate this right.  It is
not the province or business of government to legislate
morality, or to attempt to codify morality in a series of
laws which act to restrict this personal individual 
right of all women. 

    Existing federal laws and guidelines relevant to abortion
are bogus and based on non sequitur thinking, invoking the
chimerical "common good" or  "the general welfare" in support
of their illogical, cruel conclusions.  There exists no such thing
as "the common good", there only exists individual human beings,
with their fast disappearing individual rights as guaranteed
in the bill of rights section of the US Constitution.   The most
you can say for "the common good" is that it is misleading, nonsensical,
irational, and non-existent "thing" foisted upon us frequently
by the government in support of some of its irrational laws.

aloha


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bruceg@Cadence.COM (Bruce Gustifson)
Subject: Re: BECKY BELL'S AUTOPSY AND COMMENTARY
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:30:30 GMT

In article <BwpCvz.Msv.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>  A bunch of bad things about another human being.
>  And some guy writes a bunch of bad things about her.
>Susan

  Hey, you knuckleheads, why is it that you have to
battle it out pubicly? Can't you do this by e-mail?


P.S. - Can you send a letter bomb via e-mail?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion