HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: next
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:59:32 GMT

In article <73934@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce) writes:
>Cj
>>Kevin "Biojerk" Welch writes:
>>|CJ
>
>
>>|>|Don't ever forget that. I cannot feel sorry for someone who 
>>|>|did not consider the possible outcomes of his/her actions and is
>>|>|responsible for an "unwanted pregnancy." Use your brain.
>>|>You know, Matthew, when you get into a car & drive,
>>|>you're risking possible accident & injury.  I cannot feel
>>|>sorry for you if you don't consider the possible outcomes
>>|>of your actions and you're responsible for an "unwanted
>>|>car accident."
>
>>|There is no such thing as an accident.  There is at least one party
>>|involved who is at fault.  Accident is oxymoronic in itself.  When
>>|you crash into another car, someone did something wrong.
>
>>I see that Kevin has never heard of brake failure.
>
>Brake failure.  A number of causes.  Little brake fluid.  Hmmm..  Did someone
>not check the fluid level.  Hmmm.  human error there.  

Note unsubstantiated premise that "fluid level should be checked with 
<such-and-such> a frequency".

>Going to fast down a hill?  hmmm.  human error there.  

Note unsubstantiated premise that "velocity <such-and-such> is too fast for 
descending down a hill".

>Loose rings?  hmmm.  instalation error there.  

Note unsubstantiated premise that "rings should be checked when installing".

>Old brakes?  failed to have them checked.

Note unsubstantiated premise that "brakes should be checked with 
<such-and-such> a frequency".

>Human error, cj.  No such thing as an accident.

Not necessarily human error, Welch, until you start substantiating your
premises. So far, it's just more Truth by Blatant Assertion.

>>|When you get pregnant, that's not an accident.  Something or somebody
>>|faulted in decision making.
>
>>I see that Kevin has never heard of birth control failure.
>
>EXACTLY, cj.  The contraceptive FAILED.  Open mouth, stick foot in, cj.
>That was no accident.  something is at fault.

So go and legislate against failing CONTRACEPTIVES, Welch. Leave the woman 
alone.

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:950 talk.abortion:15722
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:08:22 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <74590@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
>
> Lived in Texas.  It's no big deal.  Lived in Corpus Christi for three years.
> Sucked donkey.  Blew rhino.

Was that for a living, or just for fun?

> I've experienced worse.

I'd be afraid to ask...

(Honest - I *tried* to resist.  I really did...  :-)

> >The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
> >                            what we have now...
>
> What a damn revolutionary.
> Take a hike to Russia where your communism is accepted, although it wouldn't
> ever be accepted there either.

Hint - the U.S. Constitution isn't Russian.  Can you guess what country
it's from?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.170236.2629@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>>That would be fine, but as one group is helping out at educating students,
>>the other group is working to push laws that will limit individual freedom.
>
>I presume you mean the Pro-Death faction and their limiting (destroying) the
>freedom of the unborn child to live.



No, I meant the Pro-fascist movement and their limiting (destroying) the 
freedom of the woman to remove a small chunk of unwanted fetal tissue from
their uterus.



>>Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the argumentation
>>you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not understand the the 'other'
>>is coming from.
>
>I understand perfectly.  Pro-Death people are being extrememly selfish, 
>power-hungry and barbaric.
>

That is the problem. You understand 'perfecectly'.

Isn't the pro-life movement looking to establish a law that will *force* women 
to carry a fetus to term?  That sounds more like 'power hungry' behavior
than a group that is saying 'let her do what she wants.'

Selfish? Yes. It is the woman's self who is carrying this non-thinking
piece of fetal tissue. If she doesn't want to be carrying it in her*self*,
she has the right (under law:status quo) to have it remove from her*self*.

You are saying she is selfish because she doesn't want someone around to 
decide what she should do with herself?



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: "Proof?!?  What proof?!?"
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>        Medically, life begins at conception.  Once conceived, a human
>fetus will be a human, not a frog, fish, or anything else.  Murder is the
>premeditated taking of a human life.

It does??? It just magically comes from non-living (read dead) tissue?
Wow, we all play god.

And after conception, giving a zygote, which, provided nature doesn't
abort, becomes an embryo, which provided nature doesn't abort, becomes
a fetus, which provided nature doesn't abort, becomes a human infant
which is finally a human, provided that the whole thing isn't terminated
by the woman through an abortion.

For your info...nature aborts in approximately 33% of the cases where
a woman gets pregnant (if all the posters to t.a are correct :) and
according to the post on 'some hard facts' or whatever its title was
less than 2% of the tracked unmarried women obtained abortions over
the last 6 years.

So, in effect, you're calling nature a murderer. Go throw nature in
jail. It, premeditated or not, kills an order of magnitude more humans
before birth than any other source (not to mention all those other humans
it kills of old age, illness, and accidents :)

And as for the zygote must become a human arguement, take ethics away
and let scientist play with the gene structure by removing key chains,
and I'm willing to bet you will get a frog, fish, or something else.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Im gonna piss you off!!!!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:26:43 GMT

In article <92100.133237IO20413@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO20413@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
>I think a woman has no right to her body no matter what she thinks.  She should
>stay in the house and have the punk and just shut up and take it.  If she was
>willing to allow some man place his ******* into her then she has no right to
>kill that inocent sweet child.  Any woman who thinks otherwise deserved to be
>aborted herself at birth.  Never thought of it that way before have you???


When are you going to "piss me off!!!!"? So far, all you've done is make 
yourself look like a clod.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Moral Absolutes
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Ron
>Chris
>>If I'm right on this, BioJerk is a GenericJerk.

>>If I'm wrong, he's still a GenericJerk.

>I think you may have hit upon it... he didn't answer the last mail I
>sent him, either. But he does appear to consistantly hold that he is pro-life.
>Maybe we'll ferret out his true stance completely with real exceptions,
>or maybe that's just too time consuming. :)


Hey, Ron!  I did reply to the mail you sent me.  I said you could post it too.
I am consistent, yes, and will remain so...:)

>Ron

kcw

--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: No it ain't
Organization: Liebe Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:05:09 GMT

>In article <ku79ckINN4eb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu writes:
>>
>>	It is not right for a man to force a woman to do anything.  It is
>>also not right for a woman to force a man to do anything.  It is also wrong
>>for people to force their beliefs, no matter how true or liberal, upon the
>>population as a whole.  So, what is this group for anyway.

Ridiculous.  Although it's not PC to admit, anyone who attempts to affect
legislation in any way, is ultimately forcing his/her beliefs upon others.
It's not necessarily "wrong".  It's part of Democracy/Republic ways.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Supersedes: <92097.015640JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: None.  Terminally sloppy.
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 02:10:07 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <72803@netnews.upenn.edu>, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
says:
>
>In article <1992Apr6.011911.6285@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just
>drieux) writes:
>>kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>
>>2. Stalin's war on the Kulacks in the 30's was before WWII,
>>a minor technical point there KCW....
>
>Minor technical point...WWII started in the 1930's with major WWI treaty
>violations on the part of Hitler in Czechoslovakia, Austria and with
>Japan in the invasion of Manchuria in 1933.  So, Stalin's massive genocide
>paralleled the war.

It coincided with the aggression which started the war, but wasn't
really connected.  The "genocide" was really class-based rather than
race based.  The massacres of the Kulaks were a part of Stalin's
forced collectivization of agriculture, an effort to overturn the
NEP of Lenin.  Now that a segment of the population was prosperous,
it was time to show them what Socialism is all about.  The USSR wasn't
involved in the war until much later.

>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?

I imagine a great many more unborn children died during WWII.
Many pregnant women must have been bombed, shot, incarcerated, or
otherwise fallen victim to the casualties of war, not to mention
miscarriages.  Even more when you add the victims of Stalin.

Joy Haftel               "There is no joy but calm!"
JKH107@PSUVM                   --Tennyson
From: 2757feyena@vms.csd.mu.edu (NAME)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: In circles
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:23:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095923F.BAFB15E0
Reply-To: 2757feyena@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

I have been reading your little debate and I  don't see much progress. I
would like to respond to a comment about Pro-Lifers. Pro-Lifers offer
only life giving choices. Abortion is not a life giving option. There
was some talk about the rhetoric used i.e. Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice
ProDeath, and I would just like to say a couple things. Pro-Abortion
doesn't imply that you are forcing women to have abortion. It implies
that you are favor of abortion on demand. You see abortion as optionand
therefore you are for it, pro-Abortion. Pro-Death comes from two things.
The child will not be born, it will not be alive like you and I, it will
have died. The unborn child's life gets literally sucked out in an
abortion. If you are in favor of abortion on demand, then you are supportingh
the dying of that little child, therfore Pro-Death. There is also the notion
that if you are not Pro-Life, then you must be Pro-DFeath. The opposite
of Life is death and therefore, Pro-Death. The only other point I want
to reiterate, is that the child would be alive if te abortion had not taken
place. If it is not alive, then it must have died. I know someone will
respond and say that the child is not living, but if the child can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and not the day before, does that mean that the child is not living the day before?
fore? What i a child is born a day before 20 weeks and lives. There isn'tay before
a point where life just begins. It is life from the beginning. There is
something growing, something human, and it will become a full person, but
it  needs time to grow. That is the stage that we were all in. Were we not
human for the first part of our lives? We had human chrosones, human genes
human brain, human hearts, human arms, human legs, human fingers, human toes
human knee caps, human face, human eyes, human everything. We were human from
the moment of conception. We had everything determined from that point on.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: johne@tule (john elliott)
Subject: Re: More words being stuffed in my mouth (formerly: tell me more...)
Organization: Intel Development Tools Operation, Hillsboro, OR
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.174824.10095@wam.umd.edu> judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- pro-whatever.) writes:
>
>This smacks of the I'm-right-and-they're-wrong line of reasoning which you
>have accused me of before.  In effect, you are saying that if another
>Christian disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, then they
>must have it wrong and are therefore not really Christian.  I think
>that is pretty arrogant.
>--
>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>
>"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
>"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
>"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord

It seems to me, that the quotes at the end of Jay's comment smack of
the I'm-right-and-they're-wrong line of reasoning.

If I don't support the "right" of my wife to terminate life, then I 
can't possibily love her.  Do I have it right Jay?

John Elliott
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby)
Subject: Re: A Small Dose of The Real
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:29:17 GMT

Who or what is the "General Social Survey?"  

Also, with around a thousand responses, how can you generalize this to a nation
of about 250 million?

A definition of who the respondents were, and what "desegregation" was done
would be helpful also.

Shane Sauby
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are."   -BB
From: IO20371@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (John 1:42)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: THE RATIONALIZATION OF ABORTION
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:19:51 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

For some inexplicable reason, my last commentary was erased.  Oh well, I'm new
at this, maybe I didn't do it right.  My point again:  The only way that
abortion advocates can rationalize their position with no sense of guilt is to
look upon the baby as a lifeless lump of tissue.  Only then can the conscience
be ignored, and abortion remain legal.  If the pro-abortionists looked at the
truth: that it is human lives that are being ended, then perhaps there would
be quite a few less pro-abortionists.  Roe vs. Wade will, given time, be
overturned.  One can only ignore the conscience for so long before they give
into its voice of reason.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Amazing...
Summary: Tell us something we *don't* know, Loopy. 
Organization: Exit 302 off I-47 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:12:59 GMT

In article <kur5ugINNltf@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>	I am completly amazed at the lack of intellegent discusion on this
>group.  This is the same crap as is found in t.a.  Neither side cares to
>discuss the real issue; responsibility.  It is NOT responsible to have sex
>and erase an accidental pregnancy.  It is NOT responsible to spread disease
>(less than 1/2 are stopped by a condom).  So grow up and become responsible
>BEFORE pregnancy and BEFORE spread of disease!  Oh, I forgot, how silly of
>me.  That will mean people must control their lifestyles and that is
>"wrong."

Translation:  you're not intimidating people into acting like YOU think they
should, so they *must* be unable to have an intelligent discussion.  The
world doesn't revolve around your particular definition of responsibility.

(Oh, well.  65 days until we come through Knoxville on the way home to
Harlan County.  Have fun.  :-)

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
  +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 713 776-1541 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub.

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: next
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:32:12 GMT


In a previous article, cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:

>Oh, really?  Even sexual activity when birth control
>is used?  Even sexual activity when one or both of the
>participants is sterile?  Even sexual activity which does
>not involve contact between penis & vagina?
>

wake up.....pregancy can and has happened between people without
actual copulation. It only takes one sperm on from a man transmitted
by, say, his hand........
show me a 100% effective birth control (besides abstinence).
Even sterilization isn't 100% effective in all cases.
Take a statistics class.


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- boot sector not found)
Subject: Re: More words being stuffed in my mouth (formerly: tell me more...)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:11:54 GMT

I am so flattered that my .sig has been getting so much attention!
Really, it's not supposed to be an argument folks, it's a
statement of my philosophy.

From the Gospel of: <1992Apr15.194058.7380@aus.intel.com>
According to:       johne@tule (john elliott)

>> = my .sig

>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>
>It seems to me, that the quotes at the end of Jay's comment smack of
>the I'm-right-and-they're-wrong line of reasoning.

How's that?  I'm not presenting an argument, I'm presenting a statement
of my philosophy.  If you're going to be so petty as to say that it's
I'm-right-you're-wrong reasoning, then every statement made on this board
by anybody is.

Did you follow the thread?  That is, did you understand what I was referring
to in my article to Kevin, or did you just jump in unprepared?

>If I don't support the "right" of my wife to terminate life, then I 
>can't possibily love her.  Do I have it right Jay?
>
That depends... what would you do if she specifically wants an abortion?
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin C. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: a woman's choice
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:38:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr14.173219.2569@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>In article <73917@netnews.upenn.edu>, Lenny Bruce writes:

>|Control your legs then. 

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

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

Jerk.


>cj@eno.corp.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720



--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Please, tell me more about myself. (formerly: THE RATIONALIZATION...)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:42:24 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

>I would like any of the previously referenced "pro-chocie Christians" to
>start reading your Bible.  There are wonderful insights as to God's Pro-Life
>stance.

Where, oh where is that passage relating to the flood and Noah's ark?

What a wonderful pro-life stance your god has...


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