HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:46:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan27.030431.20479@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:

>It seems to me that
>education (imparting of knowledge) can only help solve a
>problem if the root cause of that problem is ignorance (lack
>of knowledge).  I am far from convinced that the source of
>the high abortion rate in America is ignorance about sex,
>pregnancy, and childbirth.  Foolish behavior in spite of
>knowledge explains the situation far better for me.

Oh, Don, I'm disappointed in you.  I've posted in the past the results of
Ortho Novum's survey from last year showing that over 80% of adult women 
ages 15-44 use contraception of some type.  And that, factoring the known
failure rate of the various methods against the population groups shows that
the pregnancy rate, from birth control failures alone, was almost twice
that of the abortion rate.  Meaning that each and every abortion last year
*could* have been the result, pure and simple, of a woman who followed
through on her original intent not to have a child when her birth control
failed.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say 'all', by any means.  But here you
are blasting women who have abortions  as 'foolish' above, when we already
know that a huge number of women have suffered birth control failures, and
that a huge number of women -- the vast majority in fact -- do use birth
control devices.

Sure, there are some foolish people.  Sure, there are some people who be-
have foolishly.  But it looks to me like *most* people are already being
something less than foolish, and don't deserve this remark.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spinoza@next06wor.wam.umd.edu (Yon Bonnie Laird of Cairn Robbing)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Advocating Armed Resistence?
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:47:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.075755.17733@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com  
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
> 
> ] drieux writes:
> ] 
> ] >p4: the Get out of JAIL card for the Roman Catholic Church
> ] >in this matter is for them to ACCEPT that the LAW OF THE LAND
> ] >is the LAW OF THE LAND and that they are NOT the Arbitors of
> ] >what the LAW OF THE LAND is.
> ] 
> ] The round-up and incineration of Jews was the law of the land in
> ] Nazi Germany.  The Catholic Church ushered thousands of Jews out
> ] of Europe by means of an "underground railroad."  Thus, the Catholic
> ] Church defied the "LAW OF THE LAND" in favor of what it perceived to  
be
> ] a higher LAW, and helped the innocent.  I can see no difference in
> ] its position to save, in this case, the unborn innocent.
> 
> 
Drieux's question re: Laval's query about Papal batallions deleted.....

Alas, it must also be noted that the Catholic Church (parts of it, at any  
rate), were not quite so moral during the war (see puppet Croatia, among  
others), or after the war, as a matter of fact (remember Klaus Barbie?).  
The "higher law" would seem not to always have favored the innocent, would  
it?



> 
> ps: want to address the conflict between the RC position
> on abortion and traditional Jewish Law, while we are playing here?
At the risk of flogging a not-so-recently-deceased equine, I believe what  
Direux is referring to is the bit about the mothers life and welfare  
taking precedence over that of the z/e/f. what this has to do, except  
tangentially, with the above, is beyond your humble scribe's comprehension  
so I'll bail at this point, except to nbote that the Church is actually  
only in conflict only w/ itself, given the argument about baptism. Oh,  
damn - that's what direux was talking about. Sheesh, I feel most  
kebbieish..............


ciao, shalom

jeff

"Dallas won, the Redskins lost (Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha!), and I got a 3.4  
last semster. Life, as they say in astronomy, is looking up"
				- your humble scribe enjoying a small bit  
					of optimism before the semester,  
					and reality, set in
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Followup-To: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Organization: Aston University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL241235]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:54:30 GMT

Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
: 
: It would only be necessary to do testing in the cases where the putative
: father was trying to avoid the Tax. Once he's "fingered" by the mother
: (as the law would require), then let HIM pay for the tests if he fights it
: and loses.

So if the mother refuses to cooperate (or simply does not know) then you
toss her in jail?

And if you have more that one suspect? 

: 
: As for the expense of DNA testing, I'm no medical expert, but can't paternity
: be established in most cases by relatively simple blood tests (blood type,
: enzymes, etc.)? Seems to me the need to do full-blown DNA testing would be
: rather rare...

If both parents had a common blood type (e.g. O rh-) then a simple blood test
is not going to get you very far. Only in some cases would such a test be
beyond reasonable doubt.
: 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:15:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.171605.23629@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <C1C4nn.JB3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>[about "schizophrenia" (in common usage) ?= "MPD" (the proper medical term)]
>>
>>>I never said "schizophrenia" was "medically" correct, Mark. Are you such
>>>a medico-geek that you can't see the rest of the world that exists outside
>>>of the medical realm? According to the OED, "schizophrenia" has, in general
>>>usage, the meaning I gave it. T.S. Eliot and George Orwell have used it in
>>>the same way I did. It may be "incorrect" in Stethoscope-Land, Mark, but 
>>>the word can have a different meaning in other contexts.
>>
>>In other words, everyone is using it wrong, including the compilers of the
>>OED.  ;)
>>Actually, dictionaries describe the way the words *are* used, not the way they
>>*should* be used, so OED is not necessarily at fault.  ;)
>
>Heh. Sarcasm noted. Most linguists I've met have nothing for disdain for
>self-styled "language purists" who attempt to impose their ideas of how
>people "should" communicate, on the rest of us. 
You mean like, for example, somebody who chides others on 'loose
language' and then defends his own incorrect word choices? Who do we
know that does *that*, hmmmm Kibble?

>That disdain usually turns
>to outright loathing when a specialist, whether it be from the field of
>law, medicine, computer science, physics or whatever, attempts to usurp
>terms in the common lexicon with their particular flavor of jargon. Let 
>jargon stay jargon, I say. If I wanted to talk in medical jargon, I would 
>have gone into medicine. But I didn't.
>
I have no doubt that patients the world over are overjoyed that you
choose another field. Hopefully one in which your ignorance can't hurt
anybody.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Originator: jjprice@c00075-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:22:26 GMT


In article <1993Jan20.040018.16612@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

|>In article <1993Jan20.003745.274@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
|>>
|>>In article <1993Jan19.221321.15408@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
|>>
|>>
|>>|>GOOD.  I applaud your attitude.  Remain faithful to your beliefs, but
|>>|>keep an open mind.  (And note that your Bible mentions a few places in
|>>|>the Old Testament even where women had abortions, but says nothing to
|>>|>condemn this.)
|>>
|>>Personally I am Catholic and we only use the new testament as our
|>> religous text...We do read the old testament and adhere to most of
|>> it. But one must realize that the old testament was just that the old
|>> testament was just that the old one(look up testament if you want 
|>> clarification) While the Old Testament does provide a historical background
|>> Jesus had not yet come and the Christian religion was not yet established
|>> only the Jewish. We feel that all the old testament laws are invalid because
|>> they were made before the coming of Christ and the making of the new
|>> testament. Many laws in the old testament are not that strict because
|>> the church did have to compromise  because they were dealing with hethens
|>> and non-believers. They did not want to alienate everyone but bring them
|>> in.
|>>
|>
|>Could someone please translate this into english?

Sure thing Rob.....

We do study the Old Testament (OT) but mainly as a historical text.
The laws in the OT are invalid because of the New Testament that Jesus
made when he came down to Earth. The NT is where to look if you want
to study Christian Law and not the OT.


-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Abortions should be rare
Organization: NRL 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:31:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.034450.28010@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazi@nyx.cs.du.edu
(The_Doge) writes:
>In article <C1Fon5.8rA@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>[...]
>
>>Its ironic that the Democrats and main-stream feminists have taken up the
>>pro-abortion banner.  The Democrats are the self-defined party of
'compassion'.
>>Many of the pivotal early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were ardently
>>anti-abortion.  So what's going on?!
>>
>	One possibility: deliberate distortion of the historical record by
>one Mr. Lebow. ...

How so? Show me sources where Susan B. Anthony qualifies her anti-abortion
sentiment as being only due to the dangers to the mother.

>
>>If you pay attention to the language used here you'll find that many of the
>>pro-abortion crowd feel compelled to insult and dehumanize the few pro-lifers
>>on the net.  To me, this defensive behavior sounds a lot like people who,
deep
>>down, have unconcious nagging doubts surrounding the belief system they've
>>constructed.  
>>
>	Amazing.  You post insulting, sanctimonious tripe like this and then
>you're simply *amazed* when the targets of your insults take offense at them.
>It's really impossible for you to comprehend that people of good will can
>disagree on this issue, isn't it?  It would never even cross your mind, would
>it, that pro-choice folks are as convinced of the rightness of thier cause
>as you are of yours?

Insult away, my man. Why don't you even put some well chosen words in my mouth
while you are at it.  I see you are a true egalitarian: what is right or wrong
is purely relative and up to the individual. I'd love to see the same
forbearance from you WRT pro-lifers as you so 'sanctimoniously' expect from me.

>	There's nothing wrong with being "defensive" when one is under attack,
>Lebow.  Try this experiment: take that last paragraph, substitute "anti-
>abortion" for "pro-abortion", and "pro-choice" for "pro-life".

Fine.  If that's what you feel motivates pro-lifers - go with it. 
....


>The_Doge
>

- Paul
From: hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:31:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.4]

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>  Do you also support the right for the new mother of a two week old
>>  baby to terminate it's life?  If not, why not? 

> Of course not!  Because the mother can get rid of the infant by just
> giving it up for adoption.  When you balance the right of an infant to
> live against the right of a mother to not be bothered, it's rather
> obvious that the infant has quite a bit more at stake.

  Why does the infant have more at stake than the fetus. We argue semantics
  when we talk about "infant" or "fetus". Both terms describe the same
  life in different stages much like "toddler", "adolesent", etc. The
  two week old infant is no more "viable" than the eight month old fetus.
  Both must be cared for and nurtured and yet in most states (in ALL states
  if the FOCA passes) it is legal to abort a fetus up through the ninth
  month.  You said the infant could be given up for adoption rather than
  killing it, couldn't the same thing be done for the fetus?

> But in abortion, we're balancing the right of a fetus to live against
> the right of a woman to control her own body.  If she wants to get rid
> of the fetus, she should certainly be allowed to; it is unfortunate
> that this results in the death of the fetus.

  Unfortunate indeed. Perhaps is our schools (and parents) were not afraid
  to teach a little morality along with sex education, unwanted pregnancy
  would be avoided. I don't mean "ALL SEX IS WRONG" but instilling a sense
  of responsibility. Men and women need to realize that "controlling your
  own body" needs to occur before sex, be it with abstinence or birth
  control. If pregnancy occurs, we need to realize that a totally unique
  life has begun, and accept the responsibilty(MEN) of bringing that
  life into the world, either raising it ourselves or placing it for 
  adoption.

  Just as a point of reference as to where my view come from. I am an
  adoptee born in 1958 (thankfully before abortion was so common). My
  mother was 17, in high school, and ask to leave her home by her step
  mother. In todays climate, odds are I would not have been born.

  I find that sobering.

  Steve Hamilton
  (hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:28:38 GMT

From article <skj3dm=@rpi.edu>, by cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker):
> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> 
>>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
>>>From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
>>>Subject: Final comment re: Why we go for non-black women:
>>>Organization: California State University Sacramento
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:42:21 GMT
>>>
>>>If you have, after buying three cars from the same company, found
>>>they're all lemons, why would you listen to anyone who would try to
>>>convince you to buy a fourth?
> 
> To clarify, it should be noted that the "lemons" Chaney refers to here
> are African-American women.

Hey, if anyone's interested, they should write for a transcript of
yesterday's (01/22/93's) Sally Jesse Raphael (who are they?) show.
It featured three women who could only stomach relationships with
men of any race but their own.  This was due to having been raped
and abused over time (since childhood) by men of their own races.
Two of the women were white (with black husbands) and one woman was
black (with a white husband).

People have their reasons for their preferences in a mate, Cathi, 
and maybe they're legitamate reasons.

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adric@access.digex.com (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:23:48 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan21.080537.25451@pegasus.com> tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan) writes:
>Then there is the "finger fee" since people with fingers potentially can
>hold a gun and shoot other people.  If you'd like your fingers removed
>you won't have to pay the fee.

Exactly!  And so therefore, we punish all those people who are irresponsible
enough to have fingers.  That segment of society shoots more people, so let's
let THEM pay the taxes to support the victims.

>I've got it... the government can set it up so if anybody wants to have
>sex they pay a fee regardless of whether anybody gets pregnant.  It can
>be called the "Pimp Act".

Sounds good.  After all, sex can lead to AIDS, so let's tax anyone having
sex and let THAT pay for AIDS research.  After all, that segment of society
is irresponsible, even if they are married and trying for children.

>Your idea is mindless.  You know why they don't "just pass a fat people"
>tax ?  Because it wouldn't pass and nobody would pay and anyone who
>tried to enforce it would be screwed...  If you're trying to devise a
>way to place 30% of the American population in jail you're on the trail
>if you're trying to solve a problem your engine has derailed.

But wait, a fat people tax would be GREAT!  Don't you realize that fat 
people are a huge burden on the rest of us?  After all, they have many
more heart attacks than the rest of us, and who knows what costs there 
are to the public for those who get so fat they can't work!  Let's tax
the ones who can.  After all, that segment of the population is 
irresponsible enough to be fat, it shouldn't punish the rest of us.

Now why do I not believe that Darcy will understand the sarcasm here, or
will claim there is some fundamental difference between his proposals and
yours (with my expansions)?

Could it be because he seems to lack any grey matter what so ever?  

Nah, that couldn't be it.

>FUME!<

(Oh, and for anyone who might think that I'm so strongly motivated on this
subject only because it effects me, I would have been just as upset at his
small-minded crap two months ago, before we found out, as I am now.  
I guarentee it.)

Will.
-- 
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
adric@access.digex.com                     without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:28:55 GMT


Has anyone considered the following hypothesis:

Could it be possible that the availability of abortion may influence
partners to be less careful with contraception?  Could it not then
ALSO be possible that were abortion proscribed, these same partners would
begin being MORE careful than they were previously?  Could this not
then reduce the 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies per year that WOULD
have resulted in an abortion?

With respect to at least my first question, Sandra Day O'Connor seems
to think so.


Have a nice day,



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:38:07 GMT

In article <C1JvFB.DC8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> 
> >In article <1993Jan22.130133.15616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >#In article <1993Jan21.014921.9070@ncsu.edu>, dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >## In article <1993Jan20.210343.23208@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> 
> >I note that Reverend Holtsinger deleted Dean's explanation
> >of why DODie was wrong in his reply.  Maybe DODie thinks
> >that this really is 1973.  We already know that Simmonds
> >thinks that 1957 was over fifty years ago, so maybe a
> >problem with dates is common among misogynists.
> 
> If you will note I said that with ONE EXCEPTION all of her sources were
> over 50 years old.  Sheesh.... wake up and smell the newsnet.  

That response in no way answers the issue under discussion.
Your remarks are a non sequitur.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge
Subject: Youthful folly! (was:Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH ......)
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.
Keywords: Clinton has endorsed genocide, he is the Anti-Christ
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 02:18:59 GMT

In article <bob1.728068860@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1993Jan25.205825.13772@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>
>>In article <kkelly.10.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
[deleted: Young Simon's "accidental" forgery and attack on same]
>>	True, of course, but one must make allowances for the boy's youth.  It
>>is not uncommon for children in their late teens to honestly believe that they
>>have already acquired all the world's wisdom and most of its knowledge.  When
>>(or if) they mature emotionally and intellectually, they often come to regret
>>the silly things they said or did during their youth.  Such is life.
>
>There used to be a saying that went; 'When I was 16 I thought my father
>was pretty stupid, by the time I reached 21, I was amazed at how much
>he had learned'. :-)
>
>Think about it.
>
	Don't need to; I darned near quoted it myself but couldn't find either
the exact quote or the source.  It's often attributed to Mark Twain but I'll
be darned if I can find the reference.
	BTW, I removed young Simon's inclusion of misc.test in the "Newsgroups"
line.  As the old Grouch has probably noticed by now, this is the Usenet
equivalent of the joy buzzer or dribble glass.  It also suggests that the kid
isn't as net.ignorant as he pretends to be.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie
		is that a cat has only nine lives."
			-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson", Ch. 7

Newsgroups: talk.abortion