HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

So that was why the "pro-choice" arguments advocated by Adrienne etc are
faulty.

But maybe their conclusions are correct - despite their lack of logic.

Let's see if they are.

In Adrienne etc., we have a group of people who would allow women to kill
the entity within them in order to be freed from it.

They will condone the killing of 1.5 million living humans (perhaps not
persons, but certainly individual instances of our species) every year.

In fact, they go so far as to say, that even if those 1.5 million humans
were babies in everything but position, they would STILL allow them to be 
killed.

Adrienne etc, would have no problems with 1.5 million babies being killed
every year - AND GET THIS - they warn me not to legislate against it because
I might get legislated against next!

1.5 million babies - and their argument wouldn't change.

1.5 million children - and their argument wouldn't change.

1.5 million people - and their argument wouldn't change.

I must sit back and watch them do it - 1.5 million every year - just
because I might be next!


What they fail to see is that I am already in danger - because I support
laws against rapists.

I support laws against murderers.

I support laws against tax dodgers.

I support laws against reckless drivers.

etc etc etc.

What they fail to see is that THEY THEMSELVES in supporting similar laws
(you *do* support laws against rape don't you?) inflict their views on others.


And finally - what of that final issue - the fact that all of those laws
force non-action - whereas anti-abortion laws force action (support of the
foetus).

Well ... what of it?

NOTE WELL:  Remember your "irrelevance stance" Adrienne.  The last sort of
response I should expect from you is that the 1.5 million are NOT babies.
We all *know* that.  And of course, you don't care what they are ... do you?

tk
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:53:13 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
>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.

    I'd have to disagree with this statement. I think the abortion
argument is one of competing rights - where the right of a woman to
decide what happens with her body is balanced against the right of the
fetus to live to birth. The various arguments (personhood, privacy,
entitlement to citizenship, self-defense, moral worth, brain
development, etc.) all are used to argue that either the womans rights
outweigh the fetuses (extreme case being that the fetus has no rights,
and in fact infanticide should be legal until they can physically fight
back) or the fetuses rights outweigh the womans (extreme case being that
the poor, innocent fetus has full rights and a woman should be prevented
from doing anything to harm it, including climbing stairs or working). 

    If the fetuses rights are minimal in respect to the womans, then any
reason to abort is sufficient, while if the fetuses rights are roughly
equal to the womans, the expected death of the mother is probably the
only good reason for an abortion. 

    Most of the argument on t.a revolves around shifting this balance.
Everything else is a supporting argument to the question of "which is
more important?". I think it's important not to lose sight of that -
there are lots of people on both sides who argue from very limited
viewpoints regarding what's relevant. 

    {Personal opinion: The fetuses rights are minimal in regards to the
woman until the biological equipment capable of supporting thought has
developed, as before then there is nothing but tissue - no person. The
primary assumption I use here is that that which thinks is what makes a
human in the first place. After then (third trimester) I only support
abortion for reasons of the health of the mother. Your milage may vary.}
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:11:48 GMT

In <1992Apr3.100539.8613@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com 
   (Muriel Nelson) writes: >

>Oh, please! Tell it to the 13-year old Catholic girl who was bringing
>a newborn to the 8th grade this year! 

Muriel, please.  It's "13-year old Catholic woman", not girl.

Bill
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Adoption vs Abortion
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:33:31 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


    Both are difficult decisions. I know a number of women who have opted
for each, and I don't see much difference in the emotional toll.

    I think both adoption and abortion are valid choices for a woman. The
'Well, then, adoption is a cop-out too' statement holds a great deal of
truth - in both cases one decides not to take the course of raising a
child. I don't think either is a simple choice.

                                                    kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 07:58:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.224755.14728@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:

>>A: The Pro-life movement is not a pro-life at all, it is some
>>cute name for PR. The real idea is the the pro-lifers are nazi's
>>who like to control our lifes, and bring back women back home.

I've already insulted you for this one.

>Matthew, pro-choice and nazi fit together much better.

Mr Kellmeyer, thank you very much for demonstrating that you consider
the abortion position of every group the defining characteristic of
that group.  I am fascinated by the revelation that you consider any
group that is not pro-genocide fitting together with Nazis.  Kindly
remove your head from your rear bodily orifice and soak it in pure
hydrochloric acid.

-- 
"Allow me to offer my congratulations on the truly admirable skill you have
shown in missing the mark.  Not to have hit once in so many trials, argues the
most spendid talents for missing."                - Emperor Galerius
Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:07:09 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
[...]right to buy a car with $14k cap

>How can you possibly compare abortion with buying a car?

The Clue Fairy pays another visit to the disillusioned....

*BOINK*

This is called an analogy. It gives a correspondence between two *dissimilar*
situations to allow one to see an aspect in a new light.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Still no comprehension of anything, eh? (Was: A Quick Proof)
Summary: Yet another flash of "brillant" logic...NOT! 
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: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:02:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 

Fine.  Stop trying to impose your morality on women.

>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Nope.  You must have been in Kevin Welch's logic 101 classes...

>
>
>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

Fine.  When a fetus can tell me what it's "own set of morals" are, then I'll
listen to it.  Until then, you've stated that you should not be able to force
your morals on the pregnant woman.

>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 

Nope.  You must have been cheating off Kevin's test papers, also...

>
>
>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.

Huh?  Where did you get THIS insane thought from???
>
>Follows from premise A and B.

Nope.  Don't tell me that Kevin was cheating off YOUR papers...

>
>
>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  

Whatever happened to premise B?????  Hmm????
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Some Park Service Estimates (formerly: The March in D.C.)
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 08:58:19 GMT

<1992Apr13.235541.25734@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) said:
>In a previous article, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) says:
>>When a man and woman love each other, they don't kill the child they've
>>made together.
>
>again.....how many happily married couples have abortions?????

About 20% of abortions are performed on married women.  As to the
"happily" part... they are probably happier to not be pregnant.

>Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person

Yeah, a pregnant woman.  Keep it up, you're learning.


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.
-- 

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: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 2 of 2
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 19:14:02 GMT

In article <31245@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.194717.7075@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <31068@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>>>So that was why the "pro-choice" arguments advocated by Adrienne etc are
>>>faulty.
>>
>>Scuse, please, but Tommy, if you are going to invoke my name in a posting,
>>as if I wrote or said something you are rebutting, don't you think it would
>>be useful (in a 100 postingperday group) to actually QUOTE something I 
>>said or wrote?
>
>You said
>You said
>You said 

Tommy, I will ask you to quote what I said if you intend to rebut it.  
Given past performance, I have reason not to trust your particular 
interpretations of what I "said".  Note the word: "interpretations".

Given this forum, and the amount of disagreement -- both deliberate and
un -- I think that's a fair request.

>But I don't keep your treasures Adrienne, so I don't have your exact words.

I can appreciate that you value what I've said in the past, but really,
you do understand my dilemna, don't you?

>Not in synch no.  But I thought that you knew what your position was.
>Have you forgotten why you condone abortion?

I'm perfectly clear on my position, Tommy, and since your tirade hardly
reflected my position, I was moved to question both your motives and
your honesty.  Perhaps I should have been more charitable and just 
questioned your memory.

I don't think it much matters.  The standards for this group are to deal
with the textual input of other people, *their* logical progression, if any,
and the conclusions drawn from their stated assumptions, beliefs, logic, 
etc.

Let me say this for you to work on.  The nature of the fetus is not of
any interest to me in the debate about abortion.  The woman's right to
control her body is the right I beleive to be operable in the abortion
issue.  Any 'fetus' outside her body is beyond her rational sphere of
influence, Tommy, so you tirade about how we can all blow you away because
you were once a fetus can go hang.  Thanks.

Adrienne Regard

PS, try using "w" or "s", and then you *will* have the actual text to
work on, and won't have to make up other people's arguments out of whole
cloth.
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sorry, did I miss anything?
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:24:26 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr5.062252.704@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu said:
><1992Apr1.233907.5616@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>>If I did miss anything, sorry.  Please send your responses or repost them
>>and I'll respond.
>
>>Gordon
>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>Muriel, and Cathi, and darn proud of it.
>        ^
>Well, you missed my volunteering to be another of your ex-girlfriends;
>I don't know if you consider *that* important enough to respond to, but
>(batting eyelashes) you DID ask me...

It was important enough for me to immediately do so when I read your
message.  How could I ever forget you?


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.
-- 

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: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: RIs this guy pro-control, or what?
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.115656.18552@cs.dal.ca>
franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   Well, it seems like eric wants me out of talk.abortion, so if you
>see fit to have me leave, then mail him with your concerns.

No, dearie.  I very much doubt any significant number of talk.abortion
readers particularly want you out of talk.abortion (those that do
would be posters or readers without killfile capability).  I certainly
don't want you to leave; you're one of the best assets the
pro-choicers on talk.abortion have.

--
"For the stupidity and overconfidence of our enemies, may Allah make us
truly thankful."

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C. (NEW SIGNATURE!)
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:25:09 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.122856.4632@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...

>If a child is in daycare, it's not exactly the same thing as being a
>"latch-key child".
  Sheez Muriel - do you think that clue fairy stuff is funnY? ugh
In any case- the concept behind the latch-key child which I was trying to
approach was the lack of parental presence and guidance. Sorry. I'll
try and talk m o r eeeee   s l o w l yyyyyy n e x tttttt t i m eeeeeee.
   steve
>muriel
>standard disclaimer
   I don't think standard disclaimers protect your posts sufficiently.
Might I suggest the heavy duty disclaimer? Read the following

-------------------- Muriel's new .sig ----------------------------------
Muriel
Anything I say or do should not make sense.
I sometimes let my pet hamster type some of my talk.abortion posts.
I had a lobotomy and they removed my cerebral cortex.
My employer is not responsible for my opinions, nor would he want to
   be because of their embarassingly idiotic nature.
Any posts of mine you don't like aren't by me anyways, but by the
   infamous Dennis Hall.
I will some day be lucky enough to compose eloquent arguments of logic
   like Steve Franklin who I admire so grealy.
I don't even type my posts. I write them up in nice orange crayon and
   then my mommy types them up for me (when my pet hamster is busy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There... use that muriel, and we will NEVER be able to flame you because 
you will have covered every possibility for a dumb post.
   steve
p.s. - awhhh, come on muriel - lighten up. it's a joke!
-- 
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: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 )
Subject: Oops; KEITH Cochran (WAS Re: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:41:17 GMT

> = ( Steve "Get the Names Straight" Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:

>(Juuuuust kiddin', Kevin Cochran.  I'm still harumphing Gordon.)

Sorry, Keith.  Must've been Friday night brainlock.

I'd like to say I spotted this error of mine, but my wife noticed the
discrepancy while reading the net Sunday.

Luckily, I know you're an understanding sort, and..GLMPH! GGHH! ACK!

...

Hmm - this reopens the mystery of the Pro-Life Kevins.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@jaynes.USWest.Com
From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:42:43 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> [lengthy stuff deleted]

        Any law affects equally people who "believe in" it or not. If
you don't obey the law, you face the consequences.  Whether the law is a
good one or a bad one, this still holds.  This holds with anti-murder
laws protecting postborn folks as well as the proposed legislation
against the killing of pre-born folks.

        Calling pregnancy "involuntary servitude" is a cute twist, but
when ANOTHER LIFE is involved, I'll still argue that personal
inconvenience is outweighed.  The physical location of the baby and the
inconvenience (and a degree of danger) to the mother are inherent in our
humanness: that's how babies get here.

> Not at all.  Can't you see that laws against rape, murder and theft all
> deal with a *victim*.  There isn't a victim in abortion.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        That is the whole issue.  The primary victim is the _baby._
I use the term "baby" deliberately: a genetically separate individual
from conception, yet dependent on the mother's hospitality until birth.

        (There are lots of people who argue that the mothers are often
also victims of fathers, husbands, boyfriends and a system that
profits more from aborting than from live births.)

        That's the reason we're arguing.  Some of us assert that slaves,
Australian aboriginals, and preborn babies should be permitted to LIVE
and that the folks who had been killing them lose their "freedom" to do
so.

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.* *
From: emarsh@hyperon.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:20:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyperon

In article <7469@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>
>
>-    Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992
>-
>-  "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
>-   Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
>-   the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>-   found."                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^

>Who has heard of the latest use for aborted fetal tissue?

>As reported in "The Australian" (7/4/92) a French cosmetics company is
>currently engaged in the practice of making women's face cream from the
>placentas of aborted fetuses. They apparently are able to get 1 tonne of
>the material every day from the St Petersburg (Russia) area, and up to 4
>tonnes world wide.

The cosmetics industry has been using other dead animals, such as
minks for ages. What's the difference, other than the fact that one
dead animal has a human genetic code?


>Brendan Mahony

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:36:10 GMT
Reply-To: spring@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Sue Glantz)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>>Only one saves lives Steve, the rest just improve the quality of life
>>or prolong it. Trojans could also be said to save lives, in those cases
>>where the woman can't have babies. In any case, they don't end lives,
>>just prevent them from being conceived. You have a problem with this?
>   Improve the quality of life for WHO? Certainly not the child.
>YOu know I'm not much of a fan of contraception Ron. WHy ask?
>steve
>,
You know, there really are some women who, for medical reasons, should
not have a child.  In some instances, it is known before the woman gets
pregnant that if she does so, she is risking her life.  I realize you
are not a fan of contraception - neither are you a fan of abortion.
My thoughts are to use contraception to avoid the need for abortion.
(abstinance is NOT a realistic choice for a young married woman!).
Or are you going to argue that, knowing it would kill me, I should get
pregnant, have the baby, and give up my life for the sake of bringing
a new life into the world (which, by the way, also then leaves a motherless
child, which I think is pretty damn selfish, too, if you knew ahead
of time this was all going to happen).
Newsgroups: talk.abortion