HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:24:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cfctech.1992Apr11.022454.12494
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Apr7.011415.4595@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.233006.16247@cfctech.cfc.com>
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) posts "Laws force beliefs"
>
>>Gaylord seems to be describing the "active" sense of "forcing beliefs",
>>i.e. forcing beliefs *ON* someone, rather than the "passive" sense of 
>>"forcing beliefs" *IN* someone. In that former, more straightforward, obvious 
>>sense, Gaylord is correct, and Keegan is not. That is my only point.
>
>Well, he said it wrong, then.  "Laws force beliefs" means forcing
>people to believe something.  If he meant forcing people to behave in
>accordance with beliefs, he should have said "laws enforce beliefs".

Yes, "laws enforce beliefs" would have been optimal, but I think "laws force
beliefs" is also valid in the same way that we would almost certainly 
interpret "don't force morality" in what I have called the "active" sense
(even though the "passive" sense is a _potential_ interpretation). 

In any case, Gaylord is the final arbiter of what Gaylord meant, so I'm not 
about to push the issue, unless Mr. Keegan persists on calling an "error"
what is far more probably just bad phrasing...

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: a little slavery is "harmless" (was Re: "Harmless Slavery")
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:46:38 GMT

<17530@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>-> Not at all. This is analagous to someone walking on a diving
>>-> board.  When you get to the end (whatever time limit is set)
>>-> you make the choice, take another step or get off...
>>-> so as long as a reasonable amount of time is set as a limit 
>>-> (3-4 months, not 1 week), there is no enslavement.

<29360@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>> you think it's ok to enslave someone for a "reasonable amount of time?"

<17632@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:
> NO! NO! NO!  NEVER!

> My mistake for not being clear, but there was more in this post than
> the above. The line of reasoning (at least in my mind :) was that allowing
> a reasonable amount of time before abortions were restricted to only 
> health reasons or other extenuating circumstances (3-4 months) as preventing
> the "enslavement" argument. ...

> I hope this clarifies my previous unclear comments. 

So you think it's ok to enslave someone *after* a "reasonable amount 
of time"?

This is getting about as clear as mud.

Do you or do you not agree with the following statement? 

Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes is
a form of slavery.

Yes or no?  If you agree with this statement, then note that you are
advocating restricting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
For women past this point in pregnancy, you want to use the force
of law to make them continue their pregnancies.  If you agree
with the statement, then you must concede that you are advocating
enslaving these women.

Now, you will probably get lucky, and there will be no such women
who suddenly, in their 7th month or so, get an urge to put an end 
to their pregnancy.  So you won't have to enslave anybody.  But
the point is you have expressed a willingness to do so.

If you do not agree with the statement, then kindly do not refer
to pro-lifers as "enslavers of women."  I don't recall that you
ever have, so please don't take that as an accusation.  Simply
drop the "slavery" angle altogether in the pro-choice argument, and 
defend abortion liberty directly.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:

-> Oh well!  Since Nora points out that Nazi analogies are incorrect they
-> are incorrect???  I sense a bit of Nora-worship here.  The Nazi analogies
-> are valid, much as you hate them (and they must be cause KEVIN said so).

>Let's get something straight, Mr. Brawley.  The Nazis were pro-death on a
>scale far exceeding anything any of us could imagine.  Using them in any
>pro-life/pro-choice argument has the effect of watering down their impact
>on our Jewish friends.  If you can't figure that out, shut the hell up, head
>for the library and do some reading.

Agreed, and let's not forget all the others they wanted to exterminate,
which included all non-Aryans, but were actually perpetuated on Gypsy's,
and several other groups that elude me at the moment. The main, immediate
recipients were the Jews, however, and they deserve some compassion,
even from the likes of you, Brawley.

(Remember to respect your elders, the have seen more than you can imagine)

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Susan, Muriel, Cathi, please read this...;-)
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:26:17 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr10.184256.13194@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) said:
><1992Apr10.230121.25145@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>><1992Apr8.182426.10884@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
>>>Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
>>>               ^^^^^^^^
>>>and darn proud of it.
>>
>>We're proud of you, too, Gordon. In fact, we get together sometimes
>>to have slumber parties and talk about you; don't we, girls?
>>
>Hey. My place. Tonight. There are already five teenage girls
>giggling away there. Pizza's on the way.

I'm on my way!!  I never miss a chance at pizza and teenage girls! Just
try not to giggle while I'm there, OK?


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: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: We Won't Go Back/April 5th/March for Abortion Rights
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:29:19 GMT

In <92085.162154ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> 
   Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes: >
In article <1992Mar24.201353.28977@acd4.acd.com> 
   Bill Overpeck says: >>
In <dfs.700256572@pulaski> dfs@doe.carleton.ca
   (David F. Skoll) writes: >>>

>>>and the mother's life and health, including mental health, should take
>>>precedence over the life of the fetus.

>>Who should assess the potential mental health risks for such women?

>The woman.

I didn't realize that all women had instrinsic expertise in risk
assessment for mental disorders.  As a man, I had to be trained.

Bill
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:58:19 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

In this context, the (death) of a cow should hurt you just as much,
or an amoeba, since at conception, that life form bears the most resemblance
to a zygote. What's the point? Everything dies eventually, and in the
case of a fetus, removing it from the womb and allowing it to slowly
die seems much more inhumane than just killing it and removing it. I
have made the leap of faith here that you are not bothered by killing
the roach or fly or flea, organisms that are much more complex than
an 8 week old fetus in that they are fully functional and can fend for
themselves.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:02:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.162546.23994@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.012857.24135@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr04.080524.15972@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In  <1992Apr3.051045.14314@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Mar30.232632.26244@sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienn
>>>> >"you are telling him" happens to be excruciatingly inaccurate.  I am not
>>>> >telling him diddly, and I have not stated my opinion (so far in this text)
>>>> >on the current state of affairs.  Don't leap to conclusions so quickly, ktf.
>>>> >It gets your feed muddy.
>>>>
>>>> If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then we call it "a duck",
>>>> Adrienne.
>>>
>>>But the state mandates child support, not the woman.  So *Adrienne* isn't
>>>telling him anything.
>>
>>Adrienne is arguing against those who would seek reform. She is therefore
>>NOT neutral, NOT disinterested, and NOT uninvolved. Call a duck a duck.
>
>OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
>SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
>the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.
>
>However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so 
>obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
>non-duck. 
>
>You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.

You are telling him that the legal status quo is morally acceptable, and
that it is OkayFineHunkeyDorey for the state to enforce this schema of
rights and responsibilities upon all involuntary fathers.

To choose "not to choose" is still to make a choice, Adrienne. Choice is
inexorable and inescapable.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A Request for Assistance
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:32:57 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>I have an unusual situation, as far as I can determine.  My SO, of whom
>I am very fond, is a Right-to-Lifer. I have been a life long Pro-Choice
>advocate (I am male-she is  not-info included to save bandwidth for those
>who might have assumed otherwise).
> 
>We have agreed to disagree, and I am willing to accept her opinions as valid,
>because of her life experience, but I also hold mine with similar inflex-
>ibility.

    You don't have an easy situation here, but it seems to me that
you're well on your way to handling it. Agreeing to disagree is
difficult, but is probably the only way around things. 

    I have a very good friend who holds opinions opposed to mine in this
matter, and we've had some nasty arguments about it. We finally agreed
to disagree, after talking enough to see that each felt they had good
reasons for their opinions. That's where it stands now. He's pro-life,
married to a Catholic school teacher, both active in the pro-life
movement, so it tends to make certain dinner topics common and touchy,
but we seem to manage. 

    I think the primary thing is to recognize that each has strong
reasons for their opinion and to respect the reasons, if not to agree
with the conclusions. 

                                                    kwr

Internet: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:03:15 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>  Wrong. Teaching discipline is possibe, friend. Why support birth control
>so liberally that it becomes a common practice for everyone? If we
>teach discipline and abstinence then we will reach a significant 
>percentage of the population with the message, and it will have many
>positive benefits in the long run...

While I agree that abstinence is the best policy for teens in general, I
don't think teaching abstinence as the only alternative is realistic, nor
has it worked.  I think a good comprehensive sex education course should
_stress_ abstinence, and give good logical reasons (not just say "don't
do it"--even my three year old can relate to good reasons for not doing
a particular behavior), I don't think turning sex into a discipline
and teaching abstinence as the only way will work (it hasn't so far).

I think that with all the available information wrt sex, birth control,
stds, etc, (and not just using "scare" tactics) teens can make an informed 
decision that they will be more likely to stick to because _they_ made the 
decision themselves.  Telling someone to behave the way you want them to do 
may work short time, but if they don't believe in it, they won't continue 
for very long.

>I'm not so sure how all of the other religious groups deal with contraception

Most protestant groups leave those private decisions up to the people involved.


Jennifer


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: darkstar@u.washington.edu (Alden Hackmann)
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:25:56 GMT

JOHN HEIM	 writes
> In article <stljxjc.zank@netcom.com>, zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes...
> 
> >boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
> > 
> >Why don't they come out more open then? all I have seen of the pro-life
> >movement is the pro-control anti-women part of the pro-life movement
> >(ie Nazi's). I would just love to sit down with the other side and talk
> >how to reduce the abortion rate by reduce the unplaned babys, but all
> >the pro-lifers I have seen just like to have control and put the goverment
> >in our bedrooms.
> 
> If all you've seen is Nazi-like pro-lifers you haven't been looking 
> very hard.  The incredible generalizations in the above paragraph make 
> me question *your* objectivity.  What would you think if a pro-lifer 
> said something like this?

I hear PL posters call PC'ers, ie ALL PC'ers, "baby killers" and similarly  
unkind things.  I've looked, and I've seen people of all shapes and sizes all  
through the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice spectrum.  On the average, IMHO, Pro-Life  
posters are more given to obnoxious posting than Pro-Choice posters.  Your  
mileage may vary.   

I think Siren's pretty objective, and that her objectivity is recognized by  
most people here.  To wit, there was surprisingly little disagreement with her  
"Field Guide to t.a".  (I disagreed with her about how humorous my posts were,  
but that's my problem.)
--

Alden F.M. Hackmann                             University of Washington
darkstar@u.washington.edu                       Department of Pathology

"You can know, even for a moment, that it's your turn, 
 that you can walk with the power of a thousand generations"  - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:41:55 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr12.191044.1137@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:

>You mean like my sister, who had a miscarriage during the fourth month of her
>first pregnancy???
>Well, gee, Cheryl's concern wasn't that she had "lost a child", it was that 
>she wouldn't be able to have a child.
   You are goin to tell me that your sister Cheryl didn't give a shit
about the kid she had lost? She just said "oh well, it's only a fetus..."
But then again, it shouldn't be surprising that you two share the same
mentality.

>(Here we go again:  Yet another pro-life-male-virgin-without-even-half-a-clue
>is going to try and tell women how to run their lives...)

  ( Here we go again: yet another pro-choice-boy-anti-family-who-thinks-he
-has-half-a-clue...)

>=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
Nope. I don't get it. Why not explain this for us? I don't find it funny.

   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: On Quitting being Sexually Active
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:42:31 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article by mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis):
> 
> Funny....ever met someone who was sexually active, then decided to
> be abstinent till marriage or whatever???

Yes, as a matter of fact, I know at _least_ one! :-)  A very dear
friend of mind did exactly that.  One of the sweetest guys I know
too.  (And I do not even mean anyone I am married to either.)


> Nope, doesn't happen.

Mr. Christian, of course it does!  Ask around your own friends, and at
least one of them will surprise you.  Otherwise, what Jesus said to
the adulteress, "Go and from now on avoid this sin" would have been
just wasted breath, and of course Jesus never said anything that was
'useless'.


> Even the great Morrissey has had a few flings........

Who?   Anyway, how about St. Augustine himself?

Suzanne.
From: lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifications, further comments (LONG)
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:33:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

> 
> I think our families experience bears out what Bill says.  We are not
> divorced, we are not having any discord.  However I have been working
> in Tennessee since November while my wife and son are still in Atlanta.
> I go home on weekends, but I am still separated from them 5 days a week,
> and we have seen a significant degradation in our sons academic per-
> formance.  BTW, he's in the eight grade.  It makes sense that a stable
> two-parent family is better than a stable one-parent family.
> 
> 	->  Steven Foster					<-
> 	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
> 	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
> 	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-

Just curious.  Did we milk cows together at Sandia View Academy back in the
early sixties?  How about telling your family HI for me.  And if you see mine
around at Collegedale, tell them HI.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Lief Sorensen          lief@hpfclm.fc.hp.com +         --\\\\o___           +
+ Hewlett Packard Co.                          +     --\\\\o___               +
+ Fort Collins, Colorado                       + --\\\\o___      Rev. 14:6-12 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:36:32 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr12.225153.2777@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:


>In a previous article, kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) says:

>>Only disagreeing technically.  Abortion is NOT contraception (ie. agreed) 
>>but Abortion IS birth control (no birth takes place).  A minor point
>>nonetheless.
>>

>Kicking my girlfriend in the stomach so that she miscarriages is birth 
>control too. Does that make every method of birth control ok?????
No... see, we consider that murder too. Certainly assault with intent
to maim, or agressive assault. I'd certainly like to see this method
of contraception get at least 5 years or more... 
   In any case, my point is : Not every method of birth control is
ok, or 100% effective. Try abstinence. Great way to end STD's, 
abortions, or any concerns about that missed period. 

   steve
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:45:00 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr6.214941.6913@shinobu.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>Stop being an asshole, Franklin, unless you *want*
>people to flame you righteously.

   Heh... If you want to take me on, the do it by email in the future,
as everyone else has seen fit to do. I take an awful lot of crap because
of my views. You see, the liberal views of the Usenet audience mean that
the pro-choice to pro-life ratio is well below that of national
polls. In other words, there seem to be 3 pro-lifers posting,
and 20 consistent pro-choices. Of course I take a lot  of bull shi* 
on the board, and I am weak when I post the likes in return. Try and
be forgiving and go back to your teamwork nuking of pro-life. 
   The funny thing is, you don't seem interested in our views. Anything
I say or post seems to be "ignorant" "dweeb[ish]" or whatever to you.
I can't seem to post anythin with logic. Of course there are 2 or 3 
pro-lifers that keep on mailing me with "great post", but what I'd like to
know is = if you discourage every pro-lifer on the net from posting
on the net because they get tired of your insults and offensiveness,
what will you gusy talk about?
   Great techniques? The current rates of prices? How to go about
relaxing for an abortion? No way man... DOnt' you get it? There isn't a
single thing you could do or say tha will discourage me or my kind.
   Incedentally, this isn't just directed to this post. You were right,
I was rude. Kind of funny, but rude. You guysare just damn rude. No wit,
creativity, or anything... Just a bunch of childish profanities strung
one after another after another... I apologize for the post, but this
goes out to all you cowards who throw agressive anti-pro-life/nazi 
email at us because you feel secure hiding behind you keyboard...
(and yes, I've gotten alot of verbal and violent crap from some 
out there, and expect LOTS more...)
   steve (who thinks Michigan will win da big one... DOWN WITH DUKE!)
-- 
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