HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Summary: Thanks for [sortof] answering, Simon... 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 00:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.213018.10535@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.001826.5995@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

[Ok, I've deleted the "Ann & Ed" thing, since Simon actually said something
about it...]

>>
>>No, Simon.  I'm trying to find out what you think about this single case.
>>
>>Now would you kindly answer the question so I can ask you some more questions?
>>
>I thought I already answered this-

No, you didn't.  And you really didn't answer it below.

>
>In this case, everything possible should be done to ensure both the safety of
>the mother and the unborn child, however, if all other measures are exausted,
>abortion might be necessary, but only as an absolute last resort.  Only in
>this case though.  I am still pro-life.    Now, that's an immature concept
>I've been told.

Being pro-life is hardly an immature concept.  But anyways...

You haven't answered my question.

It's a simple yes/no question.  Let me go over the facts again:

If Ann gets pregnant and tries to carry to term, she'll become a cripple.

She gets pregnant.


Now, between the '*' are my two questions.  The first one requires a yes/no
answer on your part.  The second one requires a paragraph or so.

****************************************************************************

QUESTION #1)  Would you allow Ann to have an abortion?

QUESTION #2)  Why should she have to ask you?

***************************************************************************

Now, please don't go off into "miracle cures" and such as that.  Please
don't start in on "she could just go into the hospital for 6 or 7 months";
they can't afford the hospital stay, and who is going to watch their other
two children?

Just answer the questions, Simon.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:47:07 GMT

In article <7139@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>#c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>#
>##Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>##does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>##women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>#
>#Direct or indirect, you're still dead.
>
>No, Steve, you said it wrong.  It's, "Direct or indirect, *she's*
>still dead."
>
>If it were Guerrero who was at risk, he'd probably understand.
>Since it's some hypothetical woman, he could care less.
>

Why choose death for both human individuals when both can be alive and
well?
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:45:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Oct14.203023.689@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike
Best) writes in response to an unclearly attributed previous post:

>>This is yet another reason why I think there shouldn't be any legislation 
>>on abortion. It's a moral issue not a political one. To me there's no 
>>difference in killing the child in the womb or at the age of 5. But the
>>parent that beats the child has done more grevious harm to it than if it
>>had been aborted in the first place. I don't think either is right. What's
>>a person supposed to think when faced with a situation like this? It's a
>>moral judgement that leads people to one conclusion or the other. And I 
>>think it should stay a moral issue, and not be in politics.
>
>Wow, no difference between killing a unborn child or a child of 5?  I think
>your antagonist was correct, you are defending a twisted position.  This is
>what is so amusing about the pro-choice arguments, they have to argue an
>incredibly difficult position.  

As someone who is pro-choice I find the position that there is no
difference between killing a child of 5 and aborting a /z/e/f/ to be
twisted.  However, there is nothing inherently pro-choice about this
statement.  The pro-choice position is that a woman should be able to
choose how her body is used.  Since most 5 year olds do not use their
mother's bodies for sustenance and shelter, the pro-choice position
would not allow her to kill the 5 year old.

>I wonder if there has ever been a study done where citizens who were 
>abused as children were asked if, given the choice, it would have been
>better if they had not been born at all.  

I wonder if there has ever been a study where those who favor forced
birth have been made to enter lotteries that give them the same
chances of death, pain, and physical impairment that pregnancy places
on women.

SJM
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:02:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>> = (Dan King) writes:

>>Sure seems like your in pain little guy.

>How can you not be in pain, knowing that uncounted MILLIONS of children
>were murdered since RvW

<*Gag, puke*>  Blech.

If you would just ONCE show compassion for alive and breathing human
beings, such as all the non-military children (and adults) killed during,
or due to, our Desert Storm efforts, you might have a smidgen (as opposed 
to a pinch) of credibility.

In the meantime, quit splashing those crocodile tears all over the net.

Thanks.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Oct13.210920.16634@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:10:03 GMT

<In article <1992Oct13.210920.16634@ennews.eas.asu.edu> cortes@enuxva.eas.asu.edu (Enrique Cortes-Rello) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   > <In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
<   > 
<   > <   Anyway, that wasn't what I was intending to argue about.  Liberals don't
<   > <   like rules that don't make sense or favor people who need no favors over
<   > <   those that do.  
<   > 
<   > 	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
<				     --------
<   > 	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
<	   ----------------------------------------
<   > 	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
<   > 	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
<   > 	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
<   > 	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
<   > 	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.
<   > 
   > 
<   SOOOOO, is Ronald Reagan a pinko liberal?
<   He seems to favor such absurdities as the Brady Bill.

	Please go to your university registrar immediately
	and demand a complete refund; it is evident that
	your freshman logic course was a complete waste
	of money, Janis.

<   ENRIQUE

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:42:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct7.163134.17826@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>Hey Bruce...I don't give a damn about what's in any dictionary except a law]
>dictionary.  When you're talking about taking away people's rights, you're

	I am not talking about taking away anyone's rights - I am talking
about giving people the rights they deserve - formost of which is the 
right to live.

>A fetus is NOT a person, check up on the law.  A child is a BORNED person,
>check up on the law.  You will have to change all of these to have it 
>your way.  Until you do, the legal definition--the only one I care about--
>stands.

	I don't really give a shit what you care about you heartless
bitch. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing all this women's rights shit.
Get this fucking straight once and for all - ABORTION IS NO MORE A WOMEN'S
RIGHTS ISSUE THAN ABOLITION WAS A SLAVE OWNER'S RIGHTS ISSUE.

	Just because you do not see fit to respect the rights of others
to live does not mean that I have to agree with you. Don't like my
choice of words? Don't like me calling a fetus a child, and calling
abortion murder? Tough shit. Truth hurts, doesn't it??

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  7 Oct 92 19:44:53 GMT

In <zlsiida.149@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>>>>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.

>I'm not very well informed on the actual physical process involved in 
>abortion: is 'ripped limb from limb' strictly accurate? 

My understanding is that this is exactly what happens in the overwhelming
majority of abortions past the first trimester (of which there are over
400 a day in the USA), where the method used is known as D&E but should
really be called D&D&E: Dilation, Dismemberment, and Evacuation.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Dirty Laundry (was Re: supporting allegations)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:46:41 GMT

As the Net probes ever deeper into the question of Jim Keegan's private
e-mail, I have another -- what business is it of yours to ask?

Last May, C.J. posted a public allegation (never mind its untruth) about
what other people were discussing in private.  Those other people -- Jim
Keegan and myself -- chose not to make their private affairs public, and
responded only through e-mail.

Five months later, she's still at it.  Now she's posting our e-mail.

And here's Eric Rescorla pressing her soooo hard to bring forth her
evidence ... what's a girl to do but give in, and selflessly post our
dirty laundry in the service of justice and truth?  The Net Wants To Know.

I wonder what Rescorla wants to know.  After all, most of the mail that
passed during last May's painful personal quarrel made its way to him,
thanks to C.J.'s promiscuous and inappropriate cc's.  Stop chasing 
ambulances, Rescorla; there's no more blood here for you to see.

C.J. lied.  So what?  Lots of people lie on t.a.  Her vulgar and
invasive breach of privacy is a lot more troubling than the injustice 
of her smears.  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                           suzanne-lucia.demitrio@bbs.oit.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.rape,alt.sex
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Forgive me, I am young...
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Summary: Do we really need all these newsgroups? 
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: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 18:44:24 GMT

[Note:  Apologies in advance to any readers of talk.rape or alt.* that
I offend with this remark.]

[NoteII: Followups set to talk.abortion.]
In article <1992Oct9.104016.1757@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>] In <1992Oct7.085552.7325@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>] >Then you haven't been paying very close attention.  In many states it
>] >is quite legal to kill any burglar you find in your house in the
>] >middle of the night.  In many states it is quite legal to kill someone
>] >who is sexually assaulting you.
>] 
>] 	Those crimes are not invasion of privacy crimes - and the laws
>] against them, which justify the killing you mention, are NOT based on the
>] 4th amendment.
>] 
>] 	Good try though.
>If sexual assault is NOT an invasion of privacy,
>Prey DO tell, what do you consider it?

Didn't you get your ProLifeNewSpeak dictionary?

"No woman can have a child without the kindness of a man".

(Sorry, I don't remember who the jerk was that posted that originally, but
I don't have the space to keep archives so I could look it up).
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42375 alt.abortion.inequity:4391
From: z_glasgowme@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Child Rights
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:50:46 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct9.225452.8670@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

> Slavery is no longer legal at all, but even when it was I doubt that
> slave owners were free to kill their slaves.  They were certainly
> obligated (if not required) to care for them.

...

> Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
> ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche

You're point about children not having any rights is well-taken, but I 
think you're way off base with the comparisons to slavery.  Slave owners WERE
free to kill their slaves, rape them, torture them, whatever.  They were 
not obligated (nor required) to care for them any more than you are 
obligated to care for your own car.  Most slaves were only treated well 
because they cost $$$$ to be replaced.

Study your history.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: I think Jim is getting mad (was: why mr. bill doesn't do this stuff full-time 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:37:15 GMT

In <vg2zkh+@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu 
   (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes: >
wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
(Susan Garvin) writes: >>>

>>>Unlike some pro-forcers, I don't see a need to discuss my profession
>>>on the net.  
>
>>Are you ashamed of your profession?
>
>this is why.

Jim, do you think Susan needs you to defend her?

>>I'll bet you don't see yourself as hateful, do you?
>
>and this.

Are you angry with me, Jim?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Followup-To: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:29:17 GMT

In article <Ds1JsB5w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>>... Apparently the only answer is that Jesus was sometimes a 
>>man, when that was convenient and sometimes a God when that was 
>>convenient and sometimes a Son of God when that was convenient. 
>>Few Christians care to discuss this problem because there is no 
>>valid solution. 
>Apparently, light is sometimes a particle when that is convenient 
>and sometimes it is a wave when that is convenient. 
>Is there "no valid solution" and light therefore does not exist? 

Light has some of the properties of a wave and some of the properties of a
particle.  If you were to say "Jesus is something like a God and something
like a man, but not completely either one", there'd be a lot fewer complaints.

If I were to say "light is fully a particle and fully a wave", I would be
speaking nonsense.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41311 talk.politics.guns:21882 alt.conspiracy:11060 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5084 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6464 talk.bizarre:33281
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: drieux you, too, buddy (was Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....)
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:48:28 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <BvsFow.IyB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>	So, drieux, why do you post?

To get responses like these?

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41649 alt.abortion.inequity:4326 soc.men:17539 soc.women:17538
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:00:50 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In article <Bvv95M.JI6@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
#In article <7159@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##Beaver really should proofread his articles.  Soc.women
##and soc.feminism aren't the same newsgroup.
#
#For your attention, Ms. Garvin, the following appeared on soc.feminism,
#not soc.women, and was approved by Cynthia Tittle.

That's nice.  In your original article, you seemed to be confusing
the two groups.  

#If you object to the "cross-posting," you should note that the discussion
#of spousal notification and so-called threats appeared extensively
#on soc.women.

Perhaps in the world in which you live, Beaver.  I read the
threads on talk.abortion.  I don't feel a need to crosspost
to four groups, two of which I rarely read.   Feel free to
indulge yourself.

[included article deleted]

I'll answer your other article, as well.  You did some nice
creative editing, but you still don't seem to understand
the difference between defending or avenging a loved one
and killing for spite.  

(I read Steeves' comments as they originally appeared, btw.
His present backpedaling is beside the point.)

I have no desire to continue this, Beaver.  You don't seem capable
of rational discussion.  If you believe your entire sex is
evil, as you said, you should really get some help.

Susan


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43084 talk.politics.misc:52515 alt.sex:33197 alt.rush-limbaugh:7656 alt.politics.elections:17362 alt.politics.clinton:11041 alt.politics.bush:9528
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:37:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <9464@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <Oct04.222555.96000@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>
>>"Fetuses aren't borned persons." and  "Murder involves, among other things,
>>the killing of borned persons." are the only statements  that are absolutely
>>TRUE.  All the others are a little too fluid.
>
>Where do you get your definition of murder.  My copy of Webster's says
>that murder is the killing of a human being.  No mention of borned.
>That leaves "Fetuses aren't borned persons." as the only true statement in
>the list.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
-------------
For both of you: The adjective is born. Born persons are protected
from murder by laws against murder. The wanton perpetration of the
death of a fetus is not a cause for an indictment of murder in the
U.S.    Other laws apply, but they either sue on the pain and
suffering of the mother, or there is some other title of law. But the
term found in most law books is "born person". They just tried to get
a woman who used crack cocaine tried for murdering her fetus and they
were unable to because the fetus, at the time of assault, was not a
"born person". The law does make those distinctions between something
that has known human life and something that has not. And it treats
them differently.
-Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   To remain ignorant enter in your KILL file:  *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060     /From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com/h:j     *
* The REAL God doesn't HAVE to exist! A flame is its own reflection. *
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Brain Waves
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:47:00 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Oct13.192711.13925@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.141850.21533@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>
>>There have been discussions about the possiblility that an aardvark does show
>>brainwave activity.  This would make a aardvark a living child, and thus make
>>abortion the killing of that aardvark.
>>
>>But seriously, Simon, there is no evidence that this brainwave activity can be
>>likened to anything more than the white noise you hear when you tune your radio
>>between stations.
>>
> I always had thought that brain activity was alot more than mere static.

It is, but it doesn't have to be very meaningful.

> The suggestion that there is brain activity present even in an unborn fetus
> seems to offend people.

None that I know of...  Point is, the brain activity in the fetuses
of the vast majority of abortions may as well be nil.  It's not a big
deal.  At early life stages, humans have no cognitive capacity.
At later life stages humans have some cognitive capacity.  So what?
What's the point here?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca