HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Mario Cuomo on the "wrongness" of abortion 
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:14:34 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes ...
>In article <1993Jan19.170654.2225@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>
>>It should be obvious, Math Whiz: I *admire* Steve Adams for being a real
>>christian and *not forcing his religion down my throat via secular laws*.
>>Not only is Steve a christian, but he's thoroughly versed in the bible
>>(I notice you've quit arguing bible with him, Nyikos) and can point out
>>you fanatics that laughably don't understand a damn thing about the
>>book.  
>
>Uh, well while you're right in your assessment of not forcing one's
>religion down another's throat, Suzanne Forgach, in my opinion, is
>also a real Christian. She stands firm on her Church's teachings 

While it may be true that Ms. Forgach stands firm by her church's
teachings, what has that to do with being a real Christian?  Near as
I've been able to tell, the two generally have little to do with one
another.

>Besides, there are plenty of scientific arguments that'll do the job.
>After all, someone who is not alive, cannot be growing and replicating
>their own cells; someone who is not their own individual self, would

Irrelevent.  Carrots are alive.

>not have a different blood type at 3 weeks than their parents, much

Irrelevent.  Irrelevent; the cat has a different blood type.

>less a different gender at fertilization; and anyone who's read past
>the copyright page in a science book, knows that parasites, cancers
>and offspring, are totally separate categories. 

And once again, irrelevent.  You've yet to show that you've even read
as much as the copyright page of any science book.

> People like Teddi, who bashed religion with their little .sig's
>and then claim to be religiously tolerant, and who would snap like
>some beast if someone printed a "Do the Jewish Rag" like the hypocrite
>Teddi is, are the ones who really fuck up America. People like Susan
>Garvin who has openly and clearly supported someone basing their
>pro-choice stand on religion, and then who talk about separation of
>church and state, are also extremely dangerous.
[...]

And don't forget people like Chaney, who promote racism and
intolerance at every opportunity.

>And with anti-Free Speech FASCISTS trying to make it illegal to
>picket in front of clinics when it is perfectly legal to picket
>anywhere else (hell, they even picket some military facilities and get
>away with it), it only proves one thing:

Illegal to picket in front of clinics?!?  Where?  Or do mean illegal
to harass people and _blockade_ clinics?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: CLINTON CORUPTS BUSH AND REAGAN PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:27:49 GMT


ATTENTION EVERYONE!!  Please cancel this thread!  The orginal article
was sent by mistake(malfunctioning terminal, plus my finger slipped and
hit s for send rather than a for abort)

I was editing the message to see how I could change the wording, with no
intention of ever sending it. When trying to junk it, the terminal locked
up, and in trying to abort the message, the wrong key was hit.

So, kill this thread.

And please do not tell me about how stupid it was, because it's not my fault
if the terminals in the computer lab are junk.

Simon

(if I had intended it to go out, do you think I would have re=posted the whole
thing?)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Something's Missing!?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:58:39 GMT

jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:

>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.

But remember, Jesus ... was a Jew.     ;)

>-Jeffrey Price

-Rob
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58226 misc.legal:23422 alt.abortion.inequity:6746 alt.child-support:4703 soc.men:23361 soc.women:23123
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 22:16:37 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan21.162247.6376@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.015406.4055@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>This tax would also cause a tremendous increase in "quickie" marriages...
>
>Fine by me.

But don't you understand that this sort of quickie marriage is the exact type
which shoots the level of divorce up?  I just don't see why you have nothing
against marriage of convenience, and can't understand that there is
no fundamental difference between two people who get married so they can have
sex and then divorce when they realize they can't stand each other, and two
people who DON'T marry and simply break up when they realize it.  Either way,
any resulting kids end up in the same situation.

>>>At least the "Illegitimate-conception Tax" proposal would 
>>>spread the cost of that behavior over a wide base of "irresponsible" 
>>>unmarried, fertile, sexually-active and unlucky adults, and leave them thar 
>>>good, upstanding, married, abstinent, lucky and/or sterile/barren folks 
>>>economically unscathed. Valid state objective, no?
>>
>>No.  
>
>Why not? What's wrong with economically punishing those "irresponsible",
>unmarried, fertile, sexually-active and unlucky adults? 

The point, in case you are truly as stupid as you appear, is that punishment
is supposed to be for doing something WRONG.  And at the risk of repeating
myself, NOT EVERYONE SHARES THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY!  The fact is that
your tax solves none of the problems you say it solves except punishing
something simply because YOU disagree with it.  

You truly are an idiot.

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."
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58127 news.admin.policy:1155
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:54:54 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>> You are, after all, the fellow who posted those articles about doctors
>> who had been accused of various crimes, but didn't bother to post the
>> fact that the charges were either dropped or dismissed or the doctor
>> found not guilty.  That tends to reflect badly on one's credibility.

> No, Dean.  I have yet to receive documentation that these things happened.
> Unlike you, I think it diminishes my credibility to repeat things from
> a source as unreliable as Chris Lyman, and say they are facts.

Peter, you accepted them as facts when I posted them, at least conditioned
on your not finding evidence to the contrary.

> I did say to Larry Margolis, "Well, it's good to have the suspense over,"
> and asked him how what address to write to in order to obtain documentation
> of Chris's claims.

	Court Records
	Hennepin County Government Center
	300 South Sixth Street
	Minneapolis, MN  55415

Why didn't you ask me, you twit?

> Larry, who gives considerable evidence, albeit circumstantial, of being
> in regular touch with Chris, claimed I should have no trouble finding out
> the address myself.  I told him I was familiar with the situation here in
> South Carolina, but Minnesota might be a whole different ball of wax.
> Larry let the matter drop, and I left things at that.

> Now, if Chris Lyman were to read this, and send me the right address
> to write to, I would be suitably grateful and would acknowledge the
> correctness of what he said to everyone once the documentation arrived.

See above.

> I would be even more grateful if he could obtain the documentation 
> himself and mail me a copy.  I'd pay $1.00 for it, the same price
> I charge for providing documentation to y'all.

I'm afraid that doesn't cover my costs so I'll have to decline.  But a stamp
only costs 29 cents; you save 71 cents!

-- 
Chris Lyman   /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /   Disclaimer:  I said WHAT?
    "If you wants to get elected president, you'se got to think up some
     memoraboble homily so's school kids can be pestered into memorizin'
     it, even if they don't know what it means." -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo" 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:03:53 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Which leads to the inevitable question: what is it about birth that
>>turns a fetus into a person?
>>
>Which can be argued into eternity, since 'personhood' is a state which
>has a different meaning to each of us.
>However, you might consider the obvious, in that after birth, there is
>no longer a need to derive sustenance directly from the bodily
>resources of the mother. You migth also consider the major
>physiological changes that take place at birth.

It can be argued that since a 8 1/2 month fetus doesn't _need_ to
derive sustenance directly from the mother, that it is therefore a
person.

>>The legal argument isn't a useful one, as it can be argued that laws
>>protect existing rights, and don't create rights.
>>
>I'm notarguing law, am I?
>
>>The biological arguments are not relevent to the personhood issue (or
>>at least, haven't been shown to be).  The the fetus is inside another
>>person doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a person.  As far as I've
>>been able to tell, that alone it not enough to determine or prevent
>>personhood.
>>
>Rather depends on your definition of 'person' doesn't it Ray? Mine
>happens to include a certain minimum level of self-support not
>possible within the womb.

Are you talking about the presence of support from the mother or the
need for support from the mother?  If the former, then one might argue
that a baby being breastfed is, for the moment, not a person because
it is getting support from the mother.  If the latter, then a 8-month
fetus is (probably) just as much a person as a newborn, since both are
_capable_ of surviving without the mother assistance.

And in case Keegan The Net Cop is actually paying attention.  No, I'm
not trying to argue against abortion.  Personally I consider the
personhood argument irrelevent.  But if you're going to use the
argument, at least make sure it's a solid one.

>It's relevent to another thread, and being carried over to here. If
>you have a problem with that, I suggest you hit N instead of reading
>it. Nor is it in any way ad hominem, since the facts are correct. It
>is merely an attempt to get Kibble to correct his own word choice in
>the same manner he insists others correct theirs.

Are you going to start correcting people's usage of words such as
"hopefully" and "irregardless" as well?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:23:49 GMT
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Originator: irilyth@fenris

/* I don't read talk.abortion. I saw this in news.groups, and am responding
   as a knee-jerk libertarian. Thank you. */

Rich Kulawiec (rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu) writes:

> Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
> does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment.

No, but the right to free speech is not the same as the right to hold a job.
Kodak should certainly not be allowed to beat up or even threaten to beat up
an employee who criticizes them, but Kodak should not be obliged to continue
to employ such a person (unless, of course, they're contractually obliged to
do so).

Of course, the right of employers to determine who they hire by whatever
stupid criteria they desire has long since been eliminated in this country,
in the name of "civil rights" ironically enough (employers apparently do not
have civil rights when it comes to hiring decisions). I can refuse to work
for you because you're a Catholic, but you can't refuse to hire me because
I'm a Jew. I'd say that if I don't want to work for Catholics, that's my
problem (and my loss); if you don't want to hire Jews, that's yours. You can
find a more sensible employee, and I can find a more sensible employer. On
the other hand, the government should not be able to deny me the right to a
fair trial, or the right to own property, or any of my other Constitutional
rights, because I can't find a more sensible goverment: they've got the
guns, and they can coerce me into abiding by their decisions. Kodak, or any
other company, holds no such coercive power--and if they try to use force to
violate my rights, they should be prevented from doing so. Firing someone,
however, isn't coercion (though it is still wrong and should be illegal if
it constitutes breach of contract).

Of course, refusing to hire someone because of race, gender, or any other
silly reason is stupid and counter-productive. As Jurgen Boltz wrote in a
reply to the message Ric was replying to:

> Certainly Kodak has the right to make and implement such policies...
> the problem is that independent, creative thinkers won't want to
> work for you if you do.  And such people (IMHO) are a company's
> greatest assets.  But it's your choice.

Private discrimination isn't immoral, and shouldn't be illegal; you can't
legislate intelligence or tolerance. It doesn't work, and trying to is
counter-productive and wrong.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  Home: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA USA ::  Work:    josh@fenris.claremont.edu
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography,
and the dancers hit each other." --Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Younger and younger
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:35:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.194212.16340@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
#From article by garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin):
## In article mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
## #In article garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
## ##In article rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
## ###I read in todays Boston Globe (1/15/92) the story of an 8 (yes 8) year old
## ###Mexican female who birthed a health 7.04 point boy by Cesarian Section.
## ###This little factoid is one of the best arguments not only for abortion,
## ###but for sterilization.
## ##
## ##child survived the birth.
## ##
## ###Bob Kolker
## #Sounds to me like a good argument for education and stringent
## #prosecution of child abuse laws. I hope both the children survived the
## #birth and will live healthy happy lives.
## 
## Well, as usual, the poster commented on the health of the infant
## but not on that of the mother.  
#
#Sheesh.  You have no way of knowing that.  

Well, yes, I do, Suzanne.  I read what he posted.  

I have no idea why you butchered the context in this article -
perhaps you were emulating Reverend Holtsinger.  

#Both were children.  Since
#the initial poster in this thread commented that the baby was a healthy
#boy, it would be reasonable to assume this other person _was_ indeed
#commenting on the health of the child-mother.

Had you refrained from Holtsingerizing the article, you might
have been able to figure out that I was referring to the
initial poster (Kolker) in my comment.  He commented only
on the health of the infant.

## I hope the little girl is still
## capable of having children when she grows up.  
#
#What could get in her way, but the mandatory sterilization folks?

Having given birth at age 8 could certainly get in her way,
Suzanne.  I hope that you learn a little more about this
subject before your daughter gets much older.

## I hope that the
## pope, who encourages the practice of denying children sex
## education and denying everyone access to birth control
#
#Oh for Pete's sake.  This is the same pope under whose auspices millions
#of mothers take their pubescent daughters to Natural Family Planning
#intro courses presicely TO learn sex eduation - to learn all about their 
#bodies, where babies come from, self respect, and how not to have babies
#if they don't wish to.

In other words, this is the same pope who encourages women to
use an ineffective method of birth control.  I'm willing
to change my statement to "denying everyone access to 
effective birth control."

## and abortion, is proud of the latest addition to his family.
#
#I for one welcome them to the human race, even if _you'd_ have wished
#abortion on them.

Unlike you, Suzanne, I believe that the little girl was a
member of the human race before she gave birth.  Unlike
you, I am saddened by children having children.  Unlike you,
I would wish that all children were allowed to be children
and to grow up without being abused.

Susan
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:53:26 GMT

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.152756.9283@pwcs.stpaul.gov>, chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>|> forget Griswold vs. Connecticut, forget Roe vs. Wade,

>	Let's!

who was saying that pro-"life"rs aren't against contraception....?

>Steve

              -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57376 talk.politics.misc:69234 talk.religion.misc:27268 misc.legal:23121
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Cleaning Up the Stream
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:08:33 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

> ciao
> drieux
> 
> 
> ps: And by the Way, do You Tolerate the Genocidal
> Murder of Persons in a Petri Dish?
> 

	END DIPLOCENTRIC THINKING!  - SAVE THE SPERM AND OVA -- SAVE THE
HAPLOID HUMANS!
	OUTLAW MASTURBATION AND MENSTRUATION NOW!!!

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "I will have no inellectual training.
Miami University	  Knowledge is ruin to my young men."
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		-Adolf Hitler
(513) 529-2063	        
 yeech! ack!	       "Politics has no relations to morals"
  ungh!				-Niccolo Michiavelli
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:16:23 GMT
Organization: Clark University

In a previous article, hamilton@mothra.rose.hp.com (Steve Hamilton) wrote:
>Tina Coles,xt-de,6764 (exutcol@exu.ericsson.se) wrote:
> 
>>Many pro-choicers were also adopted at a time before RvW.  I cannot help
>>thinking about the 17-year-old girl thrown out of her home,  having to
>>carry her pregnancy full term and give birth without the support of her 
>>family.  I find that very sobering.  
> 
>>Tina
> 
> Tina, just curious, do you know any pro-choice adoptees? I have been
> involved in an adoptee organization and none supported unrestricted
> abortion.

I am a pro-choice adoptee, as are my sister and several of my friends.

> Regarding the above mentioned 17 year old girl. You assume she had no
> support. In fact she and her step-mother had not been getting along
> for some time. She moved in to the Salvation Army home for unwed mothers
> and was supported by them as well as her father,sister, boy friend and
> his parents.
> 
> I know this because eight years ago I searched and found her and my
> birth father. I thanked her for letting me live.

If it was up to you would you force an unwilling woman to give birth to you?  
I've never met my birth mother, but it troubles me to think about the fact 
that once she was pregnant she really had no choice but to carry to term.  I 
could never be so selfish as to insist that a woman remain pregnant against 
her will, risking her health, her future, and possibly her life, just so that 
I could be born.  

> Steve

				.... Heather.
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Suzanne admits that she lied about her newsserver problems
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:55:31 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <C19J41.7qK.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
writes about the latest emanations from Frau Forgach (>>): 
 
>>I never go away, you jerk.   I just ignore _you_ so much, it drives you
>>nuts.  And I'm glad.
>
>Does anyone else remember Suzanne claiming that she didn't
>see repeated requests for documentation?  She said each time
>that her newsserver crashed.  Now she says she never goes
>away.  Is she lying now, or just admitting that she perfected
>Nyikos Excuse #1 a long time ago?

What I can never understand is why these fetus fanatics feel compelled
to lie about their newsservers?  Why don't they just say: I'm going to
ignore so-and-so?  In the case of our own Frau Forgach, I guess it's a
fundamental part of her belief structure that a woman's essential
nature [tm] is to eschew public choice situations.  Hence it is better
to blame technology than admit publicly that a choice not to respond
was made.  Do you think PHoney is a transsexual laboring under the
same archaic behavioral code?

>Will PHoney follow suit?

No.

SJM

[tm] Marilyn Quayle for Mr. Ed Enterprises
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:30:32 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
 <92324.182910RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <1993Jan21.180222.8996@bradford.ac.uk>
 <1993Jan21.211342.6241@ncar.ucar.edu>

In article <1993Jan21.211342.6241@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian
Kauffman) says:

>"Life" doesn't "begin", it continues and permutes.
>Your question is ill-posed.

Life ends, though. Doesn't that imply a beginning as well?
Or is this just another semantic argument?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57540 talk.politics.misc:69437 talk.religion.misc:27379 misc.legal:23188