HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Dan King for Congress!
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:36:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Sep4.154103.21633@nas.nasa.gov>
dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes: 

>I got to wondering, if I were to run for Congress supporting free love,
>should I be allowed to show love making on my commercials?

Yeah, run, Dan, run!  Isn't this how the Ross Perot thing started?

>Even though I strongly disagree with the content of the Bailey adds,
>I would defend his right to show his adds.

Amen, bro.  If commercials are allowed to distort the facts with
regularity, why shouldn't the pro-LIE folks be allowed to show a one
inch fetus looking like a prawn and taking up the whole screen?  

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: Look closely.  Tell me what YOU think!
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:58:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.211950.19093@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <siyemop@Unify.Com>, sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>|> In article <nzhn-zf.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> > 
>|> > I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>|> > begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>|> > against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>|> > while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>|> 
>|> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>|> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>|> - and my wife has said the same thing...
>|> 
>
>So, would you charge your wife with murder should she
>spontaniously abort?

No.

>Would your wife admit to the murder? Or do you consider a
>spontanious abortion to be a suicide

No.

>and so you would only charge her with assisting a suicide (after all
>the person that died was in her care)?

But did not commit suicide.

>Would you also file child abuse/neglect charges against
>your wife if she were to smoke, take drugs or drink during
>pregnancy?

Yes.

>--Bruce
>bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
>Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  2 Sep 92 21:13:25 GMT

In <1992Sep1.185546.10262@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
># chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
># >Just in case there was any doubt about the mindset of some of the
># >Republican Party's leading lights, Pat Robertson recently wrote a
># >letter criticizing the Equal Rights Amendment, suggesting that
># >feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
># 
># Interesting use of the word "suggesting."  Just how strongly did he
># suggest it?  Robertson is much too astute to make blanket statements
># like the one you say he suggested.

>From the Associated Press story:

>> But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters
>> of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the
>> proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal
>> rights for women."
>>
>> Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
>> political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
>> kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
>> become lesbians."

An agenda that happens to be part of feminism is not the same thing
as feminism.  I'm still somewhat in the dark as to what Robertson
was actually referring to.

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:31:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.232540.28852@wdl.loral.com> 
bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>>> What I find amazing is the failure to recognize, on the part
>>> of so-called "pro-life" people, that a state which can compell
>>> pregnancy to continue, a state which can intrude into such
>>> fundamental matters of a person's private life, can also take
>>> a very short step to compelling abortion.  

>> You have ignored the fact that the state's interest in prohibiting
>> abortion is fundamentally different from the state's interest
>> in mandating abortion.

> Negative.

Positive. 

> If the State can prohibit abortion on such trivial grounds
> as a `compelling state interest' to protect the life of human zygotes
> and embryos, the State can mandate abortion on the less trivial
> grounds of a compelling state interest in zero population growth.

Again, you present a slippery-slope argument which can be used
to argue against any state regulation in the area of abortion.
For example, if the state can require a physician to perform the
abortion using sterilized instruments in order to protect the 
woman's health, then the state can also require that the woman 
eat the right foods, exercise, etc., to protect her health. 

 
> It's a matter of how `compelling' the State's interest is, see?

No, it's a slippery-slope argument that attacks the concept of
a ``compelling state interest'', rather than abortion laws. 


>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Suzanne finally sees the light
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:57:39 GMT

From article by emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> 
>>From article by gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga):
> 
>>Yes Gordon, I know you've had a vasectomy.  You've posted it to
>>the world before.  And for the sake of the kids you didn't have,
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I'm glad.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> So here Suzanne says that no life is better than a poor quality of life.

Where there is no pre-existing life is an entirely different matter from 
killing a life that has already begun.


> Heck, that's what I've been saying all along. Glad that you finally have
> come to see the light of reason, Suzanne.

Go pound sand, Eric.


SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Fodder for DOD's .sig (Was: Pro-Choice Challenge)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:05:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.194119.26396@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov 
(Dan King) writes:

}DOD has come up with Yet Another cute as hell .sig.  DOD, if it 
}wouldn't be too much trouble could you add my name right below
}Susan's in your cute little .sig.  I agree with Susan so I wouldn't
}mind being added.  I bet you could make your own little list of
}people who agree with Susan here and come up with a way cute .sig.  

I agree with Dan and Susan, too.  So you can add my name.  

}>      "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
}> that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
}> we want to be precise)..."
}>   -- Gloria Feldt,
}>      chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

}>  "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
}>    -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
}     -- dking@nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)  <Insert header info here>
      -- gjh@virginia.edu (Galen Hekhuis)


--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
           Remember, behind most silver linings is a cloud...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:06:35 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>In <1992Sep2.223616.17088@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>>In article <nyikos.715464590@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu 
>>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>}   ...but a fetus is not part of her body...

>>Just when you think you have things figured out.  Doggone it Peter,
>>where do you suppose those little buggers are?

>You know the answer as well as I do. That's not the issue.

Of COURSE it's not the issue for you!  YOU'll never have to carry a
fetus.  You've shown time and again that you'd be perfectly happy
putting women at risk ("better off dead" ring any bells?) for the
sake of a bunch of nameless fetuses, MOST of whom you will never
know a damn thing about.  Tell me Nyikos, when you make blanket
statements about when you would and would not "permit" abortions,
do you ever think that it may be your mother, or sister, or wife
that faces this risk of permanent disability you would happily
mandate for those nameless women out there?

For most of us on the pro-choice side, the health and happiness
of this "location" of the fetus is our #1 concern.

>>       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 

>Would you say you are a part of your hang gliding harness?

Is his hang gliding harness using his body?

>Peter Ny.

                       -rocker
                        waiting for the anthropomorphising
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Badges of Honor
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:38:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.200756.10991@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>
>That was the entire point exactly!    It is WRONG that our unborn
>brothers and sisters do not enjoy the same legal protection the rest
>of us do, through no fault of their own.
>

Ms Forgach,

That statement is a matter of opinion only.  It is not a fact.  What is
a fact is that many people have differing opinions, such as ...it is
WRONG to force a woman to bear a child when she has no desire to do so.

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.210023.11560@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman):
>> 
>>    The figure on third trimester abortions is that they represent
>> less than one in one thousand abortions performed in America.  
>
>1/1000 * (1.5 million) = 1500 babies per year = 4 viable babies per day,
>every single day of the year, that are put to death for no fault of their
>own.   So this is what America stands for, is it.

Well, Suzanne, I can say this: 

A third trimester fetus can survive independently of the mother. 

That means all abortions should be outright banned in the third
trimester because no woman needs to kill a fetus that old, because
s/he can survive independently. 

Unless pro-choice really means a woman has a right to demand that the
fetus be killed simply because she wants to kill someone who can't
fight back, there is absolutely, positively no way between here and
three trips to hell and back, that the woman has any right to a dead
fetus in the third trimester. 
In short, the law should demand that the procedure result in a live
fetus and the use of an incubator, with no exceptions. 

There is no reason not to enforce this law quite vigorously. 

Not even for deformities. No law presently allows killing someone
because of deformities. 

It is this reason that "pro-choice" has always and always will mean
"anti-life." 

Any questions, folks? Didn't think so.  

>You loose.  Just by not using your head.

Simply put, indeed. Mark Kaufman, however, has no head. 

>Suzanne Forgach


=============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:47:04 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug26.120114.15633@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

> 
>    You people simply don't understand that just because something
> is "human life" does not make it a person.  That takes just a bit
> more time than you are willing to allow.  Human life began a long
> time ago.  But to make a person, you need one sperm, one egg, the
> willing(at least in a civilized society!) owner of a uterus, and,
> finally, nine months.  Without that period of time, I defy you to
> make a person.  Okay, I hear the viability arguments already.  So
> let's make it twenty weeks.  Okay?  Without that time period, you
> have not got a person.  Your inability to distinguish between the
> process and the final product is why you folks are so mistaken on
> the nature of a person.  Just because something may become a baby
> does not make it a baby as soon as the sperm busts through an egg
> wall.  This is why you all look so stupid when you call women who
> both have children and may have had an abortion, "baby murderer."
> These women have more love and respect for children than you hate
> filled jerks will ever know.  Your evil misrepresentation of what
> a person is, is an attempt to get law passed that will cause huge
> amounts of suffering for both women and children.  You are merely
> trying to brainwash everyone just like you brainwashed yourselves
> on this matter.  Think, people!  Take a hard look at these loving
> parents that you call baby killers.  Do they really look like the
> kind of people that like to murder children?


  Why of course not, Mark.  And as long as they have apologists like you to
salve their conscience about those destroyed potential lives, and to convince
them "that it really isn't a person --yet" they won't have to think about it
like that, either.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34345 alt.flame:12479
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Chaney's problems - call for discussion (was: Re: Garvin gets stabbed in the back! (was Re: The world according to propeller-boy - part 1
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:57:39 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Sep1.142037.13029@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>> Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHIC! How do you know these people so
>> well?

>Let me correct your typo: "Steve, you're a frigging PSYCHOTIC!"

  Makin fun of mental illness isn't funny dork. I guess I'll let this
one go though since you're obviously one desperate fella. I'd probably
be pretty dull too, if I had a ceberal cavity filled with infected pus
leftover from the last time I tried to think.

>But you're wrong, Propellor Boy, Franklin is mired too deeply in his self-pity
>to behave psychotically.  Your statement seems to be a pretty accurate self-
>assessment, though.  I like you much better when you're honest.

This is rather entertaining. Once again you made a statement Chris
that's about as substantiated as many of Hussein's eloquent points.
How do I wallow in self-pity dear friend? You may as well explain this,
because as it stands, it seems like a weak-kneed attempt at a flame. Surely
you can do better? Thanks, I look forward to your elaboration.

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: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Proposal for a moderated abortion newsgroup
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:40:51 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug31.162916.17324@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.041628.25063@rotag.mi.org> 
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>
>>>> What do people think of the idea?
>
>>> That it is not surprising that someone who desires
>>> to control what women do with their bodies would
>>> wish to control the content of people's posts.
>>> I can't imagine any other reason for restricting
>>> freedom of expression.
>
>> Did Linda consider any other possibilities, e.g. creating a SEPARATE
>> group for the purpose? Of course not. She's locked into FLAME_MODE=ON.
>> Her post attempted to slam shut any and all windows of opportunity for a 
>> useful, valuable discussion. 
>
>Hmm, maybe we should create a moderated newsgroup for discussing
>the proposed talk.abortion moderated newsgroup? :-)
>
>> I support the idea of a moderated group. Even more so after Linda's post than 
>> I did before.
>
>Would you be willing to serve as a moderator? 

I'm too controversial. Besides, the demands on my time are too variable. We
have a big system launch coming up later in the year, for instance, which 
would probably leave the moderated group launguishing for weeks at a time.

I've considered it. But it just wouldn't work. Sorry.

								- Kevin
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another Clueless Newbie
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, cswicego@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Cynthia Swicegood) writes:
>Not as clueless as you think.

What? Did you have one and now feel like it was wrong, or did someone
you know convey this wisdom to you and you now feel the world ought
to revolve around your ideas?

BTW, this is still TbBA, you really should state some facts supporting
your allegations, as everything you've posted to this point shows you
to be *way* out there in clueless land. Since it is apparent that you
read this forum, perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my post.
It would be interesting to see your opinion on the parallel case I presented.
If you cannot find it, I'll be happy to repost.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Life at Conception? [prev: Legal Questions]
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.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:13:52 GMT

In article <sexe7jq@Unify.Com> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>
>>That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion
>>- and my wife has said the same thing...
>
>[all the slams deleted]
>
>Well... Did you slam me hard enough (redundantly)?
>
>In my mind the debate over abortion comes down to whether or not the ____ is
>a zybote/fetus or a child (read human) at conception (reference my article on
>abortion in historical comparision in alt.abortion.inequity).  If it is not
>human then you can do any bloody thing you want to it (please no slams from
^^^^^^

>animal lovers), but if it _is_ human then abortion is pre-meditated murder.
                                ^^^^^

>
>You can't take your argument half way just because it gets you to where you
>want to be.  People that say the ____ is human at conception and don't consider
                                          ^^^^^

>abortion murder are self-serving people comming up with incomplete arguments.
                                  ^^^^^^

>

Note:  "Human" and "Person" are two completly different things...

>I do think that smoking and drinking during pregnancy should be illegal and
>should be considered child abuse.

Let me be the first to nominate you as the successor to Kevin C. Welch.  If
you can keep this up for another couple of weeks, we may be able to ratify
you, and then all we need is one statement from you, and you'll hold the
title.  Congratulations.

>
>As for spontaneous miscarriges, etc.  There is no intent of wrong doing, there
>is no "assistance" as someone mentioned so there is no crime - most crime does
>come down to _intent_.

Now:  How do you propose to find out whether or not a 2 month pregnant woman
had a "spontaneous miscarriage" or not?  Hmm???

>
>As for rape, incest, etc.,  Again - if you consider it life, then consider it
>life - don't go half way...  It is incredibly regretful and unfortunate that the
>life was created in such a way and I would feel for any person in such a position,
>BUT IT IS STILL LIFE (HUMAN).

Ok, so at leat you're consistant.  One point in your favor.
--
=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???=
=I am not "pro-life"... - Doug Holtsinger in article                          =
=                                          <1992Aug18.171231.1162@ncsu.edu>   =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion