HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:05:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr16.160519.21749
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <1992Apr15.011837.6584@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit
|> of happiness.
|> 

This would be great if it were correct. It is the Declaration of
Independence that mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.

|> Now the real question is:
|> 
|> are these 3 words in this order because they sound real SPIFFY together
|> or is that the order of priority???
|> 

My guess is that the order is 'cause it sounds spiffy. IMO, the
complete phrase is a good political one, full of emotion and
little actual meaning.

|> Is the Constitution guarantees life, then isn't potential human life
|> guaranteed?
|> 

It is impossible for a legal system to guarantee life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. The very purpose of laws is to restrict 
the liberty of the populous. Laws also act to restrict the ability
of the populous to pursue happiness; for example blue laws restrict
the ability of people who find that illicit sex, drugs etc are a path
to happiness to pursue happiness in that manner.

As for guarantee of life, no system of laws can guarantee that,
because legislating death out of existence does not prevent its
occuring. Nature pays little attention to the legal actions of
man.

Potential human life cannot be guaranteed by any means, again
nature don't care (miscarrages will occur regardless of what
the law may try to guarantee). Just because you have a pile
of lumber does not guarantee you will be able to create a 
house from it; the potential inherent in the basic material
does not guarantee the final product, and neither can the
legal system.

|> just a thought
|> 

Very little...

-- 
--Bruce

"The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your
 neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor is
 by endless forgiveness".
				Thomas Hopko
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres)
Subject: Re: A (Tentative) Position for Debate
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:15:40 GMT


What you're doing, James, is verbally struggling with tough issues.  This is 
good.  Many people on both sides of the debate would like us to believe that 
there is no real struggle, that everything would be easy if we only saw it 
there way.  This just ain't so.  My own post was along these same lines: an 
attempt to thrash out ideas on a difficult issue.

Even if you don't know why you're posting this, keep it up!  This is the sort 
of honest searching that many people (myself included) need to go through over 
abortion, and we need to be reminded that THIS, not vitriolic verbiage, is 
where the real debate is.

--Bill
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: A woman's choice
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:31:31 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (King of Birds) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.014319.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsrlg@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>>I believe that abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is 
>>really a "life or not.

>This is a grave injustice to humanity.  It doesn't matter if the murder is a
>life or not, it just matters if the judge feels good on that day.

Here goes Kevin again, saying something with gills and a tail is mudered.
How about that steak you had this week? Fish? Pork? Any products made
with animal parts?

>>It should simply be the woman's choice.

>And what about the man, fsrlg@acad3 ?  Does he ever have a say?

IMO, he should be able to abort his responsibility. This does occur
in most cases, I don't recall any un-married man being forced to pay
child-support, although it probably has occurred in one or two very
special cases.

>>This whole issue boils down
>>to the fact that our patriarchal American government is still trying to tell
>>women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.  THAT is not right.

>What this boils down to is whether this government will allow further killing
>of human life.

Kevin, the government sanctions the killing of human life every day
in a multitude of ways, including unsafe work areas (ever been on a
skyscraper under construction? very unsafe), legislating highway speeds
that allow one to get killed and maimed, etc...

The point here is that the government shouldn't be sticking its nose
into the private business of its citizens in an area that doesn't concern
society at all. After all, the woman is going to bear most (if not all)
the hardships of pregnancy. What gives the government the right to force
this on a woman. Are you going to force all women to have 2.5 kids?

That is the same type of legislation that you're advocating to ban abortion.

Ron
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:829 talk.abortion:15377
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:21:23 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.224944.8676@polari.com> peterd@polari.com writes:

>"No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone
>or a Porsche.  She wants an abortion as an animal, caught
>in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.  She must be met
>by our willingness to help her if our assertions that we
>value life, or that we support her choices, are to have
>any menaing at all."

   Yes, and the solution with the animal is : remove the traps
that force the animal to have to gnaw off its own leg. Well,
in society, we must remove the stigmas and concepts of the unwanted
child so that a mother doesn't feel pressured into an abortion. 
It is society who wears the blood of each abortion. The mother is
a victim as is the child.
   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
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Smokescreens; The Real Issue
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:49:41 GMT

In article <pquince.702773896@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince) writes:
>The abortion issue and debate is very much a smokescreen for
>social inactivity.  Consider:  If even a small fraction of the
>amount of effort that has been put into the tedious battle over
>pro-life, pro-choice, screaming red in the face legalizations
>ad infinitum had been directed to preventive education programs,
>thousands upon thousands of unwanted pregnancies would have been
>averted and, at least for those people, the issue would be moot.
>

Sounds good.

>As a solution, I suggest the following self-moderated heuristic
>for participation in the abortion debate.  Let none of us spend
>any time worrying about or arguing over abortion until we have 
>each put in 100 hours of community service educating students 
>on birth control (or related activity). 

That would be fine, but as one group is helping out at educating students,
the other group is working to push laws that will limit individual freedom.
Also, it is simply important to understand the issue. Most of the argumentation
you hear is due to, IMO, the fact that people do not understand the the 'other'
is coming from.

 Thereafter, each additional
>ten hours of community service entitles us to the luxury of one
>hour of participation in the debate.  Not only will this improve
>our quality of life, it will also result in more awareness on the
>subject and more credibility when we do argue.

We try to *debate* not argue.

>
>It is much easier to argue about a problem than to take real steps
>toward a solution, as a general rule.
>

Agreed.
-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: m
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:49:02 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.abortion.inequity, xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

>I define merder as neadlessly taking the life of a member of ones own
>speaches. Tiger kills Tiger  , Human kills Human, Lion kills lion- these are in
>order of lest likly--most likly.

>ELF-KIN 15 berd
>rong key agen 15 birds in 5 fir trees...... orks from the Hobbit

Who the hell are you and why can't you spell better than a second grader?

Also, there are things called editors that allow you to fix typing mistakes
when you do catch them.:)

Meanwhile, if you're going to post, post useful stuff with at least
some semblance of English spelling. I take it you are enrolled in Iowa
State. (But I could be wrong)

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- boot sector not found)
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: W A C D T F ... W a s h i n g t o n ,   D . C .
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:46:14 GMT

Where it was written: <73937@netnews.upenn.edu>
Who wrote it:         kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)

>> = Jay
>>>= Kevin

>>I would like to point out to the net readership that Kevin Welch insists
>>on deliberately misattributing my posts and (imo deliberately) attributing
>>things to me that I have not said.
>
>Where did I misquote you?

You didn't misquote me, you implied that I wrote something that I didn't, by
addressing me in your response.  But as you have already apologized for
that, I consider the matter closed.

>>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.
>
>choose Z adoption and keeping.
 ======
The operative word there is CHOOSE.  And as far as that goes I agree.
(did I say that?)
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        Pro-family,    /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         Pro-child,    <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      PRO-CHOICE.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"Starvation does not cause death."                         -- Kevin Welch
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."         -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]."        -- Mark Gaylord
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:49:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

David
>Kevin

>>That even WWII's deaths cannot equal the deaths of the unborn children
>>due to abortion.  You couldn't figure that out?


>Not to mention the billions upon billions of unborn children due to
>masturbaton and menstruation. I mean if we are going to talk about the 
>UNBORN, let's talk about the *unborn*.


Hey, Dave, get a clue.

To be born, you have to be a fetus.  To be a fetus, you have to have been
an embryo.  To be an embryo, you have to have been a zygote.  To be a zygote,
you have to have been unified by two gametes.  So when YOU masturbate, you
don't kill the unborn.

"They" are not unborn...

kcw



--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:938 talk.abortion:15685
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:23:02 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:

>I imagine a great many more unborn children died during WWII.
>Many pregnant women must have been bombed, shot, incarcerated, or
>otherwise fallen victim to the casualties of war, not to mention
>miscarriages.  Even more when you add the victims of Stalin.

You're correct about the large number of children, both born and unborn,
that died directly or indirectly from the war. My uncle was born in
1944, the winter of which was incredibly harsh on all the people in
German occuppied territory. To hear it from my mother, father, and most
of my other relatives (all living at that time in Holland), Many children
born that year died that year due to starvation ( for Welch, all those
nasty things that cause death after food is absent for a significant
period of time) and I imagine many miscarriages occurred because of
malnutrition and hunger also. My uncle was lucky enough to have survived,
they ate a lot of turnips (sounds real appetizing) when they could get
them.

Ron
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: life
Organization: Encore Computer
	<JBATES.92Apr16101459@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>
	<1992Apr16.215259.14443@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:37:54

In article <1992Apr16.215259.14443@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> shadow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Paulus) writes:

>In article <JBATES.92Apr16101459@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com> jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.220744.20050@news.iastate.edu> 
>>xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

>>	Why, it causes the death of millions of germs and bacteria.
>Yeah? So? EVERY ACTION YOU DO involves killing germs & bacteria

That's my point. Why aren't pro-lifers doing something about that?

>>	Why, it causes the death of millions of human cells.
>>
>So does scraping your knee or washing your hands.

Again, that's my point. Why aren't pro-lifers doing something about that?

>>	Why, think of the potential lives of all those parasites and bacteria
>>that could live off of your rotting corpse. Don't you think that they have
>>the right to life?
>OF COURSE they do NOT have a right to "life" as they are not human beings. Not
>superficially (i.e. "looking at it") or genetically.

	Oh, so there's something special about human beings, eh? What is it?
What gives a human being any sort of "right" to life? (Note: I am not being
sarcastic, here, but would honestly like your opinion.)

>>	So, when people receive appendectomies, the surgeons have a separate
>>support apparatus set up to preserve the life of the appendix? People take
>>them home and care for them, since they are indeed lives, and human to boot?
>>
>Appendices are not alive. Also, if would could "care" for it, the appendix
>would not grow as a fetus would.

	You're telling me that you have a mass of dead tissue inside of you?
That is the same size and shape as it was when you were a fetus? (Assuming
you haven't had an appendectomy, of course)

>I can't tell you what the poster of  the original message was thinking, but I
>believe that since A)The fetus has the full genetic material of a being
>distinct from its mother and B)will grow and develop more fully
>that it is a human life (among other reasons).

	What is so special about genetic material? Everything that is alive
contains genetic material. It's just encoded information. And no one contests
that a human fetus is both a) human, and b) alive. But as I pointed out
before, so is an appendix. And it will grow and develop, given the proper
care.

>I was wondering---what do YOU think a fetus is? What do you base your
>information? 

	A fetus is a fetus. It is "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate 
esp. after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind". It is not a
"baby", a "child", or a "person". 

>--JP--

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:58:20 GMT

<1992Apr12.163214.16964@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) said:
>In a previous article, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) says:
>
>>I don't agree with the extreme view of the above person from NARAL,
>>although I do think that contraceptive removal will be next if abortion is
>>outlawed.  
>
>Bull shit....not in this country. You will agree that a large portion

Pardon me, I meant that contraception will be the next target of the
pro-life movement.  Obviously because it allows that "irresponsible sex".

>>And chimp DNA closely resembles the human species (99% DNA
>>match). 
>
>stupid point. 

Well dickhead, if you'd have left enough of the other post in here you
might have understood the point I was making.  I responded to K. Welch
saying that the fetus "resembled" the human species.  So does a
chimpanzee.

>              there are people with genetic disorders such as
>Downs syndrome who, by DNA comparison, are way less than 99% human.
>So you're saying that they aren't human?

You are merely refuting Mr Welch here, not me.  Next time you want to
respond to someone's post you might want to leave a little more meat
intact.  You look bush league with a hatchet job like this.


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: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:37:26 EDT

> "Officer, what are you doing with that turkey baster and that nun?"
> "Sonny, we got a report that she was about to let a potential human
>  life be menstruated away.  Now, go home, and be sure not to
>  masturbate, or we'll nab you for genocide."
> 
Again, sperm and egg alone are haploid, i.e. have only half the required
chromosomes, and cannot be considered human.
A fertilized egg, however, has a complete set, and *can* be considered
to be such.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig E. Smith      "Life is a fulltime occupation" -- Gene Kallman ::
:: Columbus, Ohio                                                      ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: shane@cco.caltech.edu (Shane Sauby)
Subject: Re: "Proof?!? What proof?!?"
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:45:59 GMT

A good definition of when life begins (i.e. can almost be defined in a court
of law) is when brain activity begins.  Since this is often the definition of 
when life ENDS, then it seems logical to use the same criterium for when life
begins.  When this occurs during gestation, I don't know, but it would not be
too difficult to discover.

One other note:  Mothers can be prosecuted for endangerment of an unborn fetus
if negligence can be proven (i.e. drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc.)

Shane Sauby
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." -BB

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: next
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:52:36 GMT

last message MORALITY what awwas sead about the klaw is treuue. how acah n all someone rights as a life only if there wanted be moral to any one. ? aon adsoptionj there are a lot of couples willing to take children of a difrint ethnic bakckground or with probelmslems thousew that preferet toi not have a child with a problem mack that prefrenc out of necesity- they dont feel that they can handal it.the  the bigist problrem with cross ethnic adoptions is the agencys them selves, tr




h
ignoignor trh- they seem to feal that it would casuse confusion fort the chidren. as for bakck refrincing i just descovered the news and subscribed the uther day. you need to pay less head to the medea and look for the facts. 
when it comes to an atempt at spelling I HAVE BEEN ATEMTING ALL OF NFOR MOST OF MY LIFE TO OVERCOME MY DISGRAFEA AND I FIND IT FRIRATEATING WHIN PEAOPLE TOSS IT BAKCK AT ME EXSPECHALY WHIN IT IS ELRELEVEN.
if you don'nt knoe w what digrafea is look it up.
as for sining my name i chouse not to - not just hear but every ware -
ELF-KIN is my handal the only news group i dont singn with /ELF-KIN is alt.evel
I sign that one with INSANITY RUILES!!!
if you dont beleve me check alt.aquareaa .
My real name is angeANGELA KAY ROLLING but to you its KAY                      
i thi8nk that on alt.prose i will leve my insignesa

ELF-KIN  we are but on ee race -the human race!
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Amazing...
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:22:32 GMT
Organization: No Place like home, Toto
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

>Translation:  you're not intimidating people into acting like YOU think they
>should, so they *must* be unable to have an intelligent discussion.  The
>world doesn't revolve around your particular definition of responsibility.

Translation:  You have no life.  You have no brain.  You have no clue.
Wow! Somethings never change.  You could not be further from the truth!
And I guess you still believe condoms are "safe-sex."  Now there is an
oxymoron for you!  ("Safe-sex" for those of you keeping score at home.)
And get this, a rubber glove (8 times thicker than the average condom) was
once found to have a channel all the way through it that was 1 micron wide.
Big deal you say, well the AIDS virus is only .1 - .3 of a micron in size.
Tests for condoms do not even check for holes as small as a micron!

	Ok, on to the topic that should be at hand.  I believe this group
is for equity over abortion, so what does that mean?  Are we suppossed to
discuss whether or not a man can force a woman to have/have not an
abortion?  Or, can a woman force another woman to have/have not an
abortion (like mother  forcing daughter?)?  If a man does not want a woman
to have an abortion, can the woman force her opinion her partner?  Is this
what this group is for?  Do we really need another group for this?  My
answers: nothing, would be nice, no, no, maybe, no.

	And as for my little Rice-patty friend, my plates are XIT2DOS.


bsl


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racism knows no colour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:813 talk.abortion:15330