HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:24:52 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr7.063408.4844@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

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

>Including "judge not, lest ye be judged"?

   I am not doing the judging. God has already done that. God has
given us the message, and left us to deal with it. Wel, I'm dealing
with it. Perhaps I do fall into a judgemental state occassionally,
but more often I just voice the beliefs of the Catholic church,
and the message of God. They're pretty good people to have on your
team... 8)
   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: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: You want to win.
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:10:02 GMT


In a previous article, dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) says:

>Right now in talk.abortion we have two pro-lifers pretending to be
>pro-choice.  They post real stupid pro-choice arguments in an attempt
>to make the pro-choice side look bad.  Unfortunately for them, it hasn't
>worked because they end up getting flamed by real pro-choicers that
>can see their asinine arguments for what they are.  The only
>explanation for someone to post such a stupid argument as that above is
>that it must be a pro-choicers posting crap like this to make the
>pro-life side look stupid.  So come on Steve, who are you really?


i think that each and every person has a right to determine who and
what they are. Believe it or not, this issue does not have
two DISTINCTIVE sides. There are shades of grey around here.

Just because someone isn't as pro-choice or pro-life as you doesn't
make them the opponent. this proves someones narrow-mindedness.





-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.160221.8122@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>OK Kevin Darcy, support this.  I have argued against the reforms presented
>>SO FAR, certainly, because in my mind they create even MORE inequality than
>>the inequality that I see CURRENTLY exists.
>>
>>However, in the posting in question, I'm not 'telling him', as Larry so 
>>obviously pointed out.  In the context of this article that makes me
>>non-duck. 
>>
>>You are wrong, Kevin.  Just plain blind, dead wrong.
>
>You are telling him that the legal status quo is morally acceptable, and
>that it is OkayFineHunkeyDorey for the state to enforce this schema of
>rights and responsibilities upon all involuntary fathers.

Horseshit, Darcy, and I notice you don't manage to support what you claimed./
I have in fact made my *OWN* proposals which I've mentioned both in this
group and in other groups over the past few years.  Not that I'd automatically
expect you to have read these gems, of course, but it just goes to show
that one cannot ASSUME one knows what each and every poster on the net is
doing/thinking/posting.

It's a mistake you make all too damned often, Darcy.  Are you incapable
of learning anything?

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


But that's not what I did, now is it, Kevin?  That *is* the claim you made,
though, and one you haven't supported.  Surprise surprise.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:46:49 GMT

mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:

>again.....how many happily married couples have abortions?????

Sigh.  Sorry, Elizabeth, but it looks like you're going to have to set
someone straight *again*.  What's this, thrice in a fortnight or something?

For your information, Matthew, I'm happily married, and I imagine that
if our contraception were to fail tomorrow, my wife probably would decide
to get an abortion.  We simply cannot manage a child or a pregnancy at this
point in our lives.  

>Funny..... abortion seems to be used by a certain type of person

That is *quite* enough.  Cut the innuendo, Matthew.  If you want to say
"if you had an abortion, it means you're a slut and scummy because you
had sex outside of marriage", then say it.  None of this "a certain type
of person" crap.  It doesn't wash.

Say what you mean--and then watch the laughter.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: A rather peculiar letter.
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:50:08 GMT

In article <rd922INNlom@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>
djd@east.sun.com (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:

>In your discussion of "black and white boxes," I sensed what it is
>that you fail to understand about the Pro-Life side---or at least
>my side. I accept only one "box," into which I invite all with even
>the most controversial claim to admission; hell, those of us who
>came over from the Civil Rights movement would say *especially* those
>with the most extremely controversial claim to membership in the
>human community.

Glad to hear you think haploid humans deserve membership in this
community of sentients.  I had thought James Purdon and I were the
only supporters of haploid humanity on talk.abortion.  Let me explain
haploid human's admittedly "controversial claim to membership in the
human community."

Jim Purdon has pointed out on t.a. that the human species alterates
between generations of diploid and haploid organisms.  A diploid male
or female has haploid offspring by asexual reproduction.  We call the
haploid offspring of female diploid humans "eggs" and "polar bodies"
and the haploid offspring of male diploid humans "sperm".  English
does not possess the proper gender terms to use for haploid humans; in
this post, I use the term "female-neuter" for eggs and polar bodies,
"male-male" for sperm with a Y chromosome, and "male-female" for sperm
with an X chromosome.

Regrettably, haploid humans have a very short life expectancy.  Eggs
can only survive for a week or so, polar bodies usually survive a day
at most before being eaten by the eggs, and sperm of both genders can
only survive for five or six days at most.  Also regrettably, haploid
humans (like both haploid and diploid members of many species --
salmon, mayflies, etc.) die immediately after reproduction.  This
reproduction is sexual reproduction between a female-neuter egg and a
sperm of either gender (polar bodies are uniformly infertile).  If the
sperm is male-male, the result is a male diploid human; if male-
female, the result is a female diploid human.  In either case, we
refer to the diploid human as a "zygote".

The development of diploid humans is reasonably well known on
talk.abortion; if the diploid human survives long enough the "zygote"
becomes an "embryo" and then a "fetus" and is removed from its female
diploid human grandmother.  After this event, termed "birth", the
diploid human must still wait several years (anywhere from nine to
eighteen, depending on the individual and whether the haploid human is
male or female) before sexual maturity, when he or she then begins
producing haploid human offspring.

Haploid humans thus deserve admission into the single box you admit in
the human community and protection equal that given to any other human.

--
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: ursic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:36:52 EST

In article <1992Apr16.173658.4125@ncsu.edu>, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
 (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
> The sperm and the unfertilized egg are not potential human beings.
> No matter how much nurturing support they receive, they can never 
> become human beings.

Thank you for your answer, Doug. I guess we view the term "potential"
differently. You apparently view "potential" as only requiring "nurturing"
support, were I see "fertilizing and nurturing" support as potential also.
Either the sperm or egg becomes a zygote or it dies. Either a zygote 
implants and becomes an embryo or it dies, and so on and so on.

> A zygote is a potential human being, since a zygote has the potential
> to become a human with sufficient nurturing. 

Now the question is why is it wrong to kill this potential human being
since it is not a human being yet?
 
>> Would you refuse to disconnect life support systems when the
>> ability to think is gone?
> 
> Your question is too vague. Is this person related to me? Are they
> in a coma? What kind?  

I meant "Brain Dead". It was asked because the previous poster seemed to
indicate that a living human being was defined by number of chromosomes.
Why would relationship mean anything? Unless you feel the parents should
make the decision as to whether or not to continue providing "nurturing"
support to a human being which has no brain activity as opposed to a legal
system. This I could fully support, especially for potential life.
 
>> One last question, if a zygote is an individual human being, should
>> a woman be allowed to prevent it from implanting into her uterus, thus
>> allowing it to seek implantation elsewhere? Thanks -J.J.
> 
> Yes, a woman should have the right to refuse to support the zygote.
> But that does not justify abortion, since an abortion is designed 
> to kill the developing human life. Killing a human life has greater
> moral significance than refusing to support that life, in my opinion. 

Your view allows pills which prevent implantation. This is not the
typical pro-life view I have been exposed to as a Catholic. It's a
more liberal Pro-life view:) Thanks J.J.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Dances with Moralists
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:27:11 GMT

rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

>"I seee you're taking my daughter out
>sinning again," the inevitable answeer was, "No, Sir. We're going dancing
>this week. We're going sinning next week."
>
>Then he pulled out of the driveway. Fast.

I LOVED it, Nora!  Thanks a bunch.  I laughed at this for a long time.
Thanks for the comic relief!
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
From: lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:08:02 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL

>Message-ID: <1992Apr14.013357.29903@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)

[STUFF DELETED]
>But so was my brother when he was born 2 months early. He needed
>life support. HE COULDN'T SURVIVE BY HIMSELF!

>Now.......does that make him not living??????


*I* couldn't say, I don't know him. :-)


Susy@ksc
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                     $ @disclaimer opinions are mine                        |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Susy Lockhart            |  " I like to think big.  If you're going to     |
 | EG & G Florida           |    be thinking anyway, you might as well        |
 | Kennedy Space Center     |    think big."                 Donald Trump     |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                  email:  lockhart@kscdl3.ksc.nasa.gov                      |
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:59:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.225929.3103
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) says:

>In article <1992Apr12.163843.17077@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>>
>Hey, Shit-For-Brains!!!!
>
>(Here we go again:  Yet another pro-life-male-virgin-without-even-half-a-clue
>is going to try and tell women how to run their lives...)
>

BTW, get your facts right. I'm pro-choice and not a virgin. I just don't
trust man/womankind. We've messed up too many times in the past to
assume that we are always doing the right thing, no matter how much we
rationalize our actions. Life is Russian Roullette.

Later


-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: brownstn@leland.Stanford.EDU (Lee Stewart Richardson)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:02:03 GMT


Why does everything that comes through here have to deal with religion?  I've 
just seen someone in here admit that their religion is "unexplainable" and
that, among the lucky few who have gotten it(had it described to them through some mysterious medium), even the Pope can screw up. Your superstition is
 nothing I'd like to base our laws and government on (remember that separation
of church and state thing), and I doubt if you would contend that it is. Rather than telling us how close you and God are (which is quite special), why not
ask him to let you know how to convince us infidels of his divine will.  
Your unsubstantiated tirades just don't cut it here.  I guess we either need
faith (i.e. some unsubstantiated faith in a fairy tale world based on a book
that wasn't intended to be read literally anyway), divine intervention 
(since God's normal modes of communication don't appear to be getting through
here, or we'll have to keep on basing our decisions on logic and concern for
those who are alive, sentient, and able to make their own decisions without
your insistent but undesired aid.  If you do feel so wise that you can tell
others what to do (based, of course, on your hotline to an abstraction), then
maybe you ought to do some good with yourself by adopting babies that already
exist or helping the homeless or even going to Africa where tens of thousands
die of hunger daily.  As for your remarkable devotion to living masses of
tissue and cells, why not just adopt something growing on a petri dish and
save it.  But please, let us die in hell, killed by a judgemental creator who
created so imperfect a world, go to church and bow to your Great Abstraction,
but leave government and individual decisions to those of us who live in this
world.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:25:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
->In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca
->(Steve Fran klin) writes: 
->>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
->>writes:


->>BTW, anyone read where they think AIDS originated? It appears the virus
->>was introduced into the human blood pool in the 1920s or 30s by scientists
->>injecting malaria-infected chimp blood into human subjects, to see if
->>the malaria would take. Talk about stupid scientific endeavors (hindsight).

->   Hee hee... I have shares in the moon I will sell you Ron if you're
->interested... In any case, more likely is the references I have heard where
->humans have been bitten by the (green?) monkey of Africa. Doesn't really
->matter who started it. You should be more concerned with who spreads it,
->and how we can stop it... Now have I suggested my contraceptive? Oh yes,
->I believe I have... I won't dwell on it more.

>Ah, yes, Steve.  Who *IS* spreading AIDS nowadays.  According to the CDC
>(January, 1992) upwards of 60% of the new HIV infections occuring in 1992
>are going to be cause by HETROSEXUALS.  While homosexual males still constitue
>the majority of cases of people already infected with HIV, or contracted AIDS,
>the majority of new infections are occuring in the HETROSEXUAL community.

>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
>disease".  Anybody can get it.

Steve probably thinks it is. But then, he probably doesn't know that
in Kenya(I think) 60%-80% of the population has AIDS, and it is primarily
heterosexual. (Yes, Steve, you can look those figures up, they're fairly
accurrate, in the sense they were obtained from a sample of the population)

>This message brought to you by somebody who's seen too many good people die
>already.

Sorry to hear that. ;<

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:02:26 GMT

compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
>>of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.
>>Logic wins again.

>Hmmmm.  Maybe it could be the other way around.  You don't so much as prove
>this with logic, you just assert it.

Wrong, mastermind.  Her statement flat out stated that "...procreation 
is NOT the primary reason for sex."  I merely refuted her universal
negative.  But then, you probably knew that, didn't you?  You must have
to INTENTIONALLY TAKE ME OUT OF CONTEXT.  Shitbrain.

profamilyprochildrenpromarriageprolifeproGodprounbornbabiespromeateatingpro
animalresearchprohuntingpromen     Kevin     prowomenprosocraticmethodhence
prointellectproamericanbutalso    Brawley    proqualityprolowertaxesprohome
schoolingprostrongdefenseprocharitybutnotprosocialistwelfarestateproliberty
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kogutt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SCAVENGER)
Subject: Re: INFO NEEDED!!!(really quickly like,too)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:35:56 GMT

Hi again.  While reading through T.A. last night (about 800+ articles in all)
I came across mentions of both a "Guide to T.A." that a poster had written and a
T.A. FAQ.

If possible, could someone send me these via E-Mail.
Again thank you all for any help.

----Todd Kogutt

-- 
If some unemployed punk in New Jersey, can     |kogutt@ucsu.colorado.edu <-I.NET
get a cassette to make love to Elle McPherson  |
for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going|No matter where you go,
to make crack look like Sanka. -  Dennis Miller| there you are."-Buckaroo Banzai
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
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.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:02:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.052632.3916@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>
>>kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) rants to muriel:
>>-> Standard Pro-Death tactics is to scream their opinion while
>>-> trying to shut others out.
>
>>it's odd you'd say that. i don't believe i've ever heard a single
>>"Pro-Death" person scream. no doubt, this is because i don't know
>>any "Pro-Death" people, which is also odd. because i've been
>>around this newsgroup a long, long time while you have just
>>arrived.  still, you deserve the benefit of the doubt i suppose.
>>so, please list the name of the people you call "Pro-Death" along
>>with some evidence that they are "Pro-Death." then we can move on
>>to this screaming business. once you take care of this wee
>>matter, i'm sure any questions as to your integrity will be
>>answered.
>
>Glad to oblige.  
>
>1. The fetus (human or not) is a life.
>2. When you terminate the life you bring death.
>3. Hence people wanting the ability to bring death (ie. so-called Pro-Choicers)
>   are Pro-Death.
>
>Commence Screaming.

This Kevin is also obviously majoring in "Logic" at upenn...

(And, gee, Kevin, why don't I find it suprising that you're "prohuntingpromen"
"butnotprosocialistwelfarestate" in your .sig????
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion