HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life begins at ...
Date: 28 Jan 93 12:02:02 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1993Jan27.075023.3495@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

> Anyone who asserts that genes make each person unique is operating in
> a state of extreme ignorance and/or naivite.  To claim that anyone is
> solely the product of their genes is easily refuted by pointing out
> that one's knowledge of set theory, quantum physics, or LR(1) parsers
> is NOT instinctual and is, in fact, learned.

Are you saying that you must have learned something to be human?  
Even before we learn set theory, we are capable of learning set theory 
which distinguishes us from other life forms which are not.  And a
single cell human has the capacity to grow to the point at which that 
human will have the capacity to learn.  Skin cells do not have that 
capacity.  Nor does an unfertilized egg.  Thus the death of a skin 
cell or of an unfertilized egg is distinctly different from the death 
of a single cell human or 8-cell human.  The killing of the latter is 
murder, the killing of the former is not.

Sue Hasselbring

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
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: None worth mentioning.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 18:33:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.162221.9374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <casivils.727566210@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>Tit for Tat,
>>
>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of 
>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school 
>>private or public of their choice.
>>
>>                                Craig
>
>Oh come on!  This quiz is too easy.  The answer is because when they 
>say choice, they don't mean choice...they mean abortion.
>
>You can tell that this is true by the was "pro-choicers" react any 
>time anyone tries to do anything that might decrease the number of 
>abortions that occur.
>
Hardly. Pro-Choicers get upset when you try to do things to restrict a
womans choices. If you would care to attempt something to reduce the
*need* for abortions, instead of just trying to impose your will on
others by passing laws restricting the availability of *all* options,
you won't find much opposition.
Of course, addressing the causes of abortion means you're going to
have to do some serious sex education, contraceptive education, and
research into more effective, cheaper, and easier to use
contraceptives. You'll find opposition there. From the Pro-Life
factions, of course.
Sorry to see you've flunked a quiz which 'is too easy'. Says something
about you, I guess.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: The Pope and AIDS (was Re: O.R. protest against homosexuals on CSPAN)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:38:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.063725.3042@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

}                            If everyone started tomorrow living by
}what the Pope teaches, AIDS would be stopped cold.

I didn't know the Pope taught against blood tranfusion, birth, or
according to you, seeing a dentist...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Sue Hasselbring appears delusional.
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:10:50 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1993Jan28.113113.2171@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
hasselbring@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes: 

>Abortion is crime if it is murder, which it is since it kills a human 
>being.  Just because many judges refuse to acknowledge that doesn't 
>make it right.

I have to believe that poor Sue is delusional or attempting to appear
ignorant in order to discredit the forced pregnancy side of the issue.
Abortion is neither murder nor a crime; it is quite legal.  Her
paranoid fantasy about judges needs to be expanded to include police,
prosecutors, etc.  I hope she recovers soon.

>But how do we avoid other forms of surgery?  By avoiding the things 
>that cause the disease which makes them necessary.  It seems that some 
>people consider pregnancy a disease - something that is wrong with 
>someone's body, something that is not working the way it should.  But 
>pregnancy is actually the way the body is supposed to work.  So, since 
>abortion does not serve to stop or remove disease as surgeries do, 
>your argument does not stand.  

Abortion serves to remove an unwanted entity from using the resources
of a legal person that does not want their bodily resources used.  In
that sense it is analogous to removing a tumor.  Sue seems to be
arguing that the cause of the condition is relevant to whether or not
the state should intervene to prevent its treatment.  I find no
sensible justification for such use of scarce state resources.

SJM


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True 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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:51:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.000916.20341@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.181412.6771@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In a thread he no doubt can't follow at all, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
>>(Mike Cobb) blurts out another inanity:
>>
>>>Could someone please explain why it is not "violating her [or his] right to 
>>>bodily autonomy" when we kill the fetus?
>>>
>>In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
>>person. 
>
>This is a ridiculous statement. All living organisms have varying degrees of 
>bodily autonomy. Only some of those organisms have their bodily autonomy 
>legally protected.
>
Since this is talk.abortion Kebbin, it should be self evident to any
thinking person that the bodily autonomy mentioned is specifically
that of a person, and legally protected. But if it'll make you happy,
here:
In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.

Happy now Kibble?
My language may have been 'loose' Kebin, but at least I'll correct it.
Are you now ready to admit that you were incorrect in your usage of the
word 'schizophrenia' instead of 'mpd'? If not, you are simply
displaying your hypocrisy again.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
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: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:42:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.000136.29987@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.223345.12792@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>>If the abortion industry weren't such a lucrative business and profits
>>were'nt involved, perhaps this would be a trustworthy option.  However,
>>when money is involved, even the best people can be tempted to overlook
>>the good of the patient.
>Huh? Mr. Emery, PPFA, for instance, is a non-profit organization,
>therefore (by definition) profit is not involved. As far as
>I know, abortions are not particularly lucrative. Ob/Gyn's get
>much more money for a birth than for an abortion.

An early aboriton only costs $2-300 in most places. Any delivery will
add another 0 onto that.
Where the money gets big is in premature infants, so I suppose next
we'll see the twits claiming that physicians are inducing labor
early just for the cash.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Estimates of the incidence of illegal abortions
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:11:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.145214.17893@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1993Jan22.130133.15616@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
#decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
##dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#
### Tsk, tsk, you should really follow threads more carefully before
### you open your mouth.  In a reply to Edward Simmonds, Ms. Garvin
### did indeed suggest that her estimates of the number of illegal 
### abortions during the 19th century could be applied to today's
### situation:
### 
###  +# The incidence of illegal abortion in 1860 has NOTHING to do with the 
###  +# ruling in Roe v Wade in 1973.  Comparing medical practices across this 
###  +# vast time is like comparing a slide rule with a supercomputer.  
### 
###    Actually, it has something to do with it.  
### 
###        <C0wM37.KE2.1@cs.cmu.edu#
###         garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
#
## Oh yes, that is correct.  That's what Susan said.  She is right
## in that the laws against abortion put in place in he 19th century
## were partly motivated by the dangerous nature of the procedure, and
## that the Roe v Wade decision may in part have been motivated by
## the fact that illegal abortions were far more dangerous in 1973 than
## legal abortions.  
#
#Kaflowitz, look at the quote above.  Read it carefully.  

Remember that DODie ripped it out of context.  Remember that
he doesn't remember the original article in this thread.

#I see
#Ms. Garvin suggesting that the *incidence* of illegal abortion
#in 1860 has "something to do" with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in
#1973.  Look at the Subject line which Ms. Garvin wrote.  It mentions 
#"incidence".  Throughout this entire thread, Ms. Garvin has not 
#even mentioned the relative dangers of abortion in 1860 and 1973.   
#That subject was not raised in this thread until now.  

This statement is not correct.  The subject was raised in my
original article.  Reverend Holtsinger may not read text
that he deletes, but that doesn't mean that the text was
never posted.

#You're doing
#a piss poor job of helping Ms. Garvin back-pedal from her earlier
#suggestion. 

I'm not backpedalling, unless you've redefined the word "backpedal"
to mean "proving that Reverend Holtsinger is lying."

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:04:03 CST

In article <Jan26.010511.74729@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.093753.3864@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <lm1g5pINNegu@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>|> 
>|> >A _very_ admirable position.  As I've said before, religious arguments to
>|> >support U.S. code just wouldn't apply to anyone not in that religion but
>|> >still a U.S. citizen.  My stance, in that light, is non-religious (unless
>|> >someone can point out any flaws in my reason):  A fetus' liberty is as
>|> >equally valuable as that of anyone else, and furthermore, when one or
>|> >the other's liberty must be compromised, the law should choose the least
>|> >restrictive course.
>|> >
>|> How can the fetus' liberty be valuable?  Of necessity, it is 
>|> on a very short leash.  It is in the nature of a fetus to
>|> have very little liberty.  Whenever I see the argument that
>|> fetuses should have the same rights/liberties as anyone else,
>|> I always wonder, how are you going to go about allowing them
>|> to peaceably assemble?
>
>	The same thing could be said about paraplegics...
>	Lack of capacity to exercize rights does not imply no rights.
>
>Steve

Hi Steve.

I see your attitude towards the physically disabled is
just as appropriate as your attitude towards women.
FYI, paraplegics can and do peacefully assemble without
trampling on the rights of others. 

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:14:21 GMT
Organization: Boulder CO

> = dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The label "anti-choice" is not a correct characterization of
>the pro-life position.  [...] If it were possible to transfer the child
>to another person's care without killing the child, then few
>pro-lifers would be opposed to the choice to "terminate a pregnancy".

An interesting hypothetical, but since this is *not* possible, the reality
is that pro-lifer's *are* opposed to the choice to 'terminate a pregnancy'.

>The label "pro-abortion" is a correct characterization of the
>pro-choice position.  Pro-choicers not only want the right to
>choose to "terminate a pregnancy", but also the right to choose 
>to have the child executed in the womb if the child happens to be
>mentally retarded or physically handicapped or of the wrong sex. 

I don't suppose there's any point in mentioning it, but your credibility
really suffers when you make statements like this.

-Brian
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57609 talk.religion.misc:27414 alt.atheism:26908
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:38:03 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> From article by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
-> > forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
-> > -> by chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman):
-> > -> > So what would Jesus do with a woman who didn't want to be pregnant?
-> > -> 
-> > -> Offer to provide her with what both she and her baby needs, so that they
-> > -> both "may have life and have it more abundantly".
-> > 
-> > i just relayed your offer to a couple of young,
-> > pregnant women at the local planned parenthood
-> > center. they asked that you, or another of jesus'
-> > spokespersons draw up an agreement guaranteeing them
-> > their needs. 
-> > 
-> > they were particularly enchanted with the idea of
-> > abundance.
-> 
-> Abundance of life, Keegan.  Even if you don't know what
-> that could possibly mean, other folks do.

those two young women certainly knew what abundance
was for them.

-> > how long will it take jesus, or his spokesperson, to
-> > begin negotiations on these contracts?
-> 
-> You relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to me, and
-> I will relay their names, addresses, and phone numbers to friends
-> of Jesus.

suzanne, this may be difficult for you to grasp, but
try. if your god is going to offer there young women
abundance, and offer abundance to any others who
want it, he/she certainly doesn't need me or you for
secretarial services. providing abindacne is a big
job, you know. assuming you're telling the truth,
i'm certain all of the logistical and delivery
systems are already in place. i mean, what kind of
person would offer abundance and then not be
prepared to provide it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:27:28 CST

In article <C1HKB3.8Jr@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>You forgot Muriel's immortal words descibing the unborn's use of a woman's
>"body as its sewage system"  I know it would be interesting to hear a response
>to you question regarding pro-life women ( those poor misguided souls) - don't
>hold your breath, Doug.
>
>- Paul
>
I believe this is the _second_ time I've corrected you
on this misquote.  Those are not my words.  Document
this quotation or retract it.

muriel
standard disclaimer
From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: PHoney's primer on the tools of pro-force communication.
Keywords: shown, proven, connotations
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:20:12 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <nyikos.728156821@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes the usual
incomprehensible stew.  However, there are passages that are so
precious that I decided to pull them.  They form a primer of pro-force
communication.  Anyone who follows these rules can produce an
incomprehensible argument in favor of forced pregnancy:  

(1) Discuss how the posting software has been an obstacle for you:

>A few days ago I started a thread, "The ball's in your court, Larry"
>involving a post which apparently defaulted to the local net a long time
>ago, and of which I sent him a copy about a week ago.

(2) Discuss how you made all sorts of assumptions, which you claim
were reasonable, but somehow did not hold true.  Perhaps most
importantly you also have to claim that this *actually* ended up
helping you.

>  I expected Larry
>to fix up that post with some additions of his own, addressing the issues
>in the post, just as he "posted something for me" a while back, but adding
>lots of comments of his own, and what looked like a tangle of barbed 
>wire in the left hand margin.  Come to think of it, it's probably just
>as well he did not do that, and I get to post it in more or less its
>original form.

(3) Use parentheses and square brackets to confuse your message
completely:

>The post is germane to a number of minor altercations I have had with
>Larry (and even with Mark Cochran) this past month.  Larry accused me
>of having lied about him, and this post contains one of the two cases known
>to me where he accused me of lying with the evidence there next to his
>accusation.  [There may have been others.]  The other case has been cleared
>up already: I accused him of making selective deletions, he said I was
>lying, I pointed out what I considered to be a selective deletion, and then
>Larry let me know that he had a very selective definition of "selective
>deletion" which allowed him to accuse me of an untruth (though hardly a
>lie) with impunity in this case. [He also uses a definition of "lie" that
>makes it synonymous with "untruth".] 

(4) Insult those pro-choice people who have been foolish enought to
try to engage in dialog with you:

>Anyway, here too [below] we have a case of me interpreting his words 
>one way, him interpreting them another, and him at least *appearing* to
>accuse me of lying [you can't always tell with Larry] as a result.
>
>Also, Mark Cochran has accused me of being condescending towards people,
>in that I used words to the effect, "Now, come on, Son."  In this post appear
>THREE of the FIVE such expressions I recall using in the last SIX months,
>and I will let readers judge how justified I was in using them.

(5) Most importantly, bore them to death with endless reproduction of
previous posts and pro-force rants:

>Here we go:

119 lines deleted.

>Peter Nyikos

SJM
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: sexist assumptions
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:00:54 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes ...
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>Man A's condom breaks, woman has abortion, man A pays no child support.
>>>>Man B's condom breaks, woman has child, man B pays $200,000.
>
>>Man A and man B have acted identically.  But only man B can be "fined"
>>(and indeed possibly imprisoned).  Why the difference?
>
>Because man B has a child that he is obliged to support.  Man A does not.

This is not correct.

Man B had sex with a women who has a child that he is obligated to
support.  In most cases, the woman has the child and the man has the
payments.  That is a rather different thing entirely.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Apology for insults
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:53:20 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <30121@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>She altered an attribution line so it would read that way.  Ron Bense
>>agreed with this when he claimed that irony is lost on me.  Documentation

>Pete,

>    A quick note to explain some basics to you. Claiming that irony
>is lost on someone does not mean that the one stating so agrees with
>anything said by those using the said irony. Please do not place words
>in my mouth (I'm quite capable of forming my own:).

What's your point, Ron?  Read my words again.
 I "accused" you of agreeing with me, not
with agreeing with Susan.  Are you deficient in reading comprehension?

Peter Nyikos
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:42:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.032448.7399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.727624498@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <1993Jan20.055842.12539@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>
>>>This is obviously false, as anyone who has read your bilge can
>>>testify.
>>
>>Oh, you can say anything about the empty set.
>>
>>"Mark Cochran supports infanticide, as anyone who has watched him kill and
>>carve up a healthy, but unwanted neonate for 1 heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys,
>>1 liver, and 2 corneas can testify, as can anyone who watched him testify
>>that he did it to save the lives of 6 WANTED babies and the sight of two
>>others."
>>
>Unless you can produce proof that I have ever done such a thing, I
>insist tha tyou retract this obvious lie, you repulsive slug.

HAHAHA!! There is no "lie" there, Mark, merely references to the empty set.
Looks like you flunked Nyikos' little Set Theory Quiz. Badly.

Time for a remedial class, Mark...

<snicker>

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion