HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 19:41:33 GMT

In a previous article, mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) wrote:
>In article <C0FAKM.1rE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
> 
>>The woman incurs the responsibility to suffer virtually any amount of
>>physical damage, yes.  There would of course be exceptions depending on
>>the specifics of this "damage".  There is no way to make a man physically
>>at risk for his partners pregnancy.  The father has a financial and
>>moral responsibility towards his children.  
>>
>Nice to know that you don't mind forcing others to take risks which
>you, yourself, are unable/unwilling to undergo.
>Heather, perhaps this one will be willing to take you up on your
>contractual offer wrt using his body to save a fetus?

I can give it a try, but I doubt he will.  But first, let me just say that 
credit for the idea goes to Keith Cochran.


Okay, Mr. Simmonds.  You've told us you expect women to allow their bodies to 
be used to keep a fetus alive.  Are YOU willing to do what you would demand of 
pregnant women?

Here's your change to save a fetus.  All you have to do is allow your body to 
be used for nine months.  Sure, their are some risks and some pain involved, 
but I'm sure you won't mind, since after all, it's only temporary, and doing 
so will allow a fetus to be born.  Besides, I'm sure you wouldn't want to 
force women to do things that you yourself are unwilling to do, right?  I 
mean, that would make you a total hypocrite.

Here's what's involved.  If I get pregnant, I will promise not to have an 
abortion.  I will allow my body to be used by this fetus for nine months.  But 
during this nine months, you must promise that you, too, will allow your body 
to be used.  Your body will be used by my brother, who enjoys having sex with 
men.  Just as I have no say in what the fetus does to my body, you will have 
no say in what my brother does to your body.  

By allowing my brother to use your body for just nine months, you will be 
guaranteeing that my fetus will not be aborted.  You will be protecting the 
life of this unborn baby.  If you do not agree to this, I will stick with my 
original plan and abort any unwanted pregnancies.  The fetus will die unless 
your body can be used.

So, Mr. Simmonds, what do you say?  Are you willing to let your body be used 
so that a fetus will be born?  Or will you just safely stand off to the side 
and hypocritically continue to insist that unwilling women should be forced to 
do what you yourself will not do?

Anxiously awaiting your reply...

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
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: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:45:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.004633.19382@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[All of DODies child abuse stories deleted]

And just think how many *more* children would suffer thiese fates if
you and your pro-foce buddies ever managed to remove abortion as an
option. Perhaps if some of those children (by children, I am refering
to the 13-17 year old mothers in your stories) had been exposed to
some real sex ed, and given an opportunity to make some choices, they
would not have resorted to murder.
Of course, you're all for forcing them to keep that baby, even if they
don't want it, aren't you DODie?

--
                  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: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:33:52 GMT

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>> In talk.abortion, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>>>> 
>>>>>> considering forced birth as the alternative.
>>>> 
>>>>>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.
>>>> 
>>>> Then please explain the ripping of flesh, for starters. Sounds like
>>>> *force* to me. Breathing doesn't do that....
>>>
>>>But ceasing to breath brings instant death, doesn't it.  100% of the time.
>> 
>> Please explain how being forced into giving birth (by having no
>> other legal choice) is far less 'forced' than being forced to breathe.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Breathing and birth are both simply biological processes.   It is absurd
>to think that anyone could legally force a biological process on anyone.
>But just so's you can put it in perspective, ceasing to breath brings
>extremely quick, for all practical purposes instant, death, whereas
>birth in the vast majority of cases does not.   Therefore, it makes far
>more sense to speak of breathing as forced, than it does to speak of
>birth as such.

Hey, I think I figured out what she thinks she's talking about!  She is
comparing forced-breathing to forced-birth.  She must be thinking of the
instant death that comes from breathing in toxic gasses.  (hydrogen cyanide
if you consider 30 seconds to be "instant")

She is obviously assigning a negative result to "being forced to breathe"
in comparison to the negative (but much less so) result of forced into
giving birth.  (See her sentence up there.)  I guess we were supposed to
understand that this was meant in the context that the person is in a gas
chamber or something, boy do we feel dumb now.

>You guys are so dumb.

Get a clue!  On second thought, get a marshmallow, you can toast it on the
*flames* you're getting.

>SF

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and e-mail
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:16:02 GMT

In article <1ihjggINN4a3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>I will not *bother* showing you the *courtesy* of sending further e-mail
>to make up for your flaky newsreader, or your foolish vanity for about 
>another .... hmmm ..... nearly 3 months.  And *that's* assuming you actually
>manage to apologize for _your_ slander of me, idiot.

SLANDER?! SLANDER?! Oh, pleeeeez, gimme a break! 


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>Who's "we", white man?
	- Adrienne Regard
  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Apology for insults
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:20:32 GMT



Even though I will never be given an apology for racist comments made
at me, it seems some pro-lifers want me to bend over for Patrick
Humphrey and apologize for slamming on his wife. 

I will not under any circumstances allow Peter Nyikos or anyone else,
think that I am going to comply without a major protest.


#1 - Chris Lyman has threatened to remove my access by sending my
sysadmin a copy of my .sig of Patrick Humphrey. 
#2 - Patrick was the one who first brought up his wife by saying he
wished I was in his wife's position. This is something that my critics
have somehow conveniently forgot, for some reason. And as we know and
as it happens in real life every day, you drag a third party into the
insult match, you pay the piper when the recipient of your actions
decides to use them as flamebait. Consider: Dale Ann would not be a
target of my jokes, aimed to send a message to Patrick that I am
easily just as tough and fierce as he will ever me.. IF he had not
mentioned her and said he wished I was in her condition, first.
#3 - Patrick has also openly claimed he will never apologize for
making racist comments at me. He has also claimed that now, referring
to me in the words "your fat black ass" is not racist. 


It is amazing how silent pro-choicers are, on these issues. I do not
live by the idea that I have to play Ghandi with people who have no
sense of kindness or fairness. With these people there is, always has
been, and always will be, one and only one rule: give them a piece of
their own medicine. I will tell you one more time, you act nice with
pro-choicers, and they will tear your head off and s$!t down your
throat the first time you turn your back on them. Those are NOT people
to be nice to, under any circumstances - they do not talk, they do not
reason, they do not act courteous. They'll smile long enough for the
camera to catch them, and then they will Mark Kaufman you. 

I apologize for making fun of Dale Ann, but this only shows how unjust
and uneven the standards are, on talk.abortion. Patrick refers to me
as "your fat black ass" and refuses to apologize to me about it, and
when I decide to respond, that is the only time that trouble erupts.
Peter Nyikos should consider how much of a laugh the pro-choice camp
got out of Patrick's refusal to apologize, and how Mr. Nyikos is
helping their travesties run rampant. 

Now, Mr. Nyikos, you can say good-bye forever, to any hopes of seeing
an apology from Patrick, to me, about his comment. He knows now that
he can do or say whatever he pleases, with impunity, and any response
back at him, will only result in the responder being the one getting
the admonishment.



  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
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: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:11:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.221756.6725@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.215745.19274@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>>> She is now claiming that Ms. Garvin is a lesbian.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I don't know if this is true, since (contrary to what
>>>> PHoney claims) I don't know Ms. Garvin at all, except from her posts
>>>> here. But if it's not, I'd say we've got a fine case of libel going on
>>>> here...
>
>>> What do you find libelous about falsely labeling someone as being
>>> a lesbian?  Do you believe there's something wrong with someone 
>>> who's a lesbian, Cochran?  
>
>> Here's a definition for you:
>> A written or oral defamatory statement or reprensentation that conveys
>> an unjust or unfavorable impression.
>>
>> I have no problem with homosexuality in any of it's various forms
>> DODie, but society often does. Given that, making false 
>> accusations about ones sexuality may easily be seen as libel.
>
>So you were helping to perpetuate the bigoted notion that 
>homosexuality carries an unfavorable impression.  Thanks 
>for clearing that up.
>
No DODie, this is just another example of you being the *only* one
incapable of understanding what was written. Don't try to balme your
warped perspective on me.
BTW, I repaired the damage you did to my original words up there.

--
                  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: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:26:52 GMT

If you oppose abortion at any time before birth how do you justify
this usurping of a woman's right to choose ?

If you don't oppose abortion at any time before birth what is the
fundamental difference between the child/non-child the day before
and the day after birth ? (if there is no difference then why is it
OK to terminate before but not after ?)


Please, no flames. I have considered these questions often and am
truly interested in your reasoning.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:00:24 GMT

In <29624@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <29608@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>>The word "possibility" is crucial here:
>>>>Sex = possibility of pregnancy; so
>>>>Consent to sex = Consent to possibility of pregnancy.

>>>Crossing the street = possibility of Mark Pundurs running me down
>>>Consent to crossing the street = consent to Mark Pundurs running me down

>>The difference is that nobody's rights are violated when you jump
>>out of my way (or sue my ass later). Abortion violates the z/e/f's
>>right to life.

>That is not the point. Can you make a case for the second case not being
>a logical extension of the first? 

Yes. The extension fails because I'm a free-willed actor. A valid 
extension would be:

Entering jungle unarmed=possibility of being eaten by tiger
Consent to entering jungle unarmed=Consent to possibility of being
				   eaten by tiger

which is not at all absurd.

>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Subject: Let me state my view (flames welcome :-)
Originator: jjprice@c00084-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:39:02 GMT


Hi again.....

Guess what I'M BAAACK....Had a great Christmas and So far a great
New Year...Wish the same for the rest...


Thanks for the present guys..last time a went on a break there popped
up all kinds of attack post on me all over the network..well congrats
guys it didn't happen this time...thanks for the present..unfortunately
the attacks on other people continue if you want to attack someone
please use e-mail its much more convient to the people that want to 
discuss the issues or at least yell at each other about them...:-)

OK I have been a little ambigous in the past on my views but I have 
the Jeff Price condensed view on abortion here today and will post.

1. A fetus is a human being were as life begins at conception...you
   can't prove otherwise so it must be true.

2. A person has a right to do whatever they wish so long as they don't
   infringe upon another person...now the baby is using the body of the
   mother we can say it may be removed...BUT...this will result in the
   death of the fetus. So the lesser of the 2 evils must be followed and
   the life of the fetus is more imp. than the choice of the mother...in
   the event of life threating situation both lives are equal and it is 
   then a personal choice.
   BTW (correct if wrong) almost all forms of abortion do not remove the 
   fetus but they kill the fetus. If you just seek removal how can you
   justify killing first then removing? 

3. Conclusion...abortion by todays standards is murder and must seen as
   such with the penalty required by law imposed on both the doctor and
   mother expect in above said case of life threatening.

4. I am officially anti-abortion...I seek the end to abortion on demand
   as we have it today. Still pro-life...all life must be protected hense
   my view on abortions, against the dealth penalty, and against destructive
   military action (ie. Nukes)...Somalia OK because we are trying to save
   lives even if we do end up killing a few...The same with abortion of course
   a few women will die perfoming illegal abortions but we will save many more.

-Sincerely



-- 
-Jeffrey Price
_____________________________________________________________________
| "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were |
|  able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not  |
|  to go also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with  |
|  him to the station?"                                              |
| "OBJECTION: That question ought to be taken out and shot!!"        |
|____________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:00:10 GMT

In <1993Jan12.025452.3855@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726678225@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>[Mark Pundurs inability to understand the definition of the word
>"euthanasia" deleted]

>So basically the problem seems to be your lack of comprehension. Try
>remedial courses at the local Jr. College.

I UNDERSTOOD your Dick-and-Jane "definition," Big Swinging Dictionary.
I question its relevance to what is proposed, and done, in the name
of "euthanasia" in the real world.

>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

Mark Pundurs
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: DODie's fear
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:00:45 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
|The Reverend Holtsinger must be afraid to post in soc.singles.  
|The only thing that he's not afraid of are religious discussions -
|he's trying to start yet another one in t.a.  Maybe he's afraid
|to post in talk.religion.misc, too.

Well, Rasmussen got toasted to embers in t.r.m.  Holtsinger must
be learning from the Muffin's mistakes.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Your position is either a very creative satire of the Christian anti-
abortion position, or an inane argument, which was never really thought 
through."  --Dave Butler on Rasmussen (in talk.religion.misc)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:43:27 GMT

In <C0KC4u.13L@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

>In article <1ifvijINNpia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
>Regard) writes:
>>In article <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark
>Pundurs) writes:
>>>In <30DEC92.15120932@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a 
>>>>right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?
>>>
>>>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>>>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of 
>>>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>>>right to life.
>>

>I am totally confused by your use of the word "voluntary".  What does the
>intent of the parents have to do with the humans right to life?

Nothing directly. I was responding to the "She's in my womb against my
will, so, human or not, I can evict her" justification for abortion.

>- Paul

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cycle 3 in my corresponcence with Mark on fetal tissue
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:32:33 GMT

In article <1iil48INNfsa@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> 
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> There's a thin line between killing and refusing to save a life
>> which you seem to have ignored. 

> I don't think I'm ignoring anything Doug, Suzanne.  I think I'm pointing
> out a basic hypocracy in Suzanne's statement.  

As far as I know, Ms. Forgach was not advancing a bodily autonomy 
argument (nor was I), she was pointing out the hypocrisy of those 
who support bodily autonomy arguments and yet reject Baby Theresa's 
right to her own organs.  I think your allegation of hypocrisy against
Ms. Forgach is grounded on the mistaken belief that she supports
pro-choice bodily autonomy arguments. 

> The pro-life contingent
> does not consider a woman's body 'hers and hers alone' to do with as she
> sees fit.  

I think they do, but they see two bodies, not one.

> And, I don't think benign neglect is OK, either, which is the foolish
> result of your argument, Doug, and Suzanne's equally shortsighted reply.

I don't know about Ms. Forgach, but my position has always been
that parents have a moral obligation to care for and protect their 
children.  I don't see where benign neglect enters into the picture. 

>> No matter how much you wish it to be, abortion is not "refusing
>> to save a life", it is killing.  

> You have no idea of what I wish or don't wish, but you are wrong anyhow.
> Abortion is removing a fetus from the woman's body. 

Abortion is killing a human being, and removing the dead body from 
the woman's body.

>Adrienne Regard


Doug Holtsinger


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:21:59 GMT

In article <C0pt0I.KqD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:

> Part of the reason there are so few late term abortions is that it is quite
> difficult to find a willing doctor plus I think there are some restrictions
> in various states. 

Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand
throughout the term of pregnancy.  Finger my account for
the documentation, or send me e-mail to request it.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:20:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <markp.725731241@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com 
(Mark Pundurs) writes:

}In cases of rape or incest, AND ONLY IN THOSE CASES, the woman was denied her
}right to choose avoiding pregnancy. 

Perhaps you can explain to me how relationship (incest) has anything
to do with choosing to avoid pregnancy.  Generally, when people talk
about forced sex they imply rape, not incest.  The common incest
exemption to abortion laws seems to me to be more related to popular
acceptance than to any choice regarding pregnancy...

--
       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...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54641 talk.politics.animals:10833