HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: We want lots of life
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:56:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.204623.29426@ncsu.edu>
dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:

>> Now, the parents were prevented from giving life (or a better life)
>> to 8 other infants because of an attitude that values the act of
>> living over an act of compassion. 

>That is a lie, there were no other infants available that could
>have received the child's organs. Here's what my local paper
>had to say:

>    Raleigh News and Observer, March 31, 1992

>  "The baby's organs were not being donated. Doctors had said Baby
>   Theresa's organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by
>   the time she died, and no matching recipients were immediately
>   found."                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^

In other words, no matching recipients were found *immediately*.  I'd
imagine the searchers stopped looking when the doctors told them that
the organs would be too damaged for use as transplants by the time she
died (i.e. by the time they were available).  That doesn't mean
recipients would not have been found if the searchers had kept
looking.

In other words, you misrepresented what the newspaper said.

--
"Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful....  Get your facts
first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."      - Mark Twain

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject:  Mommy!  They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
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: Sun, 12 Apr 92 16:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.224333.2502@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr10.152706.408@odin.corp.sgi.com> cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>, Kevin Brawley writes:
>>|But you people who promote child murders should keep this in mind:  
>
>>What is it with the name "Kevin"?  I haven't seen a
>>sensible, coherent poster with that name in years.
>
>   Cj - someone mentioed you resembled a fetus, and i take strong objection to 
>that. But I bet the fetus is a helluva lot more intelligent than you. Your 
>tactics are embarassing to your movement. When I started to post here, the 

Oh, gee, as opposed to YOUR tatics, which are as pure as the driven snow...

>first thing you guys wrote was "what is with the name "steve"? "blah blah blah...

That's because we'd like to know what it is about the name "Steve" that makes
people claim that a Fetus is more intelligent than CJ.  What is it about the
name "Steve" that CONSISTANTLY makes people sound like idiots?

I know.  It's a conspiracy in all the posting software around the world.  When
the article gets packaged up, if the "in real life" field has the word "Kevin"
or "Steve" in it, the article is subtly altered by the software...

>   Nice - scare off any newcomer to the game before they get any
>good ideas in... Maybe George wasn't so wrong with 1984... Suppression

Are you claiming that you've had ANY good ideas that you've posted to
talk.abortion?  Don't make me laugh...

>of ideas and intimidation of individuals should be a crime. you are guilty

So, are you AGREEING that pro-lifers who harass women attempting to enter
planned parenthood clinics should spend time in jail?  Are you AGREEING that
legislating that clinic workers can't discuss the abortion alternative should
be a crime?

>as charged dear...

As are you, Honey.  Wanna be my cell-mate?  I promise I'll be gentle...
--
=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
From: wdo@IEDV4.acd.com ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  )
Subject: Re: Repost For Welch
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:33:34 GMT

In <17363@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ronald Bense) writes: >
In talk.abortion, wdo@IEDV4.acd.com 
   ( Bill Overpeck (TE)  ) writes: >>
In <1992Mar17.043800.16370@rigel.econ.uga.edu> mills@uga.edu
   (Kathi Mills) writes: >>>

>>>Oh.  In other words, "we" is the people who are not content to live their 
>>>own lives, but want to get involved in the most private decisions of others. >>>"We" is the group of people who want to enslave women physically for nine 
>>>months, and emotionally for the rest of their lives,

>>You might also demonstrate that "we" possess some intent to "enslave"
>>women at all.  Maybe you're just mad at Welch, but your terminology is
>>cheap rhetoric.

>Well, this is too easy. You've included yourself in the 'we' category
>based on the two descriptions provided by Kathi. This automatically
>proves the point that you subconciously realize the truth in these 
>statements, or you would not have identified with them at all. 

Cracker Jack Psychology!  I like it.  That's the great thing about
the subconscious; you can make all the assertions you like and they 
are irrefutable (and unprovable, of course).  Actually, I'd discourage
you from using the words "prove" and "subconscious" in the same sen-
tence.  It's simply not compelling.  I "identified with" the pro-life 
movement, not some ludicrous suggestion about enslaving women.   

>I know 
>I didn't.  As for enslaving women for the rest of their lives, this is 
>true in the emotional sense since women tend to get tied to their children,
>and forcing a women to have a child is analagous to emotionally tying
>her up. 

Then it must surely follow that spouses are also emotionally enslaved
for the duration of their lives (or marriages, at least).  Don't you
think?

>(BTW, not intended as a chauvinistic remark, just observing
>that women are, in general, much more emotionally involved with their
>children than men).

I didn't infer any chauvinism from the remark at all.  Hmm.  I'm 
wondering now, Ron, if you're not subconsciously identifying with 
chauvinism.  Do you feel a little more anxious that normal when 
discussing it?  If so, I think it's safe to conclude that you're
repressing deeply buried misogynistic tendencies.  Was your father
particularly domineering?  Well, save that for later; that's all
the time we have this week.  The receptionist will schedule your
next appointment.  You can pay her.

Bill
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:34:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr8.011210.18193@cs.dal.ca>  franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>    No... I'm saying that you haven't given the unborn fetus a chance
> to decide. Forget the church's say, forget my say, but listen to the fetus.
> You know what? You can't...

..and even if you could, it couldn't answer.  It has no mind.

> Until a unanimous decision arises that the unborn fetus
> is not a sentient being with rights, then we cannot afford to abort the
> fetus.

Since we know that the fetus is not capable of sentience before 7 months,
this means that you'd have no objections to first or second trimester
abortions?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:23:06 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr13.203601.11398@advtech.uswest.com>  steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak  #3000  x2110 ) writes:
> > = Kevin "Step Off, Bitch" Welch spews:
>
> Hey, little Welch Tantrum: try doing attribution lines like the Big
> Folks do.  Franklin ain't the only Steve on t.a., just like you wouldn't
> want people to think ALL Kevins are hateful little religious comas like
> yourself.

But King Weasel doesn't *want* anyone to be able to notice that he's
arguing something different in every post.

> >But you cannot disagree that it is the best form of contraception and that
> >it is 100% effective in preventing the spread of sexual diseases.
>
> Damn!  You ARE learning something in school besides Woman Harrassment
> 101.
>
> ....And we all know how exciting EATING would be if we all followed the
> most healthy diet.  What, exactly, is your point besides fevered defense
> of a fellow pro-life religious jerk?

Well, eating is also a pretty good form of contraception.  I mean, unless
she eats you, and then you kiss, and then you eat her...  And we all know
how exciting eating can be.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: if I were drieuX, I'd have a wiTty heaDer
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:10:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr15.124446.20160@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>"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."

>*knock* *knock* *knock* HELLLLOOOO. Are you for real? Life doesn't occur
>until AFTER conception fool...

So a sperm or an egg is dead?

>   *sigh* don't they ever learn?

   *sigh* don't they ever learn?

>steve

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion Airheads
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:25:02 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <9qqj93l.zank@netcom.com> zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes:


>Pro-Abortion Airheads? that sould be Pro-life airheads!

	STOP IT WITH THE NAME CALLING!!! I'm tired of seeing both sides
flaming away like this. :-(  The person who placed this posting was wrong
but it does not mean you have to stoop to his level too. C'mon folks, it's
been a couple of days since I actually read something constructive. If we
can't compromise then both movements has failed, despite our intentions.
                     

							Mikeey
					   mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
					                           

>-- 
>Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
>Internet zank@netcom.com -or MZANK@mcimail.com
>----------------------------------------------
> Send all flames to MZANK@mcimail.com
From: GB0012@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Riddle me this Batnetters
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:56:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: nettlera.9204160021.AA14331

lockhart at kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov (Susy Lockhart) asks:
-
| I have a question, I guess directed at you Catholics out there in netland.
-
At your service ...
-
| You've heard of Lucrezia Borgia (sp?), eh?  Wasn't she the daughter of a
| Pope?  Pope Genuflect III or something?
-
Pope Alexander VI.
-
| That would seem to indicate that
| priests and Popes, were, at one time, permitted to marry
| and have children.
-
Oh, dear ... this one may come as a shock to some of you ...
but people can make babies without getting married
first!  Lucrezia was the child of the Pope's mistress.
-
RC priests were never 'allowed' to marry.  The clerical
life wasn't much regulated in the early days, though:
Pope Gregory the Great (6th century) gave advice to priests
who already 'happened' to be married.  In the late 11th
century there was a big crackdown on priestly improprieties
-- including bribe-taking and illicit sex.  Lucrezia was
born in the 15th century.
-
All of which demonstrates that the Church Temporal
-- the people who make up the Church on earth --
is pretty corrupt and screwed.  That observation in
itself has a hallowed place in Church tradition;  I
believe St. Augustine said it first.
-
| could it not also be *conceivable* that the Catholic Church is also
| wrong about other issues, say, for example, its stand on abortion?
-
Well ... it's *conceivable* that the Church is wrong
about everything, and that Elvis is King, Creator, and
Savior.  }:-)
-
From a Catholic point of view, it's quite conceivable that
the *people* involved in the Church are wrong about things,
through weakness, corruption, confusion, or whatever.  But we
believe that God has given the Church direct, continuing guidance
throughout the millenia, so that its traditions embody quite a
lot of truth, and it doesn't fall into grave error often or for long.
-
The modern Church's social-policy postions -- on gays, abortion,
etc. -- are troublesome indeed.  But the faith (IMHO) is beautiful
and sound.  And the Church has a cheering tendency to end up on
the side of charity and good sense -- it's the divine guidance,
I suppose.  It just takes a century or so sometimes.  Meanwhile,
I think it's worth our patience and loyalty.
-
It's rather like being a patriot during Watergate, I suppose --
we love and we tolerate ...
-
Suzanne Lucia.
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:38:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr15.183830.4216
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr15.003724.24676@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
(stuff deleted--by the way, sorry to bore everyone else with the
incisive commentary going on between Steve and I, but the dramatic scope
of his stupidity seems to deserve a more universal acclaim)
 Steve:>>>   I feel sorry for you... YOu're about to be disproved. I am well
>>>versed in the cyclical nature of pregnancy which is referred to as the
>>>"gestation period" insinuating a repeating nature of the gestation of the
>>>fetus. In other words, a predictable nature to the gestation cycle results
>>>in a consistent gestation period. 
>>   Me:  Incredible. I teach college English, but I've never seen a more
>>garbled sentence which says less in my life. Try using short sentences,
>>Steve--unless this little venture into doublespeak is an attempt to
>>eclipse the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Steve: something I accidentally deleted about me flashing about a big
shiny badge saying Professor
>of English" to prove your points? Well, yeah i looked at my sentence, and
>it does suck. But, it's disappointing that you couldn't wade through
>it to figure out what I was saying..

Steve, Steve; no matter how perceptive the reader might be, the writer
must actually say something in order for him/her to make sense of it....
>   By the way... I think that your point about "never see[ing] a more garbled
>sentence... " was one of the worst cases of sarcasm I have seen in MY life
>as a Physics student. (whoah! Physics student!!!)

     Sarcasm: "a sharply mocking or contemptuous ironic remark intended
to wound another."
           American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed.

    There was nothing ironic about my remark. Your contribution was,
literally, the most garbled sentence I have ever seen. I agree that this
non-sarcastic comment is not a good demonstration of sarcarm, however,
if that was your (pointless) point.


>>iHumpty Dumpty lives, and his name is Steve.
>   jack-ass lives, and his name is PROFESSOR Price.
>steve
>--
I'd like to congratulate Steve, for the second time, for his discovery
that I am a man. This must, however, remain our secret, as my partner is
so far blissfully unaware. BTW, not every college teacher is a
professor. Buy a dictionary to go with your new basic bio text.

                                                   MP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: SO.....it's not a child.....
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 00:08:57 GMT


In a previous article, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) says:

>No, to illegally end the existence of a living human is called
>murder. To legally do so is not. Abortion is legal.


so if I were to introduce a bill to Congress that allowed vigilante
groups to beat the f**k out of drug dealers and kill them, and by
some miracle it passed, would that make killing them not murder?


Yeah......the death penalty is murder. But the murderer violated the
basic rights of man, "life", and therefor he should be punished appropriately
on the same level. Let the punishment fit the crime.


-- 
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: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: NCAR, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:24:55 GMT

>>> = dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
> = dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>>>            set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>>>            morals on others. 
>
>>(1) Since you fail to specify, "human-life" means anything that is "human"
>>    and "alive".  
>
>Yes, that is correct. Let's remember that parts of the same human
>still constitute one human.  
>
>>    So premise (A) uses the unstated assumption that *any* 
>>    "human-life" has the ABILITY to "determine its own set of morals".  
>
>No, premise (A) does not assume anything about the ability, or lack 
>of ability, of a human to determine its own set of morals.
>
>>    Since a plasma is human life, and clearly cannot determine anything, 
>>    its ABSURD to state that it "should have the right to determine its 
>>    own set of morals" 
>
>I assume you mean blood plasma. Yes, mere human tissue cannot determine 
>its own set of morals. My appendix cannot determine its own set of morals. 
>Premise (A) says that any other human (other than myself) should not be 
>allowed to force their morals on me, or parts of me. I know that may 
>sound silly, but it is consistent.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                             
...or blood plasma, which is not a part of anyone.

OK, fine, have it your way:  "human-life" MAY OR MAY NOT have 
the ABILITY to "determine its own set of morals"
But we still have a premise that sounds silly to you and me.  
What kind of conclusions can we derive from "silly" premises?

Consider the blood plasma, you've said:
o although blood plasma has no mind and cannot think,
  it should have the right to determine its own set of morals.
  ie. although blood plasma cannot determine its own set of morals, 
  it should have the right to do so anyway.
o although blood plasma has no mind and cannot think, 
  (hence (trivially) has no concept of morals, and cannot care about morals)
  it should have the right to be free of having morals forced on it.

IMO, this typifies part of what is wrong with *some* pro-life arguments,
you want to give "rights" to a non-sentient, non-person (in this case 
blood plasma), even if it is at the expense of a sentient person.

Bottom line: o what kind of rights should non-sentient, non-people have?
             o what kind of rights should real people give up so that
               these rights of non-sentient, non-people will be protected?

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:07:34 GMT

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

?>>>>Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
?>>>>abortion?

sf>>>Absolutely. 

?> [documented corrections & flames (seen coming from a million miles away)]

sf>   Okay. I have messed up. In not being careful enough with my words
sf> I have opened up to alot of flaming. The argument should hopefully
sf> be resolved with my answer of "absolutely" being directed to 
sf> "Are you under the impression that monogamy eliminates the need for
sf> abortion in a perfect society, and LESSENS the need for abortion
sf> in reality?"
sf> Absolutely. [...]

The "perfect society" proviso kinda narrows the scope of applicability,
don't you think?  Anyway, it seems that a "perfect society" would require 
that there are no unwanted pregnancies, and no pregnancies with complications,
in which case there would be no abortion with or without monogamy.

BTW, are you willing to reject all books of the bible that endorse polygamy,
or do you pick & choose bible verses to taste?

sf> "One man come in the name of love,
sf>  One man come and go...
sf>  One man come he to justify,
sf>  One man to overthrow..."
sf>            -Bono
sf> which are you my friend?

Sound's like you (Steve Franklin, not necessarily Bono) are asking:
Do you accept my (Steve Franklin's) religion, or are you ... THE DEVIL?
Care to confirm or deny?  Can I reject your religion and not be in league 
with the devil at the same time?

-Brian
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Death and life
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:06:02 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <QdvU9im00WBNM7moQR@andrew.cmu.edu>  ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman) writes:
> I don't confront
> the issue of abortion from a religious angle; not because I can't,
> (well, I can't really well) but because I don't feel the need.

Also because you shouldn't.  You can use religion for your own personal
morals, but as soon as you begin talking about passing laws or attempting
to influence my behavior, you'd better have something better to base it on.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion