HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell, or Bradbury, or Huxley, for that matter...
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:59:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <5806@catnip.berkeley.ca.us> tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.200611.15344@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
>>I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.
>
>Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that stupid?  Look,
>honey.  This thing you're writing-- are you describing a *utopia* or a
>*dystopia*?  Here, let me explain it to you in words of one syllable so
>you can understand.
>
>Utopia -- is a world you would like to live in.
>Dystopia -- is a world you would NOT like to live in.
>
>If, in fact, you are writing a utopia (which is what you have previously led
>us to believe, and we have the posts from you to prove it) then you are a
>Fascist with a capital F.  And if you can't understand why that is,
>there's no hope for you.
>
>Hugs, you sick little puppy.

Well, obviously I am planning to write about a dystopia.  I think extreme
liberalism is a bad thing, and my aim is that one really bad thing might
promote something equally bad or worse from the other side.  I say again,
I am no facsist.           Simon.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Attention! (Chaney and Humphrey)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 09:49:55 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on...

In article <1992Oct11.162902.5053@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <nyikos.718565233@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>You know, if this keeps up, Peter will have put everybody into his "de facto"
>killfile.

One can hope.  Why just this morning, I received (definitely unsolicited)
email with my 'assignment' for the week.


"Of the posts I have done in the past month, the ones I would like for you
to pay close attention to are: "


If he takes a *real* *close* *look*, he will notice my name does not appear
on his class roster.....

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:47:40 GMT

jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.141936.10746@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>>>
>>Catholic Social Services will gladly find a family pay for all 
>>medical expenses occured during the pregnancy provided they can adopt the child.
>>
>>This is how my sister & her husband adopted two of their children.

>Is this called "buying" a child?  Gee, I wish someone would have volunteered
>to pay my childbirth expenses as it cost me quite a bundle, but since I
>am not willint go "sell" my child, I guess I'll have to handle it alone.
>Why shouldn't CSS be willing to pay all medical expenses period if they're
>so anxious for all women to give birth?  Why put any requirements on the
>woman to sell?  I would think they would oppose the "ripping" of infants
>from their mother's arms, instead of financially supporting it.

_I_ was often told, while searching for a way to afford my pregnancy,
that it's easy to have the pregnancy paid for if you agree to
adoption, AND that there is a six-month period after birth for
the mother to legally change her mind (nudgenudgewinkwink).  I
couldn't even consider this, as I couldn't imagine putting another
couple through that kind of heartache.

Does lead me to wonder, however, if the woman changed her mind
would the Catholic group demand that she repay the expenses?

BTW, many couples will gladly pay (and have) $50K+ to adopt
a healthy white newborn.  Sounds like CSS could stand to make
a bundle on every adoption they arrange.

>Sorry for the language--my only excuse it that's the way Suzanne would
>have said it (I know, that's not much of an excuse...)

You have every right to your emotions - and never use Suzanne as
an excuse.  There IS no excuse for Suzanne.

>Jennifer

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:41:10 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <adams.718638072@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>
>>>Abortion is direct killing of our human offspring.  Illegalizing abortion
>>>does not directly kill women.  Even indirectly, it doesn't unless some
>>>women choose to bring on death to their offspring and themselves.
>>
>>Direct or indirect, you're still dead.
>>
>Possible reasoning process:
>1) Abortion is illegalized
>2) Woman gets pregnant
>3) Woman doesn't want her child
>4) Woman looks to abortion to "solve" her problem
>5) Woman goes to an underground clinic to get an abortion
>6) Woman might die as a result of the abortion.
>
>Let's see, look at step 4.  No one forced her to go there in the first place.
>Perhaps there is something wrong with killing your own human sons and
>daughters?  
I won't be killing my sons or daughters.  If I did that, I would go to
jail.  No one is going to abortion clinics and killing their sons and
daughters.

>Going from step one to step six can be a dangerous way of thinking.  It
>is more appropriate to go from step 3 through step 6.
I agree.  Abortion can result in death.  But childbirth is AN ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE MORE LIKELY to result in death.  Do you understand that???

>As for the plight of the woman, perhaps there are lots of ways people
>can help.  I don't know all the alternatives but there are many volunteer
>organizations whose aim is to help those who are in need of comfort, 
>counseling, alternatives, etc.
Alternatives....what a concept.  Like abortion.  You want alternatives, so
long as YOU get to chose the list.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Abstinence isn't effective or dirty
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:30:42 GMT

From article <1992Oct8.121732.2455@brandonu.ca>, by mcbeanb@brandonu.ca:
> Abstinence is not 100% effective.  Notnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnotnot.
> Even for people other than Lisa and myself.  Even if they try it, and
> want it to succeed, it won't necesarily happen.
> 
> So there.


Brian, I'm serious here.  In what way could abstinence POSSIBLY FAIL
for you and Lisa??


> Brian McBean  

Suzanne Forgach
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-aborts who reduce women to fetal containers (was Responsibility
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:25:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct13.164224.13052@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

#Exactly!  If women were non-thinking, inanimate objects which simply
#housed a fetus, then they wouldn't be able to want an abortion. Therefore,
#it makes no sense to *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion
#by focusing strictly on the fact that a fetus resides within the woman's
#body. To *ignore* the woman's reasons for wanting an abortion is to 
#treat her like a non-thinking, inanimate fetal container, which she 
#is not.  

This is asinine, even from DOD.  He must be getting tired of trying
to manufacture quotes to back his ridiculous claims about Roe.  People
who support a woman's right to decide for herself on the issue of
abortion aren't ignoring the woman's reasons, they're accepting
whatever reason the woman may have.  The only people who quibble
about which particular reason applies in a given case are those
who believe that women shouldn't be trusted with important
decisions.

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Where did Larry come from? (Was Re: Eggs and sperm being human life)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:38:11 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  <1992Oct7.023601.7366@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct06.200815.7348@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <1992Oct6.073821.2417@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Marti
> >> In article <1992Oct06.045138.146072@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wr
> >
> >You mean where you redefined the term you're abusing:
>
> I have always held to my definition.  The problem was communication.
>
> >> When I say human life, I mean that which is a member of homo sapiens.

As I said, when you say "human life", I think you mean "human life".

> >Since you're not doing too well at the language lessons, why don't we cut
> >to the chase.  Do you see any difference between a zygote and a (born)
> >person?  I do - I see a *big* difference.  You might not see any *moral*
> >difference, but many of us do.  To me, a fertilized egg has as little
> >value as the sperm and egg that joined to make it.  IT'S ONE FRIGGING CELL!!!
> >It *might* become a person, but then again it might not.  If it's aborted,
> >it will not.  (And let's avoid any silly arguments about single-cell
> >"people"; I'm talking about what is *normally* considered to be a person -
> >i.e., a born, alive, human being.)
>
> Larry, where did you come from?  You must have come from somewhere.

Long Island.

> When did you begin to exist as a human?  As a sperm?  As an egg?  Well that's
> an old debate, but of course not.

Of course not.  If you mean "human" as in a person, it was when I was
three months old, if I recall correctly.  (That's three months after
birth, of course.  Gee - I wonder if there's a reason that we count age
from birth, and not conception.)  Before that, there was no "I".  If you
mean (as you probably do) when did my unique DNA combination come into
existance, that's at conception of course.

> Of course you would say you began your existence as a human at conception.
> Now I know you try to make a distinction between persons and other forms of
> human life but why are we for the killing of human life (or at least the
> option of killing human life) at any form in the first place?

Because many of us are able to distinguish between a single celled zygote
and a 40 year old musician.  If you're truly unable to tell the difference,
then it's a good thing you're male and anti-abortion.  Otherwise, you might
go to get an abortion and accidentally kill Rod Stewart.  (There are those
who might feel that that wouldn't be a tragedy, but that's a discussion
for another newsgroup.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon, you're no Orwell
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:22:54 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

I've been observing this thread for awhile and I think it's time I
jumped in.

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
# purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon) writes:
# >It seems to me that if you think "liberalism" is such a bad thing, you
# >should write a novel about a "liberalist dystopia" rather than a novel
# 
# I think that's been done already, I have a film in my video collection
# called "Amerika", about a Communist takeover.  I don't want to rehash the
# worn-out "Red Dawn" concept.

Simon, if _Amerika_ and _Red_Dawn_ are where you get your ideas about
liberal political philosophy, I think I can fairly say you wouldn't
know a real honest-to-God American liberal if one walked up and kissed
you on the nose.

Email me and I will be happy to recommend where to start looking for
real live liberals.  Hint #1: Russia and Eastern Europe are not now,
nor ever were, good places to look.  Hint #2: `Liberal' and `leftist'
are not synonymous.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

``Men who have no time to read should devote their time to reading
books of quotations.''
                                              -- Winston Churchill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42928 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6974
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Eulogy for the "Pro-Choice" label (Was Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:59:27 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Oct14.231124.2068@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
    [long article concerned only with abortion aborted]

I just wanted to point out that chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu has 
posted an article concerned with abortion only to:
    talk.abortion
    alt.dan-quayle
    alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

If you plan to follow-up to his article please edit the newsgroup 
line so that it reads only talk.abortion.  Thank you.
If you don't, you are likely to get form letters from people in 
the other groups who don't wish to read about abortion.

If you are one of the people in the other groups that like to send 
form letters, please send them to chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu 
since he is the one that started this cross-posting thread.

Thank you.

Sorry to be wasting your time with such rigmarole.   Sheesh!




-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: supporting allegations
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:38:22 GMT

In article <7108@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1b265mINNlka@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
Followups to misc.test?
Pretty low, Susan.
And don't bother accusing me of hypocrisy on this. I already criticized
CJ for the same thing earlier today.

>#I refuted Keegan's allegations at Eric Rescorla's request.
>Oh, *Eric* had to ask.  I wonder where Eric and his magic 
>powers were when this whole mess started.  
I'll be happy to answer that when you explain what you mean by
"this whole mess." I can think of several referents.

-Ekr





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:16:43 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>The government very definitely does allow abortions to take place.  Certain 
>politicians even want to make the right of an abortion to be law and even
>have abortions funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
>abortions, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.  

The government definitely does allow war to take place.  Certain
politicians even want to make a legal declaration of war and even
have wars funded by our tax dollars.  Not only are we allowed to have
war, we can get funded by other people's money through gov't.

And I would venture to bet that there are people FAR more opposed
to war than you are to abortion.

                     -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:53:56 GMT

In <Bw5A2s.HxF.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
    (Susan Garvin) writes: > 
In article <1992Oct13.205332.9526@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>Again, if your opponents are the "bad guys" it's ever so much
>>easier to assume the high moral ground, isn't it?
>
>You want abortion to be illegal, Overpeck.  
>
>When abortion is illegal, women die.

When drugs are illegal women die.  So do men.  And children.

Shall we legalize them, Susan?  

Bill
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42056 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5251 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6676
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists For Life...Huh?
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:46:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <1992Oct9.140551.18270@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan
King) writes:
>
>P>In article <3907@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> 

>
>I think I'm starting to better understand FFLA's position.  They are
>feminist in a variety of areas.  It is only in the abortion debate where
>they quit being feminist. 

The way I see it is that the abortion rights movement is a subset of feminism. 
Abortion is an extremely important women's issue, but believe me, feminism
would be just as crucial even if the concept of abortion were to magically
dissappear.

> I would then argue that their use of the title
>Feminist For Life is intentionally deceiving, because it leaves the 
>impression that their position on abortion is pro-women.... However,
>when push comes to shove, when the fetus's right to life is in conflict
>with the woman's right to her body, they are willing to use the force 
>of law to take away the woman's right.  As should be clear, this is hardly
>a pro-woman position. 

You feel it necessary to lump all "rights" together as a neat, clean package
deal.  The right to existance verses right to control over body are what is in
contention here just as you have stated.  BUT - you go much further by
implicitly saying that these two rights are equal on the list of human rights -
thats where the problem comes in.  Its unfortunate that the lesser of the two
rights applies to the woman in this case.

>P>FFLA members were jeered at and physically accosted during a recent Take
Back The Night rally here in Washington, DC.  This just doesn't make sense to
me. ....

>Your missing a major chunk of the story.  Take Back the Night was a rally in 
>protest against rape.  FFLA used this rally to attempt to push their pro-life,
>anti-woman agenda.  

This is totally false with regards to the Washington DC rally.  From an earlier
post of mine:" ...However, at the rally here in Washington the only banner
held, stated the groups name.  The FFLA marchers did not chant inflammatory
slogans or try to muscle their way into prominance.  The violence and abuse
directed against them was unprovoked..."
>
P


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:55:16 GMT

Martin writes:
>Besides, abortion and "forcing" someone to donate parts are two
>different problems.  Preventing an abortion, and solving the problem
>of a dying person are two different issues.

Wait a moment here.  A man is dying for want of a kidney transplant,
and you refuse to coerce a perfectly healthy person to be a donor so
he can live.  But a woman doesn't want to donate her bodily resources
to the support of a fetus for nine months, and you force her to anyway?!

Watch that double-edged sword of yours; you'll cut yourself badly!

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Ethnic Purging
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:05:57 GMT

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.010612.12728@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>Mr. Guerrero, did you have to practice to be such a loser?  Or are you
>>an idiot savant?  You most certainly did *NOT* get it straight.  Mr.
>>Fischer clearly wrote that making abortion *ILLEGAL* will kill women,
>>not that abortion itself will kill women.
>>

>I believe your reasoning goes like this:

<sigh>  How often must we warn the newbies about exposing their lack
of mindreading skills on the net?

>   1) Abortion is made illegal
>   2) Woman wants an abortion
>   3) Woman has to go to some strange place to get an abortion
>   4) Woman may die as a consequence of an abortion because of the
>	difference in quality.  

>Notice that one of the ends of this reasoning results in the the possible
>death of the mother and the possible death of the unborn child (some
>of the aborted manage to survive).  An abortion must first be taking place
>in order for the woman to have a chance to die.  So it would be safe
>to say that even if abortion were illegalized, abortion still kills
>the female unborn. 

Try this scenario.

  1. Abortion is made illegal.
  2. Epilectic woman with severe seizures becomes pregnant.
  3. Doctor A says her life is in danger, life-saving abortion must be
     performed.
  4. Doctor B says risk of death is less than 10%, not high enough to
     justify the abortion.
  5. Dispute goes to hospital board.  Doctors C, D, E, F, and G vote
     that risk of death is sufficient to perform abortion.
  6. Too late, she died during the meeting.

Dead fetus, dead woman.

                    -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41197 alt.politics.bush:8075
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:54:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Oct7.174743.1685@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:

>Bravo-bravo!  What a clever smoke & mirrors trick with semantics.
>You don't demonstrate or argue anything, you merely play with the
>meanings of words and ("depending on what dictionary you use")  ...
>TA-DA: "abortion is murder"!!!  But if we trivialize the notion 
>of "murder", will we invent a new word to takes it's place?


	I did not play with any words. Murder is "the killing of one
human being by another". No playing needed. Mother is a human being, 
fetus is a human being, abortion is murder. Just because you don't 
agree with the definition of murder I choose, doesn't mean that I
must agree with the one you use. 
	Neither am I trivializing the notion of murder. Murder is
a horid and despicable act. It should not be allowed - this is
why I get so upset that the slaughter of innocent, defenseless children
has been legalized here.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: How do I wean myself from t.a.?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:05:24 GMT

I may wish to stop visiting t.a. on a regular basis.
How do I do this?

Any suggestions?
Please email.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion