HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:13:44 GMT

In article <1ifv15INNpco@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne
Regard) writes:
>In article <C0GEnt.E5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>>I was accused of unjustly reading something into a question   I think you are
>>doing the same in this case.   I don't think anyone is denying the true
>>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.  If the unborn has some
>>inherent value, however, why should the that value be determined by the
>>mother's value?
>
>Because, in this country, you get to use your own body as you see fit, 
>based upon your own values. 

I don't think this is true at all, Adrienne.  You can't used drugs, sell your
body, gamble, drive against traffic, etc, etc.

> And that includes denying the use of that
>body to someone else who really is, or merely claims to be, in dire need
>of your body for their own purposes.

Abandonment of a child is certainly a crime.  Witness the current couple who
flew off for a week and left their kids home alone.

>
>The only way to get around this little standing rule is to 'deny the true
>significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.'  Refusing her sovereignty
>over her own body makes her less than any other citizen in this country.

That she has the ability to nurture life makes her more than any other citizen
in this country.  I think we come out even.  Not to enact and enforce dead-beat
dad laws, and not providing housing, shelters and care for single moms is to
'deny the true significance of the burdens placed upon the mother.'
>
>How could you *possibly* justify such a thing, on the basis of the claims
>of another person?  You can't.  And fetuses aren't *more* worthy than another
>person, are they?
>
>If it's fair game for women, it's fair game for men, and we can use your
>extra kidney, thanks.  Regardless of your own values about that.

I don't feel one should glorify pregnancy, but to equate a kidney donation to
giving birth doesn't seem right to me.  I as an unborn child will live if no
one deliberately kills me.  I as a kidney patient will die if no one come to my
aid with a donated kidney.  Death just as Life is a natural process.  Killing
is not natural.


>
>Think about it.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>
I have

- Paul


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55097 alt.abortion.inequity:6388
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: You want to talk about nature?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:19:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes...

>Oh, but the death happened *BY CHOICE* of the parents.  So I ask, what
>difference does one hour *before* birth and one hour *after* birth really
>matter in terms of whether the child should be respected?

The question is not "respect", rather legal protection.

>Indeed, the logic that believes that an unborn child isn't only not a
>child, but a clump of cells, and isn't worth squat until birth, doesn't
>much sound like "progress," either.

One has to draw the line somewhere.  Two (fairly) solid demarcations
are conception and birth.  I find the latter more practical.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: how i become pro-life
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:56:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.040648.23244@fuug.fi> an3329@anon.penet.fi writes:
> Democrats
>have always been the ones who have helped the sick, the weak, the helpless.
>It saddens me to see that many of my friends don't share that belief when
>it comes to abortion.
>
Mr/Ms. Anon - 

You might be interested to know of other anti-abortion groups out their which
may more closely resemble your philosophies such as Democrats for Life,
Feminists for Life of America, Collegiates for Life.  Being "liberal" is hardly
a reason to accept the killing.

If you need more info - mail me at lebos@psl.nrl.navy.mil

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Go figure.
	<1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com>
	<markp.726528552@spider.wri.com> <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu>
	<markp.726677398@spider.wri.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:55:26 GMT

On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:49:58 GMT, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) said:

>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>In <1993Jan8.164325.8820@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>>>> = (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>>>>(The most fundamental right being life, she may not choose her
>>>>>economic or career security over the baby's right to life.)

>>>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least in the U.S.  Where are you from?

>>>Fine; make that, "...she may not ethically choose..."

>>Sure she can, Mark.  At least by my ethics.  Which ethics are you using?

>Why do people who don't believe in absolute ethical standards
>get involved in debates over ethical standards? Isn't it either
>pointless or self-contradictory?

It's almost as pointless as those who *do* believe in absolute ethics trying
to impose them upon those who don't...

--PLH, never miss a straight line

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: I told you so...
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:25:30 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

[--deletions--]

> I fully retract any apology I have given concerning Patrick Humphrey ...

Aw, Chaney, why would you want to do that?  Your apology cost you nothing;
in fact, the goodwill it generated, however miniscule, could have given
some impetus to resolving other issues somewhat to your satisfaction.

Oh well, one step forward, two steps back.

> And his wife is STILL an ugly old hound dog. 

I have yet to see a dog as ugly as your petty vindictiveness.

[--deletions--]

>         Public Challenge to Chris Lyman: Go Ahead, Make My Day. 
>     Prove to my sysadmins that Patrick didn't say this. I dare you.

Now this is special.  I never denied that Patrick said what you include in
your racist barfic.  You might want to say I did, but you'd never be able to
prove it.  You want me to lie?  No thank you, Steve, I don't live life by
your rules.

[--racist barfic deleted--]

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:11:14 GMT

>> = Jay Stein
> = DearOldDoug

[--regarding DOD's comment about a game called "enrage the opposition"--]

>> Not that I think Doug Holtsinger actually *means* ALL pro-choicers
>> in the above quote, 

> Of course not, you knew that I was talking about the 
> pro-choicers on this newsgroup.  

Um, Jay,

During his forays into other newsgroups, DearOldDoug found the pro-choicers
in alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork to be surpassingly polite and forbearing.
However, it must be noted that that newsgroup is moderated by the Great Gonzo.

Aside to DearOldDoug:  how are you coming with your supporting evidence that
I'm an anti-religious bigot?

-- 
Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
     "Dignity.  Always dignity." -- Gene Kelly in "Singin' in the Rain"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: So PatricKKK posts private email now
Organization: What a concept!
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:17:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.071302.4387@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

   In article <1993Jan5.203530.10053@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
   >
   >I just got mail from a close friend showing that PatricKKK posted
   >private email between us, to USENET. 

   If it was private between you and a close friend, how would Patrick
   have seen it? Besides, it's always nice to have a good laugh, and you
   certainly provide those.

Evidently, Steve's not too swift when it comes to the "cc:" field in the
header -- Chris Lyman sent some mail to Steve and cc'd me a copy, and when I
replied to Chris, Beanie Boy got a copy of the reply, which he used as his
latest excuse to puke all over himself on the net before passing out again.
(He even missed the "chaneysa@is.rice.edu" in the cc: field -- I wouldn't
say he's a *computer* geek, but he's halfway there.)

   >Why don't we just KILLfile PatricKKK? He has broken every rule he
   >himself has set and that everyone else abides to out of courtesy. He is
   >too afraid to apologize to me directly for his racist remarks, so I am
   >perfectly right in making comments to and about his family. But will he
   >recognize that? Yeah, when his wife is allowed to stroll the streets
   >without being chased by the dog-catcher.. 

   Can Patrick help it if his wife is so attractive that men all over are
   chasing her (in vain, I've no doubt)? 
   As for your "lipstick" claims, the simple fact that other men exist on
   this planet is a sure fire guarantee that she's having nothing to do
   with you.

I wonder how many trips he's made across the Sierras to Reno?  :-)  (I can't
imagine any female wanting to be in the same area code with him or his
attitude.) 

--PLH, one ObCheapShot to a customer

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What makes me very sad (and I don't call anyone names!)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:01:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.220116.16901@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

[Doug answers my complaint that no one has posted a snippet of evidence
 that making abortion illegal would even reduce the abortion rate by 
 asking what I would accept as evidence.  He suggests that perhaps
 people are either tired or afraid of having their words rejected.]

That hasn't stopped or slowed Mr. Holtsinger from bringing up yet
again his quoted sources that say abortion is legal throughout 
pregnancy.  Even though some people call him stupid and other things
for doing so he still does.  Is Mr. Holtsinger so afraid of my rejection?
The point is that no one has posted any evidence that using the law
to try to ban abortion will indeed reduce abortion, not that I may 
or may not accept the evidence.  Neither is the point that you may
not be able to provide evidence for other laws.  I've noticed that
a lot of people use this as a rationale for changing the legal status
of abortion, but it seems that no one really knows exactly why, at 
least no one has posted any evidence that their dreams might come true.
I notice you don't either:  You instead seem to want to have a discussion
about my definitions of evidence or my rationale for or against laws.

}Brazil has tight restrictions on the availability of
}contraceptives, which has been shown to have a strong
}influence on the abortion rate.  An article in the....uh, wait...
}I don't know what you would accept as evidence, so I'll
}guess I'll have to wait until you tell me.

I mentioned that the only figures I could recall about Brazil was
that a change in legal status might actually work in the reverse.
I didn't intend to explain the abortion rate in Brazil, neither
did I claim that there is a reverse effect in abortion legislation.
The point is that no one has ever posted figures that would lead
us to believe that abortion legislation would be effective, not
whether or not I would accept the source or the evidence. I think
I said this before.

}Sticking my body between the abortionist's knife and the child
}will not prevent an abortion; it will only delay it.  

Oh, I don't know Doug, why don't you try it?  Especially if
the "abortionist" is holding a knife.  According to you, they
don't have any respect for life...

I'm really sorry (actually I'm lying, I could have edited it out) that 
the above slipped in there.  I'm trying to refrain from making 
derisive or insulting comments in this thread, as well as trying
to keep from calling people names.  I'm not entirely successful, but
I hope pointing it out makes things a bit smoother...

--
       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...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Greetings
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:50:57 GMT

In article <29225@oasys.dt.navy.mil>,
bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) posts for Chris Lyman:

|> Lately, I've been lurking in talk.origins, a newsgroup focused on the
|> evolution/creation debate.  My scientific credentials and expertise are
|> dwarfed by those of many of t.o's participants, so it's unlikely that
|> I'll ever post there.  Imo, the evolution/creation debate is yet another
|> facet of what seems to be a cultural war between the radical and/or
|> religious right and the progressive and/or humanist left.  I am
|> particularly struck by the similarity of mindsets between
|> creationists and anti-abortionists.

Here it is once again assumed that all anti-abortionists are religious
zealots.  I am an atheist, anti-creationist, and anti-abortionist.

You attack a position by maligning its supporters.  This is, IMO, a
poor tactic and detracts from the discussion.  This is slightly ironic,
since your post is directed against such tactics.

|> Creationists pounce on every anomalous phenomenon not predicted by the
|> theory of evolution as 'proof' that the TofE is bogus, yet offer no
|> theory of creation of their own.  They accuse evolutionists of suppressing
|> data, but ignore overwhelming evidence that the earth was formed millions
|> of years ago and that life as we know it now is the result of millions of
|> generations of transformation and natural selection (Forgive my imprecise
|> use of these terms; I told you I wasn't an expert!).  I guess you could
|> sum their position up with the phrase, "Don't confuse me with the facts,
|> my mind is made up!"
|> 
|> I will leave my implied analogy to anti-abortionists as an exercise
|> for the reader. :-)

I, for one, fail to see the connection.  I don't disbeleive Creationism
because its supporters are idiots.  I disbelieve Creationism because
there is no evidence for its veracity.  I do, however, welcome the
presentation of new evidence should it become available.  Facts are
welcome in any debate.

|> Imo, the efforts of creationists to gut the sciences of biology, geology,
|> astronomy and others is particularly insidious in light of the fact that
|> academic performance in mathematics and science in the U.S. is falling.
|> Add to that the resistance to effective sex education and birth control
|> (both of which would reduce the demand for abortion, btw), and it seems
|> that the slogan "Ignorance is Strength" could be carved over the entry
|> to the Pantheon of the Religious/Radical Right.

I understand your outrage.  Indeed, I feel much of it myself.  I
think we must refrain from dismissing a certain viewpoint merely
because idiots espouse it, however.  You will find that there are
idiots in every cause.

|> Chris Lyman    /   email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov   /    my thoughts, my words
|> "The responsibility for change...lies within us. We must begin with ourselves, 
|>  teaching ourselves not to close our minds prematurely to the novel, the
|>  surprising, the seemingly radical." -- Alvin Toeffler

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: An example of drieux's "reasoning" abilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Keywords: "logic" in drieuxism 
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:57:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.093218.15073@wetware.com> 
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>   "Lack of proof in favor of
>>    existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
>>    true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
>>    many peopel to conclude that no such being exists."
>> 
>>        mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
>>        <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 

> I presume that you will some day grow up
> to be old enough to have a Beard. May I
> recommmend that you NOT get yourself 
> near unto Occams Razor, as it may hurt you.

His statement is not an application of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor deals with selecting a 'preferred' theory 
from a number of competing theories for explaining a 
specific set of laws.  He's talking about 'proof', not
'preference'. 

> by your Brilliant Refutation
> of Komrade Kokhran's position we understand that
> you hold that anything Not Yet Prooven is presumed to be true.

No, I was not arguing that anything "Not Yet Prooven" is
presumed to be true.   

> ObTechnicalNote: Ok Happy Kampfers, let this be a 
> 		warning in HOW NOT to flame someone....

Like spewing your ignorance across dozens of newsgroups. 


---
Doug Holtsinger
'finger dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: DODie sucks his thumb (aka Doug Holtsinger) (was Re: we are
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:20:59 GMT
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD

Expires: 
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.162410.10074@netcom.com>
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>I don't care about your interpretation.  I thought most people
>would understand what she meant.  Clowns such as yourself can't
>leave well enough alone, and they feel compelled to manufacture
>the tiniest misunderstandings, just so they can score some meaningless
>points.

<HONK> <HONK>

Hey Dodie, I've got your red rubber nose....

<HONK> <HONK>

As for the rest of your assinine statement, if Frau F can't see through
the fundementalist fog long enough to clear up what she meant, she deserves
what she gets. Have you been able to explain away that really kind statement
of hers regarding Patrick?

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.

PS
>Followup-To: misc.test

DoDie, care to explain this from a "rational", "Logical" "atheist"?
I submit you are a miscreant of no mean level, as you would have to
aspire to reach even that banal point of life. I submit this as proof
of your complete lack of character (like any here needed any additional
proof). Revel in the muck, it suits you.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Questions for Pro-Life advocates
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:21:11 GMT

updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:

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


If you allow Close Air Support to use napalm 
to solve problems, why do You not allow the
Police to use Napalm Strikes to Win the War on Drugs?

Was there a Loaded Question somewhere????

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: March for Life
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 05:02:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.171307.9379@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>In article <1iijiaINNfia@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>|>In article <1993Jan7.231803.4625@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>|>>P.S. I hope your quest against life does take a serious turn and have
>|>>you wind up losing yours.....
>|>
>|>My, my,
>|>what a positive, nay
>|>                      pro-life
>|>                                sentiment.
>|>
>|>Adrienne Regard
>|>
>Please Adrienne....
>
>Do notice that I hoped he did not have a serious turn and wind up getting hurt.
>I am very concered that he not accidentaly cross with the wrong por-lifer and
>wind up getting hurt.I am sure this is something that both would wish to avoid.
>Please look closer into my statements and not just be flame happy.

Do notice that you did not say that at all. You most definately wrote
*does*, not does not.
It's sad thing when your reading comprehension problem gets so severe that you
can't even read your *own* articles...


--
                  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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54405 alt.dads-rights:3196 alt.feminism:6885 soc.men:22297 soc.women:22260
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action on Custody
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:32:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I think this is a sort of answer to my "what happens down
at the courthouse" query in a related thread....

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
| >>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
| >>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.

A beginning, anyway.  What's "presumption"?  I'm familiar
with legal terms like _prima_facie_ which relate to 
presumption, but in this case I'm not sure how it would 
work -- or whether it would solve the problem.  Does it
mean that custody would be awarded to the father 
regardless of the apparent welfare of the child, or
what?  What if not enough fathers sought custody, would
the courts be required to recruit -- draft -- them?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54367 alt.dads-rights:3180