HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 16:42:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.054754.18920@noao.edu> 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.
>
Get thee to a dictionary Suzzie, and look up "artificial respiration",
"mechanical ventilation", "life support" and various other related
systems.
Considering how many people hold their breath every time they go
swimming, I'd saw that statistically, you are more likely to die from
birth then cesation of breathing.

>You guys are so dumb.
>
Another example of a ine Upstanding True Believer (tm).
Have you told your confessor about this tendancy you have towards
nastiness?

--
                  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: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Slavery and abortion (again)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:28:56 GMT

In <7z-3pxc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

>referring to abortion,
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

>->There is absolutely no other situation in which
>->an individual is inside the body of another.  Think about
>->it a minute.  There is no useful analogy.

>i agree fully with galen's comments.

I strongly disagree. Analogy is an indispensible component of rational
discourse about the real world. If we completely rule out analogies
to abortion, we leave ourselves no ground for meaningful discussion.
(Of course, all analogies have their limits, and we must be careful
to see what those limits are in any case.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:44:14 GMT

In <1993Jan10.160929.2895@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>Because it prevents people like you from imposing your own ethical
>standards on the rest of the world.

But now YOU'RE holding ME to an absolute ethical standard: "Don't
impose your views on others." If ethical standards are, by definition,
subjective, then so is the standard you're imposing on me.

Don't you get it, Mark? Your relativism saws off the branch on which
it sits.

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

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: What the Supreme Court Said
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993 06:17:47 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


There have been claims that my statement that the Supreme Court in
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion on demand for the
full nine months of pregnancy is a lie, and claims that this state-
ment has been refuted, but no evidence to support those claims.  If
since the Court's 1973 decrees a physician has been charged with the
crime of performing an abortion and has been successfully prosecuted
on that charge, my statement would be in error.  Can anyone cite such
a successful prosecution?

In light of the words I quoted from both decisions, especially the
loophole I quoted from Doe v. Bolton, can anyone suggest the wording
of a law that would permit the successful prosecution of a physician
on a charge of performing an abortion?  Remember, all he has to do is
say that the abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the
mother, using the meaninglessly broad definition of health the Su-
preme Court adopted in Doe v. Bolton, and the Court explicitly banned
any requirement for review of that decision by another physician.

Someone said that my statement could not be proved true unless some
physician were charged with performing an abortion and were acquitted
because of the Court's decisions.  However, prosecutors, who know
what the Court said, would not bother bringing a charge when they
knew they could never get a conviction.  Any law making it a crime to
perform an abortion that may remain on the books is a dead letter,
unenforceable because the Supreme Court has decreed it to be uncon-
stitutional.

Incidentally, why do some people who believe that abortion should be
legal object when someone like me points out that the Supreme Court
agreed with them and made that opinion "the law of the land"?
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Experience beats in vain upon a congenital progressive."
        --  C. S. Lewis
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.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 03:59:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.190129.13383@bsu-ucs> 00gwmichelin@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>How many people are going to DC on the 22 to March for Life?

12, but the organizers will claim there were 125,000.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your emplyer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who are you guys?
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:02:31 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <markp.726677398@spider.wri.com> markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>In <1l_3zzr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>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?

Why do many pro-life advocates believe that pro-choice advocates do not
believe in absolute ethical standards?  I *do* believe in absolute 
ethical standards.  By my ethical standards, refusing a woman a right
to choose an abortion is wrong.  My standards are every bit as absolute
as yourse, they are just different.  It is insulting that you conclude
that since my standards are different from yours, I therefore have no
standards.  Aside from the fact that it is insulting, it sets you up
to get taken out at the knees if you take me on in an ethical discussion.

Joe


Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:43:12 GMT

From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> 
>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>> 
>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>> 
>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
> 
> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
> haven't seen any such activity -- 

We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

But be that as it may, I know you don't have access to my mailbox, and 
you must have missed those followups as well.   By the way, I've been on
the net longer than you have been.


>> Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
> 
> How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
> fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  

Because if he'd said the opposite, that pregnancy takes 2, I guarantee that
Garvin, or somebody of like political persuasion, would have claimed that
_that_ statement was "idiocy".


> Or are you saying you
> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
> really did that.)
> 
> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...

Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.



SF
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:57:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <C0FG5v.Ey3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:
> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
> 
> 
> I would like to use this response as an example of how the same stupid
> comments keep being thrown at me OVER AND OVER.  I'm sick of repeating
> myself.
> 
> 
>>> = vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>> = Larry Margolis 
> 
>>>>>That's not a fetus.
> 
>>>>Right - in most abortions, it's an embryo, not yet a fetus.
> 
>>>Document this.         
> 
>>Um, Larry documented this last week.  You're not very good at
>>disingenuousness.

Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) writes:

> Larry's documentation stated that 50% of abortion occur after 8 weeks
> LMP.  I have documented that this is considered the fetal stage.
> Therefore, Larry is full of it.  

[deletia]

Later in the same post...

This, it appears, is the "documentation" to which he refers:

>>>A fetus is the prenatal stage of a species in which the unborn offspring
>>>begins to take on the basic physical characteristics of its post birth
>>>form.  In humans this occurs approximately 8 weeks after fertilization.

Edward, there is approximately 2 weeks' difference between LMP and
fertilization.  It requires some simple subtraction to arrive at
the correct numbers.  I've done the work for you in an earlier
discussion with Larry Margolis.  I've never posted my SAT scores,
but rest assured that my calculations are correct and that my
arithmetic credentials are impeccable.

[deletia and more deletia]

>>This from the guy that knows nothing about when an embryo becomes a
>>fetus.

> My definition is sound and documented with a very credible source.
> Grow up.  

Your definition is sound; your understanding of it is, apparently,
less sound.

Please be a little more careful.  You're starting to embarrass me.
See you around.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55143 soc.men:22523 alt.dads-rights:3286 alt.abortion.inequity:6395
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:14:26 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan9.002410.11395@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes...
>>In article <1992Dec19.052827.25350@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wri
>>es:
>Adrienne, it's nothing personal, but I have seen you boast at some length
>about your vast knowledge of laws, though I believe that I have yet to
>see you post an actual reference to one of these laws.

I think 'boast' is a strong work.  I've had some experience in this area,
and reason to do some research.  Are you telling me that my statements or
analysis are incorrect?  Please explain exactly what your problem is.

BTW, when we are talking about marriage contracts, child support and divorce
law, they vary state to state.  Citations might be useful in specific cases,
when one knows what state one is discussing.  Generally, our discussions
haven't been case-specific.

Or are you just badgering?

>>Oh, by the way, your 'so often it's nearly a cliche' could use a little
>>evidence.  We'd all really love to see some information that would give
>>and idea on how big this problem really is.
>Sorry, Charlie.  Until the government, in its SupremeIntelligence, decides
>to take such statistics, you'll have to rely on personal stories and other
>anecdotal evidence.

Ah.

So, we should just sit back with 'so often it's nearly a cliche' and figure
there *is* a real problem that needs solving, eh?

Let me borrow a phrase: "Sorry, Charlie".  It'll get more interest and more
*useful* discussion (note the qualifier) if it can be demonstrated to really
exist on a level requiring social response.

>>Might motivate some of us to do something about it.
>I hardly think so.  Even if there *were* more statistics being published,
>I know you well enough to know that you'd insist that it wasn't enough to
>motivate you to do anything.

Horseshit, Will.

You don't know squat when it comes to what makes another person take action
or not take action.

By reading this far we can conclude that you _are_ merely badgering and there
is no substance worth addressing in your post.  And in 4 newsgroups, too.
You ought to be ashamed.

>Indeed, in my humble opinion, on the day when *you* start working on men's
>issues such as male choice, Satan will be skating to work.

Yeah.  It's been pretty damned cold here, too.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:38:12 GMT

In article <C0q2IB.JvM@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.221244.18099@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>
>>Take your time.  I think you would do well to come up with something better
>>than trying to assert that "fatherless" is somehow like "innocent,"
>>even if you are speaking in general terms.
>
>fatherless doesn't go with innocent very well.  But in a sense, many children
>that are aborted are fatherless.  
Oh? They were the result of immaculate conception?

>I don't know the proportions of women 
>who have abortion who are not married.
>
What difference does this make to anything? being married has
absolutely nothing to do with having a father.
Geeez, you should have paid more attention in sex ed...

--
                  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: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: we are forcing women to destroy their babies!!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:31:53 GMT

> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak):

>> You're frothing.  Calm down.  Many women consider an abortion the
>> ultimate in dignity, 

>Yeah right.  Stripped and strapped on your back to a table, with a metal
>suction tube shoved up your vagina.   That's the "ultimate in dignity".

Oh, Suzanne, you're so dishonest.  Answering that part of my sentence
when...

>> considering forced birth as the alternative.

...is an essential part of the sentence is more of that good ol'
out-of-context stuff you pro-life "christians" are so good at.

>Such a laugh!   It's no more "forced" that breathing.  In fact far less so.

"Forced", of course and as you well know, by the religious anti-abortion
laws you'd like to see enforced.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and e-mail
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:15:16 GMT
Summary: Chahallney is correct

In article <1993Jan7.221602.2594@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 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! 

Dennis Hall...er, I mean Stephen Chaney, or whatever name he's
using this week, is correct.  It wasn't slander.  It was libel.

Dean Kaflowitz

Duh, like I'm the big mean bad Borg thingie and like I'm so much
smarter than everyone else and like I beat everyone up on the
newsgroups because I'm just like so duh brilliant.  I just wish my
parents would hurry up and die so I could get all their money.
I used to be an airplane, you know.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: Someone the Middies couldn't beat in '92
	<PATRICK.93Jan4205438@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
	<C0GDvn.DxE@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:10:53 GMT

In article <C0GDvn.DxE@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:

   In article <PATRICK.93Jan4205438@lampasas.is.rice.edu>
   patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <C0CAu1.Moo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>   patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

   ....

>   >
>   >   Baby, adult, no difference.  Murder is murder.
>
>   >Of course -- babies and adults have both been born, nitwit.  Fetuses and
>   >embryos haven't.  Why all the difficulty with such simple English?

   Maybe its because they use the very 'uncommon' definition of child in that
   radical underground dictionary, Webster's Ninth Collegiate.

Webster's ninth makes no distinction between "baby" and "adult"?  I find
that rather hard to believe -- and if only I had known, I could have voted
for Ike in '56, since I *was* eighteen months old at the time.

Maybe they want to deliberately blur the meanings of such terms as to make
it that much easier to get their agenda forced on the rest of us?

--PLH, pro-choice and unrepentant about it -- and the wife and I vote.


--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line ""arbitrary""
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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:42:10 GMT

In article <C0FBKp.BzK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>I will give you a moral absolute.
>
>Murder is wrong.  
>
Definition of murder:
1. to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
2. to slaughter wantonly.
3. to put an end to.
see also KILL

According to definition 2, what is happening to you here, in this
forum, is murder.
According to definition 3, killing a burglar who enters my home (thus
posing a threat to my family) is murder. Won't stop me from doing it,
nor will it make my actions morally wrong. Unless you are seriously
going to claim that killing a buglar in your own home is not
justified?
So much for your moral absolute. Care to try again?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55110 talk.politics.misc:67056 talk.religion.misc:25783
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Dueling Is NOT Murder, but Trial by Combat
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:15:18 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] In article <1993Jan6.154210.3147@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
] >In article <C0FBKp.BzK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
] >>I will give you a moral absolute.
] >>
] >>Murder is wrong.  
] >>
] >Definition of murder:
] >1. to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
] 
] I would point out to both of you that MALICE is generally
] considered a necessary component of "murder", and since there is no malice
] in the case of abortion OR shooting_burglars_in_the_house, it could not be
] considered "murder". And, in the case of the burglar, at least, if there
] was a reasonable belief that the property-owner or their family was in
] immediate danger, I don't think the shooting would qualify as "manslaughter"
] either... 
] 
] 							- Kevin

Minor Point Kevin,
When I pull a weapon I have one Intention,
and it is Clear as a Bell, I wish 'malice'[1]
upon the Target: eg, and towit, To KILL.

As for the specific cases referenced above, most of those
cases will NOT be considered 'murder' as they are listed
as 'justifiable homicide' - or a 'good shoot' situation.

and Back to vengeanc's proposition:

Yes, we all agree that Murder is a NO_NO.

the Problem is that Some of US are Not Satan Worshippers,
and do NOT believe that the Government should Outlaw
Dueling, as Dueling is a Manifest Understanding of 
the Divine Right of Trial by Combat. But I guess, once
again, that the ModernSeXularHumanistScum with their
AntiTraditionalFamilyValues have Sucked Dry the brains
of yet another victim of Public Education.


ciao
drieux


ps: hence we Agree on the Moral Absolute, the
question now is Simply Whether or NOT vengeanc is a 
SatanicKultRitualistModernSeXularHumanistAntiTraditionalFamilyValues
kinda guy, or does he Support Moral Absolutes.


[1] trust me, it does NOT mean 'bad frozen water'.....


-- 
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????