HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers (was Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:33:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.220623.11480@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>Perhaps you should go sit with a few dying cancer patients. Try bone
>cancer, for starters. Then you can graduate to some of the nastier
>varieties.

I have.  Yet, there is not way I would have killed this person.  even if 
someone is dying in pain, there is no right to murder.  This particular
individual chose not to go to the hospital and take the pain medication
or undergo hopeless operations.  I can respect that decision.  What I could
not do is kill someone because they are in pain.  People are not animals to
be put our of their misery.  If I were dying in agony, I would not want to
have my family kill me.  I would not want that on their consciences for hte
rest of their lives.  I would not want to die knowing that my family had
killed me.

God can and has healed people in the last stages of cancer.  Even if I knew
for sure that God would not heal someone in my family, I could not kill them.




>
>--
>                  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: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
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: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:36:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.153318.10342@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.090739.1885@netcom.com> 
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>>judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Conan the Grammarian) writes:
>>>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>>  "Personally, I think we need to develop some sort of 100% reversable
>>>>>   steralization procedure, and make it mandatory for both sexes to be 
>>>>>   steralized to enter school."
>>>>>
>>>>>       kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith Cochran) 
>>>>>      <1993Jan17.210349.13155@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>
>>>> I still don't agree with it, but suddenly Mark's suggestion doesn't seem
>>>> quite as severe, or as offensive.  
>
>>> I don't know why it sounds better to you.  I think both ideas
>>> are equally disgusting. 
>
>> Why?  Don't you support mandatory (forced) reversable pregnancy?
>
>No, I don't believe that people should be forced to have sexual
>intercourse against their will.  Rape is a crime, and I'd like
>it to stay that way.  
> 
Which of course is merely your way of wriggling away from the direct
question DODie. Pregnancy is reversable, and yet you support forcing
women to remain pregnant, don't you?

--
                  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.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Kodak's Official Policy (formerly: Want to adopt)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:21:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <106596@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.214821.29561@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:

>>1.  Kodak should immediately fire any employee who criticizes it in
>>public, except that the reporting of a crime or suspected crime to
>>a law enforcement agency shall not constitute public criticism.

>Wanna join the Happy Fascists League of America?  Sheesh, man, one
>does not give up one's civil rights by virtue of employment. 

Gee, why not?

Heck, if one gives up one's right to control one's own body by virtue of 
having sex, even using the most advanced contraceptive devices available
today, why couldn't we write a similar rule WRT employment?

*sarcasm off*

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: About Komrade Labach
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:29:54 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

->why is terry labach sending me toilet paper from kiev
->in the Ukraine?????

i know.

plus, you're not supposed to question the actions of
canadian gangsters.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,can.politics
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Closing of the Margolis Mind, Part 4
Summary: A short companion piece to "The PAS of Nancyjo Mann, founder of WEBA"
Keywords: aborted women, ice cream cones
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:12:15 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

This is a short companion piece to "The PAS of Nancyjo Mann, founder of
WEBA," Part 1 of which was posted a few minutes ago.  The title of this 
thread is based on _The Closing of the American Mind_, by Alan Bloom,
and by "Terrible. Close. Mind.", a thread begun by Frank O'Dwyer expressing
his frustration with the closed-mindedness he perceived in Larry Margolis.

What follows is a copy of an old post, as you can see.

Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:11:10 GMT

In <1992Aug22.184443.42724@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.714320492@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
>(Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Discussing _Aborted Women, Silent No More_]

>> Admittedly, there are weak points in the book.  The idea that the
>> experience of the WEBA women is statistically the same as that of
>> abortions in general is the weakest, and seems downright silly to me.

>Exactly - start an organization for women traumatized by ice cream cones,
>take a poll of the members, and I'd bet that you'd come to the conclusion
>that eating ice cream cones can be very traumatic.

If a pro-lifer dared to talk this way about the victims of ILLEGAL 
abortions, especially in the years when almost all abortions were
illegal, he/she would be flamed so badly, his/her credibility in
talk.abortion would be permanently dust and ashes.

________________end of August post___________________________________________

Peter Nyikos
		QUOTE OF THE DAY:

		"Therefore, Larry is full of it."

			--Edward Simmonds [quote brutally ripped out
			   of context, a practice Larry has publicly
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
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: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:36:18 GMT

In article <Jan.26.16.16.46.1993.2140@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan R. Hagan) writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>>In <1993Jan7.202657.2066@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak):
>
>>>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".
>
>Is that how they did your abortion Steve?  What a pity.  Find a kinder
>physician next time.  My friend had a very caring and gentle
>physician.  She was not "stripped". She changed into a hospital gown.
>Sheets covered her lower body, with the exception of the vaginal area.
>Nothing was "shoved" inside of her.  Rather the instruments were
>lubricated and gently moved into place.
>
>Everything was done to preserve her dignity.
>
I think your article was an excellent rebuttal, Susan, except for one
minor problem. Steve Novak didn't write that bit about the suction
tube. That was Suzanne Forgach AKA Madam Mucous displaying her typical
cluelessness.
It has, of course, since been pointed out to Ms. Mucous that her
description is as accurate for a delivery as for an abortion.

--
                  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:58506 talk.politics.misc:70474
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: When will We See the Changes in the Stats...
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:19:48 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan27.225215.26065@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In <81867@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> >As far as a societal consensus goes, I think most people believe that
> >the unborn is a person.
> 
> Actually, I think most people know that it's not a person.
> --
> Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

I think MOST people haven't thought about the subject that deeply,
but are still bothered by abortion being so casually used as a
birth control strategy.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Does James Keegan support Cochran's mandatory sterilization program?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:57:44 GMT

In article <zrk3khb@rpi.edu> 
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:

> it always gives me, well, a nice, cared-for feeling,
> when [Mr. Holtsinger] puts my name in the subject line,
> misrepresents something, 

All I did was quote Keith Cochran as saying that he would like 
to see a mandatory "reversible" sterilization program implemented
in the schools.   Do you support his proposal?  

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:05:10 GMT

In article <casivils.727637526@node_508ba>,
casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:

>In <1993Jan21.023127.26352@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(David Aaron Tepper) writes:
>>Tit for Tat,

>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right
>>of an individual to use public money for their children to attend the
>>school private or public of their choice
>Loaded question. Let me rephrase that:
>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-life" against the right of
>an individual to study evolution in school?
>I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine...

[long answer deleted, although it was well thought out and logical...
you'll see why]

My point, Craig, is that in your question, being pro-choice and
being for school choice are two entirely different issues. I do
happen to support school choice for my own reasons. Other net.choicers
may or may not agree with me--that doesn't matter. I, Rocker, Muriel,
Mark, Eric, Becka, and all the other prochoicers differ in age, marital
and/or sexual status, religious affiliation, political affiliation, and
so forth. It makes about as much sense to claim that pro-lifers are
against evolution--although it does *seem* that way at times, I know
that a small group of anti-choice fanatics cannot possibly be
representative of the movement as a whole. Right? Right?

Further discussion of evolution vs. creationism to talk.origins please,
and further arguments, flames, and other abortion-relation stuff here.
Thanx.

Tep
-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Legal control
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:43:27 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lmdph0INNati@sahara.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>Thanks to this %$@#%^ newsreader (trn), I can't post anything that has more
>quoted text than what I add.

Try substituting something else for the >>s.


>Understood.  At first this seemed to be a moral/ethical type discussion; my
>posts seem to have steered it into the legal arena for the time being. 

I specifically asked how you would vote.  You are certainly entitled to your
personal opinion as is any person on this net, and I wouldn't dream of attemp-
ting to change your mind, AS LONG AS we are just taking about your personal
opinion.  However, I asked about your VOTE.  Now, that's a private matter,
and you can say, "None of your business" with impunity.  But what you said,
and what I gather from the text you wrote this time, too, was that the
POSSIBILITY that the fetus is a human being (and you haven't even solved
this thoroughly for your own self!) was enough for you to vote to REDUCE
the HUMAN RIGHTS of the woman involved.  I'm arguing with that *vote*.

>Understood.  I only felt it necessary to make clear that I do not wish to
>offend.

Fine.  I have noted (as long as we are talking about subjective analyses (-:)
that when people are asked hard questions, questions that reach down into
areas they haven't considered completely, or areas where contradictions hide,
they get a little upset, and respond accordingly.  That's about the time
where we see them calling other people 'emotional'.  I believe (Bill
Overpeck, you will correct me if I'm wrong, won't you?) that's called
"projection."  Think about it.

I don't have any wish to offend, either.  I certainly do wish to question
your beliefs to the point of causing you doubt, and reconsideration.  I 
also use caps and asterisks and underlines to highlight the words I would
stress were I speaking.  Some people read that as shouting.  I consider them
to be unimaginative.  (-:  Now that we are all cordial, we can continue.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Info on Catholics for choice
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:47:29 GMT

In <YfNNQGK00iUyI5MfRu@andrew.cmu.edu> js1x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jennifer Lynn Simonic) writes:

>Hi, 
>    I want to know if anyone has any information on the group Catholics
>for choice. 
>    Thanks,
>    Jen

I think they're affiliated with "Vegetarians for Meat."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:50:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.222503.1633@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.182938.1062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:
>>>>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes: 
>
>>>>> 'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows 
>>>>> Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.
>
>>>> But what a titillating offer!
>
>>> Does the thought of injecting a deadly poison into the heart 
>>> of a late-term fetus sound 'titillating' to you? 
>
>> Learn the difference between a fatal dose of a theraputic drug and
>> a 'deadly poison' 
>
>The difference is that the phrase 'therapeutic drug' conveys the 
>false impression that the abortionist is doing the child a favor by 
>killing them, while a 'deadly poison' conveys the truth of the
>matter. 
>

It's the Mother, stupid! ( to use the style of our president)

>And learn how to spell 'therapeutic'. 

I am sure that you impress everyone with a spelling flame, dougie

>
>> Show some evidence that these late term abortions (of which
>> perhaps 100 occur in any given year) 
>
>Incorrect.  There are several thousand abortions performed annually 
>after the 21st week of pregnancy (Source: CDC Surveilance on Abortion).
>

A) Not exactly a reputable source.

b) lemme see, 40*2/3= 26.7 weeks. Hmm... seems a bit bigger that 21 to me.

>> are done for any reasons other
>> than massive deformation and/or serious threats to the womans life.
>
>Many children are killed in the womb at a late-stage because 
>they're mentally retarded.  Here's one woman suggesting that
>she should have the right to have a mentally retarded child
>executed in her womb: 
>
>  "I'm suggesting we lift the veil of privacy and professionalism
>   to explore issues of heath care, abortion, and the right to
>   choose death, as well as life, for our genetically disabled
>   fetuses."
>
>   -- Rayna Rapp, in _The Choices We Made_, discussing her
>      abortion of a Down's syndrome child in the 21st week 
>      of pregnancy. 
> 

Your point? Do think think people unwilling and unable to care for a 
Down's baby should have one? 

Perhaps you know of some genetic testing that will uncover these 
serious genetic disorders at a younger fetal age, so that the 
abortion could be done earlier? I doubt it. Maybe people should
abort earlier, before getting test results, if there is even a chance 
of deformity. Is this what you are saying?

>
>>Mark Cochran          
>

>Doug Holtsinger

Robert Johnston

'finger dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu' for documentation which shows that 
dougie has been taking lessons in logic from the airplane boy.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Romans 13, and variations on themes
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:42:23 GMT

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

[ interesting view on romans 13 ]

So can you sum it up as:

"When I think the Government is following the bible,
it is something that I will support. But when Faced 
with the Direct VIOLATION of BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES,
as is the Case of the Federal Policy on Slavery,
I will Run away from that Position and not deal with
it as its Not really Something That I want to deal with.
But Like when I want to Like use some of the bible, that
I hope will help instatiate parts of what I think I will
need to Hide My Political Agenda Behind a Religious Wrapper
then We Will Fight the Fed's Tooth and Nail and Deprive
Women of Free Access to Medical Facilities."

Or did I miss your point?

ciao
drieux


ps: I am most Amused at folks who want to protect
the Rights of Religious Activities, and the free
actualization of those Liberties Under the Constitution,
but Still find It ok to support Terrorists Who are
Trying to Deny ACCESS to Medical FAcilities, based
upon the 'Higher Calling Argument'.

I return you to the Question:

	What does it profit a man that he save his life
	and lose his mortal Soul.

Now Clearly Rescueing the UnPostRomanCatholics from
the PIT OF HELL, should CLEARLY take Precedence over
merely trying to save lives....




-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Blackmun calls the Roe v. Wade dividing line "arbitrary"
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:09:11 GMT

Gee, an anti-gun-control nut crawls out of the woodwork. The Net is surprised...

In article <1jtq56INNs2v@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>there is a rule of statutory construction called _expressio unius est exclusio
>>alterius_ (literally: "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of 
>>another"). I have invoked _expressio unius_ many times in explaining to the
>>RightToKeepAndBearArms fanatics why the Second Amendment only applies to the
>>"well-regulated militia".
>
>There's another rule of statutory construction called _find out what the words
>mean_.  If you apply this to "well-regulated militia" you will find out that
>nearly everyone in the NRA, for example, is a member, ...

They may (arguably) qualify under "militia", maybe, but what about the "well-
regulated" part? And what about the "necessary to the security of a free 
state" part? Do they meet ALL of the qualifications? 

Sorry, it just doesn't wash. The Mafia soldiery, for instance, is probably a 
more well-regulated militia than the NRA will EVER be, but since they aren't 
"necessary to the security of a free state", they don't get an automatic RKBA.
The NRA isn't necessary, either. The various military and law-enforcement
agencies can train their own recruits without the NRA's help.

If you want a Constitutionally-protected RKBA, pass an Amendment. You might
even get my support in that effort. But stop trying to hijack the Second,
please.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:42:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.133117.14225@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Kevin Darcy (kevin@rotag.mi.org) wrote:
>: In article <17JAN199311115080@utkvx3.utk.edu> dchatham@utkvx3.utk.edu (Chatham, Doug) writes:
>: >In article <1993Jan17.042429.16551@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>: >(Kevin Darcy) writes...
>: >>Relatively short and sweet, primarily directed at those folks who keep mixing 
>: >>up the economic and biological aspects of the paternity child support issue...
>: >> 
>: >>PROPOSAL:
>: >> 
>: >>Abolish traditional paternity child support, and, in its place, make every 
>: >>man and woman who cause a conception, while not married to each other, pay an 
>: >>"Illegitimate-conception Tax". ...
>: >>
>: >> [...]
>: >>
>: >
>: >PROBLEMS:
>: >
>: >	1.  The issue of CONSENT is not addressed by this proposal.  Should
>: >women who have been raped be further injured by being forced to pay an
>: >18+ year tax?  On the other hand, should the children who are the result of 
>: >rape not be supported?
>: 
>: Hmmm... an oversight. The tax should only apply to unmarried folks who cause a 
>: conception by a voluntary act. A rapist should be liable for the tax, but not 
>: his victim.
>
>This still has loop holes (in fact comes rather near to a no-win situation)
>
>You then create a situation where someone can attempt to get out of the tax
>by claiming to have been raped.

Only if it's proven.

>Also what about where the pregancy is a result of deliberate sabortage of 
>contraceptive devices, caused by either of the participents or a third party.
>(false claims that an oral contraceptive had been taken also)

Doesn't matter. Sex is a voluntary act, whether the risks of a particular sex 
act are accurately known by the participants or not. Any voluntary act of sex 
leading to illegitimate conception would make the actor liable for the Tax.

>And also you have assumed that in a rape it MUST be the male who has commited
>the rape.

I have assumed no such thing. Doug Chatham asked specifically about "women who
have been raped" [sic], where the rape results in their becoming impregnated.
I was responding to his point. My general statement, however, that rapists 
should be liable for the Tax, but not their victims, applies equally whether
the rapist is a man or a woman.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion