HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Nazi Comparisons (was Re: Yea, SURE IT'S VERBATIM!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 APR 92 04:06:08 GMT

In a previous article, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>In article <1992Apr12.224259.16123@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>           slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
> 
>> If anyone had bothered to read the original post, I was RESPONDING to
>> someone who attempted, yet again, to label pro-lifers Nazis.  
> 
>I did read the original post, in fact I saved it. Here's what you said:
> 
>----------------
>From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
>Message-ID: <1992Apr2.224755.14728@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>Date: 2 Apr 92 22:47:55 GMT
> 
>Matthew, pro-choice and nazi fit together much better.  See the short
>history provided below.  The articles are included for your  
>edification and delight.
>----------------
> 
>You could have simply said "here's the article, you decide what it means".
>I would have had no problem with that. Instead you made the comparison 
>yourself ("pro-choice and nazi fit together much better"). 
> 
>> In fact, the article which I supplied as a reply was created specifically 
>> because this charge was so common from the supporters of legal abortion.
> 
>So two wrongs make a right, eh? 
> 
>If you feel the need to respond to every pro-choicer in this manner,
>then how about just posting the article by itself without your commentary?
>I think you'd get a lot more respect if you presented the article
>as a historical summary of Nazi abortion laws and let people decide 
>for themselves whether it means anything. 

Gee, didn't the nazi's kill a whole bunch of people and justify it by saying 
that they were sub-human?  Now lets just think for a minute about which side 
of the abortion issue is most similar to that?
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RON'S STUPIDITY!
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:23:00 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18116@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr13.173029.24847@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Br
>>indle) writes:
   Sorry Ron... You're going Dooowwwwnnnnnn...

>>However, now that there are no periodic variables to direct our cycle
>>of sex, Trojan Condoms makes millions while our Population growth is
>>on the decline BIG time.
>Good, we could probably use a billion less people on Earth. Too bad
>it's actually *growing*. Why don't you pull your head out, get a breath
>of freshh air, and get a reality check. I'm really beginning to wonder
>about the education system in Canada, but then, you're probably a real
>abnormality.
   Heh... Ron - I said that the Population Growth is on the decline.
Thus the rate at which our population expands is lessening. This means
that eventually the rate of growth of the population will likely 
be 0 and then delve into the negative. You see, this sucks, because
when trends as large and universal as population growth recede, it is
pretty damn hard for them to stop. I apologize that I had to point out
that your point sucked, but I do believe it was just a misinterpretation.

>Only one saves lives Steve, the rest just improve the quality of life
>or prolong it. Trojans could also be said to save lives, in those cases
>where the woman can't have babies. In any case, they don't end lives,
>just prevent them from being conceived. You have a problem with this?
   Improve the quality of life for WHO? Certainly not the child.
YOu know I'm not much of a fan of contraception Ron. WHy ask?
steve
,
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:53:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: pwcs.1992Apr15.145301.18813
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) says (to Ron Bense):
>>
>>> Ron, you're so wRONg. You see, I am not a babe, I do not babble, and I
>>> do know what I speak of. Clearly you are the idiot if you refute
>>> my statistics. 100% for abstinence friend. I don't have to look THAT up
>>> in the World Almanac either. I didnt' impose the practice on her...
>>> I just told her what works.
>> 
>> 100%????
>> 
>> But...but...what about Mary?
>> 
>> Or are you a Heretic too?  :-)

> Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
> But she didn't, much to all our benefit.    She made-the-choice to say Yes!
> Had she said no, God would have sent his angel to ask somebody else.

Where _did_ you get this shining revelation, Suzanne?  Has Our Lady of
Perpetual Responsiblity been visiting Tucson, again? :-)  I don't recall
any of the Gospels showing that Mary was _asked_ if she would bear Jesus.
Seems to me she got her orders and didn't ask questions.

Of course, the Good Lord made sure to pick the right woman for the job.
(I can imagine getting flamed for this.  If you're really offended, dear
reader, don't hold back. :-) )

> Obviously, somebody who says no to pregnancy now-a-days, via abstinence,
> will remain non-pregnant.

Another blatent assertion.  For better or worse, love still makes the world
go 'round, Roman Catholic Church notwithstanding.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include standard_disclaimers
T.S.A.K.C.   /  "If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" - Art Hoppe
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:51:01 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Very well said, Dan.  

I can never support any restrictions on a woman's right to
control her body.  I trust women to make rational decisions.
I can't imagine how someone could think that the described
scenarios would ever occur.

I'm still wondering if anyone has even any anecdotal
evidence about 36+ week abortions ever occurring.



I regret nothing so much as I do breaking up with you.  

Susan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.162732.3920@macc.wisc.edu>
heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:

>This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to self-determination 
>is self evident.

Some truth to that, actually, qualified as you have below.

>I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
>I feel I have to.

Pro-lifers who would forbid abortion from fertilization would say the
exact same thing, I suspect.

>You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
>truth.

I believe you.  I just don't think that means much.

>You chose to delete the part of the message in which I explain why I 
>think it's *the* issue.  I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to 
>the moment of delivery.  (I had thought that this is something most 
>people would agree with.)  It seems incredible to me that anyone might 
>think that a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby 
>becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the womb.  
>Clearly he's entitled to *some* protection before that.

The argument (which I personally do not agree with) is that the
woman's right to freedom takes precedence over the fetus's right to
life, even if the fetus is a person.

>It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society have to 
>place *some* limits on a woman's right to self-determination.  Not 
>because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but because we want 
>to protect what we believe are humans in need of protection.

It only makes sense if you think that life is more important than
freedom.  Some people don't.

>So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving 
>protection?"  I don't believe that there are any logical arguments 
>that can be made for protecting a fertilized egg.  (Though I do 
>recognize the religious arguments I don't subscribe to them.)  The 
>argument that a fetus deserves protection no sooner that when it 
>developes a cerebral cortex seems reasonable to me.  I'm been watching 
>for a reasonable rebuttal to that one.  (Maybe no logically based 
>rebuttal is possible.  If so I'll have to change my signature.)

I personally think that the earliest possible moment is when
myelination (myelin sheathing around axons of nerve cells which
increases speed and decreases signal loss) starts in the fetus's
brain.

--
"We should look to the mind, and not to the outward appearance."   - Aesop

Pro-Choice       Anti-Roe                             - E. Elizabeth Bartley
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:33:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr7.193301.19955
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr5.090323.20505@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

> 	Hmmm... okay Nora! Sorry about that "Nazi analogy". However, please
>note that I tried several attempts earlier (I think it was 3 times) to talk
>some logic to this person. After trying to talk some sense to the man a few
>times and seeing him totally disregarding anything anyone said I kind of blew
>my top. I was a bit "upset" by his generalization. Hope you understand! :)

Sure. It's okay; I'm just trying to stop it wherever I can. Thanks
for being more careful.

>						Mikeey
>				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

	-Nora


-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: pro-whatever
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:25:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.152547.694
Reply-To: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)



Most of you people would claim to have an open mind, and then be so
quick to point the finger at others.

Well....take at look at yourself today.
Every single one of us is a hypocrite.

Watch more Zoo TV.

-- 
MaThiEu a. LeWis   "Achtung ya'll........it's good to be down in America
Thieves Like Us     for a while....and get to Texas.....I'll have a drink
mal11@po.cwru.edu   on Texas."  - U2  Dallas, Texas  April 5th, 1992 
                   I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS ON ZOO TV
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:42:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233944.19093@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>
>>>Mary could have said no to the pregnancy before the pregnancy even began.
>>
>> Scripturally unsubstantiated bullshit--RC dogma or not.
>> Back it up or don't say it, Suzanne. We've been through this one before.
>
>First chapter of Luke.  The angel kept talking with his sales pitch on it
>until she did indeed agree to the whole plan.   Read it and weep, Eric.
Glad to see you haven't gotten a clue yet.
The actual text(RSV follows.)
The angel shows up....
Luke 1.30:
"And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb
and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus."

Note the use of future tense. There is no request for consent, and
no reason to believe that what you insist on reading as consent,
Mary's "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be to
me according to your word." is anything other than formal.
In specific, there is no reason to believe that things would
have been otherwise had she said "no." Let us not forget
what happened to Jonah when he was approached in a rather
similar tone and he DID say "no." Didn't seem to help much.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.abortion.inequity
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: On Sinning and Being Roman Cathooic
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 07:45:57 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  <1992Apr14.142634.17245@newstand.syr.edu>  mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.223812.4297@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just d
> >
> >1. you are aware that the same edict that starts the notion
> >that abortion is immoral also resolved that the unborn do not
> >have souls.....
> >
> >2. So those who oppose Abortion, and thus try to defend their
> >arguments by making assertions about the 'souls'of the unborn
> >should RECANT their Opposition to Roman Catholic policy in
> >regards to the argument of souls so as to escape from Sin?
> >
> >3. Such Roman Catholics who hold both that Abortion is Immoral
> >and that there are souls in the unborn, are in SIN??? And
> >must correct their Heretical Notions?????
>
> or not mention souls and just state that it is immoral.  Its nice to see
> that drieux recognizes that abortion is immoral.

No, drieux recognizes that there's a Roman Catholic edict which declares
that abortion is immoral.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: keegan@kazoo.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Posting Fraud on t.a. (Please Read)
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:35:16 GMT
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.

roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
->         Careful investigation has shown that the Dennis Hall
-> posts are indeed a fraud.

yes, of course.

i wonder who would have benefited from perpetuating this fraud.


--
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:20:10 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr7.171138.23850@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
  >jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>>     Sorry dude. I'll have to disagree with that comment. I don't believe
>>that Pro-Lifers want to "ban birth control" and "control women's body".
>>Although a few may share that belief, I think we should discount the few
>>"narrow-minded" folks out there. The majority of Pro-Lifers are not so dum.

>I believe that their leadership wants to ban birth control, because
>most of them believe that standard rhetorical shit about "you knew the 
>consequences, you shouldn't have had sex" (actually most pro-forced-birthers
>believe that, too).  I also believe that although their main agenda
>may not be control, it certainly is a direct side-effect, isn't it?--and
>they know it.

	Hmmm... some leadership does want to ban birth control but I do 
not think this applies to most leadership. As for the "standard rhetorical..."
I really do not think it's appropiate for you to say they believe so. It's
true some do think so (those idiots), but "most"? I doubt it!  The Pro-Life
does have flaws just like the Pro-Choice movement.  No group is perfect.
I do not believe they are indirectly trying to "control" women, if that was
so, I believe they would lose about half their members. There are many 
Pro-Lifers who are just want a compromise with Pro-Choicers. Just because 
someone's a Pro-Lifer it does NOT mean he/she will try to force his/her
beliefs on you. I seems like some Pro-Choicers in this newsgroup seem to
think so about all Pro-Lifers. Personally, I believe the ideals of their
movement is to save "unborn children", NOT to control women. JMHO. 


>I think that most people (if not all) would like to see this nation's 
>infant mortality lowered, but I don't see many people out there who are
>in a position to actually _do_ something about it stepping forward with
>programs designed to help the situation.

	Yeah... it's sad. To think we all could be doing something in
order to help instead of flaming each other on the Net. People have 
ideas, it's just that too many "leaders" don't listen to ideas. Unless
you have connections, your ideas will usually not be able to get around.
Some of the best ideas I've heard are from "regular" folks. (me included)
 
						Mikeey
				    mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

PS Congrats once again Jennifer!

>Jennifer

	
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Eric's Rasmussen Boycott
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:01:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.121846.1@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov> lockhart@kscdl1.ksc.nasa.gov writes:
>Referring to Eric's David Rasmussen posting (in response to "who is David
>Rasmussen?):
>
>Being new on the net, I also didn't know who this was.  And I read your
>boycott response.  It's a joke, right?  This guy didn't really mean all
>this stuff, did he?
As far as I can tell, yes he did.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
 If it's in the machine, I eat it. If it's not in the machine, I don't eat it.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: A Quick Proof
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.041544.6250@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Premise A: All human life should have the right to determine its own
>           set of morals, and no human life should physically force its 
>           morals on others. 
>
>If you disagree with this statement, then you must agree that humans
>can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Absurd deduction. All my cells are human life. I grant them no special 
consideration.

If you say "all human beings." that's different. Then, since an 8 week 
fetus is not a human being (no functioning brain) there is no problem.



>Premise B: A fetus is a human life, and therefore a fetus should have
>           the right to determine its own set of morals. 

An 8 week fetus (which is what *I* reference), is not a human *being*
(distinction made to avoid discussion on liver cells, sorry Kevin), because
it is totally incapable of *being* a human being because its brain
is not sufficiently devolped to do a damn thing.

An 8 week fetus is as much 'human life' as liver cells. I don't let my liver
cells decide their own set of morals. Here's looking at you, liver (as he
raises a glass of vodka.)

>
>Follows from premise A, and the observation that a fetus is a human life. 

Error.

>Premise C: Abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion denies the 
>           fetus its right to determine its own set of morals.
>

Abortion certainly does kill the fetus. An 8 week fetus has no intrinsic
right to determine anything because it is a clump of useless cells. It 
does less than a liver.

>Follows from premise A and B.
>

Bad premises.
>
>Conclusion: If you support premise A, then it leads to the correctness
>of premise C, which says that abortion is wrong. If you disagree with
>premise A, then you agree that humans can force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term.  



I don't support premise A because it is meaningless. It is based on faulty
assumptions.

Logic is a good thing, unfortunately, you have called things 'premises',
which are not valid.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dgp@ganymede.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: One million at DC Abortion Rights March??
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 23:46:56 GMT

Hi folks,

I flipped through C-SPAN earlier today and they were showing live
coverage of the abortion rights rally in Washington DC.  Eleanor
Smeal was speaking and she said the turnout at the rally was 
approaching one million.

Wow!  This boggles my mind.  Pick any 300 Americans and
chances are that one of them was at this march.  How does this
number compare to other marches?  Is it a record?  How about the
huge rally with Dr. King in the 60's?

I would guess there is some element of optimistic estimation in
Smeal's claim, but even if she's just in the ballpark, it is
quite remarkable.  Is such a turnout even possible?  Is a city
like Washington, D.C. even capable of absorbing an additional
one million people, even for just one day?  Traffic, food,
restroom lines, etc. must be a nightmare.

Smeal emphasized the need of pro-choice forces to organize.
IMHO, if they are capable of accomodating one million people
at a rally, they have enough organizational skills to pull off
just about anything.

I bet we get some good stories from some of the t.a. regulars
who attended.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Still wonderin'
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:

>   What I _AM_ saying (as you so ineptly paraphrased) is that society
>is setting a trend. By first tackling the _WEAKEST_ of it's members,
>I ask you, what's next? 100 years ago, you tell any "ordinary" joe
>about a homosexual, or abortion, and they'd think you were mad. Well,
>you just let you imagination go crazy and try and envision what society
>will be like in another 100 years if it continues with this trend.
>Society can't exist like this. It _WILL_ change. Whether under influence
>of people like me, or through natural socio-economic evolution.

By any chance are you a white male somewhere between middle and upper
class?  It seems to me that most times someone wants to go back 100
years or to the Eisenhower administration or some long ago time it
is a reasonably well off white male.  Anybody have any guesses why
this might be?

Steve, why don't you tell us what your ancestors were doing 100 years
ago to make you so nostalgic for this by-gone time?

>   steve

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion