HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:42:07 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr4.201819.7748@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) said:
><1992Apr4.185510.21498@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran) writes:
>
>><1992Apr4.145454.25907@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>In <1992Apr3.111600.12898@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>>I assume this is still part of the "9 months of pregnancy = 80 years of
>>happiness" stuff?  If so, I'll re-iterate my "let me fist you for nine months"
>>stuff again.
>   Yeah, lots of people just LOVED your analogy. WOnderful logic. I guess you
>don't read all the posts, but I think it was Gaylord who answered your
>pathetic logic well... If your life depended on fisting me for 9 months
>and there was no other way to keep you alive, then I would allow you to. 
>However, a) your logic stinks because that is clealy not the case, b) you're
>a sick creep for even considering the possibility and c) I wont' humor you
>anymore on the subject...

You know, you have two kidneys.  You only need one.  There are people who
desperately need a kidney.  You could give someone "80 years of happiness"
by donating one of your kidneys immediately.  You would probably be
recovered from the operation in a few weeks.  So it would only be a few
weeks of discomfort and you would save a life!  Have you done it yet?

Think of it as a "harmless kind of slavery".

...

[scenario deleted]

>   Incedentally - how does a male die if the woman is having the child?
>This is where I lose all respect for your argument. This is not even a
>plausible circumstance, yet you try and set up your entire argument on the 
>matter?
>   In any case, no - I can't say I am a hero... I can't say I am a brave
>man, but I would like to think that I put my own fellow's life over my
>own. 

"Fellow"?  So you wouldn't put a 'gals' life over your own?

...

>>Oh, and please don't evade the question by changing it.  You have one of two
>>choices to make.  Your wife aborts the fetus, or you die.  None of this "Well,
>>if there was only a 50% chance that I would die..." stuff.  100%  If your
>>wife carries the pregnancy to term, you're history.
>   I wouldn't dream of changing the analogy. It has to be one of
>the funniest posts I have ever seen. I wouldn't do you the honor
>of improving your post. That would take away from it's humor.

You also wouldn't bother to really answer it. 

>>=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker and Susan, and Damm Proud Of It!  Oh, And Yes, FWA!!!=
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ who the hell is rocker and susan, and how can you
>be an ex-girlfriend? Isn't your name keith?

Canadians...  no sense of humor.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:34:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Apr13.215118.21410@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr13.173215.24962@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>>So, I ask you again, (not that you'll answer because you probably don't 
>>understand the question and therefore won't "bother")....What equivalent
>>responsibility do you propose for the male who got the woman pregnant?

>[...] So, the closest thing a man can give a woman
>is support, love, and time. If this isn't enough for you, then I feel sorry
>for you, and wonder what kind of guys you attract.

Stevie, this is very telling. There is something you missed, something
that should come before the support, love, and time. 

Know what it is? Can you even guess?

I didn't think so.


What you missed is respect.
                   ~~~~~~~


But then again, that's why so many men like myself are fighting for a 
woman's right to choose her repoductive destiny, while many like 
yourself are fighting against it.

Eric
--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:13:23 GMT

conradv@joule.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes ...
>rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes..... 
>>The past record of the Catholic Church cannot
>>be used to prove that the Church is mistaken now
>>n its belief that abortion is wrong. Given its 
>>past record it is not unreasonable  to infer that the Church 
>> is _likely_ to be incorrect
>
>Catholics believe that the Pope's support of the heliocentric
>theory was outside the realm in which a Pope could expect 
>divine guidance in his rulings . Abortion has moral and
>religous overtones - the domain in which a Pope's ruling 
>is guided by Divine will.

In other words, "that doesn't count".

Well then, how about an area that DOES have religious and
moral overtones?  How about the crusades where the noble
Christians invaded, murdered, and robbed the heathen Arabs
in order to save their souls and liberate them of their
corrupting wealth?

Or what about the Inquisition where people were tortured
and burned at the stake in order to save their souls?

The Church has made what appear to be grevious errors
in its history.  It may well be mistaken now in its
stances on abortion, birth control, and women clerics.

Ray
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov gone?  Oh no!
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:56:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr14.031216.3069@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article by tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch):
> >
> > R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
> 
> I am really sad to hear this.  I grew up on his books :-(
>                                                        `
>                                                         `
> They were great science fiction without the sleeze factor!
> 
> Well, I guess he's not an atheist anymore.

I would agree with that last, Suzanne.

I would guess he's not anything anymore.

Dean Kaflowitz

Isaac, you left seventy books unwritten.  Now who's going to
fill the rest of my shelves?
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy, Bloody Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:58:58 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA

From article <92104.163701JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>, by JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel):
> In article <1992Apr13.185646.15354@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve
> Franklin) says:
>>
>>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.

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


S.F.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The Voices of Women
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:50:10 GMT

In article <1m70iB5w165w@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> The "unborn" don't have any rights.  How can you defend what doesn't
>> exist, Mr Quixote?
>        For once, I agree with you. In the USA, the unborn _don't_ have
>any civil rights, just as in the past slaves had none, and free people
>of color had few.
>        Who's next?  Jews? Evangelical Christians?  The aged and
>infirm whose "quality of life" (or whose nursing home bill) calls for
>that ultimate euphemism of "euthanasia"?

Actually, if pro-lifers have their way, women are next.  Make no mistake.
Forcing women to give birth is taking from them their rights under the law
in this country.  It is taking from them the only thing that renders them
actual humans -- their personal will.  It is making them back into the
slaves you so cavelierly use as an example above.

And, what for?

For a fetus?  For a "child" that isn't yet even arguably a person under the
law?  For something that is only a potential?

Or perhaps it's really for *your* peace of mind.  Now, I value peace of
mind, really I do.  But I really don't value it at the COST to other
individuals on this planet.

Pro-choice people are pretty clear on the question of 'who's next'.
We aren't too enamoured of the answer.

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:15115 alt.flame:6767
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
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: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.184118.14440@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <18061@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>>BTW, anyone read where they think AIDS originated? It appears the virus
>>was introduced into the human blood pool in the 1920s or 30s by scientists
>>injecting malaria-infected chimp blood into human subjects, to see if
>>the malaria would take. Talk about stupid scientific endeavors (hindsight).
>
>   Hee hee... I have shares in the moon I will sell you Ron if you're
>interested... In any case, more likely is the references I have heard where
>humans have been bitten by the (green?) monkey of Africa. Doesn't really
>matter who started it. You should be more concerned with who spreads it,
>and how we can stop it... Now have I suggested my contraceptive? Oh yes,
>I believe I have... I won't dwell on it more.

Ah, yes, Steve.  Who *IS* spreading AIDS nowadays.  According to the CDC
(January, 1992) upwards of 60% of the new HIV infections occuring in 1992
are going to be cause by HETROSEXUALS.  While homosexual males still constitue
the majority of cases of people already infected with HIV, or contracted AIDS,
the majority of new infections are occuring in the HETROSEXUAL community.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  HIV/AIDS is *NOT* just a "gay
disease".  Anybody can get it.

This message brought to you by somebody who's seen too many good people die
already.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, and Linda, and Damm Proud Of It!! And, FWA!!!=
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: NAZIS OUT (was Re: What the pro-lifers do not tell you)
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:20:12 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

>In article <stljxjc.zank@netcom.com>, zank@netcom.com (Mathew Zank) writes...

>>boyiny@math.mit.edu (Siren) writes:
>> 
>>Why don't they come out more open then? all I have seen of the pro-life
>>movement is the pro-control anti-women part of the pro-life movement
>>(ie Nazi's). I would just love to sit down with the other side and talk
>>how to reduce the abortion rate by reduce the unplaned babys, but all
>>the pro-lifers I have seen just like to have control and put the goverment
>>in our bedrooms.

   Hey Matt, or whoever (damn reference lines are confusing...) I beg
to differ I"m afraid. I dont' try to place any government in your
bedroom. I just try and appeal to you conscience. Tell me to screw off
if you like. I just think it's important to think from both sides. I sure
try to. I have seriously considered the rationelle bend pro-choice, but
I realize it is not for me. I just hope that everyone has been exposed to
both points of view, that's all. It's a big decision to make, and I want
everyone to know that...
   You don't think I'm very opeN? Hell, I would say I've revealed alot
of my personal opinions and goals on here, and I do it more so in person.
I am not anti-women, or pro-control, but just PRO-LIFE. It means what it
says. I am PRO-RIGHTS, PRO-FETUS, PRO-RELIGION. 
   You haven't read a damn post of mine I imagine. All I do is moan and
groan about teamwork and pro-choie and pro-life working TOGETHER to 
reduce abortions, but you know what friend? NO one gives a damn... They
just try and pick at the REST of my argument, and not even ackownledge
my point. Heh, that's justice for ya. 
   steve
p.s. -Want me to let you in on a little secret?
 *whispers* don't even think of relating a pro-lifer to a murderous
dictatorial group of sub-human agressors for a second. I guess I"m not
offended by your attempt at insult because it's obviously trash, but
the millions of men and women who fought that maddened group might
become a little angered by your analogy, not to mention all of the jews...
I guess I should feel a little sorry for you, and I'll try not to be angered,
because clealry you have nothin more intelligent to say...
-- 
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: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:25:42 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr13.171055.8243@beaver.cs.washington.edu> lenox@cs.washington.edu (Amy Lenox) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.002515.4493@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <1992Apr12.214943.7613@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...

>I thought "latch-key" children are those children who go home alone,
>i.e. not in any "child care" situation.  Be sure you get the studies
>showing the mental and emotional disadvantages of "child care", Steve.
   Although latch-key is metaphorically tied to the child who has 
her/his own key to let him/herself into their home because no parents 
are there to do it for them, it basically includes all children who 
don't have sufficient support and education because of a lack of
parental communication and presence.

>I think this is the first time I've seen Steve say he will dig out
>studies.  
   yeah, yeah yeah... And last time too. Diggind through old text books
and journals is a real fun way to prove a point... 8)

   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
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mommy! They Called Me Names! (Was: Implications of Abortion...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:49:30 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <18128@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <EJONES.92Apr13160022@umassmed.ummed.edu> ejones@umassmed.ummed.edu (Erik Jo
>>nes) writes:

>By the way, how could you have a lot of time, judging by your posts,
>you must spend a minimum of three hours a day opn the net, do you not
>study?
   Well, clearly this has a WHOLE lot to do with talk.abortion. 
But in any case: I spend around 1 hour on my computer. I read one
newsgroup. That's it. I'm not studying right now anyways. I'm full
time employed as a computer/physics geek working at a great job 8). 
   Co-op's great...
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: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.235012.25339@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>in the not so recent past, married people have had so-called "accidents"
>and lived happy, productive lives afterwards. Is there anyone left
>to make small sacrifices???

How 'bout you, Matthew?  I mean, why do you figure *other* *people* should
make these "small" sacrifices just cose you happen to like 'em?  Go donate
a kidney.  Save a life.  Make a small sacrifice and live a happy productive
life.


>BTW, just how many abortions are done to married women???
>I'm sure the number of abortions by unmarried, perhaps promiscuous
>women is alot higher. Statistics anyone???

If memory serves, about 20%.  I think the categories are married and
unmarried, not married and promiscuous.  Do we detect a little bias 
here?

Adrienne Regard
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lester Bangs)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: SNOOPER IN THE NET
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:58:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr9.000353.23910@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.202536.21326@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@euler.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>>
>>

>Funny words, coming from someone who had no qualms about being a third party
>in something that didn't concern him -- in case your memory's that short,
>you were the one who apologized to Susan *for* Welch...

No, Patrick.  I am the one who apologized to Susan *for* myself.


>Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems

kcw

--
(=- Mr. Kevin C. Welch to you -=)		Science wiLl Be truth for Life
(  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu	)		TechNology as Nature
						In foRtran tongue the Answer
10000 Maniacs ->				with weAlth and pRominence
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The abortion beautiful (was Re: We want lots of life)
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:15:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Apr9.161522.29452
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr9.032309.6122@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Apr8.221628.6418@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >Don't know about that, but I thought women ate the placenta
> >after the birth.  Could someone who has given birth let me
> >know if this is true?
> 
> Gee, they must have left that part out of the "My Mom's Having
> a Baby" after-school special.
> 
> Many mammals do eat the placenta after birth.  I just saw a monkey

Don, as I mentioned to Muriel, I was just kidding.  I guess
I'll have to relent sometimes and use one of those insipid
smiley things.

Dean Kaflowitz

I have measured out my life in coffee spoons
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: A new test of rights? (Was: A question for any MALE prolifer)
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:56:54 GMT

In article <sf6g5INNmro@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> 
           djd@east.sun.com (Dave Damkoehler - Sun BOS Editor) writes:
>jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel") writes:

>> Basically, all rights can be waived; if they couldn't, they
>> would only be duties. A fetus can't possibly have the right
>> to life because it can't waive it.

> Replace "fetus" with "newborn," and I believe you have a theory
> that you would not want to present.

Why don't you come right out and say it? She's making an argument for
infanticide.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Why do men support abortion?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:35:56 GMT


Why are there so few women supporting legal abortion?

The nation's largest pro-choice organization, NARAL, had 121,000
female members in 1986.  NOW had 250,000 members.

The National Right to Life Committee had 7.5 million women.

That's a ratio of 20 to one against abortion. 
(Granberg, "The Abortion Activists" and Reardon "Aborted Women" Chapter 3)

According to the 1990 ABC Genetics Poll, however, men showed significantly
more support for abortion than did women.  This is not surprising.

In fact, Judith Blake, head of the Demography Department at the 
University of California, Berkely, who is personally pro-choice,
states:

  [U]pper class men have much to gain and very little to lose by
  an easing of legal restrictions against abortion.  For some time,
  these men seem to have been satisfied with relatviely small families
  extending over a limited period of their lives. ...Furthermore, their
  sexual freedom has been curtailed, both within marriage and outside
  it, by restrictions on ... pregnancy termination, since as a class
  they are especially vulnerable to being held financially and socially
  responsible for accidental pregnancies.  For this reason, they are
  likely to favor a lessening of those restrictions...After all, it is 
  women who must undergo abortions, not men.  (Quoted in John Noonan, Jr.
  "A private Choice: Abortion in American in the Seventies" (1979))

What is interesting is the number of men supporting legal abortion on
this net who simultaneously support a relaxation of child support law.

Notable among them is Gordon Storga, Eric Rescorla, Kevin Darcy, and
Larry Margolis.  Of course, they all claim that there is absolutely
NO correlation between the fact that they support legal abortion
and the fact that they want to see child support laws changed so that
men are not always fiscally responsible for children.


SK