HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A question for any MALE prolifer
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:21:01 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr6.065259.2405@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin) writes:

>In <46ztaxb@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>Pro-"life" males never cease to amaze me.  As quick as they are to
>>sentence women to a "99.99%" chance of death, I have never, ever
>>seen a SINGLE ONE who is even willing to SAY that he'd mandate
>>any sort of physical requirement of the father.  We've seen tons 
>>of weaseling of the "Oh well, I'm sure that I'd do it for my own
>>child but I don't think there should be a LAW about it..." variety.
   I don't get this 99.99 % stuff... Wont' even bother responding

>>So, pro-"life"s, here's your chance to respond to the question that
>>I have asked countless times on t.a and that no one has EVER tried
>>to answer:
>>What equivalent responsibility (if any) do you propose for the
>>MALE who got the potentially aborting woman pregnant?

I've always felt that a man who gets a woman pregnant should be 
responsible for alimony (for the child, AND the mother if she was
employed and is unable to work for any period of her pregnancy...)
   Basically, whether you are married or not, sex should be a 
legal AND moral responsibility for us all. If you are going to have
sex, it can't be a one sided ride. Men must be responsible for the
child, just as much as the woman. It should not be right that a
woman is FORCED to have an abortion because the man is not there to
support her financially through the problem (or emotionally...)
   
>>And people wonder why I have little respect for pro-"life" males.
   Dude, go get a life...

>	Hmmm... sorry to hear this. Hope someone'll change your view
>of Pro-Life males cause I know not all are bad. Abortion is a touchy issue
>and everyone thinks they're right. The problem is, it's hard to say who's
>right or wrong. Everyone's got a point. Everyone usually try to do what they
>think is best, they mean well. Don't you agree? Well, got to go. I wish you
>the best of luck in finding a "respectable" answer to your questions.

  By the way, I figure, whether I am right or not, why take the chance.
Just like capitol punishment, once you abort the fetus, there's no
turning back. If you choose to have the pregnancy, then at any time
after that, if you feel that the kid just isn't for you, then place him/her
up for adoption. Abortion is too serious of an option to be treated lightly.
   steve
>>                           -rocker
Yeah, I've wondered about your nick too. . . Enlighten us?
-- 
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: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- *hyped* after the D.C. mega-march)
Subject: So much for the "pro-abortion" media
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: WACDTF, Washington, D.C.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:25:55 GMT

I'd like to share my observations about the three major networks
and their stories about today's pro-choice rally.

Two of the networks gave equal time to the march, and to the pro-life
counter-demonstrators that were present.

I think this is quite strange.  There was no reason to give *us* equal time
during *their* rally... it was, after all, *their* event.  And, in fact,
we did *not* get equal time.  However, for *our* march, an event that could
easily have drawn one million people, they gave half their stories' airtime
to the <200 pro-lifers.

Does this sound like a pro-abortion media conspiracy to you?  I didn't think
so.  The media certainly did not convey the sheer magnitude of this march,
nor, imo, its significance.

To be fair, I have to admit that I did not see the third network's (NBC)
report, nor have I seen CNN's.  They may have covered the march differently.

Like I said... so much for the "pro-abortion" media.

(A note about the crowd size:  The police estimate was 600-800,000.  The
 police have traditionally understated both pro-choice and pro-life
 rallies, so it seems reasonable to assume that the actual number was
 closer to one million.  In any case, it *dwarfed* the pro-life rally
 in January, which was estimated by police at 70,000  (I use 100,000).
 We have traditionally outnumbered their rallies, but a factor of ten is
 pretty impressive even for us.)
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __      Another white   /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /        male           /
   |   |  in  |   |  |         oppressor     <  Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__      for choice.    \    GEnie: J.STEIN18
                                               \
"[Pregnancy] is like a harmless slavery of sorts."  -- Kevin Welch
"[it's] up to you to disprove [God's] [existence]." -- Gaylord
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:01:15 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  <1992Apr17.055804.12298@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
> Homosexuality is condemned by God.

No it's not; I asked him and he said "Hey - do whatever you want; just
don't hurt anybody."

> Login wins again.

Try logout, and login again when you come up with some logic.

> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
> >>jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
> >::I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
> >::some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
> >::practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
> >::be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
> >::is it bad.
> >:
> >:"Serial Monogamy" is PC promiscuity.
>
> >     Why's that, bud?
>
> The statement stands on it's own merit.

The statement falls flat on its face.  As usual, you make a blatant assertion
and can't back it up.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


jh>In article <92099.171526JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
rb>In article <17805@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
rb>says:

rb>In this context, the (death) of a cow should hurt you just as much,
rb>or an amoeba, since at conception, that life form bears the most resemblance
rb>to a zygote. What's the point? Everything dies eventually, and in the
rb>case of a fetus, removing it from the womb and allowing it to slowly
rb>die seems much more inhumane than just killing it and removing it. I

jh>What about not killing it at all unless it's absolutely necessary?

Would it ease your conscience if we legislated abortion to the extent
that the physician must ask the woman "Is this abortion absolutely
necessary" and if she replys yes, then she can get a safe and legal
abortion?  Or did you want to be the judge of what constitutes absolute
necessity?

rb>have made the leap of faith here that you are not bothered by killing
rb>the roach or fly or flea, organisms that are much more complex than
rb>an 8 week old fetus in that they are fully functional and can fend for
rb>themselves.

jh>Neither are newborns fully functional and able to fend for themselves.
jh>Yet we don't condone killing them.

But if you believe that it is important that a newborn is protected, you
will be able to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure the newborns
safety.  You would be able to take care of the newborn if the parents
are unable or unwilling.  This is currently impossible at the time
the majority of abortions are performed.  Since you can not take over
for the woman involved, I don't believe it is any of your business
with what she does with her body.  You can disapprove if you want, but
you should not be allowed to legislate her action.

jh>If we look at the fetus alone, the only thing protecting a human being
jh>from being killed is its stage of development.  I'm not sure that's the best
jh>criterion.

But we are unable to look at the fetus alone.  That is why there is this
debate, because looking at the fetus alone is impossible.

I do not base my pro-choice stance on stage of development (Though I am
aware many pro-choicers do).  I feel no matter what stage of
development the fetus is at, if the woman does not want it use her
body for support, it must leave.  If the only possible way for it to
leave, in a timely and safe for the woman manner, is by killing it,
that is unfortunate, but not worthy of legislation.

jh>Joy Haftel               "The world's a jest, and joy's a trinket:

Dan King
From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:51:05 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In <1992Apr5.233509.13256@acsu.buffalo.edu> efhearn@acsu.buffalo.edu (Estelle F. Hearn) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.214523.25335@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:


>Buddy, you are fucked in the head.  There is a simple reason you study
>psychology...because you are fucked in the head, and have a need to find
>out what is your problem.  Why you cannot come to grips with reality.

   Nothing like a good witty post to add flavor to an otherwise serious
newsgroup. I'm glad there are people like this who put so much
thought into their posts when I can't even bother to proofread my
spelign. heh
   I read your post over and over and over trying to find some fallicy
in your argument, grammar, eloquence, or reasoning. You know what?
I couldn't find a single one. Keep up the quality...
   steve
p.s. - I am not a subliminal psychology major. it was a JOKE dammit...
sheesh, if you guys have a suggestion for a better .sig, feel free
to mail me. I have to admit, I'm kinda attached to this one though...
-- 
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: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 23:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.222937.9829@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>
>Well, jennifer mc daniel wrote some nicely put points abou the status
>of the fetus. But Jen, you argue that you doubt that all of teh aborted
>fetuses "fetii? fetice? fice? " would want to enter this world anyways,
>but that doesn't justify anything. Surely some of them do...
>   ALso Jen, you write that 
>"  Until you can ask a fetus whether it wants to be born, we cannot afford to
>force it to be born possibly against its wishes and definitely against
>those of the woman (whose choices we can know)."
>but since we cannot ask it, why not give it... oh, about 9 months
>to think about it... Maybe even a couple of years. THEN, after it's had
>time to think over things, let the CHIL decide. Heh - not so easy once
>it's already out in the real world. No way - it's much easier to silence
>a fetus. You say it isnt' human? I say it will be. You say that potential
>isn't enough? I say prove it doesn't already have a soul. You say you
>don't believe inGod and souls?I say prove to me that society wouldn't
>be exceptionally better off socially and economically if we didn't abort
>the fetus. You say the woman's attitude is more important? I say that
>a woman's emotional status is important, but a fetus's right to life
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is more important. You say that is my opinion and I have no right to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>enforce it on others? Well, I wouldn't stand by if I saw you getting 
>beaten-up or killed would I? No way, nor will I watch these children
>and gifts of God destroyed at the hands of salination, suction, pills,
>slicers and dicers, or any of the above. You call that civilized?

And there you have it.  Talk.abortion has attracted yet another Holy Fetus
Worshipper.
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
From: mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:57:25 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Apr6.171806.12636@crd.ge.com> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>mgaylord@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gaylord) writes:
>-> keegan@oboe.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >mgaylord@rodan (Gaylord) errs in posting:
>-> >-> Laws force beliefs, 
>-> >
>-> >name one law that forces a belief.
>-> >
>-> >-> its the same for any and all laws
>-> >
>-> >first, show that there is one.
>-> >
>-> 
>-> What a law or a belief?  
>
>can you read what you wrote: you said "Laws force beliefs." prove
>it. name one law that forces a belief. alternatively, you can
>just admit that you made a mistake.

Made no mistake, make no mistake laws do force beliefs.  Do you think congress
doesn't have a belief in the laws that they pass?  

>
>-> I didn't say religious or moral belief, just belief.
>
>why do you raise the issue of "religious" or "moral" belief?

because one of the charter air heads mentiuoned something about it in
private e-mail, but I wont post who etc... since it was private.
>
>stop scrambling around the issue. you made a statement. can you
>support it?

How about anti-discrimination laws, it is the belief that it is wrong to 
discriminate.  

>
>
>--
>----
>charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu.UUCP (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:03:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.184741.72292@cs.cmu.edu> 
         garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

cj@eno.corp.sgi.com (C J Silverio) says:
>>>> Matthew A. Lewis seems to have only two response
>>>> modes: 1) insults, and 2) violent suggestions.  Hey, 
>>>> Steve Franklin: What do you think of your fellow 
>>>> pro-lifer?  Do you like his methods?

>>> not pro-life.....sorry

>> Well CJ, do you like the methods of your fellow pro-choicer?

> I haven't seen anything to indicate that "Matthew A. Lewis"
> is pro-choice on abortion.  

I guessed you missed this:

------------------
From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
Subject: Re: The Natives Are Restless... (Was: The March in D.C.)

I'm pro-choice and not a virgin. 
------------------

> I've seen a lot that indicates
> that he is anti-women, and pro-violence, and pro-idiocy.

I can vouch for that.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:58:32 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  <1992Apr07.065931.7912@liebe.uucp>  kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>
> Sure gets tiring to see this != crap.  These Pro-Deathers think that using
                                               ============
> mathematical symbology will cause their arguments to magically become
> logical.  Here's one for the unthinking child murdering masses:
                               =================================
Well, *you* certainly seem to be using logic instead of rhetoric.

>           the want to have sex != nullification of responsibility

How about: birth control failure is not equal to creation of responsibility.

> You will DIE one day.

Not if I can help it, but this is the only reasonable assumption in your post.

> The creator is going to want an explanation as to your actions.

This assumes (1) that there is a creator, (2) that it gives a shit about
any of us, and (3) that it is opposed to abortion.  I'll grant you the
argument if you can prove any *one* of the three (even though your argument
rest on all three being true).

> It's not too late to start using your head.

You might try taking your own advice.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party's offical views on abortion
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Apr14.164048.9093@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <16772@plains.NoDak.edu> 
>       compton@plains.NoDak.edu (Curtis M. Compton) writes:
>
>>                     The Libertarian Party asks:
>>                     ABORTION: WHO SHOULD DECIDE?

>The problem with this reasoning is that the fetus is killed during most
>abortions. The child never even gets a chance to live outside the womb. 

The point, as I interpret it, is that regardless of whether or not you
consider the fetus to be alive, choice is a valid position.

IF the fetus is not a human being, then there should be no real problem with
respecting a woman's right to chose.

If, on the other hand, the fetus IS a human being, the argument for choice is
still valid.  It just gets a little more complex.

A fetus that is considered to be a human being does not get any more rights
than a human being that is already born.  Now, no human has the right to
enslave another.  Even if I were going to die without your service, I can
not force you to help me.  The decision to help me or not is yours alone.
Likewise, a pregnant woman cannot be forced by the human being inside her
into a state of slavery.  She may chose to enter into this slavery
willingly, but she is not forced to do so.  Thus, we can see how a
pro-choice stand can still be valid EVEN IF THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING.

P.S.  I have not decided for myself whether or not a fetus is a human
being.  I certainly believe that 5 minutes before birth a fetus is not
significantly different than a baby 5 minutes after.  I also believe that a
shapeless clump of cells floating toward the uterine wall is NOT a human
being in any sense whatsoever.  Somewhere in between, then, it must become a
human being (I favor myelination as a turning point).  However, considering
the above arguments, I feel a pro-choice view is valid regardless of the
fetus's status.
-- 
Curtis M. Compton                        |  #include <witty_quote.h>
compton@plains.NoDak.edu                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>
Professor of Quantum Bogodynamics        |  #include <ascii_pic.h>
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks  |  #define GOD "Eric Clapton"
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:04:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.010427.16284
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Apr7.234100.29233@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.230053.15012@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>And I'm sick of being called a murderer and a Nazi too, so what?
>
>That maybe both sides should quit it with the Nazi comments already?
'eh Nora. Relax, eh?

I'm not particularly fond of being called a Nazi, but it
doesn't bother me any more than being called a murderer. I'm used
to it--it's just the way things are.

-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
From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion and Marriage (was Re: Some Park Service Estimates)
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:49:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.013917.279@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>In a previous article, tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) says:
>
>>For your information, Matthew, I'm happily married, and I imagine that
>>if our contraception were to fail tomorrow, my wife probably would decide
>>to get an abortion.  We simply cannot manage a child or a pregnancy at this
>>point in our lives.  
>>
>
>I didn't ask YOU, I asked about the big picture. Open your eyes.
>hell....you could be the only married person in the world who
>would get an abortion. Probably not true. But I asked for statistics
>and the truth, not a bloody poll for you to answer.

[Sounds of putting on Tutu...]

Clue time, MaThiEu...In order to get a "big picture", you have to look at a lot
of little pictures...
>
>>That is *quite* enough.  Cut the innuendo, Matthew.  If you want to say
>>"if you had an abortion, it means you're a slut and scummy because you
>>had sex outside of marriage", then say it.  None of this "a certain type
>>of person" crap.  It doesn't wash.

Of course it doesn't.  But Pro-Forced-Slavers like to use it...

>
>here we go:
>
>A large portion of women who have abortions are promiscuous and/or

Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
abortions are promiscuous"???  You wouldn't be attempting to claim something
is true by blatant assertion, would you???

>sleep around and/or are sluts. You're in college. Look around you.

Gee, you have some statistics that show "a large portion of women who have
abortions sleep around"???  Or is this more truth-by-blatant-assertion???

Gee, you wouldn't happen to have some statistics that show "a large portion of
women who have abortion are sluts", do you?  Let me guess.  This is just *MORE*
truth-by-blatant-assertion, right???

>Why is it that every relationship has to have sex????? I'm not

It doesn't.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?????

>against sex in relationships, but if you have it in every one

It certainly sounds like you are.  Or are you only against WOMEN having sex in
relationships?  Do you feel it's ok for the man to bang as women as he can, but
the women have to remain "pure" for their [future] husbands???

>(whether that be 2 or 100), you're a slut.

And you're just an asshole.
--
=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!!!=
Newsgroups: talk.abortion